Articles with asterisks are foundational resources.
* Adger, W. Neil. 2000. “Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related?” Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 347–64.
In this article, Adger examines how social and ecological resilience interact with one another. Adger defines the resilience of an ecological system as “the functioning of the system, rather than the stability of its component populations, or even the ability to maintain a steady ecological state” (349). This directly relates to the topic of ecological diversity and whether such a population would be resilient. Adger points out that many people consider coastal communities to be the most resilient, while also some of the least diverse. Social resilience then, can be approached through the context of ecological systems. In such a case, the dependance of social systems on ecological resources, as well as the ability of social institutions to resume (or maintain) function are key components to understanding social resilience.
In regards to my research, this is an important resource in understanding the relationship between residents surrounding Fukushima and the ability of the residents to return. One question that keeps returning within my work is, how can a community be resilient if it is unable to return to its previous location? This paper will help me to better understand the relationship of people and place within social systems, and how those relationships are or are not resilient.
*Adger, W. Neil. 2006. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16: 268–81.
This author is referenced in many articles and has thousands of citations online, for many papers regarding vulnerability and resiliency. This article on vulnerability discusses the different variations of vulnerability modeling and assessment that have been developed. Adger also briefly defines resiliency, and the relationship between resiliency and vulnerability. In doing so, he acknowledges that both terms are interested in the strands of the same relationships: “the shocks and stresses experienced by the social and ecological system, the response of the system, and the capacity for adaptive action” (269). Within these three, Adger notes that while the social and ecological systems are often separated in practice, such separation is “arbitrary” (268).
This article is significant because it supports framework that uses vulnerability as a component by providing thorough defense of definition, as well as multiple approaches of understanding and assessing. He regards such diversity of approach as a “sign of vitality” (277). Included in the significance of this paper is the interest in the psychological impacts of vulnerability, which could directly pertain to my research. Adger writes, “perceptions of barriers to actually adapting by the vulnerable do in fact limit adaptive actions, even when there are capacities and resources to adapt” (276). This self-assessment possibility of vulnerable communities could greatly impact the self-efficacy of residents following nuclear incidents.
*Adger, W. Neil, Terry P. Hughes, Carl Folke, Stephen R. Carpenter, and Johan Rockström. 2005. “Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters.” Science 309 (5737): 1036–39.
Adger et. al. uses this paper to interrogate the relationship between social and ecological resilience, specifically in the context of coastal environments. Given the large number of people who live in coastal environments globally, Adger et. al. claims that coastal ecosystems are “some of the most impacted and altered worldwide” (1036). Even those who do not live in such ecosystems might be reliant on the economic functions that port cities provide. Resilience, in this paper, is defined as the “capacity to absorb recurrent disturbances such as hurricanes or floods, so as to retain essential structures, processes, and feedbacks” (1036). The authors continue on to discuss how coastal hazards can turn into disaster after social and ecological resilience begins to “erode” and cannot be maintained, some or much of said erosion is likely to be human-initiated.
Due to the specificity of the area in which resilience is applied in this paper, the analysis will be applicable to the location of communities affected after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. A critical component of the Fukushima power plant was the ability to cool the reactors using sea-water. Not only were both the community and the plant reliant on the coastal environment, but both were affected by the same hazard, which was escalated by the potential breakdown of resilience. This article would be a valuable source in addressing these relationships and system failures.
Brumfiel, Geoff. 2013. “Fallout Of Fear.” Nature 493: 290–93.
Brumfiel assesses the psychological impacts of nuclear disaster on evacuees of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown. While he acknowledges that the government included immediate radiation-risk assessments, there was and continues to be little work done for the mental health of resettled residents. Such realities are likely a combination of either will or capability of the government to provide support, acceptance of support by residents, and the general “reluctance to discuss mental problems” (291). A large component of Brumfiel’s work emphasizes both the style and impact of evacuation by families, as well as the stresses of unknown health consequences from low-dose radiation exposure. The impacts of long-term temporary housing from evacuation is also a high priority of this article.
