Elsevier

Energy Policy

Volume 148, Part A, January 2021, 111944
Energy Policy

Research Article
Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111944Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Local economic benefits reduce public opposition to nuclear power plants.

  • Low income individuals welcome nuclear Energy's local economic benefits.

  • Public is receptive to health benefits but not to climate benefits of nuclear energy.

  • Proximity to the Fukushima nuclear power plant does not affect public support for nuclear energy.

Abstract

A key obstacle to nuclear energy as a decarbonization policy is the public perception of risks of radiation leaks from reactors. In particular, the “not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY)" syndrome suggests that individuals oppose nuclear reactors in their neighborhoods because they overestimate their risks. Arguably, such perceptions would be acute for those who have lived in the vicinity of a nuclear accident. We conducted a surveyembedded experiment in Japan (N = 2574) to assess how the NIMBY syndrome influences public support for restarting nuclear reactors when health, economic, and climate change benefits of nuclear energy are highlighted. We focus on Japan because the risks of nuclear energy became salient after the 2011 Fukushima accident. We test for two types of NIMBY effect, (1) respondents' proximity to any nuclear power plant and (2) respondents' place of residence in 2011 and its proximity to Fukushima. We do not find support for either the NIMBY syndrome or the Fukushima effect. On the contrary, we find support for a “reverse-NIMBY” among low-income residents, when they are treated with information on nuclear energy's low local air pollution (health). Our findings suggest that support for nuclear energy varies across population groups and depends on how its local benefits and costs are framed.

Introduction

Climate change is a defining issue of our times, but the road to decarbonization, especially in the electricity sector, is unclear. While scholars note the rising salience of solar and wind energy accompanied by a decline in coal, the role nuclear energy remains in the decarbonization remains controversial. The Green New Deal does not mention nuclear energy. Because the West European environmental movement has historically opposed nuclear power (Koopmans and Duyvendak, 1995), the anti-nuclear discourse continues to shape the thinking of many environmental groups and green parties (Jahn and Korolczuk, 2012).

Nuclear energy supporters emphasize its excellent safety record, zero carbon emissions, and virtually no effects on local air quality, especially when contrasted with coal (Ansolabehere, 2003; Ahearne, 2011). The fear of radiation leaks from reactors and nuclear waste disposal facilities often drives citizen opposition to nuclear. This opposition often manifests as a “not-in-my-backyard” or NIMBY problem (Kim et al., 2013; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Kemp, 1990; Wolsink, 2000; Devine-Wright, 2011; He et al., 2013). Following Carley et al. (2020), we view NIMBY in terms of the “Local opposition can be an obstacle for the developers of energy infrastructure projects and the government agencies that permit them … (these) objections may arise from any number of concerns, including environmental impacts, visual appearance, and noise, diminished property values, disruption of place attachment, procedural factors, or broader political preferences. The weight of these concerns may differ depending on the energy type in question. For example, opposition to wind energy may be based more on visual appearance concerns, whereas fossil fuel extraction and use may pertain more to worries about environmental and health impacts.”

We recognize that scholars have critiqued the NIMBY concept in its applicability and heterogeneity in its measurement (Wolsik, 2006; Carley et al., 2020). Typically, NIMBY suggests that individuals support a project as long as it is not in their backyard. Viewed this way, NIMBY reflects a collective action problem, a social dilemma, where actors are willing to enjoy the benefits of a project (which sometimes has public goods characteristics), without bearing its costs (the assumption being that proximity to the project imposes private costs). In effect, NIMBY is a free-rider problem. Based on his analysis of opposition to wind energy projects in the Netherlands, Wolsik (2006) finds that the role of NIMBY is exaggerated. Instead, institutional constraints play a more important role in generating local opposition. This point is echoed by McAvoy (1998) in his study of siting hazardous facilities in Minnesota. Hunter and Lydens(1995) also find that the lack of trust in government, as opposed to NIMBY factors such as decline in property values or concerns about aesthetic despoilment, drive local opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facility in West Virginia. Devine-Right (2009) suggests that local opposition is rooted in emotional attachment individuals have with the area, not a free-rider problem. Thus, NIMBY concept should be employed with caution because not all local opposition to project location reflects free-rider dynamics. Nonetheless, in the context of our paper, we view that the local population faces a real risk from the restarting of a nuclear facility, especially in the light of the Fukushima accident. This, we sugget can trigger a strong NIMBY sentiment among them.

Scholars measure the NIMBY effect in a variety of ways. Hankison's (2018) study on affordable housing employs a distance-based measure of NIMBY. He finds that property value consideration might suggest that homeowners, and not renters, would oppose affordable housing in their neighborhood. However, in high rent cities, even renters (who tend to be affluent) oppose such housing (a private cost) even though they support city-level efforts to increase the housing supply (a local public good with a free rider problem). We adopt a distance-based measure of NIMBY as well (Lober and Green, 1994; Mitchell and Carson, 1986) while recognizing that other studies do not find the distance from the facility to be a significant driver of opposition to the project. For example, Hunter and Lynden (1995) suggest that perceived health risk might not show spatial variation as opposed to aesthetics despoilment. A distance-based measure allows us to examine the support for restarting nuclear plants in a realistic (not hypothetical) setting: people living closer to the nuclear site are likely to have different attitudes towards nuclear energy than those living far away (Carley et al., 2020, 15–20). Because nuclear energy is critical for Japan's energy independence and national security (a public good), our approach is consistent with the NIMBY idea that individuals support a project as long as it is not in their backyard (Wolsik, 2006).

