콘텐츠 바로가기
로그인
컨텐츠

Category Open

Resources

tutorial

Collection of research papers and materials on development issues

home

Resources
Territorial Development Environment

Print

NIMBY, deliveration, and democratic decision making : Comparative analysis of radioactive waste repository siting cases in Korea and Japan.

Related Document
Frame of Image
  • NIMBY, deliveration, and democratic decision making
  • Komatsuzaki, Shunsaku; Yamaguchi, Akio; Horll, Hideyuki
  • The Korean Association for Policy Studies


link
Title NIMBY, deliveration, and democratic decision making
Similar Titles
Sub Title

Comparative analysis of radioactive waste repository siting cases in Korea and Japan.

Material Type Articles
Author(English)

Komatsuzaki, Shunsaku; Yamaguchi, Akio; Horll, Hideyuki

Publisher

[Seoul, South Korea]:The Korean Association for Policy Studies

Date 2010
Journal Title; Vol./Issue International Journal of Policy Studies:vol. 1(no. 1)
Pages 24
Subject Country Japan(Asia and Pacific)
South Korea(Asia and Pacific)
Language English
File Type Link
Subject Territorial Development < Environment
Holding The Korean Association for Policy Studies

Abstract

Toyo-cho is the only municipality which applied for the Literature Survey of high-level radioactive waste repository in Japan. In Toyo-cho, a serious antagonism among citizens occurred and three decisive factors are found: 1) the emotional opposition provoked by opposing activists’ rhetorical expressions, 2) the opposition stakeholders’ initiative in democratic decision making, and 3) the adverse influence of grant on the citizens’ emotion. In Korea, despite the past serious oppositions, Gyeongju accepted a low and intermediate level radioactive waste repository. The three important differences from the case in Japan are found: 1) political leaders and experts played an important role in reforming the siting policy; 2) the siting policy involves referendum which enabled “neutral” democratic decision making; and 3) local people considered the grant as a factor of decision making. A lack of deliberation in the cases of both nations, however, results in dissatisfaction with process and even consequence of decision.

User Note

This paper was presented at the 2010 International Conference hosted by the Korean Association for Policy Studies (KAPS).