This is a highly relevant article for my research because it addresses an important component of social resilience after disaster: mental health. It also connects because it touches on a topic of interest for me, that of how a community can be resilient if it is unable to return to its previous location. The methodology of this article could be very useful in providing applicable social movement description and psychological impacts of said movement.
Coleman, C. Norman, Daniel J. Blumenthal, Charles A. Casto, Michael Alfant, Steven L. Simon, Alan L. Remick, Heather J. Gepford, et al. 2013. “Recovery and Resilience After a Nuclear Power Plant Disaster: A Medical Decision Model for Managing an Effective, Timely, and Balanced Response.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 7 (2): 136–45.
Coleman et. al. emphasizes the need for a nuclear power plant decision-making model by suggesting that making no decision is in effect, a decision. During the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown, one source of confusion was that US citizens in the country were given alternative directions of response by the US government, as opposed to the Japanese directives. In order to create community response that is clear, concise, and resilient, the model defines a number of concerns are responses that would need to be assessed. These include physical infrastructure, monitoring of radioactive release, environmental and resource contamination, medical assistance, exposure, risk association, and economic progress. The model includes three possible decision pathways, and each mentioned concern reflects the citizen or component response to how the concern is addressed by decision-makers.
This source could be useful in articulating the successes and failures of the communication and relationships between citizens near Fukushima and those in charge of the incident. One aspect of resilience that could be applicable to this article would be the involvement of institutions and civilians in the decision-making process pre-, during, and post-disaster.
*Cutter, Susan L., Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric Tate, and Jennifer Webb. 2008. “A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters.” Global Environmental Change 18: 598–606.
Cutter et. al. describes the foundation for disaster resilience modeling through place-based study. The article differentiates between vulnerability as “the pre-event, inherent characteristics or qualities of social systems that create the potential for harm” and resilience as “a system’s capacity to absorb disturbance and reorganize into a fully functioning system” (599). The model predicts that the impact a disaster has on a community can be articulated through the combination of pre-existing conditions, event characteristics, and community coping responses. The community’s ability for long-term recovery is determined by the absorptive capacity, and the social learning if such capacity is exceeded.
This article is useful because it not only clearly defines terms relevant within the model, but also defends the use of definitions, terms, and frameworks. The conceptual framework of the model is both broad and in-depth, providing good evidence for different steps of the resilience model. The definitions and frameworks of this article will be helpful in building a strong background for my project, supported by strong references. The model itself could be useful in creating effective and efficient methodology that are specific to Fukushima, Japan. Methodology could specifically target the immediate “coping responses” and/or “social learning” from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown and evacuation.
Kinefuchi, Etsuko. 2015. “Nuclear Power for Good: Articulations in Japan’s Nuclear Power Hegemony.” Communication, Culture & Critique 8: 448–65.
This article is important foundation for why studying nuclear power in Japan is significant. Because Japan has experience nuclear attack, the adoption of nuclear power formulated in a different way. Kinefuchi outlines how the discourse of nuclear power in Japan after World War II created a nuclear power hegemony. The four primary categories that Kinefuchi uses are “pronuclear articulations,” “absolutely safe,” “can’t live without it,” and “green and clean.” Within each category are examples wherein hegemonic nuclear discourse was created and perpetuated, often through “public relations campaigns, mass media, and education.”
The depth of the nuclear power discourse in Japan is excellent foundation to better understand the specific actions and responses of Fukushima residents during the 2011 earthquake. While the article does reference political and institutional programs and agendas, the social and community impacts would be most relevant to my research. Having foundation of how discourse develops is important also, in that how ideas are dissipated in communities can affect the type of methodologies used.
Sugimoto, A., S. Krull, S. Nomura, T. Morita, and M. Tsubokura. 2012. “The Voice of the Most Vulnerable: Lessons from the Nuclear Crisis in Fukushima, Japan.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90 (8): 629–30.
