Using the case study of the Russian Central Federal District, this paper analyzes the degrees of satisfaction among citizens regarding the support and compensation as prescribed by the Chernobyl Act, and their desire for this support to continue. After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Chernobyl Act named the State as being responsible for compensation of damages and provided that liquidators and refugees could receive support. Using a questionnaire survey, citizens’ levels of satisfaction concerning this support, as well as the speed of response to the nuclear accident, the information provided by the government, the decontamination of heavily polluted forests, and the compensation for liquidators were evaluated. The results found that support measures regarded as necessary for the reconstruction of affected areas and development of society and economy were the continued observations of the health status of the affected people, and continued pollution control. The degree of satisfaction among women and those with children, who are given preferential treatment under the Chernobyl Act, was high in regard to the Russian government’s response to the accident. Conversely, there are many who feel negatively about the provision of company housing and housing to citizens as prescribed under the law. Overall, 80% of the respondents wanted to continue support for the victims, particularly those with children, and desired to continue support such as migration rights, the early receipt of pensions, and the provision of free medicines, but many did not want preferential treatment regarding rent subsidies. Citizen satisfaction was generally high concerning the support and compensation as defined by the Chernobyl Act. However, there were also negative opinions regarding the preferential treatments prescribed by law, and it is necessary to consider these measures when formulating laws to protect victims in the future.

1. [1] A. Uchida, “Changing Mass Media in Russia and the Soviet Union: Through the Turbulent Glasnost and August Revolution,” Impact Shuppankai, p. 358, 1993 (in Japanese).
2. [2] A. Baba and R. Omatsu, “Nuclear Plant Accident: How the State Assumed Responsibility – Ukraine and Chernobyl Act,” Toyoshotenshinsya, p. 208, 1993 (in Japanese).
3. [3] O. Renn, “Public responses to the chernobyl accident,” J. of Environmental Psychology, Vol.10, Issue 2, pp. 151-167, 1990.
4. [4] J. Van Der Pligt and C. J. H. Midden, “Chernobyl: Four years later: Attitudes, risk management and communication,” J. of Environmental Psychology, Vol.10, Issue 2, pp. 91-99, 1990.
5. [5] G. V. Arkhagelskaia, I. A. Zykova, and S. A. Zelentsova, “The difficulties of informing the population on the issues of radiation protection,” Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 42-49, 2014 (In Russian) .
6. [6] Y. I. Bandazhevsky, “Medical and Biological Effects of Radiocesiumincorporated into The Human Organism,” M. Kubota (Trans.), Godo-Shuppan, p. 111, 2011 (in Japanese).
7. [7] Y. I. Bandazhevsky and N. F. Dobovaya, “Consequence of the Chernobyl Disaster: Reproduction of Human Being in Condition of Radiation Exposure,” M. Kubota (Trans.), Godo-Shuppan, p. 139, 2013 (in Japanese).
8. [8] R. Omathu, “Significance of Chernobyl Act and the Experiences of Fukushima and Chernobyl,” Iwanami Shoten, pp. 1-14, 2018 (in Japanese).
9. [9] H. Funabashi, “Necessary Agenda Setting for Dealing with the Earthquake Disaster and Defects in Control Capabilities in Japanese Society,” Japanese Sociological Review, Vol.64, Issue 3, pp. 342-365, 2013.
10. [10] A. Imai, “The primary survey of inhabitants who were evacuated from the nuclear power plant disaster,” The Jichi-Soken (Monthly Review of Local Government), Vol.37, No.7, pp. 1-37, 2011 (in Japanese).
11. [11] T. Nakamura, Y. Yano, X. Yu, and A. Maruyama, “German citizens’ attitudes towards measures for preventing and controlling radioactive pollution and promoting renewable energy: Using online survey tool,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.24, No.3, pp. 49-63, 2014 (in Japanese).
12. [12] T. Nakamura and A. Maruyama, “Attitude of foreign citizens toward nuclear energy policy and radioactive materials in food: A Case study on Lorraine region, France,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies,” Vol.27, No.2, pp. 13-27, 2016 (in Japanese).
13. [13] T. Nakamura, Y. Yano, and A. Maruyama, “A survey on public awareness towards the reliability of government information on food and energy safety: A case study of Finland,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies,” Vol.29, No.1, pp. 56-71, 2018 (in Japanese).
14. [14] T. Nakamura, Y. Yano, and A. Maruyama, “Evaluation of public awareness of and safety measures regarding radioactive substances: A case study of Ukraine after the Minsk Agreement,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.29, No.2, pp. 27-43, 2018 (in Japanese).
