Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Recommendation to ASEAN nuclear development based on lessons learnt T

from the Fukushima nuclear accident
Shoki Kosaia,b,∗, Eiji Yamasuea
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan
b
Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The disastrous circumstances in the aftermath of a massive event like Fukushima nuclear accident is not unique
Civic engagement to Japan. The more exertion to prevent the next Fukushima nuclear accident is required not to reiterate the
Energy literacy similar failure. The countries where nuclear power is potentially introduced in future need to study the lessons
Nuclear policy learnt from the Fukushima nuclear accident, which would help to highlight the critical point for the future
Regulatory body
nuclear operation. However, the scholarly application of the lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident to
Regulation
Association of South-East Asian Nations
such countries, in particular ASEAN Member States (AMS), has yet to be fully discussed. As such, this study first
conducts the diachronic analysis of various energy and nuclear policies in Japan before and after the Fukushima
nuclear accident and then identifies the three major lessons and challenges, that is; nuclear regulatory institu-
tional reform, development of stringent regulation and public engagement in policy making. Finally, the current
nuclear situation in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippine and Thailand in ASEAN is analyzed to extract the critical
aspect of nuclear installation in AMS and to provide strategic implications on the basis of the identified lessons
learnt from the Fukushima nuclear accident.

1. Introduction energy infrastructure of country - especially in northern and eastern

Issues of energy security and global warming arising from the in-
crease in world energy demand have resulted in drastic changes to the
energy landscapes. Excess energy utilization has induced the fuel de-
pletion, accelerated CO2 emissions, and volatility of energy prices. In an
attempt to be less dependent on foreign import of fossil fuels, to reduce
the GHG emissions and to improve the diversification of energy con-
figuration, nuclear power technology has been developed as a panacea.
The Asian nuclear industry has been recently growing. New nuclear
reactors were built in China, India, Pakistan and South Korea (OECD,
2013). Especially, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN),
where energy demand has increased by 4.2% per year (ASEAN Centre
for Energy, 2015), has also considered the installation of nuclear power
to secure the sufficient electricity generation capacity. The nuclear
power utilization has been included in the long term energy policy in
some ASEAN Member States (AMS) including Thailand, Malaysia, In-
donesia and the Philippines.
However, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, or
the Fukushima nuclear accident, on March 11.2011 has changed the
global nuclear landscape (Bahgat, 2006). The massive seismic event in
Japan called the Great East Japan Earthquake extensively damaged the
mainland Japan. Tsunami caused by the earthquake devastated the east
Japan pacific coast and triggered the Fukushima nuclear accident. Due
to the Fukushima nuclear accident, concerns with sudden supply dis-
ruption dedicated for the nuclear vulnerability were highlighted (Kosai
and Unesaki, 2017). This crisis was even felt globally, pushing the issue
of nuclear power to the top of the global energy utilization agenda. Due
to the sudden drop of social support in nuclear power, with the event as
a prompt, several countries such as Switzerland and Germany decided
to cease the operation of nuclear power plants (Ethics Commission on a
Sa, 2011).
In response to the Fukushima nuclear accident, ASEAN has been
more sensitively concerned with the nuclear power installation, and
those governments apparently adopted the “wait and see” attitude
(Nian and Chou, 2014). Even under such circumstances, the Vietnamese
Government had planned to construct the two nuclear power plants
with 4000 MW capacity in Ninh Thuan Province (Caballero-Anthony
and Trajeno, 2015). The anticipated completion of this project in
Vietnam is expected to induce the effect of driving the initiation of
nuclear installation project in other AMS and of regaining the public
support in nuclear industry (Nian and Chou, 2014; Pongsoi and
Wongwises, 2013). On November 22, 2016, meanwhile, the Vietnamese

∗
Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan.
E-mail address: kosai0203@gmail.com (S. Kosai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.058
Received 17 December 2018; Received in revised form 20 February 2019; Accepted 21 February 2019
0301-4215/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue
Abbreviation
AEC Thai Atomic Energy Commission for Peace
AELB Atomic Energy License Board
ANCRE Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy
AMS ASEAN member states
ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations
BAPETEN Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency
BATAN National Nuclear Energy Agency of Indonesia
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CUJ Consumers union of Japan
DOSH Department of Occupation Safety and Health
ESP Energy Strategic Plan
FEPC Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan
GHG Greenhouse gas
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
Government scrapped the plan of opening the first nuclear power plant
due to the issue of both economic and public acceptance (Caballero-
Anthony and Trajeno, 2015). This cancellation is likely to cause the
more critical reluctance of other AMS to dive into the new nuclear
energy project.
Especially, the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy against
renewable energy is becoming a key concern. Ram et al. calculated the
levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of renewables, fossil fuels and nuclear
source in all the G20 countries and stated that, in general, the LCOE of
renewables is lower than that of nuclear in 2015 when the costs of
financing, budget overruns, waste management, decommissioning and
relative risks are considered and this trend will be seen in 2030 even if
not considering these external costs (Ram et al., 2018). In particular,
although the insurance cost was presented in this calculation, the spe-
cific nuclear liability insurance was not clearly argued. Given its con-
tribution to approximately 3% of total LCOE of nuclear in the case of
Japan (Power Generation Cost Ana, 2015), the actual cost including the
nuclear liability insurance would be slightly higher than their estima-
tion. On the other hand, drawbacks of renewables compared to nuclear
energy need to be clarified: that is, much lower concentrated energy
production from the viewpoint of land intensity (Global Change Resear,
2009), the inevitable intermittency of power output causing difficulties
in maintaining the power quality, and the greater use of critical metals
for renewables facilities exacerbating security of metal supply and
vulnerability to supply restriction (Miyamoto et al., 2019). Ad-
ditionally, the competitiveness of renewables against nuclear energy
varies depending on countries (Ram et al., 2018). Considering these
perspectives, the potential of nuclear power contribution cannot be
simply ignored.
