ASERS

ournal of Environmental Management J and Tourism

Biannually Volume V Issue 2(10) Winter 2014

ISSN 2068 – 7729 Journal DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt

102

Winter 2014 Volume V, Issue 2(10)

22 Editor in Chief Ramona PÎRVU University of Craiova, Romania Contents: Editorial Advisory Board

Omran Abdelnaser Agricultural Resources Allocation and Environmental University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Sustainability …105 Huong Ha University of Newcastle, Singapore, 1 Alessio Emanuele BIONDO Australia Luigi BONAVENTURA Harjeet Kaur HELP University College, Malaysia Analysis of the Relationship between the Variables in Janusz Grabara … 114 Czestochowa University of Technology, Japanese Tourists Demand Using Vecm and Cointegration. Poland 2 The Case of Thailand

Vicky Katsoni Tanattrin BUNNAG Techonological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece Socio -Economic and Environmental Impacts of Match 2011 Sebastian Kot Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Nuclear Accident in … 127 Czestochowa University of Technology, 3 The Institute of Logistics and International Japan Management, Poland Hrabrin BACHEV

Nodar Lekishvili Tibilisi State University, Georgia An Analytical View of Using E-Communication Tools in

Andreea Marin-Pantelescu Promoting of Selected Pilgrim Tourism Sites in Slovak … 223 Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, Romania Republic

4 Martina FERENCOVÁ Piotr Misztal The Jan Kochanowski University in Veronika MIŠENČÍKOVÁ Kielce, Faculty of Management and Sebastian KOT Administration, Poland

Chuen-Chee Pek Evolutional - Genetic Approach To Formation Of Nottingham University Business School, Malaysia Sustainable Development Indicators Of The Agricultural … 230

Roberta De Santis 5 Territories LUISS University, Italy Vladimir Vasilievich RASSADIN, Aleksandr Jurievich PAVLOV Fabio Gaetano Santeramo Vera Nikolaevna BATOVA, Andrey Vladimirovich KOLESNIKOV University of Foggia, Italy

Dan Selişteanu International Tourism and Economic Growth University of Craiova, Romania in Thailand: Cointegration and the Granger Causality …237 Laura Ungureanu 6 Anothai HARASARN Spiru Haret University and Association for Sustainable Education Research and Surachai CHANCHARAT Science, Romania

Evaluation of an Environmental Health Awareness Program in the Gaza Strip, Palestine 7 ...249 Amal Khalil SARSOUR, Abdelnaser OMRAN Yahia ABID, Guy ROBINSON

ASERS Publishing http://www.asers.eu/asers-publishing ISSN 2068 – 7729 Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt

Call for Papers Summer_Issue 2015

Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism

Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism is a young interdisciplinary research journal, aimed to publish articles and original research papers that should contribute to the development of both experimental and theoretical nature in the field of Environmental Management and Tourism Sciences.

Journal will publish original research and seeks to cover a wide range of topics regarding environmental management and engineering, environmental management and health, environmental chemistry, environmental protection technologies (water, air, soil), pollution reduction at source and waste minimization, energy and environment, modelling, simulation and optimization for environmental protection; environmental biotechnology, environmental education and sustainable development, environmental strategies and policies, etc. This topic may include the fields indicated above, but are not limited to these.

Authors are encouraged to submit high quality, original works that discuss the latest developments in environmental management research and application with the certain scope to share experiences and research findings and to stimulate more ideas and useful insights regarding current best-practices and future directions in environmental management.

Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism is indexed in SCOPUS, RePEC, CEEOL, ProQuest, EBSCO and Cabell Directory databases.

All the papers will be first considered by the Editors for general relevance, originality and significance. If accepted for review, papers will then be subject to double blind peer review.

Deadline for submission: 30th April 2015 Expected publication date: June 2015 Website: www.asers.eu/journals/jemt/ E-mail: [email protected]

To prepare your paper for submission, please see full author guidelines in the following file: JEMT_Full_Paper_Template.doc, then send it via email at [email protected].

104 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).01

AGRICULTURALRESOURCES ALLOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Alessio Emanuele BIONDO University of Catania, Italy [email protected] Luigi BONAVENTURA University of Catania, Italy [email protected] Suggested Citation: Biondo, A.E., Bonaventura, L. (2014). Agricultural resources allocation and environmental sustainability, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 105-113. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).01. Available from: http://www.asers.eu/ journals/jemt/curent-issue. Article’s History: Received November, 2014; Revised November, 2014; Accepted December, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract: This paper shows the direct linkage existing between the environmental sustainability and the diffusion of organic agriculture. The reason is that the environmental impact of organic agriculture is different and somehow less polluting than industrial (let us say, traditional) one. Moreover, the former delivers also healthier food, according to part of the literature. Thus, seeking for sustainability, the policy-maker may find easier to influence the allocation of natural resources in favour of the organic cultivation as an instrument to care Nature. In order to claim this rationale, a model of resource allocation is presented and the golden rule derived. The paper finally shows that organic agriculture generates a global positive externality, which implicitly measures the relevance of the balancing intervention on resources allocation. Keywords: sustainability, organic food, organic agriculture, externalities. JEL Classification:Q18 1. Environmental sustainability and agriculture One of the easiest direct link between Nature and the economic system refers to agricultural activities. It is true that the progress induces producers to apply industrial ingredients and techniques to the primary sector, such as technologies, processes, and factors of production but, however, the land cultivation still appears the most naturalistic way to exploit natural resources. Surprisingly, at a careful sight, one could argue that traditional agricultural techniques are far from being undoubtedly respectful of the environment. It is very difficult to define properly what sustainable agriculture is (Cobb et al., 1999, provide a detailed review about this issue), but it is quite simple to understand that the need for always more abundant quantities, combined to the required aesthetical beauty of agricultural products (often uncoupled with quality and taste) pushed techniques and productive processes toward dangerous conducts, such as the adoption of chemical substances that damage both products and land while are harmful for consumers. Roughly speaking, one can conclude that products from agriculture (and similar argument could be referred about livestock) are not so natural as they could appear at first sight. Thus, the agricultural production is sometimes looked at a sort of artefact, because of the mixed adoption of heterogeneous ingredients and techniques that may differ from a, let us say, “prefect, rural and genuine portrait”. This feeling has deeply contributed to the development of the organic approach to the set of agricultural activities, looking for a return to a genuine non-industrial approach to the primary sector. Relevant differences between traditional and organic products are inherent to the choice of ingredients and techniques adopted in cultivation. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements defined an organic system (IFOAM, 2009) on the basis of its capability to sustain the health of soil, ecosystems, and people. The exclusive usage of completely natural ingredients, the exclusion of pesticides, chemical additives or any other industrial technique, makes (in theory) the organic production much healthier and less polluting. It is very important to notice that this paper will build upon the assumption that the definition of organic agriculture, organic products and organic food corresponds to such a portrait. This paper will not try to make a precise comparison between (actual) organic and industrial agriculture, in order to demonstrate which one is the best. Here, we will not argue analytically all of the set of chemical substances or review the processes, the conducts, and the technology adopted in the primary sector, looking for specific differences in order to quantify, by means of exact calculations or empirical data, the economic value of the difference in the environmental impact caused by both types of agricultural activity. This paper is directed exclusively to show a policy implication that may emerge clearly if the reader is aware that the organic agriculture is more sustainable than the industrial one in the sense that, however and no matter how much, the former is less polluting than the latter. Further, the reader should understand that if an immediate benefit arising if from agriculture came just healthy food and products would be a longer and a happier social development. However, part of literature still questions the real existence of health advantages of organic food compared to industrial agriculture (see Dangour et al., 2009 and 2010). Here we will not try to solve arguments like these, because a complete nutritional comparison is not possible and goes far beyond the goal of the present article. Therefore, given that it is not the main topic, we will leave this aspect as a simple intuition. Barlett (1989) noticed, however, that industrial agriculture heavily adopts processed fertilizers and technologies with greater impact, increasingly substituting human contribution or animal labour with machinery. Stolze et al. (2000) reported the effects of the organic agriculture in comparison with traditional cultivations one. Their results show that, in most cases and even if with great variability, the environmental impact of organic agriculture is lower than traditional ones. Following OECDs (2003) classification, the consequences of the organic agriculture on the natural capital depend on the way that biological systems interact with Nature (Shepherd et al., 2003): e.g., treatments for cultivations go to the soil, and from the latter to deeper substrates, and so on. Similarly, fruits, flowers, insects, will be involved in related consequences. Mäder et al. (2002) confirmed that organic agriculture is more efficient in terms of energy and other inputs, which improves soil fertility, reduces emissions, widen biodiversity, and is also safer for farmers (Pimentel et al., 2005). Consistently with these results, many contributions are well focused in demonstrating adverse consequences of the traditional approach to agriculture: declining land fertility, diminishing effectiveness of chemical pesticides, increasing environmental risks for human health and Nature (see, inter alia, Dupraz 1997, Matson et al. 1997, Altieri 1998, Drinkwater et al. 1998, Tilman 1998, Mishra et al. 1999, Popp and Rudstrom 2000, Boschma et al.2001, Pretty et al. 2001, Melfou and Papanagioutou 2003). The point here is that the sustainability characterization of the organic agriculture is somehow undeniable: the definition itself of the concept of organic product implies that its producer has to pursue production in such a way that is per se more sustainable than the traditional one. This creates a combination of multiple positive effects: not only does organic production provide most likely healthier food, but also it is less polluting. This means that a generalized adoption of organic agriculture would induce both higher welfare and cleaner environment, simultaneously. The reader must be aware that here we will not proceed with a deep investigation aimed to show how close the actual contemporary organic production is to this theoretical definition. We will develop our analysis by considering that the definition of organic agriculture is correct. Probably, also in some organic production some pollutant is adopted, whereas it is not correct to simply treat all of the “traditional” agricultural activities as the same (from the very extensive conventional low input farming, which is almost as environmental friendly as organic farming, to mixed farming, to very input intensive farming and even farming that uses techniques like precision farming or genetically modified plant species or both together). The point is simply that industrial agriculture is cheaper than the organic one and therefore producers prefer the former since, due to the lack of correct information, customers will buy their (apparently) cheaper goods. Referring to the informative problem behind the food choice, many surveys have been carried out, showing that consumers notions about organic quality is fundamental in motivating their choice, along with the attention to the natural system and the concern for environmental protection. As Campbell and Liepins (2001) and Dabbert et al. (2004) among many others, point out, organic agriculture is based upon values of

