How natural disasters can affect environmental concerns, risk aversion, and even politics: evidence from Fukushima and three European countries

Abstract

We study the impact of the Fukushima disaster on environmental concerns, well-being, risk aversion, and political preferences in Germany, Switzerland, and the UK. In these countries, overall life satisfaction did not significantly decrease, but the disaster significantly increased environmental concerns among Germans. One underlying mechanism likely operated through the perceived risk of a similar meltdown of domestic reactors. After Fukushima, more Germans considered themselves as “very risk averse.” However, drastic German policy action shut down the oldest reactors, implemented the phaseout of the remaining ones, and proclaimed the transition to renewables. This shift in energy policy contributed to the subsequent decrease in environmental concerns, particularly among women, Green party supporters, and people living in close distance to the oldest reactors. In Germany, political support for the Greens increased significantly, whereas in Switzerland and the UK, this increase was limited to people living close to reactors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other studies assess the indirect effects of the War Against Terrorism by showing that combat exposure increases (i) risky behaviors, such as smoking or drug use, among affected soldiers (Cesur et al. 2014), as well as (ii) sleep disorders, psychological problems, and the risk of migraine headache (Cesur et al. 2015).

  2. 2.

    In addition to these three studies focusing on well-being, Bauer et al. (2013) study the impact of the shutdown of reactors on housing prices in Germany. They find that housing prices decreased by between 6 and 12 %.

  3. 3.

    Table A4 in the Online Appendix shows simple socioeconomic determinants of environmental concerns. The findings largely confirm the previous literature: Relative to the mean share of very environmentally concerned people in the population, which is 31 %, environmental concerns are (i) 7 ppt higher among females and (ii) 3 ppt higher among disabled individuals, whereas they decrease (iii) by 0.5 ppt for each child in the household, (iv) by 21 ppt for individuals with the lowest educational degree (less than secondary) relative to the highest educational degree (tertiary), and (v) by 6 ppt for individuals who are full-time employed relative to being irregularly employed.

  4. 4.

    In the empirical models, we take the retrospective nature of these questions into account and use the date 4 weeks after the Fukushima disaster and the policy action as the cutoff dates, i.e., April 11 instead of March 11, 2011, for the Fukushima disaster and June 30 instead of May 30, 2011 for the policy action.

  5. 5.

    At the time of the disaster, Germany’s parliament comprised five political parties. With 44 % of the votes, the Christian- Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) formed the governing coalition. The Social Democrats, the Greens, and The Left formed the opposition. Accordingly, we generate a variable “Supports Government.”

  6. 6.

    Traditionally, (inter-generational) geographic mobility is very low in Germany. In a given year, only about 1 % of SOEP respondents move (not shown).

  7. 7.

    The results are robust to running Logit Models with marginal effects instead of Linear Probability Models. The results are available upon request.

  8. 8.

    In practice, the fieldwork company that carries out the interviews assigns each interviewer two to three tranches of respondents with addresses to schedule and conduct interviews over a defined time period of a couple of months. Within that time period, each interviewer coordinates the specific interview independently with the respondent. This approach guarantees a relative balancedness of interviewee characteristics over the year.

  9. 9.

    We also checked the covariate balance with respect to the May 30 and June 30, 2011, cutoff dates for the policy action. Again, none of the normalized differences exceed the threshold of 0.25. The results are available upon request. In addition, we calculated the normalized differences and means for the important outcome variable “environmental concerns” by the policy dates May 30 and June 30 in 2010. We find that, if anything, respondents interviewed later in the year report higher levels of environmental concerns. For the May 30 cutoff date, the mean levels are 0.29 (pre) and 0.32 (post), whereas they are 0.30 (pre) and 0.32 (post) for the June 30 cutoff date. The differences are, however, not statistically significant and the normalized differences are below 0.05 in both cases.

  10. 10.

    On March 11, 2011, 80 interviews were carried out, the week before 81, the week after 64, and on the last Friday of March, 78 interviews were conducted.

  11. 11.

    As a referee correctly pointed out, there may be unobserved third factors that vary systematically across seasons and may affect environmental concerns, e.g., air pollution.

    Ziebarth et al. (2014) show that between 1999 and 2008 pollution patterns follow very regular seasonal patterns in Germany. Unless there was an unusual and longer-term spike in air pollution exactly at the time of Fukushima, monthly fixed effects should net out seasonal pollution effects.

  12. 12.

