243

Community Governance in Decontamination Policy
after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Two Case Studies fromthe Naka-dori Region, Fukushima, Japan
Takashi TSUJI*, Shogo NAKAMURA and Makoto OOBA
Regional Environmental Renovation Section, Fukushima Branch, National Institute for Environmental Studies
10-2 Fukasaku, Miharu Town, Tamura-gun, Fukushima, 963-7700, Japan*E-mail: tsuji.takashi@nies.go.jp

Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore the influence of community governance on the determination andimplementation of decontamination policies in local communities, focusing on Miharu Town and Koriyama
City in the Naka-dori region of Fukushima Prefecture. This study is based on fieldwork undertaken in Miharu
Town and Koriyama City. Data were gathered from local documents and interviews. Interviews wereconducted with the municipal administrations and neighbourhood associations in charge of post-accident
decontamination policies. The results showed that the procedures and contents of the resulting
decontamination policies were formulated on the basis of organizational cooperation among municipal
administrations and neighbourhood associations in both municipalities. Immediately after the accident,neighbourhood associations participated in the process of determining the decontamination policies of these
two municipalities. Networks comprising several neighbourhood associations tackled decontamination in
educational facilities and along school routes. In some districts, neighbourhood associations participated indecisions on location and management of temporary storage yards for waste generated by decontamination
work. In addition to these institutional factors, land-use-related factors in the spaces used in daily life
influenced the procedures and contents of the decontamination policies. These defined the differences
between methods of establishing temporary storage yards in Miharu Town and Koriyama City. Our findings
suggest that the relationship between community governance and land use deserves more attention in thiscase, as in the case of other environment problems.
Key words :	community governance, decontamination policy, Fukushima nuclear accident, Naka-dori region

1. Introduction
Decontamination is one of the main methods foreliminating radioactive contaminants and reducing
radiation exposure in areas used in daily life. Afterradioactive materials escaped and spread as a result of the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident inMarch 2011, the Japanese government legislated a legal
framework for decontamination, and the Act on Special
Measures concerning the Handling of Radioactive
Pollution came into operation from January 2012. Basedon ICRP standards, the act set guidelines fordecontamination aiming to reduce exposure doses. In theact, two types of decontamination areas were designated:
Special Decontamination Areas and Intensive
Contamination Survey Areas.
Table 1 presents an overview of the decontamination
areas. Special decontamination areas were established in
the evacuation zones, which had high level radiation
Global Environmental Research
24/2020: 243-251
printed in Japandoses. The Japanese government has overseen
decontamination policies in these areas directly.
Meanwhile, Intensive Contamination Survey Areas(ICSA) were established outside the evacuation zones,
where the radiation doses were relatively low level.
As shown in Fig.1, 102 municipalities in eight
prefectures were designated as ICSA on December 28,
2011. In ICSA, decontamination was left up to thestakeholders in the local communities. The Japanese
government argued that decontamination by the these
local communities themselves would most effective
because the administrative functions were present, theresidents were living there, and it was easy for them tounderstand the circumstances and the residents’ needs(Basic Policy for Emergency Response on
Decontamination Work, published by Japanese Nuclear
Emergency Response Headquarters on August 26, 2011).
The municipalities designated as ICSA, however,
had few experts in radiation and radioactive materials and©2020 AIRES

244

T. TSUJI et al.

Table 1 Overview of decontamination areas.
Areas

Degree ofGoal for reducing Decontamination
contamination radiation exposure program operator

SpecialHigh level
decontamination area

20 mSv/year or less

The Japanese
government

Intensive
contamination survey Low level
area

Below 1 mSv/year

Municipalities

Fig. 1 Intensive contamination survey areas.
ource: Results in the Intensive Contamination Survey Area,
S
Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan (http://josen.
env.go.jp/en/decontamination/)few people with experience in decontamination, which is
the method of removing radioactive materials. Therefore,
decontamination was promoted while learning about
radioactivity and radioactive materials through trial anderror based on collaboration and cooperation among
stakeholders such as municipal administrations,neighbourhood associations, citizens’ groups and experts.
These stakeholders determined the procedures andcontents of the decontamination policies.
Against this background, the content of and progressin decontamination projects differed between
municipalities. Kawasaki (2016) noted that there weredifferences in the formulation and implementation
statuses of decontamination implementation plans among
municipalities designated as ICSA. According to datafrom his questionnaire survey on municipalities
designated as ICSA, of 40 that carried out
decontamination, 12 had completed decontamination(30%) and 28 were in the course of decontamination(70%) as of the end of September 2015 (Kawasaki,2016). Sato and Abe (2013) noted that policies onbuilding temporary storage yards for radioactively

