Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Why do municipalities accept disaster waste? Evidence from the great east Japan earthquake

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Municipalities’ cooperation is critical for successful policy interventions for disaster recovery. Using a spatial econometric model, we investigate what factors affected municipalities’ decision to accept disaster waste following the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. We find evidence that economic factors affect the decision, but that concerns about the radiation risk and social preferences regarding the affected area also contribute to municipalities’ willingness to accept waste. Our results suggest that social concerns play an important role in understanding municipalities’ behavior in emergency circumstances.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As of 10, March, 2020 (Cabinet Office Government Japan 2020).

  2. We obtained those data through a request for the disclosure of information to the Ministry of the Environment.

  3. In our context, reciprocity refers to the notion that the accepting municipality is motivated by the thought of receiving similar assistance should it encounter the same situation in the future.

  4. Aoki (2018) implemented household surveys and found that trust in safety positively affects the willingness to accept disaster waste.

  5. Disaster Waste Management Information Site, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment.

    (in Japanese, http://kouikishori.env.go.jp/archive/h23_shinsai/implementation/progress_management/, Accessed June 30, 2020).

  6. In Japan, waste is classified as industrial or municipal solid waste, and separate regulations are applied under the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act (hereafter, the Waste Management Act) of 1970. Industrial waste is produced by business activities.

  7. If disaster waste contains a certain level of radioactive substances, its disposal is managed by the central government.

  8. In some prefectures, disaster waste was accepted by incineration facilities and landfill sites owned by the prefectural government. One example is Tokyo, which accepted about 25,000 tons of disaster waste from several municipalities.

  9. According to the guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment, radiation levels of combustible waste must be less than 240 Bq/kg for incineration and that of incombustible waste must be less than 8,000 Bq/kg for final disposal.

  10. When a municipality already disposes municipal solid waste through a wide-area treatment with neighboring municipalities, it is necessary for that municipality to obtain permission from other municipalities to accept disaster waste. Hence, all municipalities belonging to the group of the wide-area treatment are counted as host municipalities of disaster waste after agreeing to accept disaster waste.

  11. 11 1,000 Japanese yen was approximately 12.19 US dollars as of January 4, 2011.

  12. The parameters are estimated using the Gibbs sampling method on the basis of 1,000 retained draws from a sample of 1,100.

  13. No data on the number of volunteer activity at the municipality level are available.

  14. No data on the amount of donations at the municipality level are available.

  15. When annual throughput is larger than planned capacity, slack capacity can take a negative value.

  16. Rothman and Lichter (1987) suggested that political attitudes can affect the support of or opposition to nuclear technology.

  17. The definition of eastern and western Japan is based on that of the Japan Meteorological Agency. Eastern Japan consists of 23 prefectures including Tokyo and the affected areas.

  18. In the 2011 model, there is also the potential endogeneity issue that the guilt in not accepting disaster waste may have caused increased volunteering and donating in 2011. Therefore, we also estimate the models using the variables of volunteer activities and donation amounts before the earthquake disaster. Table D of Appendix D presents the estimation results. In that model, donation amount is still positive and statistically significant, whereas volunteer activity is negative and statistically insignificant.

  19. No data on the number of volunteer activity and the amount of donations at the municipality level are available.

  20. According to the Ministry of the Environment, 42 of Japan’s 47 prefectures have developed a Plan for Disaster Waste Management at the prefectural level (https://dwasteinfo.nies.go.jp/plan/project_man.html).

References

  • Akerlof GA (1997) Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica 65:1005–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Springer, Netherlands

  • Aoki N (2018) Who would be willing to accept disaster debris in their backyard? Investigating the determinants of public attitudes in post-Fukushima Japan. Risk Anal 38:535–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aruga K (2016) Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant. Environ Econ Policy Studies 19:677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becchetti L, Castriota S, Conzo P (2012) Calamity, aid and indirect reciprocity: the long run impact of tsunami on altruism. CSEF working papers 316. Centre for studies in economics and finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy

  • Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2020) Report on the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. http://www.bousai.go.jp/2011daishinsai/pdf/torimatome20200310.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2020 (in Japanese)

