Report on public engagement activities (D3.3)

Ref. Ares(2025)5626745 - 11/07/2025 Contributors NAME ORGANISATION Daniela Martin IMI Dr Fanie van Rooyen IMI Peer Reviews NAME ORGANISATION Diego Iribarren IME María José Sánchez CNH2 Marianna Franchino ENVI Ilaria Schiavi ENVI D3.3 Report on public engagement activities DELIVERABLE TYPE Report MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERABLE Month 26 WORK PACKAGE WP 3 LEADER IMI DISSEMINATION LEVEL Public AUTHORS Daniela Martin Dr Fanie van Rooyen PROGRAMME HORIZON EUROPE GRANT AGREEMENT 101111933 START June 2023 DURATION 28 months Revision History The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union, neither the European Union Institutions and Bodies nor any person acting on their behalf. Partners’ short names ENVI Parco Scientifico Tecnologico Per L’ambiente Environment Park Torino Spa IMI Institute for Methods Innovation IME Fundacion IMDEA Energia APRE Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricerca Europea CNH2 Centro Nacional Del Hidrógeno RIGP Regionalna Izba Gospodarcza Pomorza CLUSTER TWEED Cluster Tweed BH2C Balkanski Vodoroden Klaster VERSION DATE REVIEWER VERSION NOTES 1 25 June 2025 Diego Iribarren (IME) Minor adjustments to charts 2 30 June 2025 Marianna Franchino (ENVI) Minor adjustment to text 3 1 July 2025 María José Sánchez (CNH2) Minor adjustment to text Index of Contents Executive summary 6 Introduction 7 National co-creation workshops 7 Co-creation workshop: Ireland 10 Co-creation workshop: Belgium 14 Co-creation workshop: Italy 17 Co-creation workshop: Bulgaria 20 Co-creation workshop: Spain 23 Co-creation workshop: Poland 26 Evaluation results (all workshops) 29 International events 43 Engaging Non-Technical Audiences: Best Practices for Energy Communication webinar 45 Raising Awareness of Hydrogen: Best Practices from the HYPOP Project webinar 47 Evaluation results (both events) 49 Conclusion 52 Appendix A: Participant informed consent 53 Appendix B: Registration and feedback form 54 Index of Tables Table 1. National co-creation workshops schedule 7 Table 2. Agenda for online public engagement workshops 8 Table 3. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Ireland) 11 Table 4. A breakdown of the workshop flow in Belgium 15 Table 5. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Belgium) 16 Table 6. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Italy) 18 Table 7. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Bulgaria) 21 Table 8. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Spain) 24 Table 9. Breakdown of output following the Padlet activity in Spain 25 Table 10. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Poland) 27 Table 11. International events programme 43 Table 12. “Engaging Non-Technical Audiences: Best Practices for Energy Communication” webinar agenda 45 Table 13. “Raising Awareness of Hydrogen: Best Practices from the HYPOP Project” webinar agenda 47 Index of Figures Figure 1. Screenshot from the co-creation workshop in Ireland 10 Figure 2. “Ireland’s first hydrogen race car makes history amid protests” article 12 Figure 3. “Sustainable hydrogen energy future can help to decarbonise Europe” article 13 Figure 4. “Breaking policy barriers in Ireland: Hydrogen takes centre stage” article 14 Figure 5. Pictures of co-creation workshop in Belgium 15 Figure 6. Pictures of co-creation workshop in Belgium 17 Figure 7. Screenshot from the co-creation workshop in Italy 18 Figure 8. “Turin – The city that moves on hydrogen” newspaper article 19 Figure 9. “The future of hydrogen technology [in Belgium]” newspaper article 22 Figure 10. Picture of co-creation workshop in Spain 23 Figure 11. Padlet panel used during the Spain workshop 25 Figure 12. Pictures of co-creation workshop in Poland 27 Figure 13. Pictures of co-creation workshop in Poland 28 Figure 14. Gender 29 Figure 15. Age 30 Figure 16. Participants by stakeholder group 30 Figure 17. Participant expectations for national workshops 31 Figure 18. Participants’ thoughts on hydrogen energy before the workshops 32 Figure 19. Participants’ thoughts on hydrogen energy after the workshops 32 Figure 20. Participant agreement with key hydrogen energy statements before the workshops 33 Figure 21. Participant agreement with key hydrogen energy statements after the workshops 34 Figure 22. Participant awareness of existing hydrogen projects in their country before the workshops 34 Figure 23. Participant awareness of existing hydrogen projects in their country after the workshops 35 Figure 24. Familiarity with country’s national hydrogen strategy before and after the workshops 36 Figure 25. Responses to whether the workshop addressed any misconceptions about hydrogen energy 37 Figure 26. Elaborations on workshops impact on misconceptions 37 Figure 27. Most effective activities for hydrogen energy education identified by participants 39 Figure 28. Participant ratings of key attributes of the workshops 40 Figure 29. Feedback on overall training experience (positive metrics) 41 Figure 30. Feedback on overall training experience (reverse-coded) 42 Figure 31. Participants by stakeholder group 44 Figure 32. Participant expectations for international events 44 Figure 33. Screenshots from the first international webinar 46 Figure 34. Screenshots from the second international webinar 48 Figure 35. Most effective activities for hydrogen energy education identified by participants 49 Figure 36. Participant ratings of key event attributes 50 Figure 37. Feedback on overall training experience (reverse-coded) 50 Figure 38. Feedback on overall training experience (positive metrics) 51 Executive summary This report documents the public engagement activities conducted under Work Package 3 of the HYPOP project, aimed at increasing public understanding of hydrogen technologies and supporting their societal acceptance. Between November 2024 and April 2025, six national co-creation workshops and two international webinars were implemented across Europe. These activities reached participants from diverse stakeholder groups, including students, researchers, public authorities, and industry representatives. The national workshops held in Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, Spain, and Poland, enabled citizens to express their hopes, concerns, and expectations around hydrogen technologies. Using interactive formats such as facilitated discussions, co-created news articles, live polls, and scenario analysis, participants explored key issues including infrastructure, safety, affordability, and environmental integrity. Cross-national themes included strong support for sustainable mobility and job creation, paired with caution regarding costs, regulation gaps, and public trust. Evaluation data show clear positive outcomes. Participant understanding of hydrogen’s role in the energy transition improved, with increased agreement that hydrogen can be a clean, sustainable energy source. "Hands-on demonstrations and exhibitions" were identified as the most effective public engagement format, followed by social media campaigns and in-person Q&A sessions. The international webinars complemented these findings, offering best practice case studies and lessons learned from HYPOP and peer projects. Participants emphasised the value of applied engagement tools and stakeholder co-creation to increase impact. These findings will inform Deliverable 3.4: Guidelines for public engagement on H₂ technologies’ implementation, ensuring future communication efforts are inclusive, evidence-based, and tailored to public expectations. Introduction This report documents a series of public engagement activities planned and delivered as part of Task 3.2 Public engagement workshops (M13-M24, amended to M28) of Work Package 3. These activities aimed to engage European citizens in discussions and activities related to hydrogen (H₂) technologies and foster greater public understanding and trust in their implementation. This goal aligns with the broader objectives of