contaminated soil differed from one municipality toanother. In some municipalities such as Fukushima City,no temporary storage yards were set up to begin with.
Decontamination waste was stored at the decontaminationsites. In other municipalities such as Kawauchi Village,
temporary storage yards were set up and radioactively
contaminated soil was amassed in several places (Sato &Abe, 2013).
Decontamination is a sensitive issue not only forresidents, but also municipal officials. Hence, it isdifficult for the stakeholders to build consensuses andwork together when dealing with decontamination
programs (Edgington, 2017; Isono, 2015). In ICSA,
because there may be discrepancies in awareness among
stakeholders inside and outside the local communities
regarding the implementation of decontamination
procedures and the provision of temporary storage sites,
measures may not proceed smoothly. In thedecontamination policy-setting process, miscommunications
and conflicts among stakeholders have been common in
local communities since the Fukushima nuclear accident.
In some local communities, however, decontamination
has been implemented smoothly, and consensuses among
stakeholders have ensured they are conflict-free. Basedon the above, it is conceivable that collaboration among
various stakeholders involved in decontamination
programs may determine their content and quality in thelocal community.
In other words, it is important to focus oncommunity governance to get a clear view of theinstitutionalization of decontamination policies in local
communities. The aim of this study is thus to explore theinfluence of community governance on decontamination
policy determination in local communities, focusing on
Miharu Town and Koriyama City in the Naka-dori regionof Fukushima Prefecture.

2. B rief Review of Community Governance
Literature and Decontamination Case Studies
In this study, we focused on the local community asa place of political decision making where governance isbuilt during disaster recovery. Peters and Pierre (2016)
defined governance as a process, where each group ofdifferent types of stakeholders congregates towards somecollective goal. Above all, local governments play animportant role in setting collective goals. Banner (2002)
claimed that in recent years, local governments had beenshifting their role from administrative to politicalleadership in civil society. In this study, community
governance was regarded as a political process by which
various stakeholders—including local governments as apolitical leader—converged toward the collective goal of
decontaminating the local community.
When decontamination is regarded as a politicalprocess, it is necessary to pay attention to how risk

Community governance in decontamination policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident
assessment and management are performed. This is basedon risk communication with dialogue and deliberation byvarious stakeholders, which is necessitated by insufficientand uncertain information on radioactivity and radiation(Renn & Klinke, 2015: 24–26). Decontamination is
intimately connected with risk communication in thelocal community.
Some research and theories suggest that there are
pitfalls to risk communication in a ‘top down’ mode. A‘top down’ mode of risk communication may miss what
the public and stakeholders feel they need to know about
environmental radioactivity (Mabon & Kawabe, 2018).
In the decontamination policy process, a ‘bottom up’mode of risk communication is required. Regarding how
to formulate a ‘bottom up’ mode of risk communicationin the decontamination policy process, Kinoshita notesthat risk communication is not limited to issues of
information transmission from administrative authorities
to the public and stakeholders. He suggests that it isessential to focus on collaboration and coordination
among the various organizations involved in the risk
(Kinoshita, 2008).
Previous studies have focus on organizational
communication by various stakeholders in local
decontamination policy processes. Some studies havefocused on communication with municipal
administrations and community organizations. Thesestudies have affirmed that municipal administrations andcommunity organizations should communicate startingfrom the occurrence of the accident until formulation of
the decontamination implementation plan is complete,ensuring that the decontamination policy proceedssmoothly. For example, Isono notes that municipal
administrations that lacked communication withneighbourhood associations at the decontamination
implementation planning stage met opposition from theneighbourhood associations and residents when setting
up temporary storage yards and were unable to proceedwith decontamination as planned (Isono, 2015).
Some studies emphasize the role of experts inmediating communication between municipal
administrations and various community organizations in
the local decontamination policy process. In Kashiwa
City, Chiba Prefecture, an ICSA, a round table meeting
was organized in collaboration with the municipal
administration, agricultural groups and consumers
associations with the support of sociologists prior to
implementing decontamination. They examined radiationdose measurement methods for agricultural land and set
voluntary standard values for the radioactivity ofagricultural products (Igarashi & Anshin Anzen no
Kashiwa San Kashiwa Shou Round Table, 2012). In thedecontamination implementation phase, Kashiwa City
administrative officials called on neighbourhood
associations, to cooperate in decontamination and set up
a “decontamination advisor” to assist these associations

