The Society for Risk Analysis Japan have compiled “the Encyclopedia of Risk Research” as our society’s 30th anniversary of foundation.in 2019. Risk Research has confronted various risks in the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences. Each academic field have been developed its own risk concept based on their own need. Thus, there are wide variety of definition for risk assessment, art of risk management, and needs of risk communication in each field. Due to the increasing interoperability and interdependence of the global society, there is an essential need to establish a cross-sectional insight of the risks. Our Encyclopedia of Risk Research 2019 contain the comprehensive aspects of the Risk Research based on four parts, 13 chapters, and 195 sections in order to clarify the current needs of risk research and the practical challenges in contemporary society. 13 chapters are here; Social Changes around Risk (Chapter 1), The art of Risk Assessment (Chapter 2), The art of Risk Management (Chapter 3), The art of Risk Communication – dialogue of risks (Chapter 4), Risk Finance – Relocation of risks (Chapter 5), Health and Environmental Risks (Chapter 6), Social Infrastructure Risks (Chapter 7), Climate Change and Natural Disaster Risks (Chapter 8), Food Safety (Chapter 9), Family, Domestic and Social Risks (Chapter 10), Financial and Insurance Risks (Chapter 11), Risk Education and Human Resource Development (Chapter 12), Emerging Risks and Social Responses (Chapter 13). This is frontend of contemporary risk research to re-review the definition of risk across disciplines. This preamble records a belief history of how to establish the Encyclopedia of Risk Research”.
In this organized session, four presentations were provided by the member of S-17, which was managed by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund, ERCA. The first half of the presentation was relevant to the overall research framework and its key issue for the identification of unknown released chemicals. The second half of the presentation discussed case studies, including issues on the selection procedure for representative scenarios and substances; the evaluation of measures against risk, recovery, and resilient phases after a disaster; and comparative analysis among local government capacities. Here, we explored the risk assessment technologies related to the measurement, analysis, and evaluation of numerous data. We focused on the developmental application and also discussed the necessity and importance of devising various scenarios and formulating a detailed design of case studies for each disaster for social implementation.
Almost ten years have passed since Fukushima nuclear accident. Our experience should be used to improve current emergency protective measures and preparedness. A review of the protective measures implemented in the aftermath of Fukushima nuclear accident has revealed problems such as paternalistic intervention for inhabitants and increased health risks due to the evacuation of vulnerable groups. The risk trade-offs in environmental recovery actions are more complex and ongoing; the stakeholders are the next generation and residents outside of the prefecture. Since one of the characteristics of nuclear disasters is the distance and time dependency of the risk, countless individual cases need to be addressed. While generalization of protective measures is essential, the appropriate deployment of personnel in a variety of roles may require to really address individual cases. For example, risk communicators may be needed to secure in local governments for formulating a consensus on risk trade-offs regarding the disposal of removed soil.
The committee of Society for Risk Analysis, Japan translated a report “COVID-19 a risk governance perspective” into Japanese, which was published by International Risk Governance Center (IRGC). This article introduces the Japanese translation of the report to share the state-of-art of risk governance methodology for Japanese readers. IRGC risk governance framework, which can be used as a structured method for examining the steps of solving various risk problems, was customized to COVID-19. IRGC proposed the five stages of the framework as follows: scientific assessment, perception, evaluation, management and communication. IRGC re-organized procedures which were used for cope with COVID-19 problems on these 5 stages and listed remaining challenges for each stage. Finally, IRGC listed 10 lessons (might be) learned for the immediate future.
The present study investigated the rationale for the derivation of criteria in the measures against novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). The following four cases were included in this study: the physical distance (social distance) of “1–2 m”; the criterion for ending isolation and returning to work after a COVID-19 suspected fever of “8 days after onset of fever”; the criterion for medical consultation and examination of “fever of more than 37.5°C for 4 days”; and the criteria for lifting intervention of self-restraint in each prefecture. These criteria could not be derived based on clear scientific facts in all cases. The actual processes of how the criteria were derived were organized.
The United Nation’s policy brief on COVID-19 and the need for action on mental health (13 May 2020) was translated into Japanese by collaboration of members of Society for Risk Analysis, Japan. An insight from this work on current situations of COVID-19 in Japan was introduced.
Legitimacy is defined as the approvability of an individual’s or others’ rights in the context of public decision-making. First, we discuss the theoretical background for people’s tendency to approve the concerned parties’ superior legitimacy (superior legitimization of the concerned party) in a “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) problem. This can be an irrational judgement because the enhancement of the public good that NIMBY facilities can achieve may be undermined by the rejection of the concerned party (e.g., local residents). Public decision making about NIMBY facilities may involve multi-polarization, in which there are two or more concerned parties who hold conflicting interests. Such a context will inhibit the superiority of legitimacy of a certain concerned party and increase the legitimacy of a government agency to balance the interests of the parties. In an experiment, participants played a simulation game (Who & Why Game) in which they were assigned to one of the four roles around the placement of a high-level radioactive waste storage facility: a local resident, an expert commission member, a national majority, or a government agency. They were then asked to discuss the problem. In a condition demonstrating the interests of future generations conflicting with those of local residents, superior legitimization of the concerned party (local residents) appeared to be inhibited, whereas legitimization of them was observed in a condition without the demonstration of future generations’ interests.
Disaster assessment requires preliminary evaluation of chemical risks for specific target areas in a given location. Accidents require knowledge of the type of chemicals, handling amounts, the underlying possibility of emissions leaked, and potential issues caused by release. Herein we obtained data on chemical handling amounts from several local government offices. We analyzed the data in detail to determine the relationship between the release-transfer amount and the handling amount, namely the emission-transfer rate. Moreover, the handling amount was estimated across Japan using open PRTR data on the emission-transfer rate.