    We also tested whether the release of the report of the Reactor Safety Commission on May 17, 2011 (the so-called Reaktorsicherheitskommission), which gave a rather negative safety outlook for German reactors, had any impact on environmental concerns, but do not find any evidence for that.

  13. 13.

    We routinely cluster standard errors at the interview date level (Bertrand et al. 2004, Lee and Card, 2008). However, clustering at the household or state level does not alter the results. The results are available upon request.

  14. 14.

    When using March 14 as disaster date, the results remain largely robust. The results are also robust to collapsing the three categorical environmental concern questions differently. When we run the same models but collapse the categories “somewhat” and “very concerned,” we find that the share of at least “somewhat” concerned Germans increased by 2 ppt from a baseline level of 89 % after Fukushima. The results are available upon request.

  15. 15.

    There are several explanations for why climate change concerns significantly increased after Fukushima: (1) It could simply be that the environmental disaster raised people’s awareness about environmental issues, (2) In the short run, shutting down nuclear power plants means replacing the energy production largely with climate-damaging fossil energy, and/or (3) individuals might be confused that nuclear energy and emissions have not been linked to climate change.

  16. 16.

    In columns (2) and (3) of Table A6 in the Online Appendix, we show that the main results are robust to excluding individuals who live outside a 50-km radius of their birth place and individuals who moved in the previous time period.

  17. 17.

    The results are robust to alternate cutoff radii.

  18. 18.

    The fact that we do not find differential effects for those in close proximity, with less than 50 km, may be explained by concern level-based sorting into residencies close to nuclear plants. In extended analyses not displayed, we stratify by the following three measures: (a) whether the closest nuclear power plant will be shut down before 2022 and (b) whether the closest nuclear power plant will not be shut down (exploiting the fact that some Germans live in close distance to nuclear power plants in France and Switzerland, which are not affected by the policy action in Germany). However, we do not find evidence for differential effects by (a) and (b). The results are available upon request.

  19. 19.

    Unfortunately, we cannot exploit risk aversion measures for the UK and Switzerland since they were only surveyed for one cross section (that also only includes very few post-Fukushima respondents) in both countries (and we show that addition of individual fixed effects matters in Tab A10, also see Hanaoka et al. 2014).

  20. 20.

    Note that environmental concerns were only surveyed in waves 11 and 13 of the SHP. Since respondents of each wave are interviewed between September and February, the models are essentially comparing individual responses between September 2009 and February 2010 to responses between September 2011 and February 2012. The employed fixed effects models net out individual unobserved heterogeneity and solely focus on changes in the responses between these two waves. Understanding Society does not include environmental concerns which is why we cannot test if they remain elevated for the UK.

  21. 21.

    Although the Chernobyl catastrophe happened on the evening of April 26, it took 2 days, until April 28, before the media started reporting about it.

  22. 22.

    The baseline level of environmental concern before Chernobyl (40 %) was higher than before Fukushima (28 %).

  23. 23.

    Also note that Metcalfe et al. (2011), who study the impact of 9/11 on mental well-being in the UK, still report a relatively large coefficient of 0.18 (which is significant at the 10 % level) one year after the attacks. Since the immediate effect was 0.24, this implicitly means that we do not observe a “return-to-the baseline” effect for 9/11 in the UK.

  24. 24.

    As in Figure 5, we report daily averages. However, since we plot the daily averages over several years and most respondents were interviewed in the first months of a year, we observe jumps in the graph. To smooth them out, we disregard days with fewer than five interviews.

  25. 25.

    Meanwhile, the Energiewende is exemplary with at least 65 countries—among them the USA—copying the subsidy (called “Einspeisevergütung”) for renewables (REN21 2013).

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Mikhail G, Tsyvinski A (2011) Power fluctuations and political economy. J Econ Theory 146(3):1009–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aklin M, Bayer P, Harish SP, Urpelainen J (2013) Understanding environmental policy preferences: new evidence from Brazil. Ecol Econ 94(C):28–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Almond D, Edlund L, Palme M (2009) Chernobyl’s subclinical legacy: prenatal exposure to radioactive fallout and school outcomes in Sweden. Q J Econ 124(4):1729–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson K, Rausser G, Swinnen J (2013) Political economy of public policies: insights from distortions to agricultural and food markets. J Econ Lit 51(2):423–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aoki M, Rothwell G (2013) A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy 53(C):240–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Askitas N, Zimmermann KF (2009) Google econometrics and unemployment forecasting. Appl Econ Q 55(2):107–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bauer TK, Braun S, Kvasnicka M (2013) Distant event, local effects? Fukushima and the German housing market. Ruhr Economic Papers 0433

