Public acceptance model for siting a repository of radioactive contaminated waste

The disposal of designated radioactive contaminated waste resulting from the Fukushima nuclear accident is a primary issue in Japan. However, residents often strongly oppose siting a repository of designated waste; therefore, a possible site remains undecided. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) aspect,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of risk research 2021-02, Vol.24 (2), p.215-227
Main Authors: Ohtomo, Shoji, Hirose, Yukio, Ohnuma, Susumu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acceptance
Accidents
Cognition
Designated waste
Distributive fairness
Facility siting disputes
Internet
Interpersonal fairness
Procedural fairness
Procedural justice
Public acceptance
Public opinion
Siting
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The disposal of designated radioactive contaminated waste resulting from the Fukushima nuclear accident is a primary issue in Japan. However, residents often strongly oppose siting a repository of designated waste; therefore, a possible site remains undecided. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) aspect, whereby people refuse to build a repository in their hometown, has led to strong opposition. This study examined a public acceptance model for the siting investigation of a repository of designated waste. The model proposes that the antecedents of the three types of fairness, namely, procedural, distributive, and interpersonal fairness, determine public acceptance in addition to affecting evaluation of designated waste. The study investigated the differences of influences of the three types of fairness between residents in possible siting areas and in a non-siting area to compare the cognitive process toward the NIMBY issue. The respondents included 1016 residents in possible siting areas (Miyagi, Tochigi, Gunma, Ibaraki, and Chiba Prefectures), and 1006 residents in a non-siting area (the Tokyo metropolitan area). All respondents completed a web-based questionnaire. The results revealed that the influence of procedural fairness on public acceptance in the non-siting area was stronger than it was in the possible siting areas. Conversely, the influence of distributive fairness was stronger in the possible siting areas than it was in the non-siting area. Furthermore, affect evaluation through antecedents of fairness was more influential for public acceptance in the possible sites than it was in the non-siting area. Therefore, the findings suggest that the strong opposition due to the NIMBY aspect was caused by the differences between the process of fairness and the concept of fairness that people emphasize.
ISSN:1366-9877
1466-4461
DOI:10.1080/13669877.2020.1750457