IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/sscijp/v20y2017i2p163-181..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Communication and the Disposal of Radioactive Debris: Answering Questions Without Questioning Answers

Author

Listed:
  • Miori NAGASHIMA
  • Piers R WILLIAMSON

Abstract

Between 2011 and 2014, the Japanese government conducted a ‘wide-area processing’ scheme to dispose of radioactive debris from Iwate and Miyagi prefectures following the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. The scheme was designed to hasten recovery in those areas by disposing of radioactive debris in other regions. Although ‘wide-area processing’ was open to localities in all 47 prefectures, only 18 participated. Out of the 18 participants, nine explained their involvement to residents in Question and Answer (Q&A) sections posted on their homepages. This article examines those nine Q&As from the perspective of risk communication. It holds that different risk perceptions were held by localities on the one hand, and residents on the other. While the Q&As ostensibly represented a wider shift from a ‘deficit model’ of risk communication to a ‘democratic model’, they nonetheless operated hierarchically through the construction of ‘ambiguous risks’ as ‘simple risks’ to neglect the ‘concern assessment’ advocated by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). As such, the Q&As were employed as a moral technique to discipline local populations into accepting the radiation risks generated by the national government’s approach to reconstruction.

Suggested Citation

  • Miori NAGASHIMA & Piers R WILLIAMSON, 2017. "Risk Communication and the Disposal of Radioactive Debris: Answering Questions Without Questioning Answers," Social Science Japan Journal, University of Tokyo and Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 163-181.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:20:y:2017:i:2:p:163-181.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ssjj/jyx009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    5. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    6. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    7. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    9. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    10. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    12. Hope, Aimie L.B. & Jones, Christopher R., 2014. "The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 48-59.
    13. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    14. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    15. Julita Gil Cuesta & Joris Adriaan Frank Van Loenhout & Maria Da Conceição Colaço & Debarati Guha-Sapir, 2017. "General Population Knowledge about Extreme Heat: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Lisbon and Madrid," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, January.
    16. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    17. Marco Caliendo & Juliane Hennecke, 2022. "Drinking is different! Examining the role of locus of control for alcohol consumption," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(5), pages 2785-2815, November.
    18. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    19. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    20. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    21. Aistė Balžekienė & Audronė Telešienė & Vaidas Morkevičius, 2022. "Spatial Dependencies and the Relationship between Subjective Perception and Objective Environmental Risks in Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:sscijp:v:20:y:2017:i:2:p:163-181.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ssjj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.