106

Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 sustainability, recycling, and natural welfare. These issues are particularly delicate, since it is very important to consider the question of the perceived quality of organic products in order to address proficiently the attention in terms of policy (Darrington, 1999, Reavell 1999, UNDP 2000). The amount of resources that are allocated in traditional agricultural activities cannot be instantly reallocated in organic agricultural productions, since a lot of constraints: many lock-in effects for technological investments, very strong habits, yield differentials. Part of the literature investigates the difference existing in yields from organic and industrial agriculture, see inter alia Badgley et al. (2007), De Ponti et al. (2012), and Seufert et al. (2012). Of course, if such a substitution were possible, a very high increase in environmental quality would be obtained. However, it can be said that even a partial shift toward organic processes can obtain significant results: the agricultural production would be coupled to better environmental conditions -i.e. a positive externality emerges because environmental conditions (for example in terms of land fertility and pollution reduction) are improved. In other words, the organic agriculture affects positively environmental quality and this, in turn, without taxes, permits, environmental standards, and other constraints gives rise to a positive naturalistic externality: sustainability is at work, the system is sustainable while it is profitable. Put in the perspective suggested by the European Commission (2004), organic farming ensures two positive impacts on the society: on one hand organic farming is a method for producing food products, but on the other it is known to deliver public goods, primarily environmental benefits, and also public health, social and rural development and animal welfare. This paper provides a theoretical model to show that, given that the organic approach to the primary sector is less polluting than the industrial one, the adoption of policies that enhance the conversion of the primary sector to organic farming may obtain relevant results in terms of sustainability. In this sense it refers also to the existing debate in literature about the public support measures for organic farming (see inter alia Sanders et al., 2011), but our model adds a theoretical perspective of the externality generation: the point is that the quality of the environment and a greater respect of natural ecosystems belong to the definition itself of organic agriculture, whereas the industrial approach cares just about economic efficiency. Thus, from a private point of view, the market fails because nobody pays for the environmental damage. From a collective perspective, the policy-maker may decide to induce a conversion in the primary sector in favour of organic procedures: this may generate a positive externality that compensate both the higher costs of cleaner agricultural productions and the lower yields in terms of better environmental quality. Moreover, even if an undeniable proof of the superiority of organic food (both in terms of nutrition and health effects in the medium- long run) is not available yet, these policies would at the end result in higher environmental quality associated to (at least) non-worse food, that means a superior social equilibrium. A theoretical model of resource exploitation is provided to show the choice between environmental care (i.e., organic agriculture) and traditional agriculture. Then, the problem is restated to derive the optimal allocation rule for natural resources. The model will show conditions for optimal use and underline the value of the aforementioned externality. The paper is structured as it follows: section two presents the model and section three concludes with some policy implications. 2. The model Before proceeding to the model description, we have to present a couple of interpretative assumptions. First of all, our model will not discuss how to divide resources among sectors in the economy. It, instead, will take as given the amount of natural resources that the economy devotes to the primary sector, and will show how the organic production can give rise to a positive external effect that would make the entire system more sustainable. Theoretically speaking, the organic agriculture can produce as much as the traditional one, but with higher costs. Truly, in order to maintain unaltered the total amount of production, organic agriculture needs more resources than the industrial one, per unit of final good. This means that, even if it is possible to assume the total amount of natural resources that the economy devotes to the primary sector as given (e.g. the quantity of land), the overall amount of resources (i.e. including capital and labour) should be assumed as increasing if the total agricultural production has to remain constant. We will consider perfect substitutability for the allocation of natural resources within the primary sector, between organic and traditional agriculture. Thus, as long as land is distracted by the traditional agriculture and devoted to the organic one, produced output can remain the same, at higher production costs (because of other needed factors of production), and the environmental impact is reduced. A trade off then rises: the choice is reduced to the efficient allocation of natural capital between two processes within the primary sector, that is, how to mix the use of available natural resources. Two extreme positions can be imagined: either the entire available natural capital N is devoted to industrial agriculture (the traditional agriculture), or it is devoted to organic production. In both cases we can reach the same amount of produced output (even if in case of organic agriculture this is obtained with higher costs) but, as long as industrial agriculture is abandoned, a positive externality in terms of naturalistic preservation is generated. Attention will be focused on the optimal internal solution (-i.e. a mix of both) to check the externality of organic production and to evaluate it somehow. Finally, let us assume that there will not be any natural capital left unused. Building upon Hartman (1976) and Cacho (2001), it is possible to write the net present gains obtained from Natural capital allocated to the primary sector as: T T rt rt V  N o(N,t)e dt  (N  N) a(N,t)e dt (1) 0 0 with 0  N  N . In eq. (1), we indicated by N the amount of natural capital devoted to organic production, whose output is expressed by the function o(·), and by ( N − N) the amount of natural capital devoted to traditional agriculture, whose output is the function a(·). Thus, we can write the discounted gains T T from organic production as o(N,t)ert dt , whereas a(N,t)e rt dt are the discounted gains obtained 0 0 from the traditional agriculture. The maximization of eq. (1) with respect to N, gives

V d T T d T T  N o(N,t)e rt dt  o(N,t)e rt dt  (N  N) a(N,t)e rt dt  a(N,t)e rt dt  0 (2) N dN 0 0 dN 0 0

This FOC can be easily restated as:

d T T T d T N o(N,t)e rt dt  o(N,t)e rt dt  a(N,t)e rt dt  (N  N) a(N,t)e rt dt (3) dN 0 0 0 dN 0

that is to say that, in equilibrium, the marginal value of benefits arising from the organic agriculture (on the left) must equal the flow of benefits arising from traditional agricultural production (on the right). It is worth to notice that, in case one wants to relax the simplistic assumption of no conversion costs between organic and industrial agriculture, the eq.(3) can include them. The allocative choice of natural capital between organic and traditional agriculture generates an externality, whose description follows. When a producer decides to adopt an organic process, resources are used in such a way that pollutes less. The reader should be aware that our model cannot demonstrate how less the organic agriculture is polluting compared to industrial one. We are simply assuming (as part of the reviewed literature shows) that organic agriculture has a lower environmental impact and, thus, preserves Nature somehow. This may enhance land fertility for future use, because it is reasonable that in a cleaner environment, the regenerative capacity of natural ecosystem itself will be able to operate more actively. It is finally worth to notice that the voided pollution is something that is unintended: it is obtained automatically as a characteristic of the process. In other words, it is a direct, spontaneous and unremunerated consequence of the production of organic output. Therefore, at an aggregate level, the part of natural capital devoted to organic agriculture will exert its impact in terms of naturalistic care: it will improve environmental conditions and thus will induce environmental sustainability. It is useful to be precise on the economic implication of this rationale: in economic terms, market prices of organic goods are decided, as usual, by demand-supply interaction between utility-maximizing consumers and profit-maximizing firms. The choice to produce organic food, as well as the choice to buy it, is taken by market participants according to their incentives. An external effect rises due to the circumstance that the organic production generates less pollution: no market prices will pay this unintended reduction of pollution, which is automatically generated by the allocative decision. In eq. (3), its value is expressed by the d T last term on the right hand side, i.e. (N  N) a(N,t)e rt dt . dN 0 This external impact represents a trade-off: when environmental care is not sufficient, an increase in the N share improves the total economic value because it makes the environment cleaner, adding prospective value in terms of higher productivity of land; alternatively, when the quality of the environment is good enough, a further resource allocation in organic production would result in a revenue smaller than the cost of reducing