245

in implementing decontamination from an expert’s
standpoint (Fukuda & Akita, 2014; Nakano & Deguchi,
2014; Iimoto et al., 2018). Kashiwa City is known as a
successful case in which decontamination was able toproceed smoothly through collaboration among themunicipal administration, community organizations andexperts.
These studies suggest that the ability of municipal
administrations to coordinate and the support of experts
are required to facilitate decontamination policy.
However, little attention has been given to structural
conditions surrounding the community organizations andthe ability of community organizations to coordinate inprevious studies. To get a clear view of theinstitutionalization of decontamination policy, it isimportant to consider the role of community
organizations for building consensus among stakeholders
from the occurrence of the accident until theimplementation of the decontamination policy.

3. Methodology and Case Study Areas
Miharu Town and Koriyama City are located in thecentral Naka-dori region of Fukushima Prefecture, about
45–60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station (Fig. 2).
Miharu Town has a population of around 18,200,
with a satoyama landscape and historic townscape of anold castle town. Koriyama City has the second largest
population of any municipality in Fukushima Prefecture,with around 335,000 persons (Table 2). This city is thefinancial capital of Fukushima Prefecture. Urban
functions and industries are concentrated and citizen
groups and research institutes are gathered here.
Radioactive fallout contaminated the area as a result

Fig. 2 The locations of Miharu Town and Koriyama City.

246

T. TSUJI et al.

Table 2 Overview of Miharu Town and Koriyama City.
Miharu Town

Koriyama City

Population(National Census in 2010)

18,191

335,444

Employment in each sector(National Census in 2010)

Primary sector: 8.3% Primary sector: 3.6%
Secondary sector: 33.0% Secondary sector: 23.8%
Tertiary sector: 58.1% Tertiary sector: 68.9%

Spatial radiation dose rate
0.51 μSv/h(Published by Fukushima(Miharu Town Hall)
Pref. in 2011.4.1)

2.14 μSv/h(Koriyama City Hall)

Decontamination of houses(Published by Fukushima 5,159
Pref. in March 2018)

98,485

Temporary storage yard
construction policy

Construct in each district Based on on-site storage(in 7 districts)(in each household)of the accident. Miharu Town and Koriyama City are
specified municipalities among the ICSA, anddecontamination has been carried out according to adecontamination implementation plan formulated at theend of 2011. There was a slight difference in the extent ofradioactive contamination between Miharu Town andKoriyama City. In Miharu Town, the environmental
radiation dose rate varied by district. In some districts, it
exceeded 0.23 μSv/h, which was set by the national
government as the post-decontamination numerical target
for FY2016. In Koriyama City, the environmental
radiation dose rate was relatively higher than that in
Miharu Town. Especially in the central area of the city,radiation contamination of over 2.0 μSv/h was recorded.
In accordance with the scale of these municipalities, thenumber of cases of decontamination also differed
between the two. Koriyama City had the largest numberof housing decontamination cases listed in thedecontamination implementation plan in Fukushima
Prefecture.
There was also a difference between the procedures
and contents of the decontamination policies. In Miharu
Town, a temporary storage yard was set up in each ofseven districts in the town. In Koriyama City, on the other
hand, basically no temporary storage yards were set up,
but decontamination waste was stored at thedecontamination sites, meaning at each household.
By using qualitative research methods, weinvestigated the policy processes involved in
implementing decontamination policy in Miharu Town
and Koriyama City, focusing on policy networks formed
after the accident. Based on fieldwork conducted in 2017and 2018, the following survey methods were used in thecurrent study.
The first was a document analysis. In this study, we
analysed regional data before and after the nuclear
accident. The local documents analysed included
newspaper articles (from Fukushima Minpo andFukushima Minyu), administrative council minutes, local
governmental public relations magazines and various

materials concerning local organizations. Materials
available about community organizations from before thenuclear accident were collected without setting a target
period. Meanwhile, materials issued in the six-year period
from March 11, 2011 to March 31, 2017 were collected
as materials from after the nuclear accident.
The second survey method was by interview survey.
In this study, interviews were held with administrative
department officials in charge of decontamination policies
in Miharu Town and Koriyama City, and leaders ofcommunity organizations such as town planningassociations, neighbourhood associations and agriculturalgroups.

