Public acceptance model for siting a repository of radioactive contaminated waste

Abstract

Albrecht, and Bourke 1998). Especially, siting a NIMBY facility concentrates the risk 27 and cost on siting areas while diffusing the benefits outside of the siting areas. Thus, even 28 if they agree that a repository to dispose of harmful waste is necessary, they refuse to 29 build one in their hometown, that is, their backyard. In particular, NIMBY facilities often 30 induce a conflict between siting and non-siting areas. While residents in siting areas suffer 31 damage to their private interests, such as a devaluation of property, those in non-siting 32 areas are able to experience public interests, such as safety, without their private interests 33 being damaged. Consequently, residents in siting areas experience repulsion to inequity 34 and are likely to oppose the facility strongly. 35 Social psychology discusses the multidimensional aspect of the judgment of 36 fairness to accept technology or risky facilities. Besley (2010, 2012) suggested that 37 distributive, procedural, and interpersonal fairness play a role in perceptions of decision-38 making of public acceptance. First, distributive fairness is concerned with the fairness of 39 outcomes, such as risk-benefit evaluation. Research on justice has revealed that a 40 desirable, i.e., equitable, result plays an important role in the acceptance of a decision 41 (Deutsch 1975). Second, procedural fairness involves fairness in a decision-making 42 procedure, such as the opportunity of voice. Research on justice has shown that 43 procedural fairness is more important than distributive fairness (Lind and Tyler 1988; 44 Törnblom and Vermunt 1999). Third, interpersonal fairness occurs when people 45 recognize that risk communicators are trustworthy and respectful of people's views and/or 46 values. According to Bies (2005), interactional fairness represents a third component of 47 fairness along with distributive and procedural justice. Previous studies have 48 demonstrated internalized moral values as related to the judgment of fairness (Skitka 49 2002;Skitka and Mullen 2002). In issues related to energy technology, protected value, 50 which is not tradable against other values, has consistent effects on the acceptance of

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

“…This indicates a lack of information disclosure and transparency, which are important elements of procedural fairness. In line with our findings, procedural fairness has been found to be associated with acceptance of NIMBY facilities (Kuhn and Ballard 1998 ; Besley 2010 ; Ohtomo et al 2014 ; Takada et al 2022 ) and is an important concern especially for people who oppose these projects (Hirose 2007 ). Comments frequently expressed respondents’ disapproval of disposing of the contaminated soil outside Fukushima Prefecture.…”

The relationship between political procedural justice and attitudes toward the political system: A meta‐analysis

“…Sixth, some studies have shown that the importance of observing procedural justice depends on the individual characteristics of people, such as their personal values (e.g., Esaiasson et al., 2019; Kershaw & Alexander, 2003) and the characteristics of the situation, including levels of uncertainty or threats (e.g., Herian et al., 2012; Ohtomo et al., 2021). However, scholars who study political processes tend to pay little attention to such factors.…”

“…Fourth, we noted the methods which researchers used to measure procedural justice: direct assessment of procedural justice versus assessment of compliance with procedural justice norms (Research Question 4). In the first case, the researchers asked respondents to evaluate generally how fair or unfair the decision‐making process was (Esaiasson et al., 2019; Ohtomo et al., 2021). In the second case, the researchers asked participants to rate how far a set of norms were respected in political interactions and then calculated an overall index of procedural justice (e.g., Azmi et al., 2016; Badiora, 2020; Hou et al., 2019; Leung et al., 2007; Vainio, 2011; Van Dijke et al., 2019).…”

Towards a better psychological satisfaction: developing a mixed multi-criteria evaluation system to urban ‘Not in my back yard’ facilities siting

“…Many studies have found that benefit perception is an important predictor of public acceptability of NIMBY facilities [ 9 , 29 ]. A significant number of domestic and international scholars have analyzed the impact of perceived justice on the public acceptability of NIMBY facilities, focusing on distributive justice and procedural justice [ 30 ]. Similarly, Batel and Devine‐Wright [ 31 ] found that a lack of justice is a significant reason for community residents opposing wind power plants.…”