  8. Benjamin DJ, Heffetz O, Kimball MS, Szembrot N (2014a) Beyond happiness and satisfaction: toward well-being indices based on stated preference. Am Econ Rev 104(9):2698–2735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benjamin DJ, Heffetz O, Kimball MS, Rees-Jones A (2014b) Can marginal rates of substitution be inferred from happiness data? evidence from residency choices. Am Econ Rev 104(11):3498–3528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berger EM (2010) The Chernobyl disaster, concern about the environment, and life satisfaction. Kyklos 63(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Q J Econ 119(1):249–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bond TN, Lang K (2014) The sad truth about happiness scales. NBER Working Papers 19950

  13. Budowski M, Tillmann R, Zimmermann E, Wernli B, Scherpenzeel A, Gabadinho A (2001) The Swiss Household Panel 1999–2003: data for research on micro-social change. ZUMA Nachr 25(49): 100–125. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-211073

  14. Buesseler KO, Jayne SR, Fisher NS, Rypina II, Baumann H, Baumann Z, Breier CF, Douglass EM, George J, Macdonald AM, Miyamoto H, Nishikawa J, Pike SM, Yoshida S (2012) Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(16):5984–5988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bundesregierung (2011a) Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel (“State of the Union Address of Chancellor Angela Merkel“), June 9, 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFm1I_1Q3Ug, http://www.bundesregierung.de/ContentArchiv/DE/Archiv17/Regierungserklaerung/2011/2011-06-09-merkel-energie-zukunft.html,last accessed on July 2, 2013

  16. Bundesregierung (2011b) Bundesregierung setzt Laufzeitverlängerung für drei Monate aus: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2011/03/2011-03-14-moratorium-kernkraft-deutschland.html, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  17. Bundesregierung (2011c) Regierungspressekonferenz vom 1. Juni: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2011/05/2011-06-01-regpk.htmlx, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  18. Bundesregierung (2011d) Bundespräsident unterschreibt Änderung des Atomgesetzes: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2011/06/2011-06-06-Schrittweiser%20-Atomausstieg.html, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  19. Bundesregierung (2011e) Pressekonferenz zum Energiekonzept der Bundesregierung mit Bundeskanzlerin Merkel, BM Rösler, BM Röttgen und BM Ramsauer: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Mitschrift/Pressekonferenzen/2011/05/2011-05-30-pk-bk-bm-energiekonzept.html, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  20. Bundesregierung (2013) Energiekonzept, http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2013/07/2013-07-08-reform-der-photovoltaik-foerderung-erfolgreich.html, last accessed on July 10, 2013

  21. Büscher B (2009) Connecting political economies of energy in South Africa. Energy Policy 37(10):3951–3958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cassar A, Healy A, von Kessler C (2011) Trust, risk and time preferences after a natural disaster: experimental evidence from Thailand. University of San Francisco Working Paper

  23. Cesur R, Ulker A, Tekin E (2013) Air pollution and infant mortality: evidence from the penetration of natural gas. NBER Working Paper No. 18736

  24. Cesur R, Chesney A, Sabia JJ (2014) The effect of combat exposure on risky health behaviors: new evidence from the global. Mimeo

  25. Cesur R, Sabia JJ, Tekin E (2015) Combat exposure and migraine headache: evidence from exogenous deployment assignment. Econ Hum Biol 16:81–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Check24 (2012) Ein Jahr nach Fukushima: 64 Prozent der Stromwechsler wählten im Februar 2012 Ökostrom-Tarif. http://www.check24.de, last accessed on July 10, 2013

  27. Clark AE, Senik C (2010) Who compares to whom? The anatomy of income comparisons in Europe. Econ J 120(544):573–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark AE, Kristensen N, Westergård-Nielsen N (2009) Job satisfaction and co-worker wages: status or signal? Econ J 119(536):430–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohn A, Engelmann J, Fehr E, Maréchal MA (2015) Evidence for countercyclical risk aversion: an experiment with financial professionals. Am Econ Rev 105(2):860–885

