IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7732-d1142231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High-Level Radioactive Disposal Policy in Japan: A Sociological Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Yuichiro Amekawa

    (College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto 603-8577, Japan)

Abstract

This study critically appraises the Japanese government’s high-level radioactive disposal policy by drawing on three sociological perspectives: risk society, sociology of scientific knowledge, and social acceptance. The risk society theory emphasizes that the Government of Japan and scientists under its control are pursuing nuclear power policy and repository siting within the conventional paradigm of the first modernity, which no longer aligns with the current reality of nuclear power utilization and its public awareness in Japan. Thus, a reflexive response from the policy side is essential to address the demands of a risk society. The sociology of scientific knowledge supports this view by demonstrating that, while scientists under governmental control attempt to convince the public of the safety of their geological disposal methods and the scientific validity of their siting procedures, these claims are largely a social construction of knowledge riddled with uncertainty and ambiguity about inherent environmental risks. The social acceptance standpoint also reveals a substantial bias in government measures toward ensuring distributive, procedural, and interpersonal fairness. Specifically, it critiques the heavy official reliance on monetary compensation to the host community, limited consideration of the allocation of intergenerational decision-making rights based on the reversibility principle, and the implementing agency’s one-way asymmetrical risk communication for public deliberation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuichiro Amekawa, 2023. "High-Level Radioactive Disposal Policy in Japan: A Sociological Appraisal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7732-:d:1142231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7732/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7732/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    2. Maria R.H. Takeuchi & Tatsuya Hasegawa & Linda McKinley & Gian Powell Marquez & Keiichi N. Ishihara, 2020. "What Is Suitable Leadership for High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Management?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    3. John C. Besley, 2012. "Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 25-38, January.
    4. Borges Silverio, Leticia & Lamas, Wendell de Queiroz, 2011. "An analysis of development and research on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 281-289, January.
    5. Shoji Ohtomo & Yukio Hirose & Susumu Ohnuma, 2021. "Public acceptance model for siting a repository of radioactive contaminated waste," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 215-227, February.
    6. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1996. "The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1297-1313, December.
    7. Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    8. Ji Bum Chung & Hong‐Kew Kim & Sam Kew Rho, 2008. "Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1021-1032, August.
    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. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    3. Mitsch, Frieder & McNeil, Andrew, 2022. "Political implications of ‘green’ infrastructure in one’s ‘backyard’: the Green Party’s Catch 22?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115269, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Bellettini, Giorgio & Kempf, Hubert, 2013. "Why not in your backyard? On the location and size of a public facility," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 22-30.
    5. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    6. Robin R. Jenkins & Kelly B. Maguire & Cynthia L. Morgan, 2004. "Host Community Compensation and Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
    7. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2008. "Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 22-42, April.
    8. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    9. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    10. Locatelli, Giorgio & Mancini, Mauro & Todeschini, Nicola, 2013. "Generation IV nuclear reactors: Current status and future prospects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1503-1520.
    11. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2008. "The pitfalls of transition: Crowding out the "National Virtues"," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2107-2113, October.
    12. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    13. Vuichard, Pascal & Stauch, Alexander & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2021. "Keep it local and low-key: Social acceptance of alpine solar power projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Björn Bartling & Roberto A. Weber & Lan Yao, 2015. "Do Markets Erode Social Responsibility?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 219-266.
    15. Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. & Maennig, Wolfgang, 2015. "Homevoters vs. leasevoters: A spatial analysis of airport effects," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 85-99.
    16. Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for electricity after the Great East Japan Earthquake," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 82-105.
    17. Ishimura, Yuichi & Takeuchi, Kenji & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2014. "NIMBY or YIMBY? Municipalities' reaction to disaster waste from the Great East Japan Earthquake," Working Papers in Economics 597, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2000. "Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 538-550, October.
    19. Laura Rodríguez-Penalonga & B. Yolanda Moratilla Soria, 2017. "A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & Margit Osterloh, "undated". "Yes, Managers Should be Paid Like Bureaucrats," IEW - Working Papers 187, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7732-:d:1142231. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.