4. Decontamination Policy Process in Miharu
Town
From this chapter, the time between the accident andthe ICSA designation of Miharu Town and Koriyama
City is classified as the “emergency phase” and the time
thereafter as the “reconstruction phase” and an overview
is provided on how community governance functioned in
the stream of decontamination policy processes in the twomunicipalities.
4.1 Emergency Phase in Miharu Town
In Miharu Town, the “First Representative Ward
Mayors Meeting” was held on March 12, 2011, the day
after the accident. This meeting doubled as anautonomous disaster prevention association meeting, andinformation on the damage status and number of evacuees
in the town’s seven districts was exchanged. It was
decided that a “district disaster response headquarters”
would be set up in each of the seven districts of the town,
and the community development associations(machizukuri kyokai) in each district would manage them.
In addition, the representative mayors of eachneighbourhood association (gyousei-ku) became membersof the town disaster response headquarters, and a systemfor collaboration between the town hall and each district
was established.
Miharu Town’s administration collected informationon the situation, namely the release of radioactive
materials into the atmosphere due to damage to the
nuclear reactor, and on March 15, unilaterally decided to
distribute a stable iodine agent that was effective in
reducing thyroid exposure to residents aged below 39(7,269 people), without instruction from the government
or prefecture (Miyazaki, 2013). Although the decision on
the stable iodine agent was made by the upper level of thetown administration, two district disaster response
headquarters meetings were held before its distribution,and the district disaster response headquarters played aleading role in sharing information prior to the
distribution and its related administrative procedures.
This suggests that the community development

Community governance in decontamination policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident
associations, which were responsible for operating the
district disaster response headquarters, were at the core ofcommunity governance in Miharu Town immediately
after the nuclear accident before the decontamination
policy was launched.
Thereafter, the protection of children from radiation
became an urgent issue in Miharu Town, as in other areasof the prefecture. The town administration conducted aradiation dose investigation of the schoolyards andplaygrounds of the elementary and junior high schools
and kindergartens of the town on May 14, 2011, and it
was decided that the topsoil would be removed at 16
facilities in the June 23, 2010 fiscal supplementarybudget.
In addition, to reduce the radiation dose fromradioactive materials in spaces used in daily life such as
school roads and parks, where children spend a lot oftime, Fukushima Prefecture decided to implement a“Dose Reduction Activity Support Project (DRASP).” In
Miharu Town, this project was utilized by residents
voluntarily to decontaminate school roads in each district
from November 6 to December 8, 2011. The mainstakeholders in implementing this voluntarydecontamination were the community development
associations, neighbourhood associations and parentteacher associations (PTAs) in each district.
In the case of voluntary decontamination, thecommunity development associations played the role ofcoordinator for the administration and each regionalorganization. In Sawaishi district, a rural area in thenorthern part of the town, the community development
association conducted the “Sawaishi District
Environmental Protection Measures Meeting” on October18, 2011 to discuss the implementation system andcontents of the DRASP in the district.
However, during the emergency phase in Miharu
Town, emergent collaboration involving experts outside
the region was also seen. After research volunteers
specializing in radiation physics at the Tohoku University
Graduate School of Science lobbied experts in the town,
and it appeared in the mass media, the “Miharu Misho
project” was launched on June 20, 2011. A town subsidy
was used to cover the operating costs of the project, andthe town’s General Affairs Section (Planning Information
Group) served as the secretariat. In the project, a surveyof individual cumulative doses among elementary andjunior high school students (around 1,700 people) using abadge type dosimeter was conducted along with a soil
radiation dose survey at the educational facilities.
4.2 Reconstruction Phase in Miharu Town
On August 26, 2011, the Nuclear Emergency
Response Headquarters formulated Guidelines for
Decontamination by Municipalities. Subsequently, after
the enactment of the Act on Special Measures, theMinistry of the Environment formulated and announced

247

Decontamination Guidelines on December 14, 2011.
These guidelines provided policies on radiation dose
survey measurement methods and decontamination
methods for buildings, roads, soil, plants and trees. Since
then, whole-area decontamination became the focus of
measures against radioactive materials in the ICSA.
Based on these guidelines, Miharu Town’s administration
formulated a decontamination plan on December 1, 2011.
The town administration held discussions with theresident representative (union organization ofneighbourhood associations, Gyousei-kuchokai) and thetown council prior to formulating the decontamination
plan. When formulating the decontamination
implementation plan, however, they had no opportunity
to inform the residents of the plan and hear their requests.
Miharu Town established a policy of proceedingwith decontamination from the areas where the temporarystorage yards for decontamination waste such as soil
generated by decontamination were located. In thisinstance, the community development associations were
responsible for determining the location of the temporarystorage yards and carrying out routine management ineach district. Some community development associationsin the town established departments and committees
within the association for sharing information on surface
decontamination and determining and managing thelocation of temporary storage yards.
In Iwae district in the western part of the town, the“Iwae District Decontamination Promotion Council” wasestablished on June 27, 2012 within the association toshare information on the decontamination implementation
plan from the town’s Decontamination Measures Section
and hold discussions on the location of temporary storage
yards.
The officers included representatives of the town
council and landowners, in addition to the head of theneighbourhood associations. The technical conditions(required area, land lease fees, etc.) of the temporarystorage yards presented by the town administration werealigned with the residents’ interests (inclinations oflandowners and reactions by surrounding residents) (Fig. 3).
To realize consensus building for the construction of
temporary storage yards, it was important to focus on theFig. 3 Temporary storage yard for decontamination waste in Iwae
district, Miharu Town. (Photo by authors on March 21,
2018)