15. [15] T. Nakamura, S. Masuda, A. Maruyama, and Y. Yano, “Citizen evaluation of policies for overcoming damage from nuclear accidents: A case study of Belarus,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 1-16, 2019 (in Japanese).
16. [16] T. Nakamura and S. Masuda, “Agricultural revival in Belarus based on the Chernobyl Law and National Programs,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies,” Vol.30, No.1, pp. 43-56, 2019 (in Japanese).
17. [17] R. Omathu, “The Standards for Soil contamination level and guidelines for soil survey in areas affected by Chernobyl accident,” Studies in Disaster Recovery and Revitalization, No.9, pp. 13-29, 2017 (in Japanese).
18. [18] A. Komorida, “Social protection of citizens affected by radiation as a result of the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Soviet Russia’s Chernobyl Law),” http://ruseel.world.coocan.jp/Chernobyllaw.htm (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
19. [19] R. Omatsu, “3.11 and Chernobyl Act – Inheriting the Wisdom for Reconstruction,” Toyoshotenshinsya, pp. 69-101, 2016 (in Japanese).
20. [20] M. Takemori, “ Ukraine’s Chernobyl Act,” JSA e-Magazine, No.24, 2019 (in Japanese).
21. [21] T. Imanaka, “Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Accident,” Gijutsu to Ningen, 1997, http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/Chernobyl/GN/GN9705.html (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
22. [22] T. Imanaka, “Number of deaths due to Chernobyl Accident,” Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, No.386, 2006, http://www.cnic.jp/412 (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
23. [23] NIKKEI, “Fire Occurs near Chernobyl Plant – Radiation Level Rises,” July 1, 2017, https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASGM01H1D_R00C17A7000000/ [accessed October 18, 2019]
24. [24] Federal Service for State Statistics (Rosstat), “Численность населения Российской Федерации по муниципальным образованиям,” http://www.rosstat.gov.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/publications/catalog/afc8ea004d56a39ab251f2bafc3a6fce (in Russian) [accessed October 18, 2019]
25. [25] National Geographic, “Animals Rule Chernobyl Three Decades After Nuclear Disaster,” https://natgeo.nikkeibp.co.jp/atcl/news/16/042100148/ (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
26. [26] A. V. Yablokov, “Lessons of Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Accident for Civil Society,” Global Conf. for a Nuclear Power Free World, 2012, http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121215_a.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
27. [27] imishin, “Thirty years after Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Accident, Exclusion Zone Forests have become a Paradise for Animals,” https://www.imishin.me/chernobyl-nature-photos2/ (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
28. [28] FoE Japan, “Consequences of Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Accident and Responses in Belarus,” Report of Visit to Belarus, http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/Belarus_chernobyl_150711.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
29. [29] K. Takeuchi, “Treatment of Residents Affected by Nuclear Plant Accident – A Comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima,” Energy Strategy Institute Co., Ltd., http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/renewable_energy/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170516-doc.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
30. [30] TEPCO, “Status of Indemnification payouts,” http://www.tepco.co.jp/fukushima_hq/compensation/results/index-j.html (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
31. [31] NHK, “ETV Special: Nuclear Plant Accident – How the State Compensated Victims – Tracing the 23-Year History of the Chernobyl Act,” August 23, 2014, http://www.nhk.or.jp/etv21c/file/2014/0823.html (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
32. [32] Department for Mitigation of the Consequences of the Catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP of the Ministry for Emergency Situations of the Republic of Belarus, “National report of the Republic of Belarus: A Quarter of a Century After The Chernobyl Catastrophe: Outcomes and Prospects for the Mitigation of Consequences,” Society Japan-Republic of Belarus (Trans.), Sangakusha, p. 189, 2013 (in Japanese).
33. [33] Working Group to Discuss Assessment of Health Effects following Nuclear Plant Accident and Directions on Health Management and Medical Care of Japanese People, Committee on Supporting Reconstruction after the Great East Japan Earthquake, and Science Council of Japan, “Proposal on Status of Evacuees as Residents due to Nuclear Plant Accident following the Great East Japan Earthquake,” pp. 1-24, 2017, http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-23-t170929.pdf (in Japanese) [accessed October 18, 2019]
34. [34] T. Nakamura, Y. Yano, and A. Maruyama, “Public evaluation of nuclear power and food safety management: A case study of Sweden,” J. of Agricultural Development Studies, Vol.29, No.2, pp. 10-26, 2018 (in Japanese).