108

Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 its possible alternative industrial agriculture use. Along with these two phases the sign will change and, therefore, the externality can assume either a positive or a negative value: it depends on the marginal value of organic production per unit of natural resources devoted to it. In other words, when nature is degraded, the additional devotion of resources to the organic production induces environmental care and, in turn, causes an increase in the productivity of land and in environmental conditions. In this case, the sign of the externality is positive. When the naturalistic equilibrium has been restored, additional environmental care has no actual effect on land productivity and Nature status, and the externality is equal to zero. Finally, an excess in the devotion of resources to organic production could not improve environmental quality (and productivity of land) above a certain threshold, and therefore, the marginal revenues from organic agriculture will not be sufficient to compensate the marginal loss from the opportunity cost of the cheaper industrial agricultural goods left unproduced. In this case, the externality will be negative. 2.1 The golden rule We now proceed to build the optimal allocation rule. Consider, at first, the monetary benefit flow arising from traditional agriculture. It is a net profit, which results from the following: a(N,t)  (pa ca )qa () (4)

where pa is the final market price of the traditional agricultural output, ca the cost, and qa (·) the produced quantity. Secondly, let us define the same flow referred to the organic production:

o o o o(N,t)  (p c )q () (5) Both a(N, t) and o(N, t) are functions of time by means of the time-specific condition of the environment. More precisely, qa(·) and qo(·) are monotonic concave production functions of the amount of resources allocated to their respective sector, and the environmental degradation affects the productivity of those resources. We will simply hypothesize that degradation is a quantitative variable, which means that the more the resources are depleted, the lower their productivity and the smaller the usable quantity for both productions in the subsequent periods. This depletion law is not influenced in the same way by both sectors because the organic production contributes to the regeneration of resources as explained before. Thus, the degradation of nature (R) varies in time according to:

(6)

with λ1 > λ2 and λ1,λ2 (0,1). Following the simplest approach, we do not consider pollution explicitly. We simply state that the traditional agriculture causes degradation equal to the λ1-share of its produced quantity, whereas the organic agriculture recovers an amount of resources equal to the λ2-share of its produced quantity (which can eventually be considered the net result of the positive effects after production withdrawal). This type of simplification allows us to determine that the total amount of resources devoted to agricultural sector ( N ) can be divided between both productions, is a part of total natural capital (NK) net of the degradation: N  NK R (7) Of course, once N has been determined, N-share is allocated to the organic production (o), and ( N − N)-share is allocated to the traditional agriculture. Ultimately, this problem is configured as an optimal control problem: the functional in eq. (1) to be maximized can be conveniently expressed as

T T W  N ( p o c o )q o (N)e rt dt  (N  N) ( p a c a )q a (N  N)e rt dt (8) 0 0 with 0 < N ≤ N , as before. Now, we consider that the policy-maker chooses N period by period without being influenced continuously by the dynamics of the state variable in this choice. This assumption should appear acceptable because the policy-maker chooses the environmental policy when the effects of what is being decided are still unknown and, however, not fully shown. Therefore the temporal effectiveness of environmental decisions is not actually measurable and thus the policy-makers are blinded by the time interactions of his own policies: the presumed direction of consequences can just be inferred. Therefore, the time derivative of the co-state variable of the problem is zero (i.e. ). Sometimes the system is perturbed by rules or regulations established in international conferences or by international standards as discrete variables that interfere with the equilibrium of the system. These characteristics, however, will be neglected here and will be analysed in further research. Here, we simply need to find the optimal value that in each period, independently of other periods, maximizes eq. (8) subject to the joint constraint that represents the dynamic evolution of degradation and the balance of natural capital. This can be obtained by rewriting eq. (6) taking in account the eq. (7) and by expressing qa(·) and qo(·) with their arguments (allocated resources):

a o R  1q (NK  R  N)  2 q (N) (9) The accessory conditions are about initial values of the state variable and the terminal time (finite):

R(0)  R0  0,R(T )  RT  0,T free (10) These conditions generalize the model, introducing the idea that at the beginning, no degradation exists; further, it provides the opportunity to imagine any dynamic path that leads to a restriction on the amount of resources available for allocation, as specified in eq. 8. After simplifying the notation, and posing pi ci  x i , i  o,a, the current-value Hamiltonian of the problem is:

C o o a a a o H  Nx q  NK  R  N x q  (t)1q  2 q  (11) The transversality condition shows that a weak sustainability approach has been adopted, which implies that environmental degradation attains stability in our model (i.e. ). Then, in equilibrium, at the end of time T, it must be true that: (T )  0 (12)

The first necessary condition for the maximization leads to (indicating by i partial derivatives of q q j functions with respect to the j-variable in the i-sector): x o (qo Nqo ) x a [qa (NK R N)qa ] (t)  N N (13) a o 1qN  2qN which is no longer a function of time. The second necessary condition for the maximization is:

a a a a a  x q  (NK  R  N)x q R  (t)1q R  (t)  r(t) (14) which can be reduced to:

a a a a a (15) x q (NK R N)x qR (1qR r)  0 because we know from eq. (13) that μ is independent of time. Substituting eq. (13) in eq. (15) and rearranging, we obtain: x o (qo Nqo ) x a [qa (NK R N)qa ] x aqa (NK R N)x aqa N N  R (16) a o a 1qN  2qN 1qR r In order to obtain the optimal value for N, let us begin by analysing the numerator on LHS of eq. (16). After rearrangement, it can be written as:

o o a a o o a a (17) x q  x q Nx qN (NK R N)x qN

where, x oqo  x aqa is the net economic differential between values of agricultural production obtained in both ways, and o o a a is the net marginal economic differential between both Nx qN (NK R N)x qN

