Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea

Energy Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 3465-3475

  Kang, Min Jung ^a   Park, Heejun ^a  

^a Yonsei University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Government policy; Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; Public acceptance

Indexed keywords

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY; CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE; CUSTOMER RESPONSE; ECONOMIC GROWTHS; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION; GOVERNMENT POLICY; HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLES; INNOVATIVE PRODUCT; LOW CARBON; MARKET PENETRATION; NEW PRODUCT; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; PURCHASE INTENTION;

AUTOMOBILE EXHIBITIONS; CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; ECONOMICS; FUEL CELLS; HYDROGEN; HYDROGEN FUELS; INNOVATION; SALES; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; VEHICLES;

PUBLIC POLICY;

ECONOMIC GROWTH; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

KOREA;

EID: 79955909430     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.045     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Anderson D.R., Sweeney D.J., Williams T.A. Statistics for Business and Economics 2008, South-Western, a Division of Thomson Learning. 10th ed.
2. Barclay D., Higgins C., Thompson R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies 1995, 2:285-309.
3. Barnett J., Timotijevic L. Making sense of uncertainty and precaution: the example of mobile telecommunications. Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. R. Flynn, P. Bellaby (Eds.).
4. Bodmer W. The Public Understanding of Science 1985, The Royal Society, London.
5. Buchan G. Obstacles to effective environmental education. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information 2000, 19:1-10.
6. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment 1979, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif.
7. Chin W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation medeling. Modern Methods for Business Resarch 1998, 295-358. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.).
8. Cortina J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, 78:98-104.
9. Cronbach L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
10. Dowling G.R., Staelin R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research 1994, 21:119-134.
11. Dunn S.W., Barban A.M. Advertising: Its Role in Modern Marketing 1986, The Dryden Press, New York, NY. 6th ed.
12. Dupagne M. Exploring the characteristics of potential high-Definition Television adopters. The Journal of Media Economics 1999, 12:35-50.
13. Durant J.R., Evans G.A., Thomas G.P. The public understanding of science. Nature 1989, 340:11-14.
14. Ellen P.S., Wiener J.L., Cobb-Walgren C. The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 1991, 10:102-117.
15. Ewing G.O., Sarigöllü E. Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 1998, 3:429-444.
16. Flynn R., Bellaby P. Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire England; New York.
17. Fornell C., Larcker D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 1981, 18:39-50.
18. Frewer L.J., Scholderer J., Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 2003, 23:1117-1133.
19. Fischer A.R.H., Frewer L.J. Public acceptance of new technologies in food products and production. Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. R. Flynn, P. Bellaby (Eds.).
20. Grove-White R., Macnaghten P., Wynne B. Wising up: the public and new technologies. Research Report by Centre for the Study of Environmental Change 2000, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
21. Han, S., 2009. Reshaping the transport system for green growth in Korea. In: KOTI/EWC International Conference on Sustainable Transport System for Green Growth in the North Pacific, The Korea Transport Institute, Honolulu, Seoul.
22. Henseler J., Ringle C.M., Sinkovics R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing 2009, 20:277-319.
23. Irwin A., Michael M. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge 2003, Open University Press, Maidenhead, Philadelphia.
24. Irwin A., Wynne B. Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
25. Joreskog K.G., van Thillo M. LISREL: a general computer program for estimating a linear structural equation system involving multiple indicators of unmeasured variables 1972, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
26. Kamishiro N., Sato T. Public acceptance of the oceanic carbon sequestration. Marine Policy 2009, 33:466-471.
27. Kim L., Nelson R.R. Technology, Learning and Innovation: Experiences of Newly Industrializing Economies 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York.
28. The Korea Ministry of Strategy and Finance, 2009. Briefing on the Green New Deal. 〈〉. http://english.mosf.go.kr/.
29. Lee T.H. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities in Korea, Northeast Asia Energy Outlook Seminar 2008, Korea Economic Institute, Washington, DC.
30. Midden C.J.H., Huijts N.M.A. The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: the case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis 2009, 29:743-751.
31. Miller S. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 2001, 10:115-120.
32. Mohr A. Against the stream: moving public engagement on nanotechnologies upstream. Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. R. Flynn, P. Bellaby (Eds.).
33. Mourato S., Saynor B., Hart D. Greening London's black cabs: a study of driver's preferences for fuel cell taxis. Energy Policy 2004, 32:685-695.
34. Murphy P.E. Environmentally Concerned Consumers: Demographic Dimensions, AMA Combined Proceedings 1978, AMA Marketing Association, pp. 316-320.
35. Nunnally J.C. Psychometric Theory 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York. 2nd ed.
36. OECD, 2002. Policy Instruments for Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Transport.
37. Pardo R., Midden C., Miller J.D. Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology 2002, 98:9-24.
38. Pin R.R., Gutteling J.M., Kuttschreuter M. Determinants of reactions to gene technology: a generic approach. New Genetics & Society 2009, 28:51-65.
39. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Analysis 2006, 26:1707-1719.
40. Rabino I. How European and U. S. genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: a comparison. Science, Technology, & Human Values 1994, 19:23-46.
41. Reese S.D. New communication technologies and the information worker: the influence of occupation. Journal of Communication 1988, 36:59-70.
42. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A., 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). 〈〉. http://www.smartpls.de.
43. Rogers E.M. Diffusion of Innovations 2003, Free Press, New York. 5th ed.
44. Schulte I., Hart D., van der Vorst R. Issues affecting the acceptance of hydrogen fuel. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2004, 29:677-685.
45. Schwartz J., Miller T. The earth's best friends. (Environmental activists). American Demographics 1991, 26.
46. Segal R. Forecasting the market for electric vehicles in California using conjoint-analysis. Energy Journal 1995, 16:89-111.
47. Shaw A. "It just goes against the grain." Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 2002, 11:273-291.
48. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:2093-2106.
49. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:195-203.
50. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2008, 19:603-608.
51. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 2000, 20:713-720.
52. Siegrist M., Keller C., Kastenholz H., Frey S., Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 2007, 27:59-69.
53. Singleton G., Herzog H., Ansolabehere S. Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2009, 3:100-107.
54. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:311-322.
55. Sukhdev P. Overview of the Republic of Korea's National Strategy for Green Growth 2010, United Nations Environment Programme.
56. Viardot E. Successful Marketing Strategy for High-Tech Firms 1998, Artech House, Boston, Mass. 2nd ed.
57. Webster F.E. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research 1975, 2:188-196.
58. Yetano Roche M., Mourato S., Fischedick M., Pietzner K., Viebahn P. Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: a review of the evidence and methodological implications. Energy Policy 2010, 38:5301-5310.
59. Ziman J. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values 1991, 16:99-105.