the HYPOP project, which is to promote acceptance of hydrogen as a clean energy source. Between November 2024 and March 2025, six co-creation workshops were conducted across Italy, Poland, Spain, Ireland, Bulgaria and Belgium. These national workshops sought to engage citizens through interactive discussions and activities. In addition to the national workshops, two international webinars were facilitated in March and April. These events targeted individuals and projects aiming to improve their hydrogen or energy-related awareness campaigns, providing them with insights and tools to make their engagement more impactful. Expert speakers guided these sessions, aiming to share best practices and insights based on their experience. This report documents and discusses the public engagement activities and their impact as evidenced by evaluation surveys. In conjunction with the state-of-the-art review (WP1), these results will be used to develop deliverable D3.4 Guidelines for public engagement on H₂ technologies’ implementation (due M28). National co-creation workshops The required tasks for WP3 included hosting one public engagement co-creation workshop per country (six in total) to involve citizens in the project. These nationally focused workshops sought to engage citizens through interactive discussions and activities. Each workshop was expected to accommodate 10 to 30 participants, with the final duration and structure determined by the audience and focus. Table 1 provides the schedule and attendance recorded. Table 1. National co-creation workshops schedule Country Date Participants Ireland 28 November 2024 28 Belgium 27 January 2025 42 Italy 5 February 2025 20 Spain 27 February 2025 21 Bulgaria 17 February 2025 30 Poland 23 March 2025 36 Total event participation: 177 The six national co-creation workshops aimed to raise awareness, showcase the environmental benefits of hydrogen, share success stories, and foster collaboration among industry and academic partners. The agenda for national workshops included a mix of plenary sessions and breakout group activities, providing participants with a clear understanding of the HYPOP project and hydrogen technologies. Interactive discussions addressed common myths and misconceptions, while activities like writing fictional newspaper articles encouraged participant engagement and co-creation. The indicative agenda for these workshops can be found in the table below. Table 2. Agenda for online public engagement workshops1 Introduction (15 min) (Plenary) ● Welcome and introduction. ● Brief overview of the workshop's objectives and agenda. ● Icebreaker activity: Quick poll on participants' initial thoughts on hydrogen systems. Starter questions should be based on the country-specific fact sheets. Example of starter questions: Do you believe hydrogen is a safe energy source? Can hydrogen significantly impact our future energy needs? Are hydrogen technologies environmentally friendly? Understanding hydrogen technologies (20 min) (Plenary) ● Brief intro to HYPOP project and H₂ technology context. ● How hydrogen systems work: A simple explanation. ● Benefits and challenges of hydrogen as an energy source. ● Country-specific facts: an overview of perceptions, policies and current projects. Debunking myths vs facts (20 min) (Breakout groups) ● Introduction to the activity: Participants will share their perceptions, concerns, and questions about hydrogen systems. ● Facilitators address common myths and misconceptions (based on WP1 results and participants’ inputs). Break (10 min) Future perspectives on hydrogen technologies (20 min) (Breakout groups) ● Introduction to the activity: Participants will write a short fictional newspaper article on hydrogen technologies, highlighting potential, challenges, and relevance to Europe and/or their local context. ● Provide each group with country-specific fact sheets, statistics, etc. ● Allow groups to brainstorm, draft, and finalise their articles. Discussion and feedback (10 min) (Plenary) ● Groups share their articles. ● Facilitate a discussion on the different perspectives and angles presented in the articles. ● Provide feedback and highlight key takeaways. Q/A and open discussion (15 min) (Plenary) ● Q/A session ● Recap the main points discussed during the workshop. ● Share resources for further reading (HYPOP website, etc.). ● Encourage participants to share their knowledge with their communities. ● Distribute the feedback form (survey link). ● Thank participants for their time and engagement. To support the planning and delivery of the co-creation workshops, IMI established a dedicated resource hub. Each project partner had its folder containing necessary material for these workshops, such as a fact sheet, recruitment messaging templates, a newspaper article template for breakout 1 This agenda has an approximate length of 115 minutes. Partners could adjust activities as needed to fit within the 90 to 120-minute timeframe. sessions, worksheet templates, a slide deck template, and a comprehensive planning document. Partners in each country were responsible for translating the workshop materials, recruiting participants, promoting the workshop, and facilitating the session in their respective regions. Additionally, once translated, IMI set up the registration and feedback forms, ensuring a consistent and accessible process across all national workshops. An internal training session with all project partners was held in November 2024, laying a solid foundation for these efforts. The session covered the timeline, target audiences, recruitment strategies, and an overview of the workshop agenda and format. Instructional slide decks and all workshop preparation materials were distributed to partners, and the session was recorded and shared to ensure consistency. Ongoing communication and support to partners reinforced this collaborative approach. Where relevant, members of the HYPOP Advisory Board were also approached for guidance or to be involved in the national workshops to ensure a high level of expertise. The effectiveness of the engagement activities was evaluated using surveys and feedback mechanisms. A survey was distributed at two stages: during registration and as post-event feedback. This survey was refined in collaboration with project partners to evaluate changes in participants’ understanding and perceptions of hydrogen technologies. Ensuring GDPR compliance and adherence to ethical and privacy standards is paramount in executing public engagement workshops. The following measures were applied to all workshop activities to uphold these principles: ● All participants were registered through a secure platform that adheres to the highest data protection standards. During the registration process, participants were informed about the purpose of data collection, its use, and their rights regarding their personal data. This ensured that all participants provided informed consent before any data was collected. The informed consent document can be found in Appendix A. ● To evaluate changes in participants' understanding and perceptions of hydrogen technologies, an online survey was distributed at two stages: registration and post-workshop feedback. During registration, participants were asked questions to assess their familiarity with hydrogen technologies, initial perceptions, and awareness of local projects or national strategies. These questions aimed to establish a baseline understanding and identify existing knowledge gaps. In the feedback survey, participants were asked similar questions to evaluate changes in their understanding and awareness, along with questions designed to capture reflections on the workshop’s impact and effectiveness in addressing misconceptions. To ensure accessibility and inclusivity, all surveys were translated into the local languages of the participating countries. The specific questions used for both registration and feedback surveys are detailed in Appendix B. This approach ensured robust evidence of whether the workshop led to a clear deepening of understanding and increased knowledge of hydrogen technologies, enabling the project team to assess its effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. ● To maintain transparency, a summary of the feedback collected and subsequent adjustments made to engagement strategies will be shared with participants and stakeholders (in the form Co-creation group discussion findings In the small-group breakouts, on-site and online attendees mapped the opportunities they see for hydrogen to accelerate Belgium’s climate agenda, alongside the barriers that could stall progress (Table 5). While the discussion reaffirmed broad enthusiasm for deep decarbonisation and new green-industry jobs, it also surfaced practical anxieties—chiefly around whether pipelines, import terminals and refuelling stations can be delivered quickly enough, and how policy mis-alignment across neighbouring countries might slow market integration. Table 5. