IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v21y2001i6p1039-1046.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident

Author

Listed:
  • Tsunoda Katsuya

Abstract

This article discusses the influence of the September 30, 1999 nuclear accident in Tokai village (Japan) on the public’s attitudes toward nuclear power in Japan. The data used in this report were taken from the results of two surveys conducted mainly to measure the attitudes of the Japanese public with regard to the use of nuclear power in Japan. The first survey was done before the accident in District 23 in Tokyo and also in Osaka and Nagoya. The second survey, which took place after the accident in District 23 in Tokyo and in Osaka and Nagoya, also included residents in a number of other cities of various sizes throughout Japan. The results of the two surveys showed that (1) acceptability of and trust in nuclear power operation had decreased, (2) perceived accident likelihood and public interest had significantly increased, and (3) there had been neither significant nor even a small change in the public’s self‐rated knowledge about nuclear power or their distrust of the government. The results also showed that the ratio of nuclear power generation opponents to total respondents had considerably increased (7% to 23%) whereas nuclear power generation supporters had moderately decreased (1% to 12%).

Suggested Citation

  • Tsunoda Katsuya, 2001. "Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(6), pages 1039-1046, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:6:p:1039-1046
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.216172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216172
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.216172?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Huang, Lei & He, Ruoying & Yang, Qianqi & Chen, Jin & Zhou, Ying & Hammitt, James K. & Lu, Xi & Bi, Jun & Liu, Yang, 2018. "The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 294-301.
    3. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    4. Bjoern Hagen & Adenike Opejin & K. David Pijawka, 2022. "Risk Perceptions and Amplification Effects over Time: Evaluating Fukushima Longitudinal Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2019. "The Influencing Factors of Haze Tolerance in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Chung, William & Yeung, Iris M.H., 2013. "Attitudes of Hong Kong residents toward the Daya Bay nuclear power plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1172-1186.
    8. Xi Du & Zhijiao Zhang & Lei Dong & Jing Liu & Alistair G. L. Borthwick & Renzhi Liu, 2017. "Acceptable Risk Analysis for Abrupt Environmental Pollution Accidents in Zhangjiakou City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    10. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    11. Jack, Brady Michael & Lin, Huann-shyang, 2018. "Warning! Increases in interest without enjoyment may not be trend predictive of genuine interest in learning science," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 136-147.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:6:p:1039-1046. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.