  30. Csereklyei Z (2013) Measuring the impacts of nuclear accidents on energy policy. Department of Economics Working Paper Series 151. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cullen J (2013) Measuring the environmental benefits of wind-generated electricity. Am Econ J: Econ Policy 5(4):107–133

    Google Scholar 

  32. Czap NV, Czap HJ (2010) An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern. Ecol Econ 69(10):2033–2041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. D'Amuri F, Marcucci JM (2012) The predictive power of Google searches in forecasting unemployment. Economic working papers 891, Bank of Italy

  34. Danzer AM, Danzer N (2011) The long-term effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe on subjective well-being and mental health. IZA Discussion Papers 5906

  35. Deaton A (2012) The financial crisis and the well-being of Americans. Oxf Econ Pap 64(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(3):522–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Draca M, Machin S, Witt R (2011) Panic on the streets of London: police, crime, and the July 2005 terror attacks. Am Econ Rev 101(5):2157–2181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Eckel CC, El-Gamal MA, Wilson RK (2009) Risk loving after the storm: a Bayesian-network study of hurricane Katrina evacuees. J Econ Behav Organ 69(2):110–124

  39. EnergieAgentur NRW (2012) Erhebung „Wo im Haushalt bleibt der Strom? Anteile, Verbrauchswerte und Kosten von 12 Verbrauchsbereichen in 1- bis 6-Personen-Haushalten, http://www.energieagentur.nrw.de/_database/_data/datainfopool/erhebung_wo_bleibt_der_strom.pdf, last accessed on July 10, 2013

  40. Frijters P, Haisken-DeNew JP, Shields MA (2004) Money does matter! Evidence from increasing real income and life satisfaction in East Germany following reunification. Am Econ Rev 94(3):730–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Glaser A (2011) After Fukushima: preparing for a more uncertain future of nuclear power. Electr J 24(6):27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Greenstone M, Gayer T (2009) Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics. J Environ Econ Manag 57(1):21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Halla M, Zweimüller M (2014) Parental response to early human capital shocks: evidence from the Chernobyl accident, Economics working papers 2014–02. Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hanaoka C, Shigeoka H, Watanabe Y (2014) Do risk preferences change? Evidence from panel data before and after the Great East Japan earthquake. https://sites.google.com/site/hshigeoka, last accessed May 9, 2014

  45. Hippel FN (2011) The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Bull At Sci 67(5):27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hommerich C (2012) Trust and subjective well-being after the Great East Japan earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown: preliminary results. Int J Jpn Sociol 21(1):46–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Huang L, Zhou Y, Han Y, Hammitt JK, Bi J, Liu Y (2013) Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(49):19742–19747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Huenteler J, Schmidt TS, Kanie N (2012) Japan-s post-Fukushima challenge—implications from the German experience on renewable energy policy. Energy Policy 45(C):6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47(1):5–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Infratest Dimap (2009) Bundesweite Umfragen, July 2019, http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/eher-geringes-vertrauen-in-sicherheit-von-akws-unterstuetzung-des-umlagefinanzierten-rentensystems, last accessed on July 27, 2013

  51. Infratest Dimap (2010) Bundesweite Umfragen, August 2010, http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/2010/august/, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  52. Infratest Dimap (2011a) Bundesweite Umfragen, Deutschlandtrend Juni 2011. http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/2011/juni/, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  53. Infratest Dimap (2011b) Bundesweite Umfragen, ARD DeutschlandTREND, Märu 2011 extra: Atom Katastrophe in Japan: http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/ard-deutschlandtrend/2011/maerz-extra/, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  54. Infratest Dimap (2011c) Bundesweite Umfragen, March 15–16, 2011. http://www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/aussetzung-der-laufzeitverlaengerung-gilt-nicht-als-glaubwuerdiger-kurswechsel/, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  55. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) (2011) Special report on the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. http://www.nei.org/, last accessed May 27, 2013

  56. Kassenboehmer SC, Haisken-DeNew JP (2009) You’re fired! The causal negative effect of entry unemployment on life satisfaction. Econ J 119(536):448–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kawashima S, Takeda F (2012) The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on stock prices of electric power utilities in Japan. Energy Econ 34(6):2029–2038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Knabe A, Rätzel S, Schöb R, Weimann J (2010) Dissatisfied with life but having a good day: time-use and well-being of the unemployed. Econ J 120(547):867–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Luechinger S (2009) Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Econ J 119(536):482–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Luechinger S, Raschky PA (2009) Valuing flood disasters using the life satisfaction approach. J Public Econ 93(3–4):620–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Luechinger S, Meier S, Stutzer A (2010) Why does unemployment hurt the employed? Evidence from the life satisfaction gap between the public and the private sector. J Hum Resour 45(4):998–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lusk JL, Coble, KH (2008) Risk aversion in the presence of background risk: evidence from an economic experiment. In: Cox JC, Harrison GW (eds) Risk Aversion in Experiments (Research in Experimental Economics), vol 12. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 315–340