In order to ensure the reliable electricity supply, in response to the
significant increase of electricity demand, policymakers come to rely on
energy-related megaprojects including nuclear power development
(Callegari et al., 2018). Implications deduced through the analysis of
mageproject in Asia are useful for those considering the same mega-
projects in other sites (Sovacool and Bulan, 2011). Zerger and Noël
stated that lessons learnt from failures in the existing nuclear facilities
would assist in minimizing deficiencies probably occurring for a new
nuclear installation (Zerger and Noël, 2011). Particularly, the dis-
astrous circumstances in the aftermath of a massive event like Fu-
kushima nuclear accident is not unique to Japan. The more exertion to
prevent the next Fukushima nuclear accident is required not to reiterate
the similar failure. Notwithstanding various barriers lying ahead for
nuclear power installation, the countries potentially installing nuclear
facilities have to study the lessons particularly exposed through the
Fukushima nuclear accident, which would help to highlight the critical
point for the future nuclear operation and to design the well-grounded
nuclear energy policy reflecting lessons.
629
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635
JAERO Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization
JNES Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization
MHLG Ministry of Housing and Local Government
MNPC Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation
NAIIC Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission
NISA Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency
NRA Nuclear Regulation Authority
NSC Nuclear Safety Commission
OAP Office of Atomic for Peace
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
PNRI Philippine Nuclear Research Institute
PV Photovoltaic
TEPCO Tokyo Electric Power Company
Although all of nuclear nations shall consider the lessons, ASEAN
would be one of the appropriate cases to be assessed, since some AMS
have been exposed by massive natural disasters as was seen in Japan
and there is a high possibility of nuclear installation in multiple coun-
tries in succession after one country breaks the “wait and see” situation.
In addition, due to the geographical characteristic Japan has a strong
partnership with ASEAN in an economic, political, cultural and in-
dustrial way for a long time. Given that the export of the nuclear
technology to other prospective countries (like the case in Vietnam) is
one of major policies in the current Japanese administrative, not only
technological but also social, political and regulatory platforms should
be applied on the basis of the amicable relationship between Japan and
ASEAN.
As such, the objective of this research is to analyze the lessons from
the Fukushima nuclear accident, and to provide recommendations to
the nuclear situation in ASEAN by applying the identified lessons.
This study is structured as follows: A literature review on the effects
of Fukushima nuclear accident on the global energy landscape and
nuclear energy in ASEAN is outlined in Section 2. Section 3 presents the
methodology of identifying the lessons from the Fukushima nuclear
accident to provide recommendations to the nuclear situation in
ASEAN. Section 4 illustrates the identified lessons in Japan from the
Fukushima nuclear accident. Recommendation to ASEAN nuclear de-
velopment is provided in Section 5. Finally Section 6 concludes this
study.
2. Literature review
Extensive studies have been reported to explore the Fukushima
nuclear accident.
Many research works have assessed the effects of Fukushima nuclear
accident on the global energy landscape particularly from the per-
spectives of public perceptions and policy narratives.
Pertaining to the effect on public perceptions, residences at the host
nuclear power plant site in China were targeted (Sun and Zhu, 2014;
Zhu et al., 2016). Sun and Zhu focused on public perceptions of “not-in-
my-back-yard” (Sun and Zhu, 2014), while Zhu et al. analyzed the
public attitude by monitoring transactions in land markets around the
host site (Zhu et al., 2016). In assessments of public perceptions, the
overall national survey was also conducted (Kim et al., 2013; Welsch
and Biermann, 2014; Latre et al., 2017). Kim et al. highlighted the re-
lations between proportions of nuclear power and public support in 42
nations (Kim et al., 2013), while Latre et al. surveyed the interactions of
geographical locations of 41 countries from Fukushima with the public
opinion (Latre et al., 2017). Welsch and Bierman studied the relation-
ship between the subjective well-being and nuclear power supply pre-
ferences in Europe (Welsch and Biermann, 2014). Despite of
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue
importance of public involvement indicated in many research works
(e.g. (Sun and Zhu, 2014)), in the aftermath of Fukushima nuclear ac-
cident, the lower willingness of citizens to take part in social activities
related to nuclear issues (Nakamura, 2017) and the risk of belief in
exaggerated and false rumor (Kim and Kim, 2017) were reported.
Pertaining to the effect on policy narratives, various research papers
have addressed the shift of nuclear policy before and after the
Fukushima nuclear accident (Zeng et al., 2016; Kunsch and
Friesewinkel, 2014). Hayashi and Hughes assessed its impact from the
perspective of energy security, which is a driving force of energy policy
(Hayashi and Hughes, 2013). Wittneben identified the reasons of the
divergent responses in the national nuclear policy to Fukushima nuclear
disaster among a multiple countries based on intensity of media reports,
trust in renewable energy innovation, history of nuclear resistance, and
cultural background (Wittneben, 2012).
In contrast to the effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident, its cause
other than the technical failure has been also pointed out, mainly taking
into account the nuclear safety regulation (Wang and Chen, 2011;
Nöggerath et al., 2011). By analyzing the failures of safety regulation in
Japan, Wang and Chen provides the recommendation on the nuclear
regulatory system in China (Wang and Chen, 2012a) and United States
(Wang and Chen, 2012b).
Notwithstanding a great deal of publications related to the
Fukushima nuclear accident, limited research works on nuclear energy
in ASEAN were published. Nian and Chou identified the drivers of
nuclear power development in ASEAN from the perspectives of energy
security and climate change mitigation (Nian and Chou, 2014). Nian
assessed the economic, environmental and safety and security factors of
advanced nuclear power technology in ASEAN (Nian, 2015). He also
pointed out the significant potential of small modular reactors utilized
in ASEAN due to close geographical landscape (Nian, 2017). Putra
identified the most recent progress of nuclear power development in the
ASEAN region (Putra, 2017). Caballero-Anthony and Trajano argued
the necessity of addressing critical issues associated with nuclear power
utilization in ASEAN (Caballero-Anthony and Trajeno, 2015). Through
the projection of energy increase in ASEAN, Tashimo and Matsui em-
phasized the institutional establishment of regional stable nuclear fuel
supply system in ASEAN (Tashimo and Matsui, 2008). Abraham theo-
retically broke down the boundaries between the power of nuclear
promotor and the rest of society by genealogically exploring historical
nuclear conflicts in ASEAN (Abraham, 2016).
