Solution-oriented risk governance practices toward reconstruction and improved well-being after the Fukushima disaster

Abstract

The Fukushima disaster of March 2011 reduced individuals’ well-being and public satisfaction. This article emphasises the importance of focusing on efforts to improve the well-being of affected people and their satisfaction with decision-making processes after a nuclear disaster. This is supported by research and practical examples from the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. First, interviews with risk communicators following the Fukushima disaster revealed that the top goal of risk communication practices is to restore daily life, including improving well-being. Second, various risks and benefits after the Fukushima disaster can be compared using well-being indicators as outcomes, providing implications for the justification and optimisation of radiological protection. Third, the regulations after the Fukushima disaster were based on the assurance of reasonable safety regarding the radiation exposure level and stakeholder involvement towards the improvement of public satisfaction and acceptance. Fourth, fairness was one of the most important factors in the public acceptance of the final disposal sites for decontaminated soils generated after the disaster. These examples highlight that well-being indicators can be used as powerful tools that incorporate the concepts of radiological protection to achieve solution-oriented risk governance practices.

Keywords

Fukushima nuclear accident Happiness/well-being Risk assessment Risk communication Stakeholder involvement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hommerich

, 2012. Trust and subjective well-being after the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown: preliminary results. Int. J. Jpn. Sociol. 21, 46–64.

Honda

Igarashi

Murakami

, 2020. The structuralization of risk communication work and objectives in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 50, 101899.

ICRP, 1977. Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann. ICRP 1(3), 1–80.

ICRP, 2009. Application of the Commission’s recommendations to the protection of people living in long-term contaminated areas after a nuclear accident or a radiation emergency. ICRP Publication 111. Ann. ICRP 39(3), 1–69.

ICRP, 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann. ICRP 47(1), 1–65.

Igarashi

, 2022. The Round-Table project in Kashiwa: a dialogue to reconcile consumers and farmers in the Tokyo suburbs after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection 57, 209–215.

Kobayashi

Takebayashi

Goto

., et al. 2021. May risk communication with non-experts contribute to post-disaster restoration of normalcy? A survey on the disaster-struck prefectures after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 65, 102564.

Ministry of the Environment, 2023. Booklet to Provide Basic Information Regarding Health Effects of Radiation (3rd edition). Ministry of the Environment of Japan. Tokyo. Available at: https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/rhm/basic-info/. Accessed on December 16, 2023. (last accessed 22 April 2025).

Murakami

Oki

, 2014. Estimated dietary intake of radionuclides and health risks for the citizens of Fukushima City, Tokyo, and Osaka after the 2011 nuclear accident. PLOS ONE 9, e112791.

10.

Murakami

, 2016. Risk analysis as regulatory science: toward the establishment of standards. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 171, 156–162.

11.

Murakami

Sato

Matsui

, et al., 2017. Communicating with residents about risks following the Fukushima nuclear accident. Asia-Pac. J. Public He. 29, 74s–89s.

12.

Murakami

Tsubokura

Ono

., et al. 2018. New ‘loss of happy life expectancy’ indicator and its use in risk comparison after Fukushima disaster. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 1527–1534.

13.

Murakami

Takebayashi

Ono

., et al. 2020. The decision to return home and wellbeing after the Fukushima disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 47, 101538.

14.

Murakami

Takebayashi

Ono

., et al. 2021. Risk trade-off analysis of returning home and radiation exposure after a nuclear disaster using a happy life expectancy indicator. J. Radiat. Res. 62, i101–i106.

15.

Murakami

Ozaki

Ono

., et al. 2023a. Comparing the risks of diabetes, psychological distress, and radiation-induced cancer exposure after the Fukushima disaster using the loss of happy life expectancy. medRxiv (Preprint), 2023.05.01.23289327. doi: 10.1101/2023.05.01.23289327.

16.

Murakami

Takada

Shibata

., et al. 2023b. Exploring the differences and factors between top-down and opinion-reflective approaches regarding public acceptance for final disposal of soils. International Symposium on Natural and Artificial Radiation Exposures and Radiological Protection Studies (NARE2023), 19-22 September, 2023, Hirosaki, Japan.

17.

Shirai

Takada

Murakami

., et al. 2023. Factors influencing acceptability of final disposal of incinerated ash and decontaminated soil from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. J. Environ. Manage. 345, 118610.

18.

Starr

, 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165, 1232–1238.

19.

Takada

Shirai

Murakami

, et al., 2022. Important factors for public acceptance of the final disposal of contaminated soil and wastes resulting from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident. PLOS ONE 17, e0269702.

20.

Tiefenbach

Kohlbacher

, 2015. Happiness in Japan in times of upheaval: empirical evidence from the national survey on lifestyle preferences. J. Happiness Stud. 16, 333–366.

21.

Visschers

V.H.M.

Siegrist

, 2013. How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Anal. 33, 333–347.