  63. Malmendier U, Nagel S (2011) Depression babies: do macroeconomic experiences affect risk taking?. Q J Econ 126(1):373–416

  64. Marcus J (2013) The effect of unemployment on the mental health of spouses—evidence from plant closures in Germany. J Health Econ 32(3):546–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Marron DB, Toder EJ (2014) Tax policy issues in designing a carbon tax. Am Econ Rev 104(5):563–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Metcalfe R, Powdthavee N, Dolan P (2011) Destruction and distress: using a quasi-experiment to show the effects of the September 11 attacks on mental well-being in the United Kingdom. Econ J 121(550):F81–F103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Murray BC, Cropper ML, de la Chesnaye FC, Reilly JM (2014) How effective are US renewable energy subsidies in cutting greenhouse gases? Am Econ Rev 104(5):569–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ockwell DG (2008) Energy and economic growth: grounding our understanding in physical reality. Energy Policy 36(12):4600–4604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ohtake F, Yamada K (2013) Appraising the unhappiness due to the Great East Japan earthquake: evidence from weekly panel data on subjective well-being. ISER Discussion Paper No. 876

  70. Oswald AJ (1997) Happiness and economic performance. Econ J 107(445):1815–1831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Oswald AJ, Wu S (2011) Well-being across America. Rev Econ Stat 93(4):1118–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Owen AL, Conover E, Videras J, Wu S (2012) Heat waves, droughts, and preferences for environmental policy. J Policy Anal Manag 31(3):556–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pesko MF (2014a) Hurrican Katrina: behavioral health and health insurance in non-impacted vulnerable counties. Mimeo https://sites.google.com/site/mikepesko/ongoing-research, last accessed on May 9, 2014

  74. Pesko MF (2014b) Stress and smoking: associations with terrorism and causal impact. Contemp Econ Policy 32(2):351–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pesko MF, Baum CF (2014) The self-medication hypothesis: evidence from terrorism and cigarette accessability. Mimeo. https://sites.google.com/site/mikepesko/ongoing-research, last accessed on May 9, 2014

  76. Pindyck RS (2013) Climate change policy: what do the models tell us? J Econ Lit 51(3):860–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Reaktorsicherheitskommission (2011) Anlagenspezifische Sicherheitsüberprüfung (RSK-SÜ) deutscher Kernkraftwerke unter Berücksichtigung der Ereignisse in Fukushima-I (Japan): http://www.rskonline.de, last accessed on July 2, 2013

  78. Rehdanz K, Welsch H, Narita D, Okubo T (2013) Well-being effects of a major negative externality: the case of Fukushima, Kiel Working Papers 1855

  79. REN21: Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (2013) Renewables 2013: Global Status Report, http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalStatusReport.aspx, last accessed on July 10, 2013

  80. Richter F, Steenbeck M, Wilhelm M (2013) Nuclear accidents and policy: notes on public perception. SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 590

  81. Rieu A-M (2013) Thinking after Fukushima. Epistemic shift in social sciences. Asia Europe Journal 11(1):65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Schüller S (2012) The effects of 9/11 on attitudes toward immigration and the moderating role of education. IZA Discussion Papers 7052

  83. Senik C (2009) Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects. J Econ Behav Organ 72(1):408–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Shah M, Cameron L (2015) Risk-taking behavior in the wake of natural disasters. J Hum Resour. doi: 10.3386/w19534

  85. Sjöberg L (1998) Worry and risk perception. Risk Anal 18(1):85–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) (2012) Data for years 1984–2012, version 29, SOEP. doi: 10.5684/soep.v29

  88. Strielkowski W, Krška Š, Lisin E (2013) Energy economics and policy of renewable energy sources in the European Union. Int J Energy Econ Policy 3(4):333–340

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tagesschau (2011) Wahl Baden-Würtemberg: Analyse Wählerwanderung, http://wahl.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2011-03-27-LT-DE-BW/analyse-wanderung.shtml. Accessed 31 May 2015

