Mapping stakeholder persepctives on just hydrogen transitions using Q-methodology

Hydrogen is widely promoted as a key decarbonisation pathway for hard to abate industrial sectors and domestic applications. In Teesside, in the Northeast of England, substantial investment potential has emerged alongside significant challenges, including project delays and failures that have contributed to uncertainty about regional hydrogen futures. Notable examples include the cancelled proposal for a hydrogen village in Redcar and BP’s withdrawal from the H2Teesside project, both of which highlight tensions surrounding the governance and implementation of hydrogen initiatives in the region. This study reports on an empirical project using Q-methodology to explore stakeholder perspectives on this contested sociotechnical landscape. Working with 30 participants from industry, policy, and civil society, we presented a Q-set of normative statements relating to hydrogen futures—covering technical, economic, environmental, and energy justice dimensions—and conducted by person factor analysis of participants’ Q-sorts. The analysis revealed multiple, partially overlapping viewpoints and substantial disagreement across the dataset, with no single consensus position emerging on the core issues. Divergence centred on debates about the purpose and pace of hydrogen deployment, preferred technological pathways (grey–blue–green), regional industrial strategy and local benefits, environmental and safety risks, and distributional and procedural justice concerns in infrastructure decision making. These disagreements reflect conflicting sociotechnical imaginaries shaping expectations about hydrogen end uses, infrastructure, accountability, and fairness. The findings underline the importance of inclusive, place sensitive engagement processes to navigate uncertainty and value conflict surrounding hydrogen development in Teesside and elsewhere in the UK. For policymakers, the absence of consensus signals a need to convene diverse publics, revisit assumptions about hydrogen’s economic and environmental advantages, and design adaptive transition pathways responsive to differing perspectives and intra-
stakeholder tensions.