110

Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 productions. The denominator of the LHS of eq. (16), instead, is actually the net marginal degradation, i.e. the marginal impact of the control variable on the state variable. The numerator of the right-hand side (RHS) of eq. (16) represents the net market value of traditional agricultural products added to the total value of environmental degradation impact on traditional production itself. Finally, in the RHS denominator, we find the interest rate, r, plus the marginal impact capacity of degradation on traditional production. Finally, eq. (16) can be rearranged to obtain the optimal allocation rule: x aqa (1Z)(NK R)x a (qa Zqa ) x oqo N(t)  N R (18) o o a a a x qN  x (qN ZqR ) dR dN where Z  represents the Relative Externality Index REI: the impact of N on divided by a 1q R  r the total opportunity cost of traditional agricultural production, i.e. the sum between the marginal degradation impact on traditional production and the interest rate. In the final moment, t = T, Z = 0, and eq. (18) becomes: x aqa (NK R)x aqa  x oqo N(T)  N (19) o o a a x qN  x qN which can be demonstrated to be a lower value compared to eq. (18). A theoretical explanation of the difference between eqs. (18) and (19) is helpful to discuss how the externality works inside the optimal allocation rule. Following what has been said about eq. (4), one can argue that, when degradation is high, the final impact on the allocation rule in eq. (18) is positive on the optimal value for N, which increases: this comes with the basic idea of the model, that the allocation must be devoted to organic production to obtain an improvement in the environmental conditions. In contrast, when environmental quality is high, the corresponding value for N will be lower, allowing a more robust allocation of natural resources for traditional agriculture. This rationale confirms that the externality value is inversely correlated to the environmental quality and can automatically affect the decision of resource allocation between two agricultural productive processes. 3. Conclusions and policy suggestions This model shows that a source of sustainability may consist in the conversion from industrial traditional processes to organic agricultural productions in the primary sector. The policy-maker should drive this change because private firms may have not the right incentive to develop organic production due to conversion costs and smaller profits. In fact, higher costs of production may discourage the conversion in a context of incomplete diffusion of organic food and products. Organic agriculture could greatly help in developing higher environmental standards and reducing pollution being, instead, an important activity of the economy. Put in another way, higher costs of organic production play as a price for environmental sustainability, as ingredients for a cleaner environment. It is worth to notice that our model did not present any analysis of consumer utility: a very problematic question arises about the awareness of consumers of nutritional properties and health consequences related to the use of industrial and organic food. Of course, the policy intervention should first of all reinforce the knowledge of possible benefits and measure the gain in environmental and health status terms of organic conversion. Further, the correct dissemination of knowledge may help consumer choosing the best alternative (see Biondo 2014 for such an approach). The main result of the paper may seem to neglect other existing means available in order to obtain environmental sustainability, instead to move to organic production -i.e. environmental constraints, technological standards, and so on. This is certainly true, but the point is that the model wants to underline how the shift to organic agriculture allows for an automatic generation of sustainability, always paid by the economy, but indirectly: whereas a technological constraint, or an environmental regulation implies higher costs (and therefore higher consumer prices) for the standard (industrial) agricultural products, organic production has higher costs, but preserves environment and gives better and healthier food. Thus, a policy oriented to stimulate the organic production may be preferable because it obtains multiple results compared to the environmental regulation. An important assumption is that the policy-maker chooses the allocation of resources period by period, independently of the previous decisions. In real circumstances, adopted environmental policies are blinded by the effect of the previous ones: the great ignorance about the effects and consequences of decisions and actions made, reduces the chances of any policy-maker to be perfectly conscious of what is going on. Of course, this aspect can be modified, and further research will be conducted with a continuous time model with discrete perturbations that modify rules or policy targets. A second policy conclusion that can be drawn is referred to incentives and improvements in favour of organic agriculture: an example can refer to the abatement of conversion costs. Once again, the model can account for these costs, but their presence would just complicate the allocation rule without changing its fundamental rationale. Thus, consequently, another implication is to maintain high environmental protective standards for traditional production in the primary sector in such a way that the conversion is as easy and as low cost as possible. Further research will be devoted to the theoretically appealing case of temporal consistency constraint that forces a dynamic trajectory for the optimal allocation rule. In this case, resource allocation is influenced by previous (and following) periods decisions. The model will accordingly change into a more complicate framework that (possibly) will derive more detailed suggestions. References [1] Altieri, M.A. (1998). Ecological impacts of industrial agriculture and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming. Monthly Labor Review, 50 (3): 60-72. [2] Barlett, P., Industrial Agriculture, in S. Plattner, ed. (1989). Economic Anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [3] Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J., Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samulon, A., Perfecto, I. (2007): Organic agriculture and the global food supply, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2): 86-108. [4] Biondo, A.E. (2014). Organic Food and The Double Adverse Selection: Ignorance And Social Welfare, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(2): 230–242. [5] Boschma, M., Joaris, A. and Vidal, C. (2001). Agriculture and Environment. Concentration of livestock production. European Commission, Brussels. [6] Cacho, O. (2001). An Analysis of Externalities in Agroforestry Systems in the Presence of Land Degradation, Ecological Economics, 39(1): 131-143. [7] Campbell, H., Liepins, R. (2001). Naming organics: understanding organic standards in New Zealand as a discursive field, Sociologia Ruralis,4121-39. [8] Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 1-44. [9] Cobb, D., Dolman, P. and ORiordan, T. (1999). Interpretations of Sustainable Agriculture in the UK, Progress in Human Geography, 23(2): 209-235. [10] Dabbert, S., Hring, A.M., Zanoli, R. (2004). Organic Farming. Policies and Prospects, Zed, London. [11] Dangour, A.D., Dodhia, S.K., Hayter, A., Allen, E., Lock, K., Uauy, R. (2009): Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,90(3): 680-685, doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041 [12] Dangour, A.D., K. Lock, A. Hayter, A. Aikenhead, E. Allen, E., Uauy, R. (2010): Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92: 203-210. [13] Darrington H. (1999). Going Organic, Food Manufacture, 74 (4): 38-39. [14] De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., Ittersum, M.K. (2012): The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture, Agricultural Systems, 108: 1-9. [15] Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P. and Sarrantonio, M.(1998). Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses, Nature, 396: 262-265. [16] Dupraz, P. (1997). La spcialisation des exploitations agricoles: changements techniques et prix des facteurs, Cahiers dconomie et Sociologie Rurales, 45: 93-122. [17] Hartman, R.(1976). The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value, Economic Inquiry,

112

Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

14(1):52-58. [18] Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, U. (2002).Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming, Science, 296: 1694-1697. [19] Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G. and Swift, M.J.(1997). Agricultural intensification and ecosystems properties, Science, 277: 504-509. [20] Melfou, K. and Papanagioutou, E.(2003). Total factor productivity adjusted for a detrimental input, Agricultural Economics Review, 4(2): 5-18. [21] Mishra, A.K., El-Osta, H.S., Steele, Ch.J.(1999). Factors affecting the profitability of limited resource and other small farms, Agricultural Finance Review, 59: 77-91. [22] Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R.(2005). Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems, Bioscience, 55(7): 573-582. [23] Popp, M., and Rudstrom, M.(2000). Crop enterprise diversification and specialty crops, Agricultural Finance Review, 60: 85-98. [24] Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Rayment, M.D., van der Bijl, G. and Dobbs, T.(2001). Policy challenges and priorities for internalizing the externalities of modern agriculture, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2): 263-283. [25] Reavell H.(1999). The wholesome quest, World of Ingredients, 58: 60-61. [26] Sanders, J., Stolze, M., Padel, S. (2011). Use and efficiency of public support measures addressing organic farming, Study report, Thünen Institute, Braunschweig. [27] Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture, Nature, 485: 229 – 232, doi:10.1038/nature11069. [28] Shepherd, M., Pearce, B., Cormack, B., Philipps, L., Cuttle, S., Bhogal, A., Costigan, P., and Unwin, R.(2003). An assessment of the environmental impacts of organic farming, ADAS Wolverhampton. [29] Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Hring, A., Dabbert, S. (2000).The Environmental Impacts of Organic Farming in Europe, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, 6, Stuttgart-Hohenheim: University of Hohenheim/Department of Farm Economics 410. [30] Tilman, D.(1998). The greening of the green revolution, Nature, 396: 211-212. *** OECD, Agriculture and Biodiversity. Developing Indicators for Policy Analysis, OECD Publications, Paris. (2003) *** Commission of the European Communities, European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming, Commission Staff Working Document – Annex to the Communication from the Commission {COM(2004)415 final}, (2004). *** IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), What is organic agriculture? Accessed on June 27, 2012 at http://www.ifoam.org/growingorganic/definitions/doa/index.html (2009) *** UNDP, Changing consumption and production patterns: Organic agriculture, Commission on Sustainable Development: 8th Session, 24 April 5 May 2000, New York. (2000).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10 ).02

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VARIABLES IN JAPANESE TOURISTS DEMAND USING VECM AND COINTEGRATION. THE CASE OF THAILAND

Tanattrin BUNNAG Faculty of Science and Social Sciences Burapha University, Thailand [email protected] Suggested Citation: Bunnang, T. (2014). Analysis of the relationship between the variables in Japanese Tourists denand using VECM and cointegration. The case of Thailand, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 114-126. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).02. Available from: http://www.asers.eu/ journals/jemt/curent-issue. Article’s History: Received August, 2014; Revised September, 2014; Accepted Dcembrie, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract: The study of this article had done to Japanese tourists which were one of the majority international tourist arrivals to Thailand and used quarterly data since 1985 to 2012. The purpose was to study the relationship between 4 factors including number of Japanese arrivals to Thailand, GDP per capita of Japanese tourists, the own price and the cross price. It was multivariate analysis which investigated dependence and interaction among a set of variables in multi-values process. The tool use was VECM and Cointegration. We could conclude the relationship in the short run of various variables in Japanese tourists demand model. It produced relationship called the income elasticity of demand and the own price elasticity of demand which was equal to 3.281 and -0.505, respectively. In addition, percentage change of GDP per capita of Japanese tourists had a negative relationship with percentage change of the own price. Finally, percentage change of the cross price had a positive relationship with percentage change of the own price. In the long run, the number of Japanese tourist arrivals had a positive relationship with the GDP per capita of Japanese tourists and the own price also had a positive relationship with the cross price.

Keywords: tourism, VECM, Cointegration, income elasticity of demand, own price elasticity of demand. JEL Classification: C3, C5. 1. Introduction The importance of tourism is a source of income for the country. For Thailand, tourism revenue is proportional 5% of GDP. Tourism revenue turns over in the country more than 8 billion baht per year. It is income that we received from the travel of Thai tourists and the foreign tourists entering in Thailand. Therefore, Thai government gives priority to tourism very much. However, the purpose of this study focused on the study of foreign tourists, which this study is less. From the data of Tourism Authority of Thailand, showed that the foreign tourists into the country. Most of them come from Asia. From the Table 1 Malaysian tourists travel to Thailand the highest, followed by Chinese tourists and Japanese tourists, respectively. Our intention are to study the Japanese tourists because the Japanese tourists are one of the most important tourists, travel in long distance and are high purchasing power.

