Research ArticleDoes the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?
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)
Prospects for nuclear energy
Energy Econ.
(2011)- et al.
Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources
Energy Pol.
(2012) - et al.
How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development
Energy Pol.
(2016) - et al.
Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes
Energy Pol.
(2011) - et al.
Citizens' preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: evidence from Turkey
Energy Pol.
(2012) - et al.
Politics, proximity and the pipeline: mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL
Energy Pol.
(2015) - et al.
When it is unfamiliar to me: local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era
Energy Pol.
(2017) - et al.
Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2013) - et al.
Evaluating options for the future energy mix of Japan after the Fukushima nuclear crisis
Energy Pol.
(2013) - et al.
Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy
Energy Pol.
(2013)
NIMBY or NIABY: a logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting
J. Environ. Manag.
Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain
Global Environ. Change
Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: a comparison between Britain and Japan
Energy Pol.
Acceptance of nuclear power: the Fukushima effect
Energy Pol.
Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?
Energy Pol.
Living with nuclear power: sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities
J. Environ. Psychol.
Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model
Energy Pol.
Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power: the US case
Energy
Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support
Renew. Energy
Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China
Energy Pol.
Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West
The Future of Nuclear Power
Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power
Publ. Understand. Sci.
Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world
Nat. Clim. Change
Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy
Nat. Clim. Change
Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste
Publ. Understand. Sci.
A war of one's own: understanding the gender gap in support for war
Publ. Opin. Q.
Energy infrastructure, NIMBYism, and public opinion: a systematic literature review of three decades of empirical survey literature
Environ. Res. Lett.
Home bias at home: local equity preference in domestic portfolios
J. Finance
Media framing of proposed nuclear reactors: an analysis of print media
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.
Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy
Risk Anal.
Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.
Public engagement with large scale renewable energy technologies: breaking the cycle of NIMBYism
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Climate change policy implementation: a cross‐sectional analysis
Rev. Pol. Res.
Cited by (36)
Negligible radiological impact of Indian nuclear power plants on the environment and the public: Findings from a 20-year study
2024, Science of the Total EnvironmentAcceptance in progress: Navigating the transition of nuclear power perception from a long-term study in China
2024, Energy Research and Social ScienceHow to move from conflict to opportunity in the not-in-my-backyard dilemma: A case study of the Asuwei waste incineration plant in Beijing
2024, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewExploring public risk perception and its impact on the acceptance of basic oxygen furnace slags used in artificial reefs
2023, Ocean and Coastal ManagementOrder from chaos: Deconstructing the interactions of multiple online stakeholders in NIMBY conflicts
2023, Environmental Science and Policy