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Belgium) Hopes Concerns Deep decarbonisation Participants view hydrogen as the only realistic pathway to cut CO₂ emissions in heavy-emitting sectors such as steel manufacturing, petrochemicals and long-haul road freight. They believe only H₂ can meet the high energy-density and purity requirements these industries demand. Infrastructure gap There is widespread worry that critical infrastructure, such as high-pressure pipelines, import terminals and refuelling stations, will not be built at the pace required. Delays could stall early market take-off, erode investor confidence and leave production facilities stranded without off-takers. Cross-sector jobs and innovation Many expect hydrogen to spawn entirely new value chains, from electrolyser manufacturing and port-side logistics to downstream e-fuel synthesis. This, they anticipate, will create high-skill roles in R&D, engineering and operations, boosting regional economic growth. Cross-border fragmentation Participants highlighted a lack of harmonised policy across Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Divergent permitting processes, certification standards and grid-access rules risk creating bottlenecks that undermine a seamless Benelux hydrogen market. Energy-import diversification Hydrogen-ready ports and planned green-ammonia import terminals are seen as shields against future gas-price volatility. By sourcing renewable H₂ and derivatives from diverse suppliers, Belgium could enhance energy security and reduce exposure to geopolitical shocks. Safety and storage risks There is a persistent unease around high-pressure storage tanks, reliable leak-detection systems and emergency-response protocols. Community acceptance near industrial sites will remain fragile without demonstrable safety records and transparent risk-management plans. Link to renewables build-out Coupling offshore wind farms with electrolyser installations is viewed as an elegant solution to absorb surplus power, smooth grid imbalances and stabilise wholesale electricity prices, turning curtailment into a revenue stream. Cost competitiveness Concerns persist that both capital expenditure (electrolysers, compressors) and operating costs (electricity, maintenance) will stay elevated. Participants worry that subsidies may simply shift costs to taxpayers rather than drive genuine affordability, undermining long-term market viability. These insights suggest that public awareness is pivotal. Despite broad support for climate goals, participants stressed that success hinges on transparent communication about hydrogen origins, costs and risks. Participants also stressed the importance of coordination. Cross-border pipeline planning and certification schemes emerged as top priorities, but attendees urged EU-level harmonisation before large-scale roll-outs. Figure 6. Pictures of co-creation workshop in Belgium Overall, the Belgian workshop (Figure 6) highlighted strong enthusiasm for hydrogen’s role in decarbonisation, though it’s tempered by very real concerns about infrastructure readiness, financial hurdles, and policy consistency. The hybrid format, combining in-person energy with online access – helped boost participation and sparked richer conversations, especial ly since many attendees were already engaged through the winter school programme. Co-creation workshop: Italy The Italian edition of the HYPOP national workshops was delivered online on 5 February 2025 in Italian, and was organised by ENVI, with support from IMI. ENVI was represented by Marianna Franchino who acted as the workshop facilitator. Two experts from the HYPOP Advisory Board were invited to support the engagement activities: Prof. Marcello Baricco, a chemist and hydrogen expert, and Prof. Alessandro Sciullo, a social scientist (both affiliated with the University of Turin). Twenty citizens, ranging from engineering students and municipal-energy officers to clean-tech entrepreneurs, joined a two-hour programme built around HYPOP’s standard mix of live polling, myth-busting dialogue and creative storytelling. In a real-time word-cloud ice-breaker, the captured spontaneous keywords that emerged (in relation to hydrogen) were “sustainability”, “innovation”, “jobs”, “safety” and “price”. After the ice-breaker, facilitators outlined Italy’s draft Hydrogen Strategy, its target of 5 GW of installed electrolysis capacity by 2030 and flagship projects in Piedmont and Apulia. Participants then moved into breakout rooms to surface their hopes and concerns, before reconvening to co-author a “newspaper article of the future”, imagining life in 2050. The workshop concluded with a joint plenary discussion of key takeaways. Figure 7. Screenshot from the co-creation workshop in Italy Co-creation group discussion findings In the first breakout round, groups mapped where hydrogen could transform Italian life and where it might stumble (Table 6). Optimism clustered around cleaner mobility and local value-chain growth, while scepticism focused on affordability, verification that “green” really means green, and the speed at which infrastructure can keep pace. Table 6. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Italy) Hopes Concerns Cleaner cities and mobility Participants pointed to the 2050 Turin scenario, which forecasts major air-quality improvements from hydrogen-powered buses and cars. Many envisaged replicating those benefits in Milan, Rome and Naples, expecting significant reductions in NOₓ and particulate matter in dense urban centres. Cost competitiveness Despite enthusiasm for cleaner transport, there was widespread doubt that green hydrogen could become cheaper than diesel or natural gas quickly enough. Participants feared that high production costs would confine hydrogen to pilot-project status, slowing wider fleet conversion. New value chains and jobs The prospect of fabricating electrolysers, storage tanks and refuelling stations sparked visions of revitalised manufacturing in northern Italy. Attendees anticipated growth in SMEs specialising in hydrogen components, R&D partnerships with universities and skilled-labor job creation across the supply chain. Safety perceptions Concerns around storing high-pressure hydrogen near populated areas remained acute. Memories of past gas-related incidents fuelled community unease, with calls for rigorous emergency-response planning, transparent risk assessments and public-education campaigns to secure social licence. Renewables integration Linking southern solar farms and Adriatic offshore wind to electrolyser facilities was seen as an elegant solution to absorb surplus renewable power, reduce grid curtailment and stabilise regional electricity prices, effectively turning excess generation into a value stream. True “greenness” Questions arose over the lifecycle sustainability of imported hydrogen and water consumption in drought-prone regions. Participants emphasised the need for comprehensive carbon and water footprint assessments to ensure that hydrogen