114 Table 1 Number of the majority tourist arrivals to Thailand during 2009-2012 Change Change Change Tourists 2012 2011 2010 2009 (12/11) (11/10) (10/09) Malaysia 2,544,397 1.76% 2,500,280 21.43% 2,058,956 17.13% 1,757,813 China 2,786,860 61.91% 1,721,247 53.38% 1,122,299 44.34% 777,508 Japan 1,373,716 24.79% 1,127,893 13.51% 993,674 -1.07% 1,004,453 Source of data: Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2013

This study is to analyze the demand of Japanese tourists in Thailand as well as the relationship of variables in the tourism model. We sort the demand analysis as detailed below. 2. Literature reviews It is a study on the relationship between the tourism variables in the various articles. It is a collection of research, which use tools VAR, VECM and Coitergration as detailed below. Balaguer, L. and M. Cantavella, (2002) examine the role of tourism in the Spanish long-run economic development using VAR method and quarterly data during 1995-97 and find that economic growth in Spain has been sensible to persistent expansion of international tourism. Brida, J. et al. (2008) employ Toda and Yamamoto causality test and VECM method in Mexican economy during 1980-2007 and show that there is positive unidirectional causality from tourism expenditure and RER to real GDP. Zortuk, M. (2009) apply the Granger Causality test based on VECM for 1990Q1 to 2008Q3 in Turkey’s economy. The results indicate that there is a unidirectional causality from tourism arrivals to economic growth. Mirsha, P. et al. (2011) analyses the causality among real GDP, foreign tourist arrivals and foreign exchange earnings in India using VECM for the period spanning from 1978 to 2009. The findings reveal that there is a long- run unidirectional causality from tourism activities to economic growth of the country. But, no short-run causality between variables is indicated. Kutlar and Sarikaya (2012) employ ARIMA, VAR, Cointergration for analyze tourism in Turkey. The results show that there are the relationship between GDP and long-term tourism revenues, the number of incoming tourists and the number of Turkish citizen tourists going abroad. Taking in consideration the related literaturare, we find that there are many factors related to tourism based on the attention of researchers to pick up were analyzed. 3. Japanese tourism demand model Tourism demand for Japanese is to consist of the following elements.

NOJ = f (GDPJ, RPJ, CPJ, εJ) where: NOJ = number of Japanese tourist arrivals to Thailand; GDPJ = GDP per capita of Japanese tourists or the per capita income of Japanese tourists; RPJ = the own price (the relationship between the price of Thailand with the price of Japan = CPIthailand /CPIjapan; CPJ = the cross price (the relationship between the price of competing countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia with the price of Japan = weighted CPImalay,sing, indo/CPIjapan; εJ = error term.

In addition to study the elasticity of demand has taken log into each variable as model below: LOGNOJ = f (LOGGDPJ, LOGRPJ, LOGCPJ, εJ) It can show the movement of variables as Figure 1. LOGNOJ LOGGDPJ

13.2 15.3

12.8 15.2

12.4 15.1

12.0 15.0 11.6

14.9 11.2

14.8 10.8

10.4 14.7 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12

LOGRPJ LOGCPJ

-0.8 4.0

3.5 -1.2 3.0

2.5 -1.6 2.0

1.5 -2.0 1.0

-2.4 0.5

0.0

-2.8 -0.5 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 Figure 1 - The graph of LOGNOJ, LOGGDPJ, LOGRPJ and LOGCPJ 4. The purpose of this study The purpose is to study the relationship between 4 factors including number of Japanese arrivals to Thailand, GDP per capita of Japanese tourists, the own price and the cross price. It is multivariate analysis which investigates dependence and interaction among a set of variables in multi-values process. One of the most powerful method of analyzing multivariate time series is the vector autoregression model (VAR) and the extend models are the vector error correction model (VECM) and cointegration. More detail can be found in Hamilton (1994), Harris (1995), Enders (2004), Tsay (2002), Zivot and Wang (2006). However, the use VAR depending on the unit root test results, if it turns out that I (0) is non-stationary. We cannot use the VAR. We can use only VECM and Cointegration. 5. Data collection The data used in this study is the quarterly data from 1985 to 2012. We will get 112 observations. The data is derived from the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), The Bank of Thailand (BOT) and the Immigration Bureau (Police Department). Moreover, data analysis can be carried out using EVIEWS 8. 6. Research methodology From the topic 3 we extend the methology. We cover concept of VAR modeling, VECM and Cointegration. Vector Autoregression Model

Let Yt  (Y1t ,Y2t ,...,Ynt ) denote a k 1 vector of time series variables. The basic vector autoregressive model of order p, VAR (p), is:

Yt  c  tYt1  2Yt2 ...   pYt p  t , t 1,...T, (1)

where  t are k  k matrices of coefficients, c is a k 1 vector of constants and t is an k 1 unobservable zero mean white noise vector process with covariance matrix  . As in the univariate case with AR processes, we can use the lag operator to represent VAR (p)

116 p LYt  c  t , where (L)  I n  1L ...   p L

If we impose stationarity on Yt in (1), the unconditional expected value is given by:

1   (I n  1 ...   p ) c. Lag Length Selection: A reasonable strategy how to determine the lag length of the VAR model is to fit

VAR (p) models with different orders p  0,..., pmax and choose the value of p which minimizes some model selection criteria. Model selection criteria for VAR (p) could be base on Akaike (AIC), Schewarz-Bayesian (BIC) and Hannan-Quinn (HQ) information criteria. Cointegration and VECM An alternative approach to test for cointergration was introduced by Johansen (1988). The method is based on the VAR model estimation.

Consider the VAR (p) model for the k 1 vector Yt according to equation (1). Since levels of time series might be non-stationary, it is better to transform equation (1) into a dynamic form, calling vector error correction model (VECM):

Yt  Yt1  1Yt1 ...  p1Yt p1  t , (2)

p where   1 ...   p  I n and k    j ,k  1, ..., p 1. jk1 Let us assume that contains non-stationary I (1) time series components. Then in order to get a stationary error term t , Yt1 should also be stationary. Therefore, Yt1 must contain r  k cointegration relations. If the VAR (p) process has unit roots then  has reduced rank  = . Effectively, testing for cointegration is equivalent to checking out the rank of the matrix . If 0  rank = . This is implies that is I (1) with r linearly independent cointegrating vectors and k  r non-stationary vectors. Since has rank r it can be written as the product:      , (kk) (kr) (rk) where  and  are matrices with rank ( ) = rank (  ) = r . The matrix is a matrix of long-run coefficients and represents the speed of adjustment to disequilibrium. The VECM model becomes: with  Y I (0) Y  Y   Y ...   Y   , t1 t1 t1 1 t1 p1 t p1 t (3) Granger causality One of the VECM is forecasting. The structure of the VECM provides information about a variable’s or a group of variables’ forecasting ability for other variables. If a variable, or group of variables, Y1 is found to be helpful for predicting another variable, or group of variables, Y2 then Y1 is said to Granger-Cause or influences to ; otherwise it is said to fail to Granger-Cause . Formally, fails to Granger-Cause if for all s  0 the

MSE of a forecast of Y2,ts based on (Y2,t , Y2,t1, …) is the same as the MSE of a forecast of based on ( …). Note that the notion of Granger-Cause only implies forecasting ability.

Impulse response and variance decompositions As in the univariate case, a VAR (p) process can be represented in the form of a vector moving average (VMA) process.

Yt    t  1t1  2 t2 ..., (4) where the k  k moving average matrices  s are determined recursively using.