248

T. TSUJI et al.

role of community development association leaders. They
found suitable private land in their district and negotiatedwith the landowners for construction of temporarystorage yards. One of the study interviewees, a
representative of Iwae district’s community development
association, described the actual state of communication
among stakeholders such as neighbourhood associations
and landowners in the temporary storage yard
construction process as follows:
We decided where to put the waste fromdecontamination. In our Iwae district, there was nosuitable public land for temporary storage yards. So weheld a meeting of the community development
association, where presidents of the neighbourhood
associations exchanged information about private landwith each other.
In the end, we argued over details, negotiated withthe landowners and got approval.

policy process. They consistently cooperated with thetown government starting from just after the accident.

5. Decontamination Policy Process
in Koriyama City
5.1 Emergency Phase in Koriyama City
After the accident occurred, Koriyama City’s
administration launched topsoil removal fromschoolyards at 15 public elementary and junior highschool and playgrounds at 13 public nursery schools
before any other municipality from the end of April 2011
(Fukushima Minyu, April. 26, 2011). However, the cityadministration faced resident’s strong opposition in its
briefing session held on April. 27, 2011 for residents who
were candidates for hosting storage yards for removed
soil.
Koriyama City’s administration failed to build aconsensus for decontamination with residents from the
beginning of the decontamination policy process.
According to an evaluation of the city administration
officials, the radioactive substances contained in theremoved soil did not reach a level that would impair theenvironment or health. However, not only the residents
but also the city administration officials lacked sufficientknowledge and technical skills regarding radioactivity atthat time. It is assumed that uncertainty regarding
radioactivity then may have generated this consequence.
On the other hand, there was a swift response fromthe private sector regarding decontamination. From April
2011, community organizations such as neighbourhood
associations (Chounai-kai, Gyousei-ku) and PTAs
launched decontamination work and radiation dose
surveys in areas used in daily life such as school roads( Source: Interview of Iwae Community Development Association
representative, on December. 22, 2017.)

His narrative indicated that there were many chances
for discussion among the leaders of the community
development associations. They persistently negotiatedwith landowners to construct temporary storage yards.
This was possible because leaders of the community
development associations were familiar with theownership of private land in their districts.
Figure 4 illustrates the decontamination policy
process in Miharu Town. The vertical columns list thedecontamination policy items of each fiscal year on thehorizontal axis. It is necessary to focus on the emergenceof an organization in each district. This row shows thateven immediately after the accident, community
organizations were involved in the decontamination

Policies

Fiscal Year2011
(3 ‒ 9)Decontamination
Work

Removal of
topsoil inschoolyards andplaygrounds(2011.6.22–)

Fiscal Year2011
(10 ‒ 3)Fiscal Year
2012
Modeling of
decontaminationwork(2012.4–)

Local Gov.
andresidents
communication

Fiscal Year2014 ‒

Decontamination ofhouses and roads(2012.6 – 2016.12)

Decontamination of public facilities(2011 – 2016.9)

Construction of
temporary storage yards(2012.4 – 2015.3)

Temporarystorageyards
Emergenceof anorganizationin eachdistrictFiscal Year
2013

Disaster
controlheadquarters(2011.3.12–)

Voluntarydecontamination
activities

Decontamination Promotion Committee(2011.11.26 –12.18)

Study sessions on
the Great East Japan Earthquake(2011.5.5 – 2012.5.29 / 4 times)

Briefing session forresidents about
topsoil removal atschoolyards (2011.6.2 –)Consultation on
decontamination plan
between town gov. andneighborhood associations(2011.11 –12)

Briefing session for residents about theconstruction of temporary storage yards(2012 – 2015)

1

Fig. 4 Decontamination policy process in Miharu Town.
Source: Authors, referring to Fukushima Action Research on Effective Decontamination Operation (FAIRDO), 2013.