However, the scholarly application of the lessons from the
Fukushima nuclear accident to the countries where nuclear power is
potentially introduced in future, such as AMS, has been scarcely dis-
cussed.
3. Methodology
Energy-related issues would be associated with concerns experi-
mentally seen in energy policy narratives (Cherp and Jewell, 2011).
Since nuclear development is a policy matter, its assessment should be
relevant to policy transition. In this regard, a policy-oriented approach
is useful to cover various perspectives in energy and nuclear policies in
Japan (Kucharski and Unesaki, 2015).
Firstly, the governmental and non-governmental documents
Table 1
Summary of lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident.
Lesson
Nuclear regulatory institutional reform
Development of stringent regulation
Public engagement
630
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635
associated with nuclear and energy policy published in Japan since
1950 up to before Fukushima nuclear accident were qualitatively re-
viewed to understand the concerns and priorities of Japanese govern-
ment towards nuclear development and to track the transition of notion
of nuclear power. This is presented in Appendix A. Then, Japan's nu-
clear and energy policy published before/after the event was compared.
Especially, the diachronic survey focused on both the highlighted pro-
blems exposed after the Fukushima nuclear accident and the developed
new strategic energy plan associated with nuclear power utilization to
identify the lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident.
Finally, a series of semi-structured hearings were conducted in
ASEAN Centre for Energy in May and June 2017. Its main purpose is to
explore the current situation towards nuclear power installation in AMS
and to extract the critical aspect of nuclear installation in AMS in terms
of the identified lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident.
4. Lessons in Japan from the Fukushima nuclear accident
The three components could be considered lessons exposed from the
Fukushima nuclear accident, as summarized in Table 1. Each of com-
ponents is explained in detail in the following sections.
4.1. Investigation of the Fukushima nuclear accident
In the aftermath of Fukushima nuclear accident, its investigation
was initiated. The Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Commission (NAIIC) was developed based on the legislation de-
termined by the Diet in December 2011. Given that the Government
was associated with the Fukushima nuclear accident as an accident
respondent and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was in charge
of operation of power plant, the NAIIC is the most reliable investigation
team due to the composing 10-members independent from the
Government and TEPCO (The Nuclear Accident Inde, 2012). Besides
that, the Cabinet forms the Investigation Committee on the Accident at
the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Com-
pany in May 2011 (Investigation Committee o, 2012). These in-
vestigation teams were established for the purpose of not only the ac-
cident investigation but also the provision of recommendations towards
the energy and nuclear system structure as well as of precautionary
measures for the potential nuclear accident.
These investigation teams in common pointed out the ineffective
institutional system and the vulnerable nuclear regulation framework.
While there were thirteen organizations which were in charge of var-
ious nuclear regulations in Japan (Shiroyama, 2015), a potential con-
flict of interest was observed between the regulators and the promotors
of nuclear industry. For example, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Agency (NISA) established under METI was one of the major nuclear
regulatory organizations in Japan. Even though NISA was responsible
for overseeing nuclear regulation, METI, NISA's umbrella organization,
was responsible for promoting nuclear industry. This contradictory
structure generated the potential conflict of interest. The NAIIC's final
report especially concluded that this nuclear accident can be foresee-
able and avoidable and that the previous structure of both the reg-
ulators and the promotor was the main cause of failure of nuclear safety
regulations and adequate preventative measures. Besides that, the
Content
➢ Independence of regulators from promotors
➢ Integrated and well-structured regulatory bodies
➢ Consideration of various external disturbances
➢ Absorption of advises from the overseas
➢ Public involvement in decision making process
➢ High energy literacy and education
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue
industry associations had a significant influence on the promotion of
nuclear industry. The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan
(FEPC), which coordinates the Japan's regional electric power compa-
nies, was accused of affecting the regulation determination process
(National Diet of Japan Independent Investigation Commission, 2012).
Additionally, seven recommendations were indicated, including a basic
stance for safety measures and emergency preparedness; safety mea-
sures regarding nuclear power generation; nuclear emergency response
systems; damage prevention and mitigation; harmonization with in-
ternational practices; relevant organizations; continued investigation of
accident causes and damage (Investigation Committee o, 2012).
It would be appeared that the safety myth underlay the aforemen-
tioned ineffective nuclear regulatory activities (Kucharski, 2016). This
safety myth had been developed based on the unreasonable over-
confidence in the ability of Japanese nuclear technology (Onishi, 2011)
and the excessively proceeding bipolarization between the advocates
and the resistances (Vosse and Drifte, 2014; Independent Investigation,
2014). The increasing voices of nuclear resistance led to the stronger
announcement of safety aspect from the advocates. This accident ex-
plicitly exposed the conception of safety myth resulting in the failures
of safety requirement, communication and information sharing, and
adequate preventative measures.
4.2. New 4th Energy Strategic Plan
After the Fukushima nuclear accident, the 4th new Energy Strategic
Plan was published on 11 April 2014. This new Energy Strategic Plan is
hereafter referred to 4ESP. This section focuses on the nuclear strategy
described in the 4ESP.
The 4ESP provided the ten long-term strategies to establish “an
energy supply-demand structure that realizes a stable energy supply
system which imposes a light burden on society” (Ministry of Economy,
2014). One of the strategies is related to the nuclear power utilization:
Re-establishing nuclear energy policy. This nuclear strategy indicated
the re-organizing an optimal administrative regulatory body, the efforts
to the spent nuclear fuel issues, nuclear fuel cycle establishment, and
the public engagement. In addition, the enhancement of energy related
communication and education is also described as other key elements.
To develop the well-grounded two-way communication system, the
government seeks the improvement of energy literacy through the
public understanding of scientific energy landscape.