The elements of coefficient matrices  s mean effects of ts shocks onYt . That is, the (i, j) -th s element, ij , of the matrix is interpreted as the impulse response Y Y i,ts  i,t  s ,   ij i,t j,ts i, j 1, ..., T. s Set of coefficients  ij (s)  ij , i, j 1,..., T are called the impulse response functions. It is possible

to decompose the h -step-ahead forecast error variance into the proportion due to each shock  jt . The forecast

variance decomposition determines the proportion variation Y jt due to the shocks versus shocks of other variables fori  j . However, after explaining the research methodology we analyzed as detailed below. 7. Unit root tests Standard econometrics practice in the analysis of time series data begins with an examination of unit roots. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) tests are used to test for all variable series under the null hypothesis of a unit root against the alternative hypothesis of stationary. The results from unit root tests are presented in Table 2. The tests yield negative values in all case of levels. The most variable series of I (0) are more than the critical value at 5% significance level. Thus, imply that the series are non-stationary. By taking first differences of variables, the series of I (1) are less than the critical value at the 5% significance level. Thus, the series of I (1) are stationary. From unit root tests can be seen that the use of VAR is unsuitable. Shown from I (0) is non-stationary. This is because time trend will dominate other stationary variables and the OLS estimator will pick up covariance generated by trend only. Therefore, the correct way is to use VECM and cointegration to prevent problems from spurious result. Table 2 Unit root tests ADF test Phillips-Perron test Constant and Trend Constant and Trend Constant and Trend Constant and Trend Level or I(0) 1st difference or I(1) Level or I(0) 1st difference or I(1) LOGNOJ -2.459 -5.627*** -6.268*** -47.780*** LOGGDPJ -2.384 -3.314** -2.106 -9.025*** LOGRPJ -2.603 -10.905*** -2.417 -11.627*** LOGCPJ -2.583 -7.727*** -2.441 -7.803*** Note: 1. ***denote significance at the 1% level; 2. ** denote significance at the 5% level 8. Analysis of VECM and cointegration Before analysis of VECM and Cointegration, the first thing to do is to find the right lag of VAR model as shown in the Table 3. From the various criterions are found to be selected lag that 4 and 2. Most of them will choose lag 4. We therefore conclude that lag 4 should be suitable in analysis of VECM and Cointegration. Table 3 Lag order selection Lag LR FPE AIC SC HQ 0 NA 1.84e-06 -1.852 -1.737 -1.806 1 735.121 2.46e-10 -10.777 -10.198* -10.544* 2 28.658 2.46e-10 -10.778 -9.736 -10.359 3 33.687 2.25e-10 -10.871 -9.367 -10.266 4 53.587* 1.50e-10* -11.290* -9.322 -10.499 Note: * indicates lag order selected: LR = Sequential modified LR test statistic, FPE = Final prediction error, AIC = Akaike information criterion, SC = Schwarz information criterion, HQ = Hannan-Quinn information criterion

118 The next step is to find the order of cointegration as shown in Table 4. The Johansen test statistics show rejection for the null hypothesis of no cointegrating vectors (r = 0) at 5% critical value under both the Trace and Max-Eigen forms of the test. Scrolling down to the test at most one cointegrating vectors (r ≤ 1), the Johanson test statistics also show rejection for the null hypothesis of most one cointegrating vectors. If we move down to the test at most two cointegrating vectors (r ≤ 2), the Johanson test statistics will show rejection for the alternative hypothesis of most two cointegrating vectors. Therefore, after the test results, we should choose order one for cointegrating vectors (r ≤ 1). Table 4 Johansen cointegration test r H0 = No 0.05 Max-Eigen 0.05 VAR Model Trace Statistic Cointegration Critical Value Statistic Critical Value LOGNOJ r=0* 56.234 40.174 30.883 24.159 LOGGDPJ r≤1* 25.275 24.275 20.959 17.797 LOGRPJ r≤2 4.391 12.320 4.351 11.224 LOGCPJ r≤3 0.040 4.129 0.040 4.129 Note: * indicates Johanson Cointegration order selected 9. VECM estimates We can consider the relationships of various parameters due to VECM as a result in the short run relationship. It shows the relationship in Table 5 as follows: . ∆LOGNOJ has a positive relationship with ∆LOGGDPJ (-1) of 3.281, namely, if GDP per capita increased 1% will make a number of Japanese tourists to add fill up 3.281%. In summary, it is the income elasticity of demand of 3.281. . ∆LOGNOJ has a negative relationship with ∆LOGRPJ (-1) of -0.505, namely, if the own price increased 1% will make a number of Japanese tourists dropped 0.505%. In summary, it is the own price elasticity of demand of -0.505. . ∆LOGGDPJ has a negative relationship with ∆LOGRPJ (-2) of -0.034. It means percentage change of GDP per capita of Japanese tourists has a negative relationship with percentage change of the own price. . ∆LOGCPJ has a positive relationship with ∆LOGRPJ (-1), ∆LOGRPJ (-2) and ∆LOGRPJ (-3) of 0.707, 0.600 and 0.648, respectively. It means percentage change of the cross price has a positive relationship with percentage change of the own price. Table 5 Vector Error Correction estimates

Error Correction ∆LOGNOJ ∆LOGGDPJ ∆LOGRPJ ∆LOGCPJ -0.425*** -0.012 -0.151** 0.080 Coint. [-3.644] [-1.572] [-1.976] [0.744] -0.273* 0.015* 0.150* -0.123 ∆LOGNOJ(-1) [-2.214] [1.854] [1.860] [-1.076] -0.166 0.006* 0.069 -0.090 ∆LOGNOJ(-2) [-1.443] [0.821] [0.926] [-0.844] -0.327 0.003 0.076 -0.067 ∆LOGNOJ(-3) [-3.038] [0.363] [1.091] [-0.673] -0.304*** 0.005 0.063 -0.020 ∆LOGNOJ(-4) [3.073] [0.789] [0.983] [-0.219] 3.281* 0.052 1.582 2.562 ∆LOGGDPJ(-1) [1.768] [0.432] [1.303] [1.483] 0.244 0.165 -1.848 -1.215 ∆LOGGDPJ(-2) [0.141] [1.450] [-1.638] [-0.757] -3.114* 0.351*** 0.783 2.070 ∆LOGGDPJ(-3) [-1.947] [3.326] [0.748] [1.391] -0.974 0.083 -0.816 -0.592 ∆LOGGDPJ(-4) [-0.548] [0.709] [-0.702] [-0.358] -0.505* -0.001 -0.362** 0.707*** ∆LOGRPJ(-1) [-2.038] [-0.085] [-2.230] [3.061] -0.475* -0.034* -0.439*** 0.600*** ∆LOGRPJ(-2) [-1.733] [-1.904] [-2.448] [2.350] -0.245 0.013 -0.208 0.648*** ∆LOGRPJ(-3) [-0.908] [0.734] [-1.183] [2.581] -0.154 0.001 -0.189 0.040 ∆LOGRPJ(-4) [-0.618] [0.067] [-1.156] [0.174] 0.217 -0.008 0.264** -0.035 ∆LOGCPJ(-1) [1.453] [-0.891] [2.698] [-0.258] 0.003 0.001 0.017 -0.088 ∆LOGCPJ(-2) [0.021] [0.110] [0.194] [-0.674] 0.039 -0.006 -0.028 0.038 ∆LOGCPJ(-3) [0.310] [-0.756] [-0.337] [0.329] -0.067 0.001 -0.011 -0.108 ∆LOGCPJ(-4) [-0.550] [0.071] [-0.149] [-0.958] R2 0.815 0.427 0.191 0.284 F-statistic 19.315 3.265 1.037 1.738 Log likelihood 63.735 300.204 100.639 69.983 AIC -1.074 -6.510 -1.922 -1.218 SIC -0.592 -6.510 -1.440 -0.736 Note: t-statistics in parenthesis, *** denote significance at the 1% level, ** denote significance at the 5% level and * denote significance at the 10% level 10. Diagnostic tests The VECM consists of LOGNOJ, LOGGDPJ, LOGRPJ and LOGCPJ. We can diagnostic check on the model residuals to determine efficiency of estimator according to the Table 6. We found that the model residuals have no serial correlation, no heteroskedasticity and are not normally distributed. Therefore, it can be concluded that the estimators of VECM are efficient. Table 6 VECM Diagnostic tests Test Lags Value Probability 1 10.766 0.823 Serial Correlation LM Test 2 19.309 0.252 H0=no serial correlation 3 19.177 0.259 (LM-Stat) 4 21.081 0.175 Heteroskedasticity Tests (Chi-sq) 389.703 0.033 H0=Homoskedasticity NormalityTest

H0=Normality 32.219 0.000 -Skewness (Chi-sq) 243.936 0.000 -Kurtosis (Chi-sq) 276.155 0.000 -Jarque-Bera

120 11. Granger causality analysis VECM estimation results provide evidence which supports the existence of a short-run relationship among the variables. In order to verify or underscore this correlation we perform granger causality test, which are presented in Table 7. According to the table, LOGRPJ influences to LOGNOJ, whereas LOGRPJ influences to LOGGDPJ. Finally, LOGRPJ influences to LOGCPJ. Consequently, the results obtained from VECM, are confirmed as well in the Granger Causality analysis except for the relationship between LOGGDP with LOGNOJ.

