探索自上而下和民意反映两种方法在公众接受福岛核事故后移除土壤的最终处置方面的差异和影响因素。

IF 0.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Radiation protection dosimetry Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncae017
Michio Murakami, Momo Takada, Yukihide Shibata, Kosuke Shirai, Susumu Ohnuma, Tetsuo Yasutaka
{"title":"探索自上而下和民意反映两种方法在公众接受福岛核事故后移除土壤的最终处置方面的差异和影响因素。","authors":"Michio Murakami, Momo Takada, Yukihide Shibata, Kosuke Shirai, Susumu Ohnuma, Tetsuo Yasutaka","doi":"10.1093/rpd/ncae017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The final disposal of the soils removed from the area affected by the Fukushima nuclear accident will be carried out by 2045. This study investigated how acceptance of final disposal differed between top-down, opinion-aggregative, and opinion-reflective approaches to the decision outcome, and what factors influenced these differences. In 2022, a survey of 3000 randomly selected participants living outside Fukushima Prefecture was conducted using the postal method, with responses obtained from 871 consenting participants. The proportions of respondents who agreed to accept the final disposal were 22.6, 37.6 and 56.9% for the top-down, opinion-aggregative, and opinion-reflective approaches, respectively. The preferences for both opinion-aggregative and opinion-reflective approaches showed significant positive associations with interest in final disposal and social benefits, and significant negative associations with intergenerational expectations and age. This study highlights the importance of procedural fairness in determining final disposal sites, and identifies factors that contribute to greater acceptance through this process.</p>","PeriodicalId":20795,"journal":{"name":"Radiation protection dosimetry","volume":"200 16-18","pages":"1514-1518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the differences and influencing factors between top-down and opinion-reflective approaches regarding public acceptance of final disposal of soils removed after the Fukushima nuclear accident.\",\"authors\":\"Michio Murakami, Momo Takada, Yukihide Shibata, Kosuke Shirai, Susumu Ohnuma, Tetsuo Yasutaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rpd/ncae017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The final disposal of the soils removed from the area affected by the Fukushima nuclear accident will be carried out by 2045. This study investigated how acceptance of final disposal differed between top-down, opinion-aggregative, and opinion-reflective approaches to the decision outcome, and what factors influenced these differences. In 2022, a survey of 3000 randomly selected participants living outside Fukushima Prefecture was conducted using the postal method, with responses obtained from 871 consenting participants. The proportions of respondents who agreed to accept the final disposal were 22.6, 37.6 and 56.9% for the top-down, opinion-aggregative, and opinion-reflective approaches, respectively. The preferences for both opinion-aggregative and opinion-reflective approaches showed significant positive associations with interest in final disposal and social benefits, and significant negative associations with intergenerational expectations and age. This study highlights the importance of procedural fairness in determining final disposal sites, and identifies factors that contribute to greater acceptance through this process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiation protection dosimetry\",\"volume\":\"200 16-18\",\"pages\":\"1514-1518\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiation protection dosimetry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncae017\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation protection dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncae017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

福岛核事故受灾地区的土壤将于 2045 年进行最终处理。本研究调查了自上而下法、意见汇总法和意见反映法对最终处理结果的接受程度有何不同,以及影响这些差异的因素是什么。2022 年,采用邮寄方式对居住在福岛县以外的 3000 名随机抽取的参与者进行了调查,从 871 名同意的参与者那里获得了答复。同意接受最终处理方案的受访者比例在自上而下法、意见汇总法和意见反映法中分别为 22.6%、37.6% 和 56.9%。对意见汇总法和意见反映法的偏好与对最终处置的兴趣和社会效益呈显著正相关,而与代际期望和年龄呈显著负相关。这项研究强调了程序公平在确定最终处置地点方面的重要性,并确定了有助于通过这一程序获得更大接受度的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring the differences and influencing factors between top-down and opinion-reflective approaches regarding public acceptance of final disposal of soils removed after the Fukushima nuclear accident.

The final disposal of the soils removed from the area affected by the Fukushima nuclear accident will be carried out by 2045. This study investigated how acceptance of final disposal differed between top-down, opinion-aggregative, and opinion-reflective approaches to the decision outcome, and what factors influenced these differences. In 2022, a survey of 3000 randomly selected participants living outside Fukushima Prefecture was conducted using the postal method, with responses obtained from 871 consenting participants. The proportions of respondents who agreed to accept the final disposal were 22.6, 37.6 and 56.9% for the top-down, opinion-aggregative, and opinion-reflective approaches, respectively. The preferences for both opinion-aggregative and opinion-reflective approaches showed significant positive associations with interest in final disposal and social benefits, and significant negative associations with intergenerational expectations and age. This study highlights the importance of procedural fairness in determining final disposal sites, and identifies factors that contribute to greater acceptance through this process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiation protection dosimetry
Radiation protection dosimetry 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
223
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Radiation Protection Dosimetry covers all aspects of personal and environmental dosimetry and monitoring, for both ionising and non-ionising radiations. This includes biological aspects, physical concepts, biophysical dosimetry, external and internal personal dosimetry and monitoring, environmental and workplace monitoring, accident dosimetry, and dosimetry related to the protection of patients. Particular emphasis is placed on papers covering the fundamentals of dosimetry; units, radiation quantities and conversion factors. Papers covering archaeological dating are included only if the fundamental measurement method or technique, such as thermoluminescence, has direct application to personal dosimetry measurements. Papers covering the dosimetric aspects of radon or other naturally occurring radioactive materials and low level radiation are included. Animal experiments and ecological sample measurements are not included unless there is a significant relevant content reason.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of radioactivity in soil samples from Wolaita Sodo town, Ethiopia: implications for environmental and public health. Effect of gamma dose rate on the public from soil samples collected from industrial areas of Tamil Nadu. Analyses of radioactivity concentrations in soil and assessment of effective doses in several districts of Banten and West Java, Indonesia. Radiation dose assessment during dental cone beam computed tomography procedures in Sri Lanka towards establishing a dose reference level. Development of equivalent dose assessment methodology for the lens of the eye at nuclear power plant workers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1