Community governance in decontamination policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident
and school facilities. Table 3 indicates that the main
voluntary decontamination related activities in each
district had multi-organizational cooperation.
In Koriyama City, community organizations had
already launched their decontamination activities before
the city government released its manual on
decontamination to the citizens on October 1st, 2011. In
addition to that, their decontamination activities were notbased on the city administration’s requests.
5.2 Reconstruction Phase in Koriyama City
Koriyama City’s administration formulated adecontamination plan on December 27, 2011. The cityadministration held briefing sessions for all households
and districts to formulate a decontamination plan. In thisplan, the city administration promoted a policy of
carrying out the decontamination program incollaboration with residents, neighbourhood associations,
PTAs, volunteers and local companies (Murayama et al.,2015).
Utilizing the DRASP, Koriyama City’s
administration gave grants to community organizations
for decontamination activities in areas used in daily life.
A total of 919 community organizations applied for the
grants in three years: 622 in 2011, 264 in 2012 and 33 in
2013. It was the neighbourhood associations—who werethe main parties responsible for voluntarydecontamination—that utilized the grants. Before theaccident, Koriyama City had 662 neighbourhood
associations. Of these neighbourhood associations, 385(58.2%) applied for the grants. DRASP was carried out
throughout the city, but there were some districts where it
was not possible to construct temporary storage yards
because no suitable land could be found.
In some districts, decontamination wastes generated
by the community decontamination activities were storedin parks and open spaces of their respective districts after
Table 3 Voluntary decontamination activities in Koriyama City.
District

Organizations

Contents

Participants

26 April 2011

SaikonElementary
schoolDecontamination
work―

11 March 2011

TomitaPTA

Decontamination
work

50

16 June 2011

Akagi

Voluntary
disasterprevention
organization

Radiation dose
survey―9 July 2011

HouzanRadiation dose
Neighborhood survey
Decontamination
associations
work―

Late September,
2011

Small-scale
Citywide enterprises
PTAs

Radiation dose
surveyDecontamination
work

50

Date

Source: Fukushima Minyu, Fukushima Minpou and Public Relations
Koriyama (Kouhou Koriyama).

249

coordinating among the city administration andcommunity organizations. In Kikuta district in thenorthern part of the city, decontamination wastes wereburied underground in public land (city-owned land) at asports park (Fig. 5). The city administration proposed thismethod to the leaders of community organizations(Kikuta-machi Kucho-kai, the chounai-kais and PTAs).
The city administration and community
organizations cooperated with the construction industry
association in implementing storage of decontamination
waste by this method. The fact that the leader of theconstruction industry association lived in the Kikuta
district and was friends with the leader of the community
organization also helped facilitate adoption of thismethod. The background to realization of this method of
decontamination and temporary storage of
decontamination waste is the existence of collaboration
among city administration, neighbourhood organizations
and the construction industry association.
In some districts, decontamination wastes wereburied underground in private land. In Kurume district in
the central part of the city, around 5,000 square meters ofshrine-owned land was designated a temporary storageyard for the soil removed during decontamination of aresidential area after mutual consultation between theresidents.
The district’s federation of neighbourhood
associations (Kurume-machi Choukai Rengokai) had
responsibility for overall land use management for theconstruction of temporary storage yards. The federation
set up a countermeasures headquarters within theassociation to carry out decontamination. The headquarters
conducted voluntary decontamination activities incoordination with 13 neighbourhood associations andPTAs. After the voluntary decontamination was completed
and the decontamination of residential areas was launchedby the city administration, the leader of the federation
negotiated with organization owning the land (the shrine
association), decontamination contractor and city

Fig. 5 Work to bury waste generated by decontamination of schoolroads in city-owned land (sports park) in Kikuta district,Koriyama City. (Photo by Kikuta-machi kucho-kai )250

T. TSUJI et al.

Policies
DecontaminationWork

Fiscal Year2011
(3 ‒ 9)Removal of
topsoil inschoolyards
andplaygrounds

Fiscal Year2011
(10 ‒ 3)Fiscal Year2012

Fiscal Year2013

Decontamination ofhouses and roads

Modeling of
decontaminationwork(2012.10 –)(2012.2 – 8)

Decontamination of public facilities(2011.4–5)(2011 – 2016.11)

Constructionof temporarystorage yards(2014.8 –)Temporarystorageyards
Emergenceof anorganizationin eachdistrict