Table 7 Pairwise Granger Causality Tests H0 = No Granger Causality F-Statistic LOGNOJ LOGRPJ 0.323 LOGRPJ LOGNOJ* 2.020 LOGGDPJ LOGRPJ 1.217 LOGRPJ LOGGDPJ*** 3.734 LOGCPJ LOGRPJ 1.489 LOGRPJ LOGCPJ*** 4.173 LOGGDPJ LOGNOJ 1.669 LOGNOJ LOGGDPJ 0.320 LOGCPJ LOGNOJ 0.712 LOGNOJ LOGCPJ 0.848 LOGCPJ LOGGDPJ 1.179 LOGGDPJ LOGCPJ 0.517 Note: 1. *** denote significance at the 1% level; 2. * denote significance at the 10% level 12. Cointegration estimates According to the Table 8, we obtain the following cointegrated equations:

LOGNOJt-1 = 0.891LOGGDPJt-1+0.666LOGRPJt-1-0.086LOGCPJt-1

LOGRPJt-1 = 0.129LOGCPJt-1+0.149LOGNOJt-1-1.336LOGGDPJt-1 Table 8 Results of normalized cointegrating vectors Cointegration vectors Vector 1 LOGNOJ(-1) 1.000 -0.891 LOGGDPJ(-1) (0.042) -0.666 LOGRPJ(-1) (0.259) 0.086 LOGCPJ(-1) (0.122) Note: Standard error in parenthesis

The above equations summarize the long-run relationship of the variables which is consistent with the theory and with short-run relationship: LOGNOJ has a positive relationship with LOGGDPJ. LOGRPJ also has a positive relationship with LOGCPJ. In addition to, the sign of the rest of coefficients in two equations are unsuitable to the theory and short-run relationship. The relationships of the parameters are confirmed by the impulse response function analysis. 13. Impulse response function analysis Using this model, which provides information for the long-run relationship of the variables, we perform the impulse response function analysis. The impulse response function provides information to analyze the dynamic behavior of a variable due to random shock or innovation in other variables. Specifically, the impulse response functions trace out the effects on current and future values of the endogenous variables of one standard deviation shock to a variable. In what follows, we concentrate on shocks to the LOGNOJ and LOGRPJ equation. According to Figure 2 a random innovation in LOGNOJ has positive effects on LOGGDPJ and a random innovation in LOGRPJ also has positive effects on LOGCPJ. 14. Variance decomposition analysis Further evidence is provided with variance decomposition analysis which is another way characterizes the dynamic behavior of the model. Table 9 suggests that the variation of each variable depend on shocks to other variables in the long run. For LOGNOJ, the influence increases 6.28% and 7.55% of variation of LOGNOJ is due to LOGGDPJ and LOGRPJ respectively. For LOGRPJ, the influence increases 13.17% of variation of LOGRPJ is due to LOGNOJ. Finally, For LOGCPJ, the influence increases 60.89% of variation of LOGCPJ is due to LOGRPJ. Consequently, the link between the variables in the long run becomes more significant, since the variation of a variable is due to shocks from other variables too. Table 9 Variance Decomposition

Period S.E. LOGNOJ LOGGDPJ LOGRPJ LOGCPJ

1 0.129 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

2 0.141 92.852 5.083 0.298 1.765 3 0.145 90.620 6.764 0.659 1.954 4 0.146 90.243 7.131 0.667 1.957

5 0.162 91.009 5.763 1.106 2.120

6 0.164 89.017 6.600 2.144 2.238 7 0.165 88.538 6.820 2.369 2.270 8 0.168 88.174 6.669 2.934 2.222 9 0.173 86.226 6.268 4.963 2.541

10 0.177 83.659 6.283 7.551 2.504

122 Figure 2

Accumulated Response to Nonf actorized One S.D. Innov ations

Accumulated Response of LOGNOJ to LOGNOJ Accumulated Response of LOGNOJ to LOGGDPJ Accumulated Response of LOGNOJ to LOGRPJ Accumulated Response of LOGNOJ to LOGCPJ .3 .3 .3 .3

.2 .2 .2 .2

.1 .1 .1 .1

.0 .0 .0 .0

-.1 -.1 -.1 -.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Accumulated Response of LOGGDPJ to LOGNOJ Accumulated Response of LOGGDPJ to LOGGDPJ Accumulated Response of LOGGDPJ to LOGRPJ Accumulated Response of LOGGDPJ to LOGCPJ .15 .15 .15 .15

.10 .10 .10 .10

.05 .05 .05 .05

.00 .00 .00 .00

-.05 -.05 -.05 -.05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Accumulated Response of LOGRPJ to LOGNOJ Accumulated Response of LOGRPJ to LOGGDPJ Accumulated Response of LOGRPJ to LOGRPJ Accumulated Response of LOGRPJ to LOGCPJ .8 .8 .8 .8

.6 .6 .6 .6

.4 .4 .4 .4

.2 .2 .2 .2

.0 .0 .0 .0

-.2 -.2 -.2 -.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Accumulated Response of LOGCPJ to LOGNOJ Accumulated Response of LOGCPJ to LOGGDPJ Accumulated Response of LOGCPJ to LOGRPJ Accumulated Response of LOGCPJ to LOGCPJ 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volume V, Issue 1(9), Summer 2014

Table 9 Variance Decomposition (continued)

Period S.E. LOGNOJ LOGGDPJ LOGRPJ LOGCPJ

1 0.120 9.85E-05 4.217 21.881 73.900 2 0.191 0.511 2.500 40.154 56.833 3 0.262 0.582 2.582 50.324 46.510 4 0.336 0.871 1.910 55.706 41.511 5 0.386 0.985 1.480 58.178 39.355 6 0.423 1.152 1.254 58.734 38.857 7 0.455 1.426 1.088 59.545 37.939 8 0.485 1.825 0.968 60.177 37.028 9 0.513 2.250 0.868 60.523 36.356 10 0.542 2.791 0.794 60.896 35.518

Period S.E. LOGNOJ LOGGDPJ LOGRPJ LOGCPJ

1 0.008 0.003 99.996 0.000 0.000 2 0.012 0.043 99.298 0.000 0.657 3 0.017 0.050 96.877 2.491 0.580 4 0.022 0.437 95.618 2.106 1.837 5 0.027 0.475 95.478 1.870 2.174 6 0.032 0.791 95.047 1.904 2.256 7 0.037 1.433 94.166 1.803 2.597 8 0.042 2.107 93.484 1.603 2.805 9 0.047 2.710 92.947 1.404 2.937 10 0.052 3.501 92.224 1.217 3.056

Period S.E. LOGNOJ LOGGDPJ LOGRPJ LOGCPJ 1 0.084 2.039 7.077 90.882 0.000 2 0.116 1.708 4.273 88.983 5.034 3 0.134 3.270 4.609 86.753 5.366 4 0.149 4.504 4.212 86.629 4.652 5 0.167 5.366 3.921 86.704 4.008 6 0.182 6.694 3.658 86.008 3.638 7 0.198 9.078 3.470 84.204 3.247 8 0.213 10.634 3.353 83.118 2.893

9 0.229 11.872 3.212 82.279 2.635 10 0.244 13.176 3.016 81.381 2.424

Conclusion We can conclude the relationships in the short run of various variables in Japanese tourists demand model. It shows the relationship as follows: It produces relationship called the income elasticity of demand and the own price elasticity of demand which is equal to 3.281 and -0.505, respectively. In addition, percentage change of GDP per capita of