production does not simply shift environmental burdens elsewhere. Energy security Domestic green hydrogen production was framed as a strategic hedge against volatile LNG markets and geopolitical supply disruptions. By producing H₂ locally from renewables, Italy could reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels and strengthen national energy resilience. Infrastructure gap Scepticism persisted about whether high-pressure pipelines, marine import terminals and urban refuelling networks could be delivered at the pace required. Participants warned that missing infrastructure deadlines would jeopardise Italy’s 2030 hydrogen targets and erode stakeholder confidence. Co-creation activity result In the second co-creation activity, a fictional news story, originally drafted in Italian during the workshop, imagines Turin in the year 2050 after two decades of sustained investment in green-hydrogen infrastructure (Figure 8). It describes a city powered by a 50 MW solar-linked electrolyser and a fully hydrogen-driven bus fleet, positioning hydrogen as a driver of jobs, better air quality and energy security. Written collaboratively by participants, it captures their collective hopes—cleaner air, new jobs, energy security—while hinting at the challenges of scaling production and ensuring genuinely renewable supply. Presented below in English, the article offers a vivid snapshot of how citizens envision hydrogen transforming everyday urban life in Italy. Figure 8. “Turin – The city that moves on hydrogen” newspaper article2 Turin – The city that moves on hydrogen 2 Translated from the Italian version created during the workshop. In 2050 Turin has become one of Europe’s trail-blazing cities for sustainable mobility, thanks to a fleet of hydrogen buses that has radically transformed public transport. The switch to a low-emission system is the result of years of investment in research, infrastructure and targeted green policies. Today the city not only offers modern, clean transport; it is also a model for other metropolises seeking to cut CO₂ emissions and improve air quality. This success was made possible by building a local hydrogen value chain in which businesses have found opportunities for growth and innovation. A large share of the energy Turin needs to produce green hydrogen comes from photovoltaic solar plants installed in the suburban and rural areas around the city—such as the Pianezza site, which boasts a 50 MW electrolyser. These plants occupy unused industrial land that maximises solar exposure, while energy communities in Turin support the sector by installing hydrogen-production units directly connected to photovoltaic systems. Some of the energy is also imported, creating a diversified and robust system that draws renewable power both from other Italian regions—via the virtual National Energy Community linking North and South—and from neighbouring countries such as France and Switzerland. In 2050 Turin is a shining example of how sustainability can transform cities and quality of life. Air-pollution maps show a marked improvement thanks to the gradual conversion of public transport to alternative fuels such as hydrogen. With hydrogen cars now readily available on the market, citizens can finally choose vehicles that not only reduce environmental impact but even help purify urban air. If I had to choose a car today, my choice would undoubtedly be a hydrogen model—not only because it offers ever-increasing range and lightning-fast refuelling, but because it represents the future of green mobility. Greta Thunberg, enthusiastically celebrating the progress towards a more sustainable society, encourages environmentally conscious choices: “We have made great strides,” she says, “but the road to a fully sustainable future is still long, and every action counts.” In a world that has placed sustainability at the heart of everyday choices, hydrogen mobility is no longer a promise of the future but a concrete reality within everyone’s reach. Hydrogen is rapidly becoming a leading player in the energy transition, with significant impacts on both public transport and energy-intensive industries. Supported by favourable policies and investment in research and development, hydrogen can play a crucial role in creating a sustainable future with low-emission vehicles and decarbonised industries. The Italian workshop confirmed a strong appetite to link hydrogen with visible public-transport wins and regional economic renewal, but also underscored persistent worries about safety, price parity and credible guarantees of environmental integrity. The fictional-newsroom exercise proved effective in translating technical concepts into relatable narratives, while the hopes-and-concerns dialogue will feed directly into HYPOP’s forthcoming public-engagement guidelines. Co-creation workshop: Bulgaria Delivered entirely online, the Bulgarian workshop was held on 17 February 2025 and it drew students from three technical high schools, university students, engineers, and a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, totalling 30 participants. The schools involved were: 1. Natural-Mathematical High School “Academician Sergei Koroliov,” Blagoevgrad 2. Professional High School of Electrical Engineering and Power Engineering, Bansko 3. Professional High School of Engineering and Energy “Hristo Botev,” Pernik Over 90 minutes the moderators combined live polling, short primers and open discussion. Conversation ranged from Europe’s most advanced hydrogen nations to the prospect of hydrogen-powered drones, taxis and humanoid robots. Participants stressed that Bulgaria’s gas grid cannot carry hydrogen without major retrofits, favouring on-site production or “hydrogen valleys” that capture surplus solar and wind. They also highlighted factors that neither prohibit nor actively encourage investment, such as the absence of a national refuelling network and an incomplete legislative framework. One high school in Bansko announced plans to become energy-self-sufficient and has already launched a class devoted to hydrogen technologies. The session closed with a request for a follow-up meeting dedicated solely to participant-led discussion. Co-creation group discussion findings In a targeted breakout session, participants listed their top hopes and concerns for hydrogen deployment in Bulgaria (Table 7). The exercise surfaced paired insights: each aspirational vision counterbalanced by practical or regulatory challenges. Table 7. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Bulgaria) Hopes Concerns Full decarbonisation of Bulgaria’s energy mix Hydrogen was widely seen as the critical enabler for cutting CO₂ in heavy industries, long-haul transport and seasonal storage, securing deep decarbonisation where electrification alone falls short. Infrastructure lag Attendees warned that aging natural-gas pipelines require costly upgrades, while hydrogen refuelling stations remain non-existent and cross-border corridors are undefined, threatening to strand production assets without delivery routes. New economic opportunities Participants anticipated a surge in high-skill roles, from electrolyser manufacturing and renewable-integration engineering to advanced robotics for H₂ handling, fueling regional economic renewal. Energy losses and efficiency There was strong recognition that “a big part of the energy in hydrogen is lost during transfer,” reinforcing calls for localised production and storage to minimise conversion losses and improve overall system efficiency. Hydrogen-powered unmanned systems Enthusiasm ran high for applications such as drones, autonomous taxis and mobile robots capable of on-board hydrogen generation, which could revolutionise logistics, surveillance and remote services. Safety in storage & handling Persistent unease centred on high-pressure vessels, reliable leak-detection and emergency-response protocols. Securing community acceptance near deployment sites was viewed as essential before scaling unmanned