It must be mentioned that the future nuclear target has been altered
after the Fukushima nuclear accident. National Diet of Japan
Independent Investigation Commission, 2012, the Japanese govern-
ment under the control of the Democratic Party published the In-
novative Strategy for Energy and the Environment, setting the target of
phasing out nuclear energy by the 2030's (The Energy and Environmen,
2012). However, significant complaints from the industry communities
argued the increase in the electricity cost in response to phasing out the
nuclear would potentially jeopardized the Japanese business compe-
tence. Finally, this publication turned out to be the mere reference
document. After the Liberal Democratic Party took the control of gov-
ernment, the previous target was reset, and then the new energy and
nuclear policy was developed from scratch. The new government em-
phasized the development of energy structure with stable supply and
low energy cost (Agency for Natural Resour, 2013). Even though the
4ESP indicated electricity dependency on nuclear power is minimized,
nuclear power is still considered as an important electricity source by
the current Japanese government even after the Fukushima nuclear
accident (Tabuchi, 2012).
4.3. Identification of lessons and challenges of nuclear system from the
Fukushima nuclear accident
4.3.1. Nuclear regulatory institutional reform
The 4ESP is the first nuclear energy policy which describes the
631
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635
necessity of independent structure of nuclear regulatory institution. The
investigation reports of the Fukushima nuclear accident explained in
Section 4.1 highlighted the weak function of nuclear regulatory body as
one of the main causes of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Scandals of
nuclear facilities over the past decades (World Nuclear Association,
2015) well prove the issue of conflict of interest in the institutional
structure. Regulatory body such as NISA failed to operate their assigned
tasks due to conflict of interest, which caused a series of avoidable
accidents (Hatamura et al., 2015). Following investigation reports, the
Act for Establishing of the Nuclear Regulation Authority was de-
termined by the Japanese government in June 2012 (The Japanese
Government, 2012). The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) was de-
veloped as an independent regulatory organization under the Ministry
of Environment instead of under METI in order to avoid the conflict of
interest between the regulators and the promotors. The former reg-
ulatory bodies such as NISA under METI and Nuclear Safety Commis-
sion (NSC) under the Cabinet Office were incorporated in the NRA in
October 2012. In addition, the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organi-
zation (JNES) was also included in the NRA in 2014 (Agency for
Natural Resour, 2014) and then, all of safety regulatory bodies have
been unified. The control of nuclear power operation was transferred
from the METI to the NRA (Nuclear Regulation Author, 2012). The
overall diagram of institutional reform is presented in Appendix B. The
new regulatory body regains the role of monitoring the activities of
both the promotor and the operator. It would appear that the institu-
tional reform raises the sense of safety for the nuclear power utilization.
4.3.2. Stringent regulations
The 4ESP is the first nuclear energy policy which describes the
importance of developing more stringent regulations. The investigation
reports of the Fukushima nuclear accident explained in Section 4.1
pointed out the various failures of nuclear regulation. Following the
recommendation of these investigation reports, a significant effort was
put on an overall review of nuclear regulation, and then the newly
established NRA developed the most stringent nuclear regulation in the
world. The new safety regulation standard associated with the com-
mercial nuclear power plants published by the NRA in 2016 pointed out
the major drawbacks of previous nuclear safety regulation including a
lack of measurement of severe accidents, no back fit legal framework, a
lack of absorption of advises from the overseas and no comprehensive
risk assessment from the external causes (Nuclear Regulation Author,
2016).
The comparison of international standard of nuclear regulation and
the inclusion of public comments were included in the process of the
new regulation establishment (World Nuclear Association, 2015). The
basic concept of the new nuclear safety regulation was developed based
on the thorough defense in depth with the multi-layer measures, re-
inforcement of preventative measures by focusing on the various rea-
sonable natural disaster, and consideration of nuclear accident causes
other than natural disaster. The major change from the previous reg-
ulation is categorized into two aspects: the reinforcement of prevention
against the reasonable accident and the new establishment of measures
after the occurrence of severe accidents. The nuclear power plant has to
be inspected and approved by the NRA for its restart. The major in-
dicators described in the new nuclear safety regulation are summarized
in Appendix C. The inclusion of safety and disaster management into a
single regulatory body would contribute to the improvement of com-
munications through the multilateral nuclear regulation areas
(Shiroyama, 2015).
4.3.3. Public engagement
The 4ESP is the first nuclear energy policy which explicitly de-
scribes the necessity of improving public engagement and energy lit-
eracy. Recently, the public involvement has a significant impact on the
determination of energy-related activities. The public has sought the
safe environment in the energy utilization. The low public acceptance
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue
would highly lead to phasing out a particular energy technology (e.g.
nuclear power in Germany) (World Energy Council, 2013).
The Fukushima nuclear accident has significantly contributed to the
drop of public acceptance. Right after the Fukushima disaster, the
public concerned on the risk of radioactive influence on the health and
on the government ability of coping with the accident. And then, the
concern was gradually shifted to the government ability to manage the
restoration and address the overall nuclear safety issues. The study on
the public attitude towards nuclear power after the Fukushima nuclear
accident well proves the public distrust to the government nuclear
safety strategy (He et al., 2013) and the public opposition to the restart
of nuclear power plant (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2010; Shimbun, 2013).
In addition, the strong opposition from anti-nuclear communities
against the restart of nuclear power plant caused the several lawsuits.
For instance, Otsu district court accused the vulnerability of emergency
measure in Takahama nuclear power plant and made a judgement of its
restart delay, even though the NRA already approved its restart
(Shimnun, 2016).
There is a significant gap of prioritization between the government
and the large portion of public. The main target of government is im-
provement of energy security and competitive economy, while the large
portion of public concerns on risk of nuclear operation. Behind the
attainment of the setting priority in the Japanese government, the
multiple stakeholders have pressured the bureaucratic organizations
such as METI to take into account their demands for the future energy
policy. The overall industry federation in Japan, or Keidanren, is op-
posed to the current situation of non-nuclear power plant operation.
The industry in Japan has experienced the more expensive power cost
and the utilization of nuclear power is expected to contribute to the
international competitiveness (Kilisek, 2014). FEPC argues that the
utilization of nuclear power is the only one solution for cutting off the
power cost and improving energy security. On the other hand, most
civil groups and consumers union of Japan (CUJ) oppose the con-
tinuous utilization of nuclear power, standing in the anti-nuclear po-
sition. The CUJ also argues that there should be a risk of public suf-
fering the burden of increase in power cost by the government assigning
the Fukushima de-commissioning cost to the electricity producers
(Consumers Union of Japan, 2015). The rapid replacement of nuclear
power with renewable power is advocated by other communities such
as Renewable Energy Institute.