Moreover, scholars have noted that NIBMY politics operates in Japan as well (Aldrich, 2010; Lesbirlet, 1998; Okuda and Thomson, 2007). We expect that this politics should generate public opposition to nuclear power plants, especially after a major nuclear accident in 2011. After all, the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster halted in the construction of new nuclear plants in the United States (Gertner, 2006; Hultman and Koomey, 2013).

Yet, some residents might consider the local benefits of nuclear energy as well (Wu, 2017; Ertör-Akyaz et al., 2012; Tsujikawa et al., 2016; Spence et al., 2010; Corner et al., 2011; Pidgeon et al., 2008). For example, unlike coal powered plants, nuclear reactors do not cause local air pollution. Further, there is an economic dimension: if a nuclear power plant attracts government subsidies and generates employment, local people, especially in the lower-income bracket, might be willing to support it.

This could be viewed as a case of "reverse NIMBY" where there is local support for locating “undesirable” industries in one's backyard (Warren et al., 2005; Greenberg, 2009; Jenkins-Smith et al., 2011; Gravelle and Lachapelle, 2015; Clarke et al., 2016). Take the case of prisons, which should face NIMBY type opposition. After all, prisoners could escape and inflict harm on the local community. Yet, there is considerable public support for locating prisons in rural and impoverished parts of the American South (Thorpe, 2015). The reason is that prisons generate local jobs, an important issue in poor counties where steady employment opportunities are few. At the international level, economic considerations motivate low-income countries to accept “dirty industries” such as ship-breaking (Rousmaniere and Raj, 2007).

We contribute to the NIMBY-nuclear debate by examining whether the 2011 Fukushima accident triggered a NIMBY reaction in Japan (the NIMBY effect), whereby Japanese that live near nuclear power plants oppose government policy to restart nuclear reactors. Because historical memories might shape current perceptions, we also test another operationalization of NIMBY: the proximity of respondents to Fukushima at the time of the 2011 accident (the Fukushima Effect).

In addition to the NIMBY issue, Japan is an intriguing case to test support for nuclear energy. As shown in Fig. 1, historically, Japan has embraced nuclear energy, which, at its peak, contributed 37% of its total energy generation.1

In part, public acceptance of nuclear energy was due to its excellent safety record (Hong et al., 2013). After the Fukushima accident, however, Japan halted all nuclear reactors to reassess the safety issues and began using imported coal to generate power. The increased use of coal conflicted with Japan's proclaimed goal in climate leadership. Furthermore, coal power caused local air pollution and increased electricity cost.

Since 2019, despite isolated cases of local opposition, Japan has gradually restarted some reactors after their safety features had been evaluated and even enhanced. Alongside, the government plans to construct as many as 22 new coal-fired power plants in five years. The preferences of Japanese citizens for nuclear over coal remain unclear.

To assess support for restarting nuclear reactors in the context of the NIMBY debate and the Fukushima accident, we conducted a survey-embedded experiment in Japan (N = 2574). We randomly assigned respondents to four groups (one control and three treatment): (1) the control group: no information on the nature of nuclear's benefits; (2) the climate frame: nuclear is beneficial for climate change in relation to coal (3) the health frame: nuclear does not cause local air pollution associated with coal-burning; and (4) electricity price: nuclear energy is cheaper than coal.

Within each treatment frame, we sought to explore how public support for restarting nuclear power plants is affected by the respondents’ distance from the closest nuclear power plants (the NIMBY effect) and the distance of their 2011 place of residence from Fukushima (the Fukushima Effect). Finally, we examined whether the “NIMBY effect” and “the Fukushima effect” were conditioned by income levels.

We find support for the “reverse NIMBY effect” among respondents with lower income and living near nuclear reactors are treated with information on the health benefits of nuclear in relation to coal (the health frame). This suggests that for low-income people living close to nuclear power plants, the health benefits outweigh the costs associated with a possible radiation leak or nuclear accident. This finding is consistent with the literature that suggests that emphasizing local co-benefits, particularly health benefits (as opposed to macro benefits of climate protection or cheaper electricity) can increase support for policies that solve global commons problems (Dolšak, 2009; Bain et al., 2016 but see Bernauer and McGrath, 2016).

We did not find support for the “Fukushima effect,” which suggests that respondent's proximity to Fukushima in 2011 did not shape their support for restarting nuclear power plants in 2019, irrespective of the different types of benefits of nuclear energy they were told about. This was a surprising finding because we expected individuals living in Fukushima's vicinity in 2011 probably suffered a greater level of dislocation and would be less supportive of restarting nuclear reactors.