applications. On-site or valley-based production Keeping hydrogen generation close to demand, whether at valley solar farms or industrial parks, was seen as the best way to store surplus renewables, reduce transport distances and bolster local energy resilience. Policy vacuum Participants flagged the absence of clear legislation and technical standards, warning that early adopters risk costly retrofits or penalties once rules are introduced. They stressed the urgency of a coherent legal framework to de-risk investments. Co-creation activity result The news piece below was drafted collaboratively by Bulgarian participants during the workshop’s “newspaper article of the future” exercise (Figure 9). The article presents a balanced look at hydrogen’s promise for Europe (i.e., clean transport, energy security and job creation), while openly acknowledging today’s hurdles of high production costs, limited infrastructure and the need for stronger research and policy support. The article encapsulates the group’s forward-looking vision for how Bulgaria and the wider EU might unlock a thriving hydrogen economy. Figure 9. “The future of hydrogen technology [in Belgium]” newspaper article The future of hydrogen technology in Belgium Hydrogen technologies have enormous potential to transform the energy sector as a key element in the transition to clean and sustainable energy sources. Hydrogen can be used as a clean fuel for transport, industry and power generation, offering a solution to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify. The ability to store energy through hydrogen and its integration with renewable sources such as solar and wind add further advantages to its use. For Europe, hydrogen has a key role to play in meeting climate targets and reducing carbon emissions, as well as in ensuring energy security. The European Union is already investing significantly in the development of hydrogen technologies and infrastructure as part of its green transformation strategy. The development of the hydrogen economy can reduce dependence on external energy sources and create new jobs in the region. Despite these opportunities, there are challenges to the development of hydrogen technologies in Europe. The biggest of these include the high cost of hydrogen production, especially when it comes to green hydrogen produced through renewable sources. In addition, hydrogen storage and transportation infrastructure is still in its infancy and requires significant investment. The issue of mass production of hydrogen and the efficiency of fuel cells also needs to be addressed, which requires advances in research and technology. In conclusion, the importance of hydrogen technology for Europe cannot be underestimated. They offer an opportunity for environmental sustainability, energy independence and economic development. To realize this potential, Europe must continue to invest in research, infrastructure and incentives for industries that commit to the hydrogen economy. The Bulgarian workshop revealed strong grassroots curiosity about hydrogen’s role in cutting carbon, energising new tech sectors and empowering local communities, yet that optimism is tempered by practical anxieties over infrastructure readiness, efficiency losses and regulatory clarity. The fictional news piece captured this duality, celebrating Europe’s investment drive while warning that high costs, immature logistics and untested mass-production pathways still stand in the way of a true hydrogen economy. These insights will feed into HYPOP’s forthcoming engagement guidelines, emphasising the need for transparent cost–benefit storytelling, demonstrator projects in education and mobility, and firm policy signals to build investor and public confidence. Co-creation workshop: Spain The Spanish workshop was held in-person on 27 February 2025 in collaboration with Casa de la Ciencia de Ciudad Real at Espacio Serendipia in Ciudad Real (Figure 10). The session was facilitated by CNH2 (represented by Gema Rodado, María Panadero and María José Sánchez) and gathered 21 citizens whose backgrounds ranged from school and university teaching to IT, industrial maintenance, communication, public administration and forest-fire response. After a short introduction on hydrogen fundamentals and Spain’s emerging strategy, moderators launched two interactive tasks. First, a discussion was held to get a better understanding of the hopes and concerns of the public. Second, instead of writing their own “news article of the future,” they reacted to three fictional, but plausible, hydrogen scenarios prepared by CNH2. Using their phones, attendees posted comments directly onto live Padlet boards while a facilitator steered an open-floor debate. This variant activity encouraged active engagement and kept discussion tightly focused on real-world trade-offs across environment, safety, regulation, training, jobs and cost. Figure 10. Picture of co-creation workshop in Spain Co-creation group discussion findings Discussions during the hopes and concerns activity revealed a strong enthusiasm for sustainable mobility and renewable-energy integration, yet underscored anxieties about water use, storage hazards, infrastructure gaps and potential “green-washing” by large firms (Table 8). Table 8. Emerging hopes and concerns related to hydrogen systems (Spain) Hopes Concerns Sustainable mobility Attendees see hydrogen-powered buses, taxis and light rail as a route to clean urban transport, reducing tailpipe emissions and improving air quality in cities like Madrid and Barcelona. Environment Participants worried that large-scale hydrogen production could strain freshwater resources and increase demand for desalination, especially in drought-prone coastal regions, risking adverse local ecological impacts. Advanced electrolysis The prospect of using seawater directly in electrolysers excited many, presenting a way to circumvent freshwater constraints and tap abundant marine resources for green hydrogen. True renewability Some doubted that round-the-clock electrolysis running on power-purchase agreements (PPAs) could guarantee 100% renewable inputs, raising questions about hidden grid-carbon footprints when intermittent renewables dip. Integration Repurposing surplus solar and wind generation, particularly from rooftop PV and coastal wind farms, to drive electrolytic hydrogen production was viewed as an efficient way to balance the grid and monetise otherwise curtailed renewables. Green washing There was palpable fear that major corporations might market “hydrogen” projects as green while relying on fossil-derived H₂ or unsustainable practices, undermining public trust and genuine clean-energy progress. Safety Fears persist around hydrogen’s flammability, high-pressure storage hazards and the adequacy of leak-detection and emergency-response protocols, especially in densely populated areas. Infrastructure Concerns about hydrogen embrittling existing pipelines and the technical complexity of retrofitting gas networks fuelled doubts over the readiness of transmission and distribution systems. Network Lack of refuelling stations for heavy-duty vehicles and public transport was flagged as a major barrier to deploying hydrogen at scale in the transport sector. Costs High capital expenses for electrolysers, compressors and storage vessels, and unclear pathways to recover those investments remain a significant deterrent for both public and private stakeholders. The Spanish findings point to next steps that should pair actionable pilots with rigorous assurance: launch seawater-electrolysis demonstrators tied to surplus renewables and real-time water-footprint tracking; introduce urban hydrogen-bus trials backed by an independent 24/7 “green-PPA” certification scheme to pre-empt green-washing claims; and roll out phased, leak-resistant refuelling and pipeline projects under clearer safety protocols and public drills. Coupling these measures with targeted training for operators and emergency services, plus