The focus of this article is on the physical and mental health of a specific vulnerable population in the areas of the Fukushima prefecture that was evacuated during the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi meltdown. The authors discuss health checks and first account stories from aging populations in the area, and how the interests of the elderly are unaccounted for in the communication and implementation of post-disaster functions. The elderly in the article are mentioned to be highly active, spend most days outside, and are very connected to the land on which they were raised. The rate of morbidity in the community is relatively high compared to other populations due to both the age of the population and potential stresses from evacuation, and “self-imposed ‘grounding’ and lack of physical activity” (629).
This article will be a great resource to study the mental health of the evacuees in the area, and how different populations are involved in the creation of resilience. This particular aging community includes aspects important to whether the concept of resilience can be applied to the Fukushima prefecture, including sense of place, age, and lifestyle. It also can be informative towards the communication strategies between community members and institutional voices, such as evacuation orders.
Wang, Qiang, Xi Chen, and Xu Xi-chong. 2013. “Accident like the Fukushima Unlikely in a Country with Effective Nuclear Regulation: Literature Review and Proposed Guidelines.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Review 17: 126–46.
This article outlines detailed event sequences, structures, and decisions involved in the failure of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The goal of the article is to determine the extent to which predictability of tsunamis can and should be involved in the guidelines for nuclear plants. In Japan, the guidelines for resources such as flood walls and back-up generator placement (both of which failed in the meltdown event), had little or no precedent in which to compare. This article delves deeply into the current and proposed guidelines for design decisions, which can be applied to my project when distinguishing between political/institutional power and resilience versus that of the surrounding community. The content of this paper would be applicable in accentuating similarities and/or differences in the resident and institutional understanding of the accident and how that affects post-disaster resilience.
Yamashita, Shunichi, and Noboru Takamura. 2015. “Post-Crisis Efforts towards Recovery and Resilience after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident.” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 45 (8): 700–707.
Shunichi and Takamura discuss the Japanese response to thyroid cancer concerns after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown. In order to do so, the authors compare cancer risk and disaster response between Chernobyl and Fukushima. Both events are rated a 7 on the International Nuclear Event scale, though the thyroid cancer rates are significantly different between the two. Chernobyl childhood thyroid cancer rates were much higher than current rates from the Fukushima disaster. Shunichi and Takamura suggest that though there is little culture of radioactivity response in Japan due to the safety myth, Japan did have a better short-term response than Chernobyl. Immediately after the event, “evacuation, sheltering and control of food chain were implemented in a timely manner by the Japanese government” (702). There were, however, few long-term emergency cultures that were developed because of the Chernobyl disaster.
This article includes aspects of Japan’s emergency culture, as well as analysis of how effective the culture was in response to the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown. This analysis will help provide data and context to methodologies, particularly to any relating to thyroid cancer. The source can also help give context to emergency culture that can be applied to aspects outside of the cancer field.
Zhang, Hui, Wanglin Yan, Akihiro Oba, and Wei Zhang. 2014. “Radiation-Driven Migration: The Case of Minamisoma City, Fukushima, Japan, after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11 (9): 9286–9305.
Zhang et. al. uses data on Minamisoma City, Fukushima, Japan as a case study on the effects of the nuclear disaster and subsequent evacuation and resettlement. The study identifies three main reasons for residents of the area to leave the area permanently, even after the area was deemed safe: the unknown of low-dose radiation risk, distrust in the government, and little economic “vitality” in the area. The study finds that most populations that are permanently emigrating from the city are young people (under 19) and young/middle-aged women. The data includes analysis of age, gender, long and short term anxiety and distrust, sense of place/community, economic growth, differing effects on various industries, and more.
This source will be helpful in the methodology of my research, particularly the components that involve individual resilience, mental health, evacuation, and economic resilience of Fukushima prefecture. If possible to get primary access to the data used in this study, could provide a useful data set. The study also has an extensive reference list, which could provide more data and key literature that would pertain to the components relative to this study.