It must be mentioned that, before the Fukushima nuclear accident,
the energy policy was developed with the major involvement of internal
committees and the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and
Energy (ANCRE), one of the METI councils, generally consisting of
those from industry and academics (Kucharski, 2016). Following the
historical background, the process of METI's policy making is still sig-
nificantly influenced by vested interests, and the industry has still
played a dominant role in the policy even after the Fukushima nuclear
accident (Vivoda, 2014). This tendency leads to the less attention to the
Table 2
Current situation of nuclear regulatory institution in the AMS.
AMS Main promoter
Indonesia ➢ National Nuclear Energy Agency of Indonesia (BATAN) (under Ministry
of Research and Technology)
➢ Ministry of Energy
Malaysia ➢ Nuclear Malaysia (under Ministry of Science and Technology)
➢ Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) (under Ministry in the
prime minister's department)
The Philippines ➢ Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI)
Thailand ➢ Nuclear Power Program Development Office (under Ministry of Energy)
➢ Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Coordination Committee
(under Ministry of National Energy Policy Committee)
632
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635
public opinion for the energy policy construction.
In addition, the policy making process has been primarily developed
on a basis of one way communication from the policy makers to the
public, named the control-oriented approach (Aldrich, 2012). While the
unremitting consultations for the local communities and governments
in the host nuclear power plant site have been conducted, two way
communications between the national government and the general
public has yet to be applied in the process of policy determination in
Japan. As such, the multiple stakeholders are separated from the policy
decision making process and the communication through each of sta-
keholders is hardly achieved when the government faces the con-
troversial issues such as nuclear power utilization (Folke et al., 2005).
It must be mentioned that the public energy literacy cannot be
simply ignored. Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization (JAERO)
conducted the survey of public knowledge about basic energy circum-
stances in Japan and exposed the Japanese low energy literacy (Japan
Atomic Energy Relat, 2013). Those with weak understandings on the
nuclear and energy are easily affected by the anti-nuclear reports
through the media and the civil resistant activities. The low energy
literacy may influence the resultant public acceptance to some extent
(Arulchelvan, 2013). The government needs to consider the extent to
which the public opinion is constructed based on the well-balanced
knowledge about the nuclear power. The public energy education to
improve energy literacy illustrated in the 4ESP is required to integrate
the public opinion into the process of policy determination.
5. Recommendation to ASEAN nuclear development
The three lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident - the nuclear
regulatory institution, the nuclear safety regulation, and the public
engagement – are identified in Section 4. This section discusses the
application of the identified three lessons from the Fukushima nuclear
accident to the current situation in ASEAN.
Most AMS have attempted to diversify the energy mix to alleviate
the over-dependence on fossil fuels. The country's status of interest in
nuclear energy is reflected in the energy policy narratives. Four AMS
currently include nuclear energy as their long-term energy plan: that is,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, and Thailand. The current nuclear si-
tuation and policy transition after the Fukushima nuclear accident in
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, and Thailand was presented in
Appendix D.
5.1. Regulatory body
The current situation of nuclear regulatory institution in the AMS is
summarized in Table 2. In Indonesia and Thailand, the main promotors
and regulators are positioned under the differential governmental
bodies. In particular, Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency (BAPETEN),
which is a main regulatory body in Indonesia, is independent from the
Main regulator
➢ Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency (BAPETEN)
➢ Ministry of Environment
➢ Atomic Energy License Board (AELB) (under Ministry of Science and
Technology)
➢ Energy Commission
➢ Department of Occupation Safety and Health (DOSH)
➢ Department of Environment
➢ Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG)
➢ Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI)
➢ Office of Atomic for Peace (OAP) (under Thai Atomic Energy Commission
for Peace (AEC) and Ministry of Science and Technology)
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635

governmental department. United States, Russia and South Korea, which would contribute to ease
On the other hand, in Malaysia and the Philippines, the main pro- of promoting the mutual communication.
motor and regulator are under the same umbrella. In particular, in the
case of the Philippines one body called Philippine Nuclear Research
5.3. Public engagement
Institute (PNRI) plays a different role on promoting and regulating
nuclear industry. As for regulatory bodies in Malaysia, although the
Due to a rise of democracy and consequent liberal political atmo-
Atomic Energy License Board (AELB) is a main institution for regulating
sphere in ASEAN, civil groups gained opportunities to challenge the
the usage of nuclear power, there are various other institutions which
unacceptable government decisions such as nuclear installation (Amir
take a different role on nuclear regulation. Due to uncertainties of
and Ni, 2011). This gradual shift made room for the negotiation and
smooth communication between the different regulatory bodies, which
controversies about nuclear issues by the civil groups in ASEAN,
was observed in Japan, it could be recommended that these bodies be
causing various anti-nuclear movements (e.g., in Indonesia (Fauzan and
united into an individual regulatory body.
Schiller, 2011) and in Thailand (Marshall, 2011)).
Notwithstanding the shift towards the democratic and liberal
policy-making situation in ASEAN, some papers pointed out the diffi-
5.2. Safety regulation
culties of achieving public engagement in the assessed countries.
Moeliono et al. identified, in the case of environmental policy, the in-
The current situation of nuclear safety regulation in the AMS is
effective mechanism of public engagement in Indonesia in which, al-
summarized in Table 3 from the perspectives of prevention and emer-
though more discussion and information exchange between the gov-
gency preparedness and response. In Thailand, the OAP is under
ernment and the public were conducted, its structure was one-way and
drafting a new Atomic Energy Act and the Atomic Energy for Peace Act,
top-down mostly (Moeliono et al., 2014). Meesuwan mentioned that
which is the current active rule, does not stipulate the regulatory as-
most attempts of public engagement in policy making were rejected by
pects (entre for Energy, 2018). As such, the accessed countries other
the government in Thailand, leading to the lack of political participa-
than Thailand are presented.
tion from citizens and distrust to government (Meesuwan, 2016).