Local Gov.
andresidents
communication

Fiscal Year2014 ‒

Voluntary decontamination activities(2011.4–2013)

Briefing
session forresidents about
topsoil removalof theschoolyards(2011.4.27)

Briefing session oncommunity
decontamination
programs (2011.10.20)
Briefing session on
decontamination
plan (2011.12.11)

Briefing session on decontaminationin each district (2012.10–)
Briefing session onmodeling of
decontamination
work (2012.5.19)

Fig. 6 Decontamination policy process in Koriyama City.
Source: Authors, referring to Fukushima Action Research on Effective Decontamination Operation (FAIRDO), 2013.

administration. The background to realization of this land
use management for construction of temporary storage
yards was the leadership of the federation uniting the
district’s community organizations. Since the president of
the federation also served as an officer in the community
organizations in the district, it was easy to coordinate
with the leader of each organization.
Figure 6 illustrates the decontamination policy
process in Koriyama City. It is necessary to focus onconsensus building between the city administration andresidents, which was difficult in the emergency phase. It
also bears repeating that, voluntary decontamination
activities by community organizations precededadministrative efforts in Koriyama City.

6. Conclusions and Discussion
In this paper, we explored the influence ofcommunity governance on the determination of
decontamination policies in local communities, focusingon Miharu Town and Koriyama City. The findings of thispaper can be summarized in three points.
First, the procedure and contents of decontamination
policies in Miharu Town and Koriyama City were
formulated based on continuous organizational
cooperation among municipal governments andcommunity organizations starting from immediately after
the accident. As shown in the case of Kashiwa City,
opportunities and venues to coordinate the interests ofmultiple stakeholders before the details and policies ofthe measures for radioactive materials are determined andimplemented are also required (Igarashi & Anshin Anzen
no Kashiwa San Kashiwa Shou Round Table, 2012). By
necessity, the procedure and contents of decontamination
policies in local communities are determined based onlimited information on radioactivity, and it is necessary
for stakeholders to share awareness when making
decisions and implementing measures. The state ofconsensus building on topsoil removal from theschoolyards in Koriyama City during the emergency
phase suggests as much.
Second, the procedure and contents of thedecontamination policies of Miharu Town and Koriyama
City were formulated based on land ownership in local
communities. When public land is used as a temporarystorage yard for removed soil, coordination between themunicipal administration that owns the land and thecommunity organization that represents the residents isrequired. On the other hand, when using private land,
coordination between organizations owning the land andcommunity organizations such as neighbourhood
associations is required.
Third, micro-negotiation tactics, which are carriedout by community organizations leaders, contribute tosmooth progress of decontamination policies such as
establishment of temporary storage yards. Previous
studies have pointed out the importance of residents’
involvement in governance in the decontamination policy
process (Moriguchi, 2015). The findings of this study
suggest a role of community organization leaders as
actors in community governance for decontamination
policies. There should be more attention to power
structures that serve in the relationship among community
leaders in decontamination policies.
As shown in Figs. 4 and 6, there were differences inthe decontamination policy processes between Miharu
Town and Koriyama City. In Miharu Town, smoothcommunication between the town administration andresidents was observed immediately after the accident.
On the other hand, in Koriyama City, there wereCommunity governance in decontamination policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident
miscommunications between the city administration andresidents at the same time. It is presumed that the key
factor determining the difference is experience incommunication between the government and residents
during the emergency phase.
Decontamination constitutes risk communication
over land use in the local community. The findings of thisstudy suggest that the relationship between community
governance and land use deserves more attention, as it
does with regard to other environment problems.
However, it cannot be said that among the ICSA,
Miharu Town and Koriyama City had particularly highair dose rates. In terms of future tasks, it may benecessary to analyse cases by controlling non-social
factors such as air dose rates and categorizing community
governance in the ICSA.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by National Institute forEnvironmental Studies Fukushima branch grant-in-aid for
exploratory research from fiscal year 2017 to 2018.
References
Banner, G. (2002) Community governance and the new centrallocal relationship. International Social Science Journal, 54(172),
217–231.
Edgington, D.W. (2017) How safe is safe enough?: The politics ofdecontamination in Fukushima. In: Yamakawa, M and
Yamamoto, D. (eds.) Unravelling the Fukushima Disaster,
Routledge, Abingdon, 79–105.
Fukuda, M. and Akita, N. (2014) Actual condition of thedecontamination in the area where needed to survey the situationof the pollution by radioactive substances: case study of thedecontamination for the parks in Tokatsu area. AIJ Journal ofTechnology and Design, 20(44), 329–332. (in Japanese)
Fukushima Action Research on Effective Decontamination
Operation (FAIRDO) (2013) Challenges of decontamination,community regeneration and livelihood rehabilitation. 2nd
Discussion Paper of Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, p20.
Igarashi, Y. and Anshin Anzen no Kashiwa San Kashiwa Shou
Round Table (2012) The form of ‘Safety’ we have decided: A
year of Kashiwa searching for local production for local
consumption post 3/11, Akishobo. Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Iimoto, T., Fujii, H., Someya, S., Matsuzawa, H., Yanagawa, Y. andKunii, K. (2018) Cooperation process between a local
government and experts in official voluntary decontamination ofenvironmental radioactivity. Journal of Radiation Research,
59(2), ii48–ii53.
Isono, Y. (2015) Decontamination and ‘the right to live in good
health’. In: Yokemoto M and T, Watanabe (ed.), Why Does a
Nuclear Disaster Cause Unequal Reconstruction: From the
Fukushima Accident to ‘Human Revival’ and Regional
Regeneration, 227–247. (in Japanese)
Kawasaki, K. (2016) Current status and problems of
decontamination by municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture:
records from four and a half years after the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant accident. Journal of the Society for
Remediation of Radioactive Contamination in the Environment,

