A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • * A 2022 survey of 3,000 participants showed acceptance rates of 22.6% (top-down), 37.6% (opinion-aggregative), and 56.9% (opinion-reflective), indicating that more participatory approaches led to higher acceptance.
  • * Key factors influencing acceptance included interest in final disposal, perceived social benefits, and negative associations with age and intergenerational expectations, underscoring the importance of procedural fairness in such decisions.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncae017DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

final disposal
24
opinion-reflective approaches
16
opinion-aggregative opinion-reflective
12
acceptance final
8
disposal soils
8
soils removed
8
fukushima nuclear
8
nuclear accident
8
top-down opinion-aggregative
8
final
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!