Among the assessed AMS, Indonesia has been revising the existing
In summary, civil groups in ASEAN have been developed with
regulations (Aryadi, 2017) in response to the Fukushima nuclear acci-
having rights to oppose the government decision, but policy making has
dent. This would contribute to covering new perspectives to be con-
been processed under the control-oriented approach leading to diffi-
sidered as external causes triggering a massive accident. In particular,
culties in public engagement. This situation in ASEAN appears to be
Indonesia has in recent years experienced several natural disasters such
highly similar to the case in Japan outlined in Section 4.3.3, although
as volcano, earthquake and Tsunami like Japan. Inclusions of new
the capacity of civil groups may be structured differently. As advocated
standards taking into account the high possibility of natural disaster
to Japan, a shit of policy decision process from the top-down approach
occurrence would implicitly reflect the lessons from Fukushima nuclear
to the bottom-up approach for promoting the public engagement would
accident.
be required in ASEAN as well, which improves democratic legitimacy
On the other hand, Major updates of regulations after the
and trust in the central government (Yang and Pandey, 2011).
Fukushima nuclear accident have yet to be implemented in Malaysia
Given the similar situation in terms of unprogressive public en-
and the Philippine. The nuclear law in Malaysia has not been updated
gagement between ASEAN and Japan, the energy literacy in ASEAN
for more than thirty years. Additional 56 IAEA standards and 16 draft
should be surveyed in advance, as pointed out in Japan. As far as the
standards were adopted by AELB in 2010 (Jais et al., 2010). AELB has
authors surveyed, there is one study on energy literacy in these assessed
been established pursuant to Act 304, and has been assigned the main
countries, in which Lay et al. found the low energy literacy of secondary
responsibilities for the supervision of nuclear activities based on IAEA
students in Malaysia (Lay et al., 2013). Meanwhile, according to Pro-
Safety Standards Series. In the Philippine, although the contents of
gramme for International Student Assessment (PISA) National Diet of
emergency preparedness and response were included in 2008, only a
Japan Independent Investigation Commission, 2012 (IAEA, 2013), the
few external disturbances are described at present. Acknowledging the
scientific literacy, which is a broader concept, in Indonesia, Malaysia
various risk of natural disaster such as eruption of Mayon volcano
and Thailand was much lower than the OECD average, categorized in
(Express, 2018). These two countries are highly recommended to de-
the worst score group. Given that the low energy literacy was exposed
velop more stringent regulation in the context of both prevention and
in Japan, where is ranked in top 3 in the PICA result, it is highly ex-
emergency preparedness and response.
pected that the energy literacy in these AMS would be lower.
The system of sharing the global experiences and of absorption of
technical advices from overseas would be well developed in these listed
countries (entre for Energy, 2018). Most of these AMS adhere to the 6. Conclusion and policy implications
requirement of IAEA and follow the Convention on the nuclear safety
with reporting the condition of nuclear facilities. In addition, some The lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident was analyzed to
treaties have signed between AMS and number of countries such as provide recommendations to the nuclear situation in ASEAN.

Table 3
Current situation of nuclear safety regulation in the AMS.
AMS Prevention Emergency preparedness and response

Indonesia Seismic and volcano (BCR No.4, No.8) Management of Emergency preparedness (BCR No.1)
Internal Fires and Explosion (BCR No. 1) Design of Emergency Power Supply System (BCR No.7)
Internal Hazard Other Than Fire and Explosion (BCR No.2)
Malaysia Seismic (GS-G-1.6) Preparedness for a nuclear emergency (GS-S-2.1)
Internal Fires and explosion (NS-G-1.7) Emergency Power system (NS-G-1.8)
Flood (NS-G-3.5)
Volcano (DS405)
The Philippines Fire Protection (CRT part 15) Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response (CRT part 15)
Power failures (CRT part 15)
Seismic (CRT part 15)

633
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue
Findings and strategic implications are as follows:
➢ Not only independence of regulators from promotors but also in-
tegrated and well-structured regulatory bodies are required for the
nuclear institutional reform.
➢ Consideration of various external disturbances and absorption of
advises from the overseas are highlighted in the development of
stringent regulation.
➢ The combination between civic involvement in decision making
process and high energy literacy is necessary for the public en-
gagement.
➢ The main promotor and regulator are under the different umbrella
in Indonesia and Thailand.
➢ Since the main promotor and regulator are under the same umbrella
in Malaysia and the Philippines at present, the regulatory institu-
tional reform would be required on a priority basis.
➢ In particular, Malaysia has various regulatory bodies, potentially
causing uncertainties of smooth communication among them. The
integration of regulatory bodies would be required.
➢ Most AMS other than Indonesia has yet to revise the existing reg-
ulations after the Fukushima nuclear accident. The perspectives of
prevention and emergency preparedness and response should be
fully covered.
The specific recommendation to the ASEAN nuclear development
was provided in the context of nuclear institutional reform and strin-
gent regulation in the particular assessed countries. Meanwhile, be-
cause of difficulties in the two-way communication in the policy-
making process and the lower energy literacy, as are seen in Japan, the
public engagement in nuclear policy on a well-grounded and demo-
cratic basis would be still difficult to be achieved at present. More
studies on unravelling the mechanism of two-way communication for
the public involvement and conducting the measurement of overall
energy literacy would be highly required.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Mr. Rully Hidayatullah of Tsinghua
University, a former researcher in ASEAN Centre for Energy, for his
invaluable comments during the course of this study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.058.
References
OECD, 2013. PISA 2012: Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading,
Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing.
IAEA, 2013. Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/RDS-1-33_web.pdf.
Abraham, I., 2016. What (really) makes a country nuclear? Insights from nonnuclear
Southeast Asia. Critical Studies Secur. 4 (1), 24–41.
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, 2013. FY2012 Annual Report on Energy
(Energy White Paper 2013) Outline. available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/
report/downloadfiles/2013_outline.pdf, Accessed date: 21 May 2017.
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, 2014. FY2013 Annual Report on Energy
(Energy White Paper 2014). available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/
downloadfiles/2014_outline.pdf, Accessed date: 22 May 2017.
