The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of compensation framing on acceptance of a high level radioactive waste (HLW) geological repository. Monetary compensation is sometimes provided for local governments as a benefit for accepting certain risks. However, Fray et al. (1996) demonstrated that monetary compensation failed to procure acceptance of a nuclear waste disposal repository. In reality, offering to improve social welfare is also sometimes used as compensation for accepting a risky facility. From the above, we hypothesized that monetary compensations would be rejected by residents of proposed site. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a scenario experiment. We conducted a web-based survey and obtained 1200 valid Japanese responses. The results demonstrated that there were no main effects of condition, which suggested that the framing of compensation had no significant impact on acceptance of a HLW geological repository.
After Great East Japan Earthquake and following the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident, many researchers have got into action in Fukushima area using their expertise. We examined such activities by analyzing published papers and research fund reports using a text-mining technique. We extracted activity’s objective, time of activity started, and area of activities within Fukushima prefecture (e.g. Hamadori, Nakadori, and Aizu) from texts in the papers and reports (total 491 reports). Cross tabulation, text mining, and correspondence analysis were used for this analysis. This study clarified that the main practical activities changed by time and the activities differed by area. This will be a fundamental record for evaluating contribution of academia/expert after a disaster.
Philosophers of science have distinguished epistemic values from other values. The former are relevant to scientific evaluation, while the later are legitimate bases to address ethical, social, and political issues. Given such a classification, experts should normally respect both scientific rationality and ethical soundness. How about situations where these values are conflicting? If the priority of epistemic values could be a cause of ethical issues, what is right action? This is the central theme of the controversy over randomized controlled trial and clinical equipoise. From the existing literature on the controversy, I found out two types of strategies to resolve the dilemma. After looking into how epistemic values and ethical values relate in each strategy, I will make a few general suggestions about norms for scientific research.
Four academic societies i.e. Japan Society on Water Environment (JSWE), Japan Society for Safety Engineering (JSSE), Japan Society for Disaster Information Studies (JASDIS) and Japanese Society of Insurance Science (JSIE) shared their state-of-the-arts on coping with disaster risk and non-stationary event risk at a session on SRA-Japan annual meeting in 2018. In the field of JSWE, a challenge was introduced on developing a suite of simulation models in selected Asian cities to evaluate urban flash floods, water quality of urban rivers, and health risk caused by infectious gastroenteritis spread via flood water. Most important challenges have been to reveal unknown causes of physical hazard such as explosive accident in the field of JSSE. In the field of JASDIS, a powerful mobile app for supporting tsunami evacuation drill was developed, which encourages commitment to evacuation scenario for drill participants. In the field of JSIE, a decision behavior of policyholders of fire insurance who were faced to enroll in earthquake insurance is a key and a structural fault was pointed out on a contract sheet, in which selection of earthquake insurance option was interrupted. We discussed different points of those risk coping process i.e. who copes with the risks, when to cope with and a degree of severity. We found a common approach of severity estimation model or insurance. It is important to share knowledge on risk analysis methods and its application for disaster/non-stationary risk management among professional of various field of risk.
For examining the remaining reduction of demand and price slump in some farm and marine products of Fukushima prefecture after 7 years of the nuclear disaster, it is necessary to articulate the interrelated three aspects of (risk) judgements made by the market, society, and individuals. After clarifying the aspect of the market where the efficacy of scientific risk judgement is limited, this study will discuss the relationship between social and individual risk tradeoff concerning food from Fukushima, and point out the importance of socially respect for self-determination in reference to the Norwegian case.
This study examined the effects of goal framing of messages on public support for a policy aimed at seismic retrofitting of water supply facilities. An experiment was conducted manipulating two independent variables in message frames: the valence of consequences (i.e., emphasizing negatively valenced consequences when not engaging in seismic retrofit or emphasizing positively valenced consequences when engaging in seismic retrofit) and the focus of outcomes (i.e., focusing on the presence and absence of losses or focusing on the presence and absence of gains). Results from 392 participants from a wide range of age groups showed that messages that emphasized negatively valenced consequences or the presence of losses were more persuasive and made participants more likely to support the policy. Implications of the current findings for goal framing and persuasive communication in the context of disaster risk reduction were discussed.