|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences / Faculty of Humanities and Human Sciences >
Peer-reviewed Journal Articles, etc >
Public acceptance model for siting a repository of radioactive contaminated waste
| Title: | Public acceptance model for siting a repository of radioactive contaminated waste |
| Authors: | Ohtomo, Shoji Browse this author →KAKEN DB | | Hirose, Yukio Browse this author →KAKEN DB | | Ohnuma, Susumu Browse this author →KAKEN DB |
| Keywords: | Designated waste | | Distributive fairness | | Interpersonal fairness | | Procedural fairness | | Public acceptance |
| Issue Date: | 16-Apr-2020 |
| Publisher: | Routledge |
| Journal Title: | Journal of Risk Research |
| Volume: | 24 |
| Issue: | 2 |
| Start Page: | 215 |
| End Page: | 227 |
| Publisher DOI: | 10.1080/13669877.2020.1750457 |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| Rights: | This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Risk Research on 16 Apr 2020, available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2020.1750457. |
| Type: | article (author version) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/86170 |
| Appears in Collections: | 文学院・文学研究院 (Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences / Faculty of Humanities and Human Sciences) > 雑誌発表論文等 (Peer-reviewed Journal Articles, etc)
|
Submitter: 大沼 進
|