Finally, we find that climate benefits do not drive support for restarting nuclear reactors. As an island nation, Japan is acutely sensitive to climate change issues. Yet, our results suggest that while some sections of Japanese people support nuclear energy for its local health benefits, they are not motivated to support it due to its global climate benefits.

Section snippets

Public support for nuclear energy: a review

Scholars have examined the drivers of public support for nuclear energy across countries, including China, the UK, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, and Germany. These studies examine how perceptions of risk and benefits of nuclear energy influence public support (Tanaka, 2004; Bickerstaff et al., 2008; Visschers et al., 2011; Bronfman et al., 2012; DeGroot et al., 2013; Visschers and Siegrist, 2013). Scholars note that risk perceptions reflect anxiety about radiation leaks as well as the possibility

Experimental design

After undertaking appropriate Human Subjects approval from University of Washington co, we engaged survey firm Dynata to conduct an online survey of 2574 randomly selected participants. The survey was conducted 2019 and in the Japanese language; since one author on this team is a native speaker, we are confident that the survey was worded correctly and was culturally appropriate. We pre-tested the survey (n = 200) to check on issues such as comprehension of the questions. Because we did not

Methods

To estimate the average treatment effects of Climate, Health, and Electricity variableson the support for restarting nuclear reactors (our dependent variable), we employed an Ordered Probit estimator (we also provide OLS results in the Appendix). Our goal is to estimate how the effect of these treatment variables on support for restarting nuclear reactors is conditioned by (1) the interaction of respondent's distance to the closest nuclear power plant and income level and (2) the interaction of

Empirical results

At first glance, the difference in support for nuclear energy the frames is marginal. However, the aim of this paper is not to test the support for nuclear energy (with different types of benefits) per se but about support for nuclear energy conditional on the Fukushima effect, the NIMBY effect, (and income).

As shown in Fig. 3, the public support changes in an unexpected way when we interact NIMBY with Treatment 2 (Health). That is, we find a “reverse NIMBY” effect: respondents who live near

Conclusion and policy implications

In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, many countries suspended the operations of nuclear plants. Germany even announced that it would permanently close nuclear reactors. In Japan, the government temporarily shut down nuclear reactors to reassess their safety and recently has begun to restart them. But is the policy popular, especially when the short-term alternative is to rely on coal? Specifically, how does the NIMBY effect and the Fukushima effect might shape citizen support for

Ethics statement

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Washington approved the survey experiment described in this article. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Azusa Uji: Authors have made equal contributions to the paper. Aseem Prakash: Authors have made equal contributions to the paper. Jaehyun Song: Authors have made equal contributions to the paper.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (68)

  • D.J. Lober et al.

    NIMBY or NIABY: a logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (1994)
  • N.F. Pidgeon et al.

    Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain

    Global Environ. Change

    (2008)
  • W. Poortinga et al.

    Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: a comparison between Britain and Japan

    Energy Pol.

    (2013)
  • M. Siegrist et al.

    Acceptance of nuclear power: the Fukushima effect

    Energy Pol.

    (2013)
  • M. Siegrist et al.

    Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?

    Energy Pol.

    (2014)
  • D. Venables et al.

    Living with nuclear power: sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (2012)
  • V.H. Visschers et al.

    Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model

    Energy Pol.

    (2011)
  • J. Vujić et al.

    Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power: the US case

    Energy

    (2012)
  • M. Wolsink

    Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support

    Renew. Energy

    (2000)
  • Y. Wu

    Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China

    Energy Pol.

    (2017)
  • D.P. Aldrich

    Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West

    (2010)
  • S. Ansolabehere

    The Future of Nuclear Power

    (2003)
  • D. Arlt et al.

    Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power

    Publ. Understand. Sci.

    (2016)
  • P.G. Bain et al.

    Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world

    Nat. Clim. Change

    (2016)
  • T. Bernauer et al.

    Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy

    Nat. Clim. Change

    (2016)
  • K. Bickerstaff et al.

    Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste

    Publ. Understand. Sci.

    (2008)
  • D.J. Brooks et al.

    A war of one's own: understanding the gender gap in support for war

    Publ. Opin. Q.

    (2011)
  • S. Carley et al.

    Energy infrastructure, NIMBYism, and public opinion: a systematic literature review of three decades of empirical survey literature

    Environ. Res. Lett.

    (2020)
  • J.D. Coval et al.

    Home bias at home: local equity preference in domestic portfolios

    J. Finance

    (1999)
  • M.R. Culley et al.

    Media framing of proposed nuclear reactors: an analysis of print media

    J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.

    (2010)
  • J.I. De Groot et al.

    Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy

    Risk Anal.

    (2013)
  • P. Devine-Wright

    Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action

    J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.

    (2009)
  • P. Devine-Wright

    Public engagement with large scale renewable energy technologies: breaking the cycle of NIMBYism

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

    (2011)
  • N. Dolšak

    Climate change policy implementation: a cross‐sectional analysis

    Rev. Pol. Res.

    (2009)
  • Cited by (36)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text