  90. Tatic K, Cinjarevic M (2010) Relationship between environmental concern and green purchasing behavior. Interdisciplinary Manag Res 6:801–810

    Google Scholar 

  91. Thomas S (2012) What will the Fukushima disaster change? Energy Policy 45(C):12–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Tiefenbach T, Kohlbacher F (2013) Disentangling the happiness effects of natural disasters: the mediating role of prosocial behavior. German Institute for Japanese Studies, Working Paper 13/5

  93. Tiefenbach T, Kohlbacher F (2015) Happiness in Japan in times of upheaval: empirical evidence from the national survey on lifestyle preferences. J Happiness Stud 16(2):333–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Uchida Y, Takahashi Y, Kawahara K (2014) Changes in hedonic and eudaimonic well-being after a severe nationwide disaster: the case of the Great East Japan earthquake. J Happiness Stud 15(1):207–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. University of Essex. Institute for Social and Economic Research and National Centre for Social Research, Understanding Society: Waves 1–2, 2009–2011. 4th ed. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], December 2012. SN: 6614

  96. Urban J, Ščasný M (2012) Exploring domestic energy-saving: the role of environmental concern and background variables. Energy Policy 47(C):69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Vieider FM, Lefebvre M, Bouchouicha R, Chmura T, Hakimov R, Krawczyk M, Martinsson P (2015) Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: evidence from 30 countries. J Eur Econ Assoc 13(3):421–452

  98. Vivoda V (2012) Japan’s energy security predicament post-Fukushima. Energy Policy 46(C):135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wagner GG, Frick JR, Schupp J (2007) The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP) evolution, scope and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch J Appl Soc Sci Stud 127(1):139–169

    Google Scholar 

  100. Wang Q, Xi C, Xu Y-C (2013) Accident like the Fukushima unlikely in a country with effective nuclear regulation: literature review and proposed guidelines. Renew Sust Energ Rev 17(C):126–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wangler L (2012) The political economy of the green technology sector: a study about institutions, diffusion and efficiency. Eur J Law Econ 33(1):51–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Welsch H, Biermann P (2014) Fukushima and the preference for nuclear power in Europe: evidence from subjective well-being data. Ecol Econ 108:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. WHO (2013) Health Risk Assessment from the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Based on a Preliminary Dose Estimation, Report http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/index.html, last accessed on May 17, 2013

  104. Winkelmann L, Winkelmann R (1998) Why are the unemployed so unhappy? Evidence from panel data. Economica 65(257):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. World Nuclear Association (2015) Nuclear Power in Japan: Public Opinion http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/, last accessed on March 18, 2015

  106. Yamamura E (2012) Experience of technological and natural disasters and their impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accidents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: a cross-country analysis. J Socio-Econ 41(4):360–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Ziebarth NR, Schmitt M, Karlsson M (2014) The short-term population health effects of weather and pollution. http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/people/nicolas_ziebarth.cfm, last accessed on July 26, 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers, the editor Erdal Tekin, Silke Anger, Peter Eibich, Ronny Freier, Jan Marcus, Jürgen Schupp, Gert G. Wagner, Michael Weinhardt, and participants at the European Economic Association Annual Meeting 2014, Toulouse, the International Association for Applied Econometrics Annual Meeting 2014, London, the European Society for Population Economics Annual Meeting 2014, Braga, the European Public Choice Society Annual Meeting 2014, Cambridge, and the “Public Finances and Living Conditions” Cluster Seminar at DIW Berlin. A special thank goes to Adam Lederer and Eric Maroney for an excellent editing of this paper and to Aline Passlack for an excellent research assistance. The authors take responsibility for all remaining errors in and shortcomings of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas R. Ziebarth.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Erdal Tekin

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 146 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 841 kb)

Appendix

Table 11 Descriptive Statistics—Germany (SOEP)
Table 12 Descriptive Statistics—Switzerland (SHP)
Table 13 Descriptive Statistics—UK (Understanding Society)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goebel, J., Krekel, C., Tiefenbach, T. et al. How natural disasters can affect environmental concerns, risk aversion, and even politics: evidence from Fukushima and three European countries. J Popul Econ 28, 1137–1180 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0558-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fukushima
  • Nuclear phaseout
  • Environmental concerns
  • Well-being
  • Risk aversion
  • Green party

JEL Classification

  • I18
  • I31
  • Q54