251

4(2), 105–140. (in Japanese)
Kinoshita, T. (2008) Rethinking of risk communication: toward an
integrated risk communication. Japanese Journal of Risk
Analysis, 18(2), 3–22. (in Japanese)
Mabon, L. and Kawabe, M. (2018) Engagement on risk anduncertainty: lessons from coastal regions of Fukushima
Prefecture, Japan after the 2011 nuclear disaster? Journal of Risk
Research, 21(11), 1297–1312.
Miyazaki, T. (2013) The town of the windsock. In: Asahi Shimbun
Special Press (eds.) Prometheus’s Trap 3: The Fukushima
Nuclear Accident and a New Truth, 67–108, Gakken Publishing.
(in Japanese)
Moriguchi, Y. (2015) Challenges in Decontamination anddirections towards environmental recovery. Environmental
Information Science, 44(2), 33–38.
Murayama, T., Ono, S. and Totoki, Y. (2015) Municipalities’
activities and risk communication for decontamination ofradioactive. Environmental Information Science, 44(2), 46–49.
Peters, G. and Pierre, J. (2016) Comparative Governance:
Rediscovering the Functional Dimension of Governing,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Renn, O. and Klinke, A. (2015) Risk governance and resilience:
new approaches to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity. In:
Urbano F.P. (ed.) Risk Governance: The Articulation of Hazard,
Politics and Ecology, 19–41, Springer, Dordrecht.
Sato, K. and Abe, A. (2013) Fukushima Daiichi Genpatsu Jiko ni
yoru Dojouosen no Jyosen no Genjyou: Minamisouma shi,
Kawauchimura ni okeru Osenjyoukyou Juuten Chousa Chiiki no
Jyosenjirei kara. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy
Studies, 6(2), 54–59. (in Japanese)
Nakano, T and Deguchi, A. (2014) Cooperation between local
government and private sectors in decontamination activities in
Kashiwa City. Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan,
49(3), 315–320. (in Japanese)

Takashi TSUJI

community development.

Takashi Tsuji completed his Ph.D. in sociology at
Nagoya University in 2019. Now, he is a
researcher at the National Institute forEnvironmental Studies, Fukushima Branch. His
research interests include disaster governance andcommunity resilience, focusing on disaster/
environmental policy processes with long-term

Shogo NAKAMURA
Shogo Nakamura is a researcher in the Regional
Environmental Renovation Section of the
National Institute for Environmental Studies,
Fukushima Branch. He holds a Ph.D. inagricultural science. He has played a central rolein developing the energy monitoring systems in
Shinchi as well as many other areas in
Fukushima. Recently his interests have led him to participate in theEnvironment-Economy-Society Integration Research program.

Makoto OOBA
Dr. Ooba heads the Environmental Renovation
Laboratory at the Fukushima Branch of the
National Institute for Environmental Studies,Japan. From 2007 to 2012 and from 2014 to thepresent, he has participated in a study on spatialassessment of Japan’s regional forests using
process-based models and remote sensing by
NIES. Based on these studies, he has analyzed sustainability of forestry andharvested wood products. He has also worked at Osaka University, Nagoya
University and the Tokyo University of Agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. inenvironmental science from Hokkaido University, 2002.
(Received 1 December 2020, Accepted 28 December 2020)