## 3 Results and Discussion  
Of the 988 respondents, 187 (18.9%) provided land for the ISF and 801 (78.4%) did not. Table 1 lists the sociodemographic and chi-square test results for each factor. Among these results, only recognition of the \"acceptance of ISF\" showed a significant difference. Compared to 538 (68.0%) people who did not provide land to the ISF, 141 (77.9%) of those who had provided land accepted the ISF in their hometowns of Okuma and Futaba. Of those who provided land for the ISF, 16.0% were unable to judge whether to accept the ISF and 6.1% did not accept it (\(p\) < 0.018). The results suggest that the construction of the ISF and management of the removed soil were based on considerable understanding and cooperation among locals. However, a survey by the Ministry of the Environment reported that only 14.0% of the Japanese people outside Fukushima knew about the final disposal policy for removed soil [14]. In contrast, the acceptance of recycling removed soil in the current region of residence was 241 (24.7%), and there was no significant difference between those who provided land for the ISF (56; 30.4%) and those who did not (185; 23.4%) (\(p\) = 0.127). In addition, approximately half of the respondents were \"unable to judge\" the recycling of removed soil in their current region of residence. To achieve final disposal outside Fukushima \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c} \hline  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Sociodemographic factors of those who provided land for interim storage facilities. Prefecture by 2045, it is essential to take steps to reuse and reduce the large amount of soil removed. The Japanese government has developed safe recycling technologies to remove soil stored in the ISF. One of the key elements of the decision-making process regarding contaminated soil management is environmental risk assessment, which is the basis for the assessment of contaminated soil and the development of remediation strategies. Based on these environmental assessments, human health effects are evaluated, and the acceptance of contaminated soil is determined [15]. These results suggest that it is essential to disseminate information about the removed soil using effective risk communication techniques to ensure the public's understanding and to help them make decisions. Effective radiation risk communication is conducted by independent organizations that possess technical knowledge and have demonstrated a clear commitment to the public interest [16]. This suggests that effective radiation risk communication for decision-making can be achieved through collaboration between soil recycling experts and radiation exposure experts from independent organizations, such as universities and research institutes. Unfortunately, 40.7% of the respondents distrusted the ISF information provided by public authorities. Trust in information from public authorities found no difference in whether the residents were those who provided land. Many studies have revealed that trust in information depends on personal judgments regarding the credibility of the sources [17]. Public understanding and acceptance are essential for the reuse of large amounts of removed soil that contains radioactive materials. These results imply that it is necessary to consider an information strategy by reusing the removal of soil, even among residents of ISF areas. Furthermore, ITR was not significantly related to the land provided for the ISF. The percentage of ITR responses did not differ from that of a previous survey in Okuma and Futaba [18]. In other words, this result suggests that the distribution of each ITR was the same regardless of whether the residents provided their land for the ISF. The Japanese government assesses residents' ITR, and if they wish to return, it will support their return to their hometown, excluding the restricted area.