Aldrich, D.P., 2012. Post-crisis Japanese nuclear policy: from top-down directives to
bottom-up activism. available at: http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/
files/private/api103.pdf, Accessed date: 24 May 2017.
Amir, S., Ni, N.S., 2011. Nuclear Power and Civic Engagement in Southeast Asia. IFZ/
YB/10/Text. pp. 177–195.
Arulchelvan, S., 2013. A study on public awareness and media coverage of nuclear energy
issues in India. J. Commun. Media Technol. 3, 1–21.
Aryadi, B.E., 2017. BAPETEN chairman regulation on design requirements of power re-
actor. In: Workshop on Safety Requirement and Criteria for New Nuclear Reactor.
Bogor, Indonesia.
Bahgat, G., 2006. Europe's energy security: challenges and opportunities. Int. Aff. 82 (5),
634
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635
961–975.
Caballero-Anthony, M., Trajeno, J.C.I., 2015. The state of nuclear energy in ASEAN: re-
gional norms and challenges. Asian Perspect. 39, 695–723.
Callegari, C., Szklo, A., Schaeffer, R., 2018. Cost overruns and delays in energy mega-
projects: how big is big enough? Energy Policy 114, 211–220.
Cherp, A., Jewell, J., 2011. The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history,
disciplinary roots and the potential for integration. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 3,
202–212.
Consumers Union of Japan, 2015. CUJ Resolutions at the 42nd Annual Meeting. available
at: http://www.nishoren.org/en/?p=1668, Accessed date: 24 May 2017.
ASEAN Centre for Energy, 2015. The 4th ASEAN Energy Outlook. Available at: http://
www.aseanenergy.org/resources/publications/4th-asean-energy-outlook-executive-
summary/, Accessed date: 18 May 2017.
ASEAN Centre for Energy, 2018. Study on the Nuclear Legal & Regulatory Framework in
ASEAN. ASEAN Centre for Energy.
Ethics Commission on a Safe Energy Supply, 2011. Germany's Energy Turnaround- A
Collective Effort for the Future. http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/private/germanys-
energy-turnaround-may-2011.pdf.
Express, 2018. Mayon Volcano Eruption: Rumbling Heard for MILES as Lava Explodes 7
TIMES in 24 Hours. available at: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/929392/
Mayon-volcano-latest-eruption-update-philippines-danger-zone, Accessed date: 18
September 2018.
Fauzan, A.U., Schiller, J., 2011. After Fukushima: the Rise of Resistance to Nuclear Energy
in Indonesia. German Asia Foundation.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecolo-
gical systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473.
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009. Projected land-use intensity in 2030.
USGCRP web cite: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/projected-
land-use-intensity-2030.
Hatamura, Y., Abe, S., Fuchigami, M., Kasahara, N., 2015. The 2011 Fukuhsima Nuclear
Power Plnt Accident: How and Why it Happened, vol. 73 Woodhead Publishing Series
in Energy.
Hayashi, M., Hughes, L., 2013. The Fukushima nuclear accident and its effect on global
energy security. Energy Policy 59, 102–111.
He, G., Mol, A.P.J., Zhang, L., Lu, Y., 2013. Public participation and trust in nuclear
power development in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 1–11.
Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, 2014. The
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Disaster: Investing the Myth and Reality.
Routledge.
Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of
Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2012. Final Report from the Investigation Committee
on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power
Company. available at: https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/
SaishyuRecommendation.pdf, Accessed date: 2 October 2015.
Jais, A.M., Hassan, H., Yasir, M.S., 2010. Regulatory issues and challenges in preparing
for the regulation of new reactor siting: Malaysia's experience. In: CNRA Internaitonal
Workshop on "New Reactor Siting, Licensing & Construction Experience", Prague,
Czech Republic.
Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization, "The result of attitude survey about nuclear
power," JAERO web page; http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/iinkai/teirei/siryo2013/
siryo23/siryo1.pdf.
Kilisek, R., 2014. Energy Policy Costs" Impact Japan's International Competitiveness.
available at: http://breakingenergy.com/2014/03/10/energy-policy-costs-impact-
japans-international-competitiveness/, Accessed date: 24 May 2017.
Kim, S., Kim, S., 2017. Impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on belief in rumors: the
role of risk perception and communication. Sustainability 9 (12), 2188.
Kim, Y., Kim, M., Kim, W., 2013. Effect of the nuclear disaster on global public acceptance
of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 61, 822–828.
Kosai, S., Unesaki, H., 2017. Quantitative analysis on the impact of nuclear energy supply
disruption on electricity supply security. Appl. Energy 208, 1198–1207.
Kucharski, J.B., 2016. Energy Security in Japan in the Context of a Planned Energy
System Transition. A dissertation in the Graduate School of Energy Science of Kyoto
University. .
Kucharski, J., Unesaki, H., 2015. A policy-oriented approach to energy security. Procedia
Environ. Sci. 28, 27–36.
Kunsch, P., Friesewinkel, J., 2014. Nuclear energy policy in Belgium after Fukushima.
Energy Policy 66, 462–474.
Latre, E., Perko, T., Thijssen, P., 2017. Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear
accident: the role of national context revisited. Energy Policy 104, 124–133.
Lay, Y.F., Khoo, C.H., Treagust, D.F., Chandrasegaran, A.L., 2013. Assessing secondary
school students' understanding of the relevance of energy in their daily lives. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Educ. 8 (1), 199–215.
Marshall, S., 2011. Should Thailand go nuclear? J. Asian Publ. Pol. 4 (2), 235–240.
Meesuwan, S., 2016. The effect of internet use on political participation: could the in-
ternet increase political participation in Thailand? Int. J. Asia Pac. Studies 12 (2),
57–82.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Innovation, 2014. Energy Strategic Plan. available at:
http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/others/basic_plan/pdf/4th_strategic_
energy_plan.pdf, Accessed date: 20 August 2015.
Miyamoto, W., Kosai, S., Hashimoto, S., 2019. Evaluating metal criticality for low-carbon
power generation technologies in Japan. Minerals 9 (Issue 2), 95.
Moeliono, M., Gallemore, C., Santoso, L., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014.