blended-finance incentives to soften up-front costs, will translate enthusiasm for sustainable mobility into a credible, scalable hydrogen network. Co-creation activity result Instead of drafting future newspaper articles themselves, participants in the Spain workshop evaluated three pre-written news vignettes that CNH2 projected on screen. Each vignette ended with prompts asking what benefits and barriers the group foresaw in each scenario. Reactions were captured on Padlet in real time and fed straight into plenary debate (Figure 11). Figure 11. Padlet panel used during the Spain workshop The result of these co-creation discussions are summarised in Table 9: Table 9. Breakdown of output following the Padlet activity in Spain Scenario presented Key benefits surfaced Key barriers surfaced Green-hydrogen production plant nearby A green-H₂ facility sited near the town, inviting reactions on proximity, environment, safety and socio-economic impacts. ● Potential for significant pollution reduction via clean-energy supply ● Local job creation and higher-quality employment in plant operations and maintenance ● Long-term viability as a fossil-fuel alternative ● Water scarcity concerns, desalination impacts and landscape alteration ● “Hydrogen is dangerous and explosive,” coupled with lack of specific regulation ● Need for citizen training and clear accident response plans ● Divided views on higher transport or vehicle costs without public incentives Figure 18. Participants’ thoughts on hydrogen energy before the workshops Following the workshop, participants completed the same task during the feedback survey. This second word cloud (Figure 19) shows that while “hydrogen” and “energy” remained central, words like “clean,” “future,” and “sustainable” appeared more prominently. Terms such as “potential,” “solution,” and “decarbonize” gained visibility, suggesting a clearer understanding of hydrogen’s role in emissions reduction and the green transition. Figure 19. Participants’ thoughts on hydrogen energy after the workshops The increased prominence of “clean” and “future” in the post-workshop responses suggests that participants left with a stronger sense of hydrogen as a clean, viable energy source. The broader range of optimistic terms in the second word cloud indicates a shift toward seeing hydrogen not only as a technology but as a key part of the energy solution. This change reflects positively on the workshop’s impact in clarifying the environmental benefits and strategic importance of hydrogen within the wider energy transition. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with several statements about hydrogen energy, both before and after the workshops (Figures 20 and 21). The results indicate a positive shift in perception. The proportion of participants who agreed or strongly agreed that “hydrogen is a safe energy source” increased from 51% to 68% (+17 points). Agreement that “hydrogen is a sustainable energy source” rose from 71% to 82% (+11 points). Meanwhile, the share of participants who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “hydrogen is as polluting as diesel or gasoline” increased from 81% to 91% (+10 points). Together, these shifts suggest a measurable improvement in participants’ confidence in hydrogen as a clean, safe, and sustainable energy solution. Figure 20. Participant agreement with key hydrogen energy statements before the workshops Figure 21. Participant agreement with key hydrogen energy statements after the workshops Before the workshop, participants were asked whether they were aware of any ongoing hydrogen projects in their country. The resulting word cloud (Figure 22) shows that many respondents answered “yes,” with a number of terms suggesting recognition of specific initiatives. References such as “Luxembourg,” “Valencia,” “Puertollano,” “greenHysland,” and “BeHyfe” indicate some prior familiarity with local or national hydrogen activities. Mentions of terms like “buses,” “station,” and “infrastructure” also suggest a general awareness of sectoral applications. Figure 22. Participant awareness of existing hydrogen projects in their country before the workshops Following the workshop, more participants responded “yes,” indicating an increased familiarity with hydrogen projects discussed during the event. The post-workshop word cloud (Figure 23) contains more references to specific initiatives and actors, including a marked increase in mentions of “Iberdrola”, suggesting the renewable energy company was a particularly memorable example cited during the presentations. Additional terms such as “plant,” “public,” “valley,” “refueling,” and place names like “Valencia,” “Bolzano,” and “Gdynia” indicate improved recognition of concrete projects and geographical context. Figure 23. Participant awareness of existing hydrogen projects in their country after the workshops The comparison between the two word clouds suggests a clear learning effect. After the workshop, not only did more participants affirm awareness of hydrogen initiatives, but their responses also reflected a broader and more detailed understanding. The prominence of “Iberdrola” and increased references to project-specific language point to the effectiveness of the workshop in enhancing participants’ knowledge and anchoring abstract hydrogen concepts in real-world, memorable examples. Participants were also asked about their familiarity with their country’s national hydrogen strategy or policy, both before and after the workshop. These strategies were referenced during the sessions and featured in the country-specific fact sheets distributed to participants. As shown in Figure 24, there was only a modest shift in responses. Figure 24. Familiarity with country’s national hydrogen strategy before and after the workshops The proportion of participants who reported being familiar with their country’s hydrogen strategy rose slightly from 15% to 18% (+3 points). Those who knew a strategy existed but were unfamiliar with it decreased from 38% to 32% (-6 points). However, the largest group in both cases consisted of participants who were unsure whether a national strategy existed at all, 46% before and 50% after the workshop (+4 points). This result suggests that while the workshops may have introduced national frameworks, additional emphasis on policy awareness and clarity may be needed in future engagement efforts. Workshops impact Following the workshop, participants were asked whether they feel that the presentations had dispelled any potential misconceptions they may have had about hydrogen energy, such as that it is inherently unsafe, due to hydrogen’s explosivity, or that hydrogen is a fossil fuel-derivative that cannot be produced with clean, renewable energy as part of the green economy. Figure 25. Responses to whether the workshop addressed any misconceptions about hydrogen energy As shown in Figure 25, just over half of participants (54%) indicated that the workshop helped address one or more misconceptions they previously held about hydrogen. Meanwhile, 46% reported that the workshop did not directly change any of their existing views. This suggests that while many participants experienced a shift in understanding, others may have already held accurate perceptions or may require deeper engagement to challenge prior assumptions. Participants who indicated whether the workshop addressed any misconceptions were also invited to elaborate on their response. As illustrated in the word cloud (Figure 26), many of the comments, regardless of whether participants answered “yes” or “no”, centred around a previously perceived lack of knowledge or familiarity with hydrogen. Figure 26. Elaborations on workshops impact on misconceptions Prominent terms like “lack,” “knowledge,” “concerns,” and “misconception” suggest that participants either recognised knowledge gaps that were filled during the session or reflected on lingering uncertainties. Other common words such as “use,” “energy,” “workshop,” and “learn” highlight a