124

Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Japanese tourists has a negative relationship with percentage change of the own price. Finally, percentage change of the cross price has a positive relationship with percentage change of the own price. In the long run, the number of Japanese tourist arrivals has a positive relationship with the GDP per capita of Japanese tourists and the own price also has a positive relationship with the cross price. This conclusion is expected to be useful to the government and the private sector in tourism management for Japanese tourists effectively. References [1] Amy, Y.F. Tan, C., Miller, J. (2002). Stability of inbound tourism demand model for Indonesia and Malaysia the pre and post-formation of tourism development organizations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourist Research, 3: 361-378. [2] Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R.J. (2008). Modeling and forecasting Australian domestic tourism. Journal of Tourism Management, 29: 19-31. [3] Balaguer, L., Cantavella, M. (2002). Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: the Spanish case. Applied Economics, 34: 877-884. [4] Barry, K., O’Hagan, J.W. (1972). An econometric Study of British Tourist Expenditure in Ireland. Economic and Social Review, 3 (2): 143-161. [5] Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31: 307-327. [6] Brida, J., Carrera, E., Risso, E. (2008). Tourism’s Impact on Long-Run Mexican Economic Growth. Economics Bulletin, 3(7): 1-10. [7] Brooks, C. (2002). Introductory Econometrics for Finance. Cambridge University Press. [8] Bunnag, T. (2014). Volatility analysis of international tourist arrival growth rates to Thailand using GARCH and GJR model, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 1(9): 73-86, doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.1(9).06. [9] Chan, F. Lim, C. and McAleer, M. (2005). Modeling Multivariate International Tourism Demand and Volatility. Journal of Tourism Management, 26: 301-479. [10] Chu, F.L .(1998). Forecasting Tourist Arrivals. Journal of Travel Research, 36: 79-84. [11] Chu, F.L. (2008). A fractional integrated autoregressive moving average approach to forecasting tourism demand. Journal of Tourism Management, 29: 79-88. [12] Crouch G.I. (1994).The Study of International Tourism Demand: a Survey of Practice. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (4): 41-55. [13] Domroes, M. (1985). Tourism Resources and Their Development in Maldives Islands. GeoJournal, 10: 119-126. [14] Enders, W. (2004). Applied Econometric Time Series. John Wiley & Son. [15] Frances, P.H. (1998). Time Series Models for Business and Economics Forecasting. Cambridge University Press. [16] Gray, H.P. (1966). The demand for international travel by the United State and Canada. International Economic Review, 13, 83-92. [17] Jeffrey, P. and Xie,Y. (1995). The UK market for Tourism in China. Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 857- 876. [18] Lim C. (1997). Review of International Tourism Demand Model. Journal of Tourism Research, 24: 835- 849. [19] Lim, C. (2004). The major determinants of Korean outbound travel to Australia. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 64: 477-485. [20] Malliga, S. (2014). The income and price elasticities of tourism demand in Thailand, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 1(9): 14–28, doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.1(9).02. [21] Mirsha, P. Himanshu, B. and Mohapatra, S. (2011). The Causality between Tourism and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from India. European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4): 518-527. [22] Ouerfelli, C. (2008). Co-integration analysis of quarterly European tourism demand in Tunisia. Journal of Tourism Management, 29: 127-137. [23] Song, H. and Witt, S.F. (2003). Tourism forecasting: the general-to-specific approach. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 65-74. [24] Zortuk, M. (2009). Economic impact of tourism on Turkey’s economy: evidence from co-integration tests. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 25: 231-239.

126 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).03

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MATCH 2011 EARTHQUAKE, TSUNAMI AND FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN JAPAN

Hrabrin BACHEV Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected] Suggested Citation: Bachev, H. (2014). Socio-economic and environmental impacts of Match 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 127-222. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).03. Available from: http://www.asers.eu/ journals/jemt/curent-issue. Article’s History: Received November, 2014; Revised December, 2014; Accepted December, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract: On March 11, 2011 the strongest recorded in Japan earthquake occurred which triggered a powerful tsunami and caused a nuclear accident in the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant Station. The triple 2011 disaster has had immense impacts on people life, health and property, social infrastructure and economy, agri-food chains, natural and institutional environment, etc. in North-eastern Japan and beyond Due to the scale of the disasters and the number of affected agents, the effects’ multiplicities, spillovers, and long time horizon, the constant evolution of the nuclear crisis, the lack of “full” information and models of analysis, etc. the overall impacts of the 2011 disasters is far from being completely evaluated. Besides most information and publications are in Japanese. The goal of this paper is to assess the socio-economic and environmental impact of Match 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Firstly, a short description of the three events is presented. Next, the overall impacts on population, health and displacement assessed. Third, the effects of economy are evaluated. After that, diverse impacts on agri-food chains are presented. Finally, the impact on natural environment is assessed. A wide range of official governmental, farmers, industry and international organisations, and Tokyo Electric Power Company data as well as information from publications in media, research and experts reports, etc. have been extensively used. Keywords: social, economic, agri-food chain, environmental impact, Great East Japan Earthquake, March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Fukushima nuclear accident, disaster risk managment, Japan. JEL Classification: C3, C5 1. Introduction On March 11, 2011 the strongest recorded in Japan earthquake off the Pacific coast of North-east of the country occurred (also known as the Great East Japan Earthquake, 2011 Tohoku earthquake, and the 3.11 Earthquake) which triggered a powerful tsunami and caused a nuclear accident in the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant Station. It was the first disaster that included an earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear power plant accident. The triple 2011 disaster has had immense impacts on people life, health and property, social infrastructure and economy, agri-food chains, natural and institutional environment, etc. in North-eastern Japan and beyond [Al­Badri and Berends, 2013; Biodiversity Center of Japan, 2013; Buesseler, 2014; Fujita et al., 2012; IAEA, 2011; IBRD, 2012; Koyama, 2013; Kontar et al., 2014; Nakanishi and Tanoi, 2013; NIRA, 2013; UNEP, 2012; Vervaeck and Daniell, 2012; Watanabe A., 2011; Watanabe N., 2013; WHO, 2013; WWF, 2013]. Due to the scale of the disasters and the number of affected agents, the effects’ multiplicities, spillovers, and long time horizon, the constant evolution of the nuclear crisis, the lack of “full” information and models of analysis, etc. the overall impacts of the 2011 disasters is far from being completely evaluated. Furthermore, most of the domestic information and publications have been in Japanese, which make it difficult for international public to get a full insight on the scales and diverse implications. The goal of this paper is to assess the socio-economic and environmental impact of Match 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Firstly, a short description of the three events is presented. Next, the overall impacts on population, health and displacement assessed. Third, the effects of economy are evaluated. After that, diverse impacts on agri-food chains are presented. Finally, the impact on natural environment is assessed. A wide range of official governmental, farmers, industry and international organizations, and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) data as well as information from publications in media, research and experts reports, etc. have been extensively used. We are grateful to the Japan Foundation, which supported financially this research. 2. Description of events On March 11, 2011 at 14:46 Japan Standard Time1 a mega thrust undersea earthquake occurred off the Pacific coast of Japan widely known as the Great East Japan Earthquake [Japan Meteorological Agency, 2014]. The earthquake hypocenter was at a depth of 24 km and epicenter 130 km (38° 6.2′ N, 142° 51.6′ E) East of the Oshika Peninsula of To hoku region, Honshu island (Map 1).

Source: Japan Meteorological Agency Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Map 1. Epicenter and seismic intensity Map 2. Areas affected by March 11, 2011 quake of March 11, 2011 earthquake

The earthquake was with a magnitude of 9.0 Megawatt (Mw) [Japan Meteorological Agency, 2011]. Its seismic intensity was 7 in the Northern part of Miyagi prefecture (Kurihara city), 6+ in the Southern and Central part of Miyagi prefecture, Nakadoti and Hamadori of Fukushima prefecture, the Northern and Southern part of Ibaraki prefecture, the Northern and Southern part of Tochigi prefecture, 6- in the Sothern part of coastal area, the Northern part of inland area and the Southern part of inland area of Iwate prefecture, Aizu region of Fukushima prefecture, the Southern part of Gunma prefecture, the Southern part of Saitama prefecture, and the North-west part of Chiba prefecture, and a lower intensity in other areas of the country (Map 1 and Map 2). The Great East Japan Earthquake was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in or around Japan, and the forth most powerful earthquake in the world since 1900 [Japan Meteorological Agency, 2013].

1 05:46 Universal Time Coordinated

128 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The main earthquake, lasting approximately six minutes, was preceded by a number of large foreshocks first major of them being on 9 March (with 7.2 Mw). Almost 1000 aftershocks of magnitude 5.0 Mw or greater occurred since the initial quake by the end of 2013 [Japan Meteorological Agency, 2014]. According to some estimates The Great East Japan Earthquake moved Honshu island 2.4 m east, dropped vertically a 400 km stretch of the Pacific Ocean coastline by 0.6 m, and shifted the Earth axis between 10 cm and 25 cm [Chang, 2011; Deutsche Welle, March 14, 2011]. The greatest confirmed land subsidence was in Oshika Peninsula, Miyagi (1.2 m), Rikuzentakata, Iwate (0.84 m), Ishinomaki, Miyagi (0.78 m), Kesennuma, Miyagi (0.74 m), O funato, Iwate (0.73 m), Minamisanriku, Miyagi (0.69 m), Kamaishi, Iwate (0.66 m) etc. [Geospatial Information Authority, 2011]. Experts say that the land subsidence is permanent which makes such areas more susceptible to flooding during high tides. The Great East Japan Earthquake triggered powerful tsunamis that spread over the wide area from Hokkaido to Okinawa2 (Map 3 and Map 4). According to estimates an extensive coastal area surpassing 400 km was hit by tsunami higher than 10 m that submerged plane areas more than 5 km inland [Mori et al. 2011].

Source: Japan Meteorological Agency Map 3. Great East Japan Earthquake observed tsunami heights in Japan The exact figures for heights of tsunami waves are not known. Official data for the maximum heights of tsunami are: more than 9.3 m in Souma, Fukushima prefecture (March 11, 15:51), more than 8.5 m in Miyako, Iwate prefecture (March 11, 15:26), more than 8 m in Oofunato, Iwate prefecture (March 11, 15:18), and more than 7.6 m in Ishinomaki, Miyagi prefecture (March 11, 15:25) [