Appetite for Natech Risk Information in Japan: Understanding Citizens’ Communicative Behavior Towards Risk Information Disclosure Around Osaka Bay

Abstract

Effective risk communication is essential for disaster risk management. Apart from empowering communities to make informed risk choices, risk information disclosure can also drastically enhance their disaster preparedness, especially concerning conjoint scenarios of technological and natural hazards (Natech). A fundamental precondition is the actual demand for such information. This study ventures to assess whether residents around Osaka Bay have this demand, or “appetite,” for risk information disclosure, as well as to understand their communicative behavior and perceived challenges in the Japanese context through the prism of the Situational Theory of Problem Solving. To test this framework under realistic conditions, data were collected through a household questionnaire survey from two urban areas near industrial complexes in Osaka Bay. The results show that identifying Natech risk information deficiency as a problem was not a statistically significant predictor for individuals’ motivation to communicate. However, their motivation increased as their perceived personal involvement with the situation rose, while the perceived obstacles in doing something about it exerted a negative influence on their motivation. Individuals’ motivation intensified their communicative actions to solve this problem. Public segmentation underscored the elevated public perceptions concerning the issue of risk information deficiency in nearly nine out of ten respondents. These findings indicate a strong community appetite for chemical and Natech risk information, which subsequently led to high situational motivation to engage in communicative action, particularly information acquisition. Risk management policy is suggested to focus on introducing chemical risk information disclosure regulatory initiatives to encourage citizen engagement.

Keywords

Japan / Natech risk information / Participatory risk management / Risk communication / Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS)

References

[1] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-211

[2] Aven T, Renn O. Risk management and governance: Concepts, guidelines and applications, 2010, Heidelberg: Springer

[3] Baram MS. The right to know and the duty to disclose hazard information. American Journal of Public Health, 1984, 74(4): 385-390

[4] Burby RJ, Steinberg LJ, Basolo V. The tenure trap: The vulnerability of renters to joint natural and technological disasters. Urban Affairs Review, 2003, 39(1): 32-58

[5] Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. 1999. Act on confirmation, etc. of release amounts of specific chemical substances in the environment and promotion of improvements to the management thereof. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/jap47162.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2021.

[6] Chen YR, Hung-Baesecke CF, Kim J-N. Identifying active hot-issue communicators and subgroup identifiers: Examining the situational theory of problem solving. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2017, 94(1): 124-147

[7] Chon M-G. Government public relations when trouble hits: Exploring political dispositions, situational variables, and government–public relationships to predict communicative action of publics. Asian Journal of Communication, 2019, 29(5): 424-440

[8] Chon M-G, Park H. Social media activism in the digital age: Testing an integrative model of activism on contentious issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2020, 97(1): 72-97

[9] Disaster Management Bureau. 2015. White paper on disaster management in Japan 2015. Japan: Cabinet of Japan. https://www.bousai.go.jp/kyoiku/panf/pdf/WP2015_DM_Full_Version.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2020.

[10] Eiser JR, Stafford T, Henneberry J, Catney P. “Trust me, I’m a scientist (not a developer)”: Perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land. Risk Analysis, 2009, 29(2): 288-297

[11] Fekete A. Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: Challenges in their quality and acceptance. Natural Hazards, 2012, 61(3): 1161-1178

[12] Figueroa PM. Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: An anthropological approach. Asia Europe Journal, 2013, 11(1): 53-64

[13] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18(1): 39-50

[14] Fraustino JD, Liu BF. Jin Y, Austin LL. Toward more audience-oriented approaches to crisis communication and social media research. Social media and crisis communication, 2017, New York: Taylor & Francis 129-140

[15] Fujiyama, H. 2013. The damage estimation on the Nankai trough megathrust earthquake. Presented at the 10th International Workshop on Seismic Microzoning and Risk Reduction, 25 September 2013, Tokyo, Japan. https://iisee.kenken.go.jp/symposium/10thIWSMRR/10.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019.

[16] Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Neuwirth K. Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 1999, 80(2): S230-S245

[17] Grunig JE. Heath RL, Johansen W. Strategic behavioral paradigm. The international encyclopedia of strategic communication, 2018, Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society 1-6.

