This article defines the problem over Fukushima Reconstruction and the 1F Decommissioning as Post-Trans-Scientific Questions and examines the difficulty of brewing of social understanding for the marine release of the ALPS processing water, as well as the difficulty of brewing of social acceptance for Fukushima Innovation Coast Program and International Institute for Education and Research Project.

The examination process over the disposal method of the ALPS processing water and strong path dependence only for experts who is the member of “the place” will be understood as a process of legitimacy. However, even if it is explained the choice that was finally squeezed by the experts and opinions expression by the local people is demanded by the government, it is not for local people to brew social understanding, and it is not for local people to guarantee legitimacy of the decision.

Both Fukushima Innovation Coast Program and International Institute for Education and Research Project are low in the recognition and expectation degree of Fukushima people, and it cannot be said that social acceptance as the Fukushima Reconstruction Policy is brewed. The influence of Akaba Research Group which is the origin having been based on top-down approach is strong in the Fukushima Reconstruction Policy. A design was realized on the course where Akaba Research Group spread both later fortune Fukushima Innovation Coast Program and International Institute for Education and Research Project basically, and a project has been carried out. If approach to Post-Trans-Scientific Questions is developed during seven years after Report of Akaba Research Group of June, 2014, it is thought that it was to make a thing different in the recognition and the expectation of Fukushima people to fortune Fukushima Innovation Coast Program and International Institute for Education and Research Project.

A very strong thing has the path dependence of Fukushima Reconstruction Policy and the 1F Decommissioning Policy, and it is difficult at all to cancel the lock-in to the existing path dependency. However, creation of the social innovation by the formation of “the place (Ba) of discussion” by residential people is essential to form a policy to enable “coexistence of reconstruction and the decommissioning” as Post-Trans-Scientific Questions, and to brew social understanding and social acceptance to Fukushima Reconstruction Policy.

幸福度は政策当局者にも利用されるようになり，世界幸福報告書の公表など国際比較も盛んになっている．世界幸福報告書では各国の幸福度を6つの要素で説明しているが，幸福度平均値の差はむしろ残差で生じている．残差が文化差を示すのかを検証するため，現在の幸福の投影元として「理想（イデア）の幸福度」（11件法）による測定を試みた．

日本での5つの調査結果からは不幸せをプラスに評価し，高い割合で「中位の幸福度」を理想とする傾向があった．幸福度（現在）と理想の幸福度の得点差を考慮して幸福度（現在）を調整し，欧州各国の幸福度（現在）に関する頻度分布を利用してクラスター分析を行うと，日本はいずれの調査でもデンマークなど幸福度平均値が高い国と同じクラスターに分類された．以上から，今回提案された幸福度の測定方法を用いると，「アジアの人々の幸福度が低い」との悲観的な結論はえられず，むしろ北欧や中南米の人々の幸福度と差がないと解釈できることが示された．