TY - JOUR
T1 - Engagement on risk and uncertainty–lessons from coastal regions of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan after the 2011 nuclear disaster?
AU - Mabon, Leslie
AU - Kawabe, Midori
PY - 2018/11/2
Y1 - 2018/11/2
N2 - This paper uses the case study of the south-east coast of Fukushima Prefecture in Japan to draw lessons for risk communication under situations of high uncertainty and conditions of varying trust. Based on an existing field of research into the social and ethical aspects of governing risks around environmental radioactivity, empirical qualitative material collected in Fukushima Prefecture over 2014 and 2015 is analysed around three key questions: who is undertaking risk communication and how they are perceived (in particular their motivations and perceived competence); what is the purpose of engagement with citizens and stakeholders on risk and uncertainty (i.e. whether it is to ‘convince’ people or allow them to come to their own informed decision); and whether risk communication may be considered responsive to the needs of the affected populations. The findings are then applied to Kasperson’s four questions for the future of risk communication in order to assess their wider implications. Particular attention is paid to how the individual or institution conveying the risk message is perceived, and in whose interests risk communication is undertaken.
AB - This paper uses the case study of the south-east coast of Fukushima Prefecture in Japan to draw lessons for risk communication under situations of high uncertainty and conditions of varying trust. Based on an existing field of research into the social and ethical aspects of governing risks around environmental radioactivity, empirical qualitative material collected in Fukushima Prefecture over 2014 and 2015 is analysed around three key questions: who is undertaking risk communication and how they are perceived (in particular their motivations and perceived competence); what is the purpose of engagement with citizens and stakeholders on risk and uncertainty (i.e. whether it is to ‘convince’ people or allow them to come to their own informed decision); and whether risk communication may be considered responsive to the needs of the affected populations. The findings are then applied to Kasperson’s four questions for the future of risk communication in order to assess their wider implications. Particular attention is paid to how the individual or institution conveying the risk message is perceived, and in whose interests risk communication is undertaken.
KW - environmental sociology
KW - Fukushima nuclear accident
KW - qualitative research
KW - risk communication
KW - risk governance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976417406&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976417406&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13669877.2016.1200658
DO - 10.1080/13669877.2016.1200658
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84976417406
SN - 1366-9877
VL - 21
SP - 1297
EP - 1312
JO - Journal of Risk Research
JF - Journal of Risk Research
IS - 11
ER -