general desire for more applied understanding and further learning. Below are some sample quotations from participants responding to whether the workshops addressed any misconceptions they might have had about hydrogen energy: I was unaware that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a primary energy source, and needs to be produced from other sources like water (via electrolysis) or natural gas (via reforming). (Male, 44 years, Assistant Professor in Hydrology) It was nice to learn how the fuel cell works and about the challenges behind using hydrogen in vehicles. (Female, 31 years, Research Assistant) I thought my government wasn't involved in any hydrogen projects. (Male, 32 years, Process Engineer) Before the workshop, I assumed the general public was more familiar with hydrogen technologies than they actually are. (Anonymous) I had thought hydrogen was only used on a small scale. Now I see it has a wide range of applications I wasn’t aware of. (Female, 18 years, Student) Those in attendance were also asked which types of public engagement activities they believed would be most effective in helping European citizens understand the benefits and risks of hydrogen energy (Figure 27). Figure 27. Most effective activities for hydrogen energy education identified by participants “Hands-on demonstrations and exhibitions” emerged as the clear frontrunner, selected by 64% of respondents. This suggests a strong preference for experiential learning approaches that allow people to engage directly with hydrogen technologies. Social media campaigns were the next most popular (45%), reflecting the perceived value of accessible, wide-reaching digital communication. Public lectures and Q&A sessions, along with community workshops, were both chosen by 41% of respondents, highlighting interest in in-person dialogue and locally focused outreach. In contrast, virtual webinars (30%) and newsletters or local publications (21%) were seen as less impactful, potentially due to lower interactivity or limited audience reach. Workshops feedback Figure 28 presents participant ratings of key workshop attributes using bipolar scales. The overall sentiment was strongly positive. An overwhelming majority rated the workshops as useful (92%), valuable (88%), fascinating (80%), and relevant (81%), suggesting that participants found the sessions both engaging and meaningful. However, perceptions of importance were more divided. While 56% of respondents viewed the workshops as important, 31% rated them negatively on this scale, the highest proportion of critical responses among all attributes. This indicates that, although the workshops were well received in terms of content and delivery, a notable segment of the audience may not have perceived direct applicability to their specific interests or contexts. Further tailoring of themes and use cases may help address this gap in future engagements. Figure 28. Participant ratings of key attributes of the workshops Figure 29 presents participant feedback on the quality of engagement during the workshops. Overall, responses were positive. A large majority of respondents reported enjoying the workshop (75%) and feeling able to actively participate (76%). Similarly, 86% agreed that all voices had been heard and considered, one of the most positively rated statements. However, only just over half (52%) felt that their individual contribution to the process was valued, and an equal proportion said they had a clear understanding of the expectations for their contribution. These two indicators received the highest proportion of neutral responses (43% and 37%, respectively), suggesting that although participants generally felt included, there is room for improvement in clarifying roles and increasing the perceived value of individual input in future workshop formats. Figure 29. Feedback on overall training experience (positive metrics) Figure 30 presents responses to statements assessing critical aspects of the workshop experience. Overall, the results suggest a high level of satisfaction. Nearly all respondents disagreed with negative assessments such as the workshop being a poor use of time (100% disagreement), being poorly delivered (94%), confusing (89%), or disappointing (87%). Most participants also reported feeling comfortable asking questions (75%), and only a small proportion (10%) expressed discomfort in this area. While only 5% to 12% agreed with statements suggesting poor delivery or process management, one notable exception was the statement “I needed more information to fully participate.” Here, 25% agreed and 28% were neutral, indicating that nearly half of respondents may not have felt fully equipped with the information required. This signals a potential area for improvement in pre-event communication or in-workshop guidance. Figure 34. Screenshots from the second international webinar Dr Fanie van Rooyen (IMI) shared survey data from WP1 on public perceptions of hydrogen technologies in the EU, and provided feedback on HYPOP’s completed public engagement workshops. Diego Iribarren and Summanth Maddula (IMDEA Energy) explained how HYPOP’s Social Life-Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) identified labour-practice hot-spots in component supply chains and recommended transparent disclosure when communicating benefits. Valeria Mingardi (APRE) expanded on HYPOP’s communication strategy, illustrating the project’s multi-channel approach: developing videos and infographics, creating a repository to make all deliverables accessible, creating a network of hydrogen projects, and developing the H₂ Projects Showcase on the website. In the closing Q&A, participants asked about adapting HYPOP’s communication and engagement tools for developing countries, measuring long-term attitude shifts (impact evaluation), and integrating S-LCA results into outreach. Speakers emphasised the value of co-creation with local stakeholders and invited collaboration on future demonstration events. Daniela Martin closed the webinar by thanking attendees, directing them to the HYPOP website for resources, and encouraging completion of the feedback survey to help inform the project’s final guidelines. Overall, the webinar succeeded in translating HYPOP research into actionable insights, equipping a niche yet highly engaged audience with evidence-based approaches to elevate hydrogen awareness campaigns across the EU. The webinar recording has been published on the project’s YouTube channel as a freely accessible resource for all stakeholders. Evaluation results (both events) While a majority of the 52 registered participants provided initial data through the registration survey, a smaller group responded to the post-event feedback survey. All respondents agreed that “hands-on demonstrations and exhibitions” would effectively educate the public about hydrogen technologies, while 60% also supported community workshops as an effective engagement method (Figure 35). Figure 35. Most effective activities for hydrogen energy education identified by participants The international events received exceptionally positive feedback. All participants who completed the feedback survey agreed that the webinars were “Fascinating”, “Valuable”, “Useful”, “Important” and “Relevant” (Figure 36). Figure 36. Participant ratings of key event attributes The two charts below summarise participant feedback on the workshops, highlighting their overall experience and perceptions. Figure 37 shows unanimously positive feedback, with 100% of respondents indicating they were not disappointed, did not find the workshop confusing, believed the delivery was effective, felt comfortable asking questions, and considered the workshop a valuable use of their time. Figure 37. Feedback on overall training experience (reverse-coded) Figure 38 similarly reveals that all respondents enjoyed the workshop, felt able to actively participate, and agreed that all voices were heard and considered. Together, these charts reflect strong participant