Toward Environmental Sociology of Risk Perception, Risk Literacy, and Risk Democracy in the Aftermath of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in 2011

Research on Environmental risk perception has been accumulated focusing, for example, on “irrationally” or “emotionally” biased perception of lay citizens. These researches have been mostly based on the assumption that environmental and other risks can be calculated by the formula: Risk = Hazard x Probability (or Degree of Exposure).

Recently, however, risks from environmental hormone disruptors, genetically engineered organisms, and radioactive contaminants are those that the formula is not directly applicable to estimate the gravity of impact. The level of hazard or exact probability cannot be decided by the present level of scientific analyses. In addition, we experienced the catastrophic and irrecoverable impact from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Thus, the new criteria to evaluate risks, other than risk/cost/benefit analyses, such as environmental justice, risk information disclosure, and participatory decision-making have become more significant.

After the Fukushima disaster, the public have become more skeptical about the scientists/experts-centered risk assessment and more citizens have demanded for “risk democracy” in which wider range of stake holders can participate in environmental decision-making based on the equal “risk literacy”.

However, the degree to which respondents claim “risk democracy” or pay the cost for “risk literacy” varies according to their socio-economic status. Those in the upper-middle strata, in general, have more resources to access newer information on risks with scientific uncertainty and risks with catastrophic results such as GMOs and radioactive residues. Those in the lower strata, on the other hand, tend to be concerned about well-known risks such as air pollution and waste incineration. However, they are even more seriously concerned about “environmental justice” issues because they are more vulnerable to disproportionate risk burdens in general.

Thus, the effect of socio-economic variables is ambivalent. However, there is consistent interrelationship among “zero” nuclear option, serious risk perception, environmentalist consciousness, “environmental democracy”, participatory and transparent decision-making orientation.