Information networks and power: confronting the "wicked problem" of REDD plus in
Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2), 9.
Nakamura, H., 2017. Political and environmental attitude toward participatory energy
and environmental governance: a survey in post-Fukushima Japan. J. Environ.
S. Kosai and E. Yamasue
Manag. 201, 190–198.
National Diet of Japan Independent Investigation Commission, 2012. Report of the
National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Commission. available at: https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/
naiic_report.pdf, Accessed date: 21 May 2017.
Nian, V., 2015. Progress in nuclear power technologies and implications for ASEAN.
Energy Procedia 75, 2852–2858.
Nian, V., 2017. The prospects of small modular reactors in Southeast Asia. Prog. Nucl.
Energy 98, 131–142.
Nian, V., Chou, S.K., 2014. The state of nuclear power two years after Fukushima - the
ASEAN perspective. Appl. Energy 136, 838–848.
Nöggerath, J., Geller, R., Gusiakov, V.K., 2011. The myth of safety: the reality of
geoscience. Bull. At. Sci. 67 (5), 37–46.
Nuclear Energy Agency, 2010. Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power. available at: https://
www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6859-public-attitudes.pdf, Accessed date:
23 May 2017.
Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2012. Nuclear Regulation for People and the Environment.
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan.
Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2016. The New Safety Regulation Standard Associated
with the Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan.
Onishi, N., 2011. Safety myth' left Japan ripe for nuclear crisis. N. Y. Times 24.
Pongsoi, P., Wongwises, S., 2013. A review on nuclear power plant scenario in Thailand.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 24, 586–592.
Power Generation Cost Analysis Working Group, 2015. Report on Analysis of Generation
Costs, etc. for Subcommittee on Long-term Energy Supply-Demand Outlook. avail-
able at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/pdf/0716_01b.pdf, Accessed
date: 15 February 2019.
Putra, N.A., 2017. The dynamics of nuclear energy among ASEAN member states. Energy
Procedia 143, 585–590.
Ram, M., Child, M., Aghahosseini, A., Bogdanov, D., Lohrmann, A., Breyer, C., 2018. A
comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable, fossil fuel and
nuclear sources in G20 countries for the period 2015-2030. J. Clean. Prod. 199,
687–704.
Shimbun, Asahi, 2013. Asahi Poll: 80% Distrust Government's Nuke Safety Measures.
available at: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/
AJ201203130031, Accessed date: 18 September 2014.
Shimnun, Asahi, 2016. EDITORIAL: Nuclear Power Proponents Still Scoffing at Public
Safety Concerns. available at: https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/atomicage/2016/
03/28/editorial-nuclear-power-proponents-still-scoffing-at-public-safety-concerns-
via-the-asahi-shimbun/, Accessed date: 23 May 2017.
Shiroyama, H., 2015. Nuclear safety regulation in Japan and impacts of the Fukushima
Daiichi accident. In: Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Springer
International Publishing, pp. 283–296.
Sovacool, B.K., Bulan, L.C., 2011. Behind an ambitious megaproject in Asia: the history
and implications of the Bakun hydroelectric dam in Borneo. Energy Policy 39,
4842–4859.
Sun, C.W., Zhu, X.T., 2014. Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China:
Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 69, 397–405.
635
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 628–635
Tabuchi, H., 2012. Japan's New Premier Backs More Nuclear Plants. available at: http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/world/asia/japans-new-prime-minister-backs-
more-nuclear-plants.html, Accessed date: 21 May 2017.
Tashimo, M., Matsui, K., 2008. Role of nuclear energy in environment, economy, and
energy issues of the 21st century - growing energy demand in Asia and role of nu-
clear. Prog. Nucl. Energy 50 (2–6), 103–108.
The Energy and Environment Council Government of Japan, 2012. Innovative Strategy
for Energy and the Environment. available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/
egms/docs/2012/greenjobs/enablingenvironment.pdf, Accessed date: 21 May 2017.
The Japanese Government, 2012. Act for Establishment of the Nuclear Regulation
Authority. available at: http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000067231.pdf, Accessed date:
22 May 2017.
The Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC), 2012. Report of
the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Commission. available at: http://www.mhmjapan.com/content/files/00001736/
naiic_honpen2_0.pdf, Accessed date: 19 May 2017.
Vivoda, V., 2014. Energy Security in Japan: Challenges after Fukushima. Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd.
Vosse, W., Drifte, R.B.-T.V., 2014. Governing Insecurity in Japan: the Domestic Discourse
and Policy Response. Routledge.
Wang, Q., Chen, X., 2011. Nuclear accident like Fukushima unlikely in the rest of the
world? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (23), 9831–9832.
Wang, Q., Chen, X., 2012a. Regulatory transparency-How China can learn from Japan's
nuclear regulatory failures? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (6), 3574–3578.
Wang, Q., Chen, X., 2012b. Regulatory failures for nuclear safety - the bad examples of
Japan - implication for the rest of world. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5),
2610–2617.
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.
Wittneben, B.B.F., 2012. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European
energy policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 15 (1), 1–3.
World Energy Council, 2013. World Energy Scenarios: Composing Energy Futures to
2050. available at: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/
World-Energy-Scenarios_Composing-energy-futures-to-2050_Full-report.pdf,
Accessed date: 23 May 2017.
World Nuclear Association, 2015. Nuclear Power in Japan. available at: http://www.
world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-
nuclear-power.aspx, Accessed date: 22 May 2017.
Yang, K., Pandey, S.K., 2011. Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation:
when does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Publ. Adm. Rev. 71, 880–892.
Zeng, M., Liu, Y.X., Ouyang, S.J., Shi, H., Li, C., 2016. Nuclear energy in the Post-
Fukushima Era: research on the developments of the Chinese and worldwide nuclear
power industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 147–156.
Zerger, B., Noël, M., 2011. Nuclear power plant construction: what can be learned from
past and on-going projects? Nucl. Eng. Des. 241 (8), 2916–2926.
Zhu, H.J., Deng, Y.H., Zhu, R., He, X.B., 2016. Fear of nuclear power? Evidence from
Fukushima nuclear accident and land markets in China. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 60,
139–154.