Return Migration and Decontamination After the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster

Abstract

Return migration is key to community recovery from many disasters. Japanese governments have conducted radiation decontamination efforts in the Exclusion Zone designated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in order to encourage this outcome. Little is known, however, about the factors that influence post-disaster migrants to return, and, if people are relatively unresponsive to decontamination, then the costs of promoting recovery may exceed the benefits. We exploit a unique survey of Fukushima evacuees to determine the factors that influence their decision to return after a disaster. Location-specific capital characteristics, such as housing tenure and the extent of property damage, are estimated to be strong factors. The radiation dose rate of the home location is found to be a statistically significant factor for intent to return, but its effect is small. We also found that households with various other characteristics were noncommittal about the return option and likely to defer their decisions, which implies that "return" and "not-return" are asymmetric. Our simulation analysis found that the number of returnees encouraged by this decontamination was 12,882, less than 8% of the total evacuees, while the decontamination cost per returnee was 3.36 million USD. This result implies that the government could have improved the well-being of evacuees at a lower cost by policies other than decontamination.

Decision support architectures for the recovery of interdependent infrastructure with large‐scale damage and socially vulnerable populations

“…This is a specific hypothetical case; in other systems where return migration is less desirable to residents, such as the irradiated case described in Nagamatsu et al. (2020), other goals will emerge.…”

Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario

“…Extant research demonstrates that certain demographic factors affect the decisions to move or stay after nuclear accidents that lead to radioactive contamination. Those who, to a greater extent than others, tend to leave areas affected by radioactive material and do not return are women, parents with at-home children, and people with higher socioeconomic status [ 18 , 19 , 36 , 37 ]. Women and parents expressed greater concern about the negative health effects of ionizing radiation, which justified risk-avoidant behavior, such as settling somewhere not affected by a radioactive release [ 14 , 15 , 36 , 38 ].…”

“…With the Fukushima Daiichi accident, for example, even when all of the financial support for the evacuees had ceased and economic conditions were such that they compelled citizens to return to their homes, 47% of the affected population did not return [ 17 ]. Being female, young, having children [ 18 , 19 ], and having a higher socioeconomic status [ 20 ] correlated with moving permanently from areas near the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Simultaneously, the authorities’ high ambitions for reconstruction were not fully realized.…”

“…With many citizens not returning, the cost of decontamination per returning citizen rises steeply, which was shown after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The decontamination cost per returnee has been estimated at 3.36 million USD [ 18 ]. In addition, demographic decline and imbalance negatively affect a region’s economy [ 21 ], which fuels further regression.…”

Behavioral Economic Consequences of Disasters: A Basis for Inclusion in Benefit–Cost Analysis

“…Note also that behavioral factors affect recovery from a disaster in terms of its time-path and duration, and thus can have a significant effect on BI as well. For example, behavioral factors affect the willingness of people to return to the location of a disaster rather than to resettle elsewhere, as in the example of the hesitancy of people to return to Fukushima (Nagamatsu et al 2020 ). Behavioral factors also affect the pace and form of investment in recovery, e.g., funds for repair and reconstruction may be diverted somewhat to mitigating the future hazard if there is strong fear of its reoccurrence.…”