[18] Grunig JE, Kim J-N. Publics approaches to health and risk message design and processing. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, 2017

[19] Hadden SG. A citizen’s right to know: Risk communication and public policy, 1989 1 Boulder: Westview Press

[20] Hair JF Jr Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis, 2010 7 Upper Saddle River: Pearson

[21] Hasegawa, R. 2013. Disaster evacuation from Japan’s 2011 tsunami disaster and the Fukushima nuclear accident. IDDRI Study No. 5. https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/195804.

[22] Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999, 6(1): 1-55

[23] Ikeda S. Interdisciplinary framework of risk communication as an integral part of environmental risk analysis in postindustrial risk society: Three case studies of the 1999 amendment of air pollution control law, dioxins, and the EMF risks. Journal of Disaster Research, 2014, 9(sp): 628-637

[24] Japan Meteorological Agency. 2019. Earthquakes and tsunamis: Observation and disaster mitigation. Tokyo: Japan Meteorological Agency. https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/books/jishintsunami/en/jishintsunami_en.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2019.

[25] Kapucu N. Collaborative emergency management: Better community organising, better public preparedness and response. Disasters, 2008, 32(2): 239-262

[26] Kennedy H. Kennedy H. Social media data mining becomes ordinary. Post, mine, repeat: Social media data mining becomes ordinary, 2016, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK 1-17.

[27] Kim J-N. Public segmentation using situational theory of problem solving: Illustrating summation method and testing segmented public profiles. PRism, 2011, 8(2): 1-12.

[28] Kim J-N, Grunig JE. Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 2011, 61(1): 120-149

[29] Kim J-N, Krishna A. Publics and lay informatics: A review of the situational theory of problem solving. Annals of the International Communication Association, 2014, 38(1): 71-105

[30] Kim J-N, Ni L. Kim DK, Kim M-S. The nexus between Hallyu and soft power: Cultural public diplomacy in the era of sociological globalism. Hallyu influence of Korean popular culture in Asia and beyond, 2011, Seoul: Seoul National University Press 131-154.

[31] Kim J-N, Ni L. Two types of public relations problems and integrating formative and evaluative research: A review of research programs within the behavioral, strategic management paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 2013, 25(1): 1-29

[32] Kim, J.-N., Y.R. Jung, S.C. Park, and M. Dutta. 2009. Gossiping science: Lay diffusers of science knowledge and information. Presented at the National Communication Association 95th Annual Convention: “Discourses of Stability and Change”, 12–15 November 2009, Chicago, IL. https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/nca/nca09/index.php?cmd=Online+Program+View+Paper&selected_paper_id=368658&PHPSESSID=tu3rrc1deuf112hgrp9mucfcp5. Accessed 22 Jan 2019.

[33] Kim J-N, Ni L, Kim S-H, Kim JR. What makes people hot? Applying the situational theory of problem solving to hot-issue publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 2012, 24(2): 144-164

[34] Kinoshita T. Short history of risk communication in Japan. Journal of Disaster Research, 2014, 9(sp): 592-597

[35] Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2011 3 New York: Guilford Press

[36] Klinke A, Renn O. Eriksson J, Gilek M, Rudén C. Risk governance: Contemporary and future challenges. Regulating chemical risks, 2010, Dordrecht: Springer 9-27

[37] Kotani H, Yokomatsu M. Quantitative evaluation of the roles of community events and artifacts for social network formation: A multilayer network model of a community of practice. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 2019, 25(4): 428-463

[38] Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Salzano E. Natech risk assessment and management: Reducing the risk of natural-hazard impact on hazardous installations, 2017 1 Amsterdam: Elsevier

[39] Lee, T. 2016. The role of psychological processing and government-public relationship in managing the public’s communicative actions of problem-solving. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2771879. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2771879. Accessed 28 Jan 2019.