  • Gantt P, Gantt R (2012) Disaster psychology: dispelling the myths of panic. Professional Safety 57:42–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser EL, Laibson D, Sacerdote B (2002) An economic approach to social capital. Econ J 112:437–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horie S, Managi S (2017) Why do people stay in or leave Fukushima? J Reg Sci 57:840–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ichinose D, Yamamoto M, Yoshida Y (2015) The decoupling of affluence and waste discharge under spatial correlation: do richer communities discharge more waste? Environ Dev Econ 20:161–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishimura Y, Takeuchi K (2016) An econometric study on attitude of municipalities regarding the acceptance of disaster waste generated from the Great East Japan Earthquake. J Japan Soc Mater Cycles Waste Manage 27:7–15 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito N, Kuriyama K (2017) Averting behaviors of very small radiation exposure via food consumption after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station accident. Am J Agr Econ 99:55–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Japan Fire and Crisis Management Association (JAFMA) (2015) Report on the strategies of public and private partnerships for disaster management by municipalities. http://www.boukakiki.or.jp/H26chousa_houkoku.pdf). Accessed 10 Mar 2020 (in Japanese)

  • Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1998) A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Financ Econ 17:99–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeSage JP (1999) Applied econometrics using MATLAB. University of Toledo, Department of Economics

    Google Scholar 

  • LeSage JP (2000) Bayesian estimation of limited dependent variable spatial autoregressive models. Geograph Anal 32:19–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeSage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC

  • Levinson A (1999a) State taxes and interstate hazardous waste shipments. Am Econ Rev 89:666–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson A (1999b) NIMBY taxes matter: the case of state hazardous waste disposal taxes. J Public Econ 74:31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Li H, Decety J, Lee K (2013) Experiencing a natural disaster alters children’s altruistic giving. Psychol Sci 24:1686–1695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar N, Zhong CB (2010) Do green products make us better people? Psychol Sci 21:494–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of the Environment (2011) Guidelines for the disposal of disaster waste related to the Great East Japan Earthquake (master plan). https://www.env.go.jp/jishin/attach/haiki_masterplan.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2020 (in Japanese)

  • Miyazaki T, Sato M (2017) Empirical studies on strategic interaction among municipality governments over disaster waste after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. J Japanese Int Econ 44:26–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monin B, Miller DT (2001) Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman S, Lichter SR (1987) Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. Am Polit Sci Rev 81:383–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasao T (2004) Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors. Environ Econ Policy Studies 6:147–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajima K, Yamamoto M, Ichinose D (2016) How do agricultural markets respond to radiation risk? Evidence from the 2011 disaster in Japan. Reg Sci Urban Econ 60:20–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuichi Ishimura.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

See Table

Table 6 Correlation matrix

6.

Appendix

See Table

Table 7 Marginal effects: Probit models on the decision to accept waste

7.

Appendix

See Tables

Table 8 Marginal effects: Spatial probit models (Neighboring municipalities within 100 km)

8,

Table 9 Marginal effects: Spatial probit models (Actual neighboring relationship)

9.

Appendix

See Table

Table 10 the estimation results from SARAR model

10.

Appendix

See Table

Table 11 Results with the pro-sociality variables before the disaster

11.

Table C shows the estimation results using the variables of volunteer activities and donation amounts before the earthquake. The amount of community chest before the earthquake is positively correlated with the likelihood of accepting disaster waste in the 2011 model. The extent of pro-sociality in general affects the likelihood of acceptance around the period of the disaster but before the acknowledgment of the radiation risk of disaster waste had spread. In contrast to the results in the 2011 model, this variable (pro-sociality) has a negative and statistically significant coefficient in the 2013 model. In addition, the measure of volunteer activities before the earthquake is also negative and statistically significant in the 2012 and 2013 models. Pro-sociality in general before the earthquake might have led to moral licensing and a reluctance to accept disaster waste, supporting the findings of Mazar and Zhong (2010). Specifically, people usually positive toward volunteering might have become less altruistic in accepting disaster waste. The results of the other variables are similar to the main results in Table 11.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ishimura, Y., Takeuchi, K. & Carlsson, F. Why do municipalities accept disaster waste? Evidence from the great east Japan earthquake. Environ Econ Policy Stud 23, 275–308 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00297-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00297-0

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation