JDR Vol.11 No.sp pp. 789-797
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2016.p0789


Risk Perceptions of Resuming Nuclear Power Plant Operations After Fukushima: A Student Survey

Kami Seo*, Tadahiro Motoyoshi**,†, and Yasunobu Maeda***

*School of International Politics Economics and Communication, Aoyama Gakuin University
4-4-25 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8366, Japan

**Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan

Corresponding author,

***Graduate School of Integrated Science and Technology, Shizuoka University, Shizuoka, Japan

March 29, 2016
July 26, 2016
Online released:
September 6, 2016
September 1, 2016
Fukushima accident, nuclear power generation, risk perception, discriminant analysis

Quake-induced accident of Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 triggered heated argument about the country’s energy policy in Japan. Although many people recognized the risk of nuclear energy use, they did not necessarily support the option of abandoning the technology for the near future. This paper focuses on how people perceive risks associated with and without nuclear power generation and how perceived risks affect their opinion. We conducted questionnaire survey targeting 18–20 year old university students, the stakeholders in the future. The survey was implemented in 2013–2014 when none of Japan’s nuclear power plants was in active use. Three quarters of the respondents answered that a future with nuclear power generation was more realistic than without it. The aspects dividing the two groups, i.e., respondents who expect a future with or without nuclear energy use were their evaluations of three themes: (1) the feasibility of renewable energy sources, (2) the impacts in the safety of developing nations’ nuclear power generation, and (3) the difficulty in gaining the acceptance of residents near the power plants. Meanwhile, both groups above were similarly positive about technological innovation, and were similarly and strongly negative about developing safety management.

Cite this article as:
K. Seo, T. Motoyoshi, and Y. Maeda, “Risk Perceptions of Resuming Nuclear Power Plant Operations After Fukushima: A Student Survey,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.11, No.sp, pp. 789-797, 2016.
Data files:
  1. [1] International Atomic Energy Agency, “The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User’s Manual,” 2008 Edition, Vienna, 2009.
  2. [2] BBC, “Japan restarts first nuclear power plant since Fukushima,” available at: [accessed Nov. 1, 2015]
  3. [3] M. Schwarz, M. Thompson, and W. S. Divided, “Re-Defining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice,” Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
  4. [4] B. Wynne, “Science and Social responsibility,” pp. 137-152 in J. Ansell and F. Wharton (Eds), “Risk: Analysis Assessment and Management,” NY, NY: Wiley and Sons, 1992.
  5. [5] A. Suzuki, “Managin Fukushima Challenge,” Risk Analysis, Vol.34, No.7: pp. 1240-1256, 2014.
  6. [6] A. Weinberg, “Science and trans-science,” Minerva, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 209-222, 1972.
  7. [7] L. Huanga, Y. Zhoub, Y. Hana, J. K. Hammittc, J. Bia, and Y. Liub, “Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China,” PNAS. Dec 3, Vol.110, No.49, pp. 19742-19747, 2013.
  8. [8] V. H. Visschers and M. Siegrist, “How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima Disaster,” Risk Analysis, Vol.33, No.2, pp. 333-347, 2013.
  9. [9] Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, The report, Discover21, Tokyo, 2012 (in Japanese).
  10. [10] T. Maeda, K. Seo, and T. Motoyoshi, “Scenario analysis of issues after Great East Japan earthquake: a summary of the preliminary survey,” Japanese J. of Risk Analysis, Vol.24, No.1, pp. 1-6, 2014 (in Japanese).
  11. [11] Cabinet office, Government of Japan. Securing nuclear engineer and technology, Feb 28, 2012, available at: http://www. [in Japanese only, accessed Aug. 10, 2014]
  12. [12] M. Aoyagi, “A study on risk trade-offs among climate change risk and energy option,” Proc. for annual meeting of SRA-Japan, 2012, 25, A-5-2 (in Japanese).
  13. [13] M. Greenberg and H. B. Truelove, “Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident?” Risk Analysis, Vol.31, No.5, pp. 819-831, 2011.
  14. [14] M. Greenberg, “Energy source, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data,” Energy Policy, Vol.37, pp. 3242-3249, 2009.
  15. [15] N. F. Pidgeona, I. Lorenzonib, and W. Poortinga, “Climate change or nuclear power – No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain,” Global Environmental Change, Vol.18, pp. 69-85, 2008.
  16. [16] M. Aoyagi, “A Study for changing values, risk perception and acceptance towards technology and the society,” Project report of Environment Research and Technology Development Fund 2014:1 ZE -1202, Ministry of the environment Government of Japan, available at: /h25/pdf/1ZE-1202.pdf [in Japanese only, accessed Sep. 17, 2015]
  17. [17] E. A. Rosa, “Déjà vu all over again for nuclear power?” Sience, 310: 619, Oct. 28, 2005.
  18. [18] S. Yamaguchi, “Nuclear power plant export aid package after the first Fukushima nuclear plant accident in Revitalization by technology and the culture of Japan: exports of infrastructure and contents,” National diet library General working papers 2012-1, available at 20120108.pdf?contentNo=1 [in Japanese, accessed Sep. 9, 2014]
  19. [19] K. A. Parkhill, N. F. Pidgeon, K. L. Henwood, P. Simmons, and D. Venables, “From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK,” Trans Inst Br Geogr, NS, Vol.35, pp. 39-58, 2010.
  20. [20] S. Ansolabehere, “Public attitudes toward America’s energy options: insights for nuclear energy,” 2007, MIT-NES-TR-08, MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy System.
  21. [21] P. Slovic, J. Flynn, C. K. Mertz, M. Poumadere, and C. Mays, “Nuclear Power and the public: A Comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States,” in O. Renn and B. Rohrmann (Eds.), “Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies kluwer Academic Publishers.”
  22. [22] L. Sjöberg, “Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in Risk Management,” Research in Human Ecology, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 1-9, 1999.
  23. [23] S. Tsuchida, “Affect Heuristic with “Good-Bad” Criterion and Linguistic Representation in Risk Judgments,” J. of Disaster Research, Vol.6 ,No.2, pp. 219-229, 2011.
  24. [24] Previous citation 8 (Visschers VH, M. Siegrist 2013), pp 339.
  25. [25] K. Tunoda, “Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident,” Risk Analysis, Vol.21, No.6, pp. 1039-1046, 2001.
  26. [26] T. Maeda, K. Seo, and T. Motoyoshi, “Risk perception of risk analysts in Japan after the 2011 disaster,” Proceedings of SRA-J annual meeting, Vol.27, C-3-5, 2014 (in Japanese).
  27. [27] P. Slovic, “Perception of risk,” Science, Apr 17, Vol.236, pp. 280-285, 1987.
  28. [28] N. Iwai and K. Shishido, “The impact of Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear accident on people’s perception of disaster risks and attitudes toward nuclear energy policy,” Japanese sociological review, Vol.64, No.3, pp. 420-438, 2013 (in Japanese).
  29. [29] P. Slovic, N. Kraus, H. Lappe, H. Letzel, and T. Malmfors, “Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs: Report on a Survey in Sweden,” Pharmaceutical Medicine, Vol.4, pp. 43-65, 1989.
  30. [30] P. Slovic, N. Kraus H. Lappe, and M. Major, “Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs: Report on a Survey in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol.82, pp. S15–S20, 1991.
  31. [31] M. Hüppe and W. Janke, “The nuclear plant accident in Chernobyl experienced by men and women of different ages: Empirical study in the years 1986–1991,” Anxiety Stress Coping, Vol.7, No.4, pp. 339–355, 1994.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Jan. 19, 2019