[40] Liu BF, Xu S, Lim JR, Egnoto M. How publics’ active and passive communicative behaviors affect their tornado responses: An integration of STOPS and SMCC. Public Relations Review, 2019, 45(4): Article 101831

[41] Lovari A, Martino V, Kim J-N. Citizens’ relationships with a municipality and their communicative behaviors in negative civic issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2012, 6(1): 17-30

[42] Malhotra NK, Dash S. Marketing research: An applied orientation, 2011 6 Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education

[43] Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea Chemicals Control Act, 2018, Sejong City: Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea

[44] Mochizuki J. Decision-making, policy choices and community rebuilding after the Tohoku disaster. IDRiM Journal, 2014, 4(2): 103-118

[45] Murakami M, Tsubokura M. Evaluating risk communication after the Fukushima disaster based on Nudge theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 2017, 29(2_Suppl): 193S-200S

[46] National Land Agency, Government of Japan. 1961. Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act. Tokyo: National Land Agency, Government of Japan. https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3982. Accessed 27 Jan 2020.

[47] Nishino T, Takagi Y. Numerical analysis of tsunami-triggered oil spill fires from petrochemical industrial complexes in Osaka Bay, Japan, for thermal radiation hazard assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020, 42: Article 101352

[48] OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. Guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response. Guidance for Industry (including Management and Labour), Public Authorities, Communities, and other Stakeholders No. 10. Series on Chemical Accidents. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/chemical-accidents/guiding-principles-chemical-accident-prevention-preparedness-and-response.htm. Accessed 27 Feb 2022.

[49] O’Neill E, Brereton F, Shahumyan H, Clinch JP. The impact of perceived flood exposure on flood-risk perception: The role of distance. Risk Analysis, 2016, 36(11): 2158-2186

[50] Palenchar MJ. Risk communication and community right to know: A public relations obligation to inform. Public Relations Journal, 2008, 2(1): 1-26.

[51] Pandey B, Okazaki K. Community based disaster management: Empowering communities to cope with disaster risks. Regional Development Dialogue, 2005, 26(2): 52-57.

[52] Samaddar S, Okada N, Choi J, Tatano H. What constitutes successful participatory disaster risk management? Insights from post-earthquake reconstruction work in rural Gujarat, India. Natural Hazards, 2017, 85(1): 111-138

[53] Sellnow TL, Ulmer RR, Seeger MW, Littlefield RS. Sellnow TL, Ulmer RR, Seeger MW, Littlefield RS. Ethical considerations in risk communication. Effective risk communication: A message-centered approach, 2009, New York: Springer 147-161

[54] Sheppard B, Janoske M, Liu B. Understanding risk communication theory: A guide for emergency managers and communicators. Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, 2012, College Park: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

[55] Shimizu M. Resilience in disaster management and public policy: A case study of the Tohoku disaster. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 2012, 3(4): 40-59

[56] Shimizu, M. 2016. Civil society through linkages of resilience and public policy in a modern risk society. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, 28 June–1 July 2016, Stockholm, Sweden. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/WP_Stockholm/Shimizu_WP2017.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

[57] Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. Public risk perception of nuclear waste. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 2009, 11(3–4): 264-296

[58] Slovic P. The perception of risk, 2000, Sterling: Earthscan

[59] Slovic P, Weber EU. Applegate JS, Laitos JG, Gaba JM, Sachs NM. Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Regulation of toxic substances and hazardous waste, 2002 2 Perry: Foundation Press

[60] UNDRR-APSTAAG (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction – Asia-Pacific Science, Technology and Academia Advisory Group). 2020. Asia-Pacific regional framework for NATECH (Natural Hazards Triggering Technological Disasters) risk management. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction – Asia-Pacific Science, Technology and Academia Advisory Group. https://www.undrr.org/publication/asia-pacific-regional-framework-natech-natural-hazards-triggering-technological. Accessed 10 Nov 2020.

[61] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, 2015, Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

[62] Venables D, Pidgeon NF, Parkhill KA, Henwood KL, Simmons P. Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2012, 32(4): 371-383

[63] Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C. The risk perception paradox –Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(6): 1049-1065

[64] WHO (World Health Organization) Chemical releases caused by natural hazard events and disasters – Information for public health authorities, 2018, Geneva: WHO

[65] Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 1992, 59(4): 329-349

[66] Yu, J., and A.M. Cruz. 2016. Understanding Natech risk perception and adjustment of households living near industrial areas in Osaka Bay. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2433/217320. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.

[67] Yu J, Cruz AM, Hokugo A. Households’ risk perception and behavioral responses to Natech accidents. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2017, 8(1): 1-15