satisfaction with the workshops' organization, facilitation, and inclusivity. Figure 38. Feedback on overall training experience (positive metrics) Overall, the participants who did complete the feedback survey overwhelmingly indicated that they had a positive experience, and that they learned valuable, important, relevant and useful information about hydrogen technologies. Conclusion The HYPOP public engagement activities succeeded in meaningfully involving European citizens in dialogue about hydrogen technologies. Participants from diverse backgrounds brought forward both optimism around decarbonisation, energy security, and innovation, and clear demands for transparency, safety, and regulatory clarity. The co-creation workshops confirmed that participants are ready to support hydrogen deployment when their concerns are addressed. Feedback demonstrated measurable gains in knowledge, trust, and perceived usefulness of hydrogen. However, results also highlight the need to improve public awareness of national hydrogen strategies and ensure that participants feel their contributions are valued and understood. Participant-led proposals, such as local bus networks, school-based microgrids, and hydrogen-powered logistics, show the creative potential of public engagement when supported with relevant data and inclusive facilitation. The HYPOP public engagement activities reinforce the importance of multi-format, locally contextualised engagement and suggest that a shift from passive consultation to active co-creation is essential to building a hydrogen-ready public in Europe. These insights will form the foundation for the forthcoming engagement guidelines (D3.4), ensuring that future hydrogen initiatives are met not only with technical readiness, but with societal support. Appendix A: Participant informed consent The HYPOP project is pleased to invite you to join our live online workshop “Hydrogen technologies: Exploring facts, myths and future perspectives” on [date] from [time]. The following statements are meant to ensure you have adequate information about how your responses to this registration and feedback after the co-creation workshop will be used and what will happen to the data you provide: ● Partners in the HYPOP consortium may use my information to communicate with me about further events or workshops. ● My responses to this event registration and feedback survey will be confidentially stored and used for project purposes. ● My identity will not be disclosed for commercial use by a third party or made public without my explicit consent. ● My participation is voluntary, I can withdraw at any time and ask for any personally identifiable information to be deleted. ● The information I provide about myself is confidential by default. ● After anonymisation, the data I submit may be published as an open dataset. Please indicate whether you understand and agree with the statements above, and consent to participate in this survey: I consent to participate in this event and for any data that I submit to be used for event-related purposes. In addition, please also indicate whether you opt-in to these unique considerations: Yes, you may add me to HYPOP’s community and contact me about participating in project-related activities such events, workshops, relevant initiatives and activities. Yes, you may use the contact details I provide to keep me updated on event results. Yes, you may contact me to participate in other future projects. Please indicate whether you consent regarding photography, video or audio recordings from participation in the project: I consent to my image, video, and voice being recorded during project activities, and used under the conditions mentioned in the above statements. HYPOP has received funding from the Clean Hydrogen Partnership and the European Union’s Horizon Europe: Climate, Energy and Mobility programme under grant agreement No. 101111933. HYPOP’s partners ensure that processing activities take place in compliance with Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). Appendix B: Registration and feedback form REGISTRATION FORM Contact information Q1 First name Q2 Last name Q3 Primary email address Tell us more about yourself We are asking these questions to understand better the diversity within the pool of participants in this workshop. Q4 Gender Male Female Non-binary A gender not listed here Prefer not to say Q5 Age (enter as a whole number, e.g. 20) Q6 What is your current employment status? Employed full-time or part-time Self-employed Unemployed Student Retired Other (please specify) If Employed or Self-employed: What is your current job title/role? If Student: What is the primary focus of your studies? Q7 What are you hoping to gain from this event? Q8 Do you require any assistance to fully participate in this virtual workshop? Yes No Unsure Prefer not to say If yes: What accommodation will help you fully participate in this workshop? Q9 [Likert Scale (5-point: Not at all Familiar - Extremely Familiar)] Not at all Familiar Slightly Familiar Somewhat Familiar Moderately Familiar Extremely Familiar Not applicable / No opinion How familiar are you with hydrogen energy technologies? Q10 What comes to mind when you think of hydrogen energy? [Textarea] Q11 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about hydrogen as an energy source. Select the option that best represents your view. [Likert Scale (5-point: Strongly agree - Strongly disagree)] Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Not applicable / No opinion Hydrogen is a safe energy source Hydrogen is a sustainable energy source Hydrogen is as polluting as Diesel or gasoline Q13 Are you aware of any local hydrogen projects in your country? [Textarea] Q14 Are you familiar with your country’s national hydrogen strategy or policy? I don’t know if we have one I know there is a strategy/policy but I am not familiar with it I am familiar with my country’s hydrogen strategy/policy Please click Submit to send your responses. FEEDBACK SURVEY We are asking these questions again to match your registration responses with feedback results. Your responses will be anonymised before any data or results are published as an open dataset. Q1 First name Q2 Last name Q3 Primary email address Q4 Gender Male Female Non-binary A gender not listed here Prefer not to say Q5 Age (enter as a whole number, e.g. 20) Q6 Did you attend the co-creation workshop? Yes No Q7 What comes to mind when you think of hydrogen energy? [Textarea] Q8 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about hydrogen as an energy source. Select the option that best represents your view. [Likert Scale (5-point: Strongly agree - Strongly disagree)] Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Not applicable / No opinion Hydrogen is a safe energy source Hydrogen is a sustainable energy source Hydrogen is as polluting as Diesel or gasoline Q9 Are you aware of any local hydrogen projects in your country? [Textarea] Q10 Are you familiar with your country’s national hydrogen strategy or policy? I don’t know if we have one I know there is a strategy/policy but I am not familiar with it I am familiar with my country’s hydrogen strategy/policy Q11 Did the workshop highlight any misconceptions you might have had about hydrogen energy? Yes No Unsure Prefer not to say If yes: Please elaborate. Q12 What activities or events do you think would be most effective to help people learn about and understand hydrogen energy technologies? Tick all that apply. Hands-on demonstrations and exhibitions Community workshops Public lectures and Q&A sessions Virtual webinars and live-streamed events Social media campaigns Newsletters and local publications Other (please specify) For each pair of words below, please select the point between them that best describes your views of the event: Q13 The co-creation workshop was… 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Fascinating Boring Worthless Valuable Useless Useful Important Unimportant Irrelevant Relevant