Important factors for public acceptance of the final disposal of contaminated soil and wastes resulting from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident

Abstract

Large-scale decontamination work has been carried out in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident in Japan in 2011. The soil that was removed and the wastes that were generated during the decontamination will be finally disposed of outside Fukushima Prefecture by 2045. To ensure successful and socially acceptable implementation of this final disposal process, it is essential to have a good understanding of what is considered important by the public. We used a choice-based conjoint analysis in the form of a web-based questionnaire to examine the relative importance of several factors in the choice of the final disposal sites of the removed soil and incinerated ash of the wastes. The questionnaires covered four attributes and 12 levels, namely the distance between the disposal site and a person’s residential area, procedural fairness (decision process), distributive fairness (direct mitigation of inequity through multiple siting locations), and the volume and radioactivity of the substances to be disposed. Responses were received from 4000 people nationwide, excluding Fukushima residents. The results showed that the respondents gave high importance to choosing sites that were far from residential areas and to the two types of fairness, especially distributive fairness. The respondents showed no preference for the volume and radioactivity. This indicates that the public cares about the fairness of the siting for the final disposal sites and feels uncomfortable with plans for a final disposal site located close to them. Distributive fairness is necessary to pursue consensus in addition to procedural fairness.

Public Attitudes toward the Final Disposal of Radioactively Contaminated Soil Resulting from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident

“…Shirai et al ( 2023 ) used structural equation modeling to show that risk perception decreases acceptability, social benefits increase acceptability, and trust and intergenerational expectations are important factors affecting the acceptability of the disposal; the impact of each of these factors on acceptability varies depending on the level of emphasis placed on moral norms, and moral foundations have a strong relationship with policy discussion (Graham et al 2011 ). Although these findings have much in common with the studies on NIMBYs mentioned above, the characteristics of contaminated soil differ from those of conventional waste disposal from a social perspective (Takada et al 2022 ): for example, in the case of contaminated soil, the source region is not a potential candidate for the final disposal site. However, most of these previous studies examined acceptability under the assumption that a candidate disposal site has been decided, and few studies have examined acceptability of the final disposal policy prior to site selection.…”

“…After the accident, planned power outage was immediately implemented in Kanto region because of the reduced power supply capacity of TEPCO (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 2011 ). Kansai region was chosen for comparison with Kanto region based on our previous online survey of Japanese citizens living outside Fukushima Prefecture and their acceptance of the final disposal of radioactively contaminated soils (Takada et al 2022 ; Shirai et al 2023 ). Results of our earlier survey confirmed that interest and subjective knowledge of this final disposal policy differed among regions.…”

“…The total scores of each factor were included in our analysis. The question on subjective knowledge of the final disposal policy was also used by Takada et al ( 2022 ).…”

“…For example, studies have shown that a perception of high risks associated with the facility negatively impacts facility acceptability (Slovic 1987 ; Slovic et al 1991 ; Sjöberg 2004 ; Shirai et al 2023 ). The burden of such a facility is unevenly distributed in a region and can lead to a sense of “why is this in our own region when it could be in another region?” (Willard and Swenson 1984 ), which has a negative impact on facility acceptance (Yokoyama et al 2021 , Takada et al 2022 ). Protected values, which are values that are absolutely non-negotiable or are protected from trade-offs with other values (Baron and Spranca 1997 ), also prevent acceptance (Krütli et al 2012 ).…”

“…Following the Fukushima accident, studies have been conducted on public acceptance of the disposal of low radioactive materials, such as contaminated soil from environmental remediation sites. Takada et al ( 2022 ) reported that questionnaire respondents chose to locate a final disposal site for the contaminated soil in Fukushima far from residential areas, and that they attached importance to distributive and procedural fairness. Shirai et al ( 2023 ) used structural equation modeling to show that risk perception decreases acceptability, social benefits increase acceptability, and trust and intergenerational expectations are important factors affecting the acceptability of the disposal; the impact of each of these factors on acceptability varies depending on the level of emphasis placed on moral norms, and moral foundations have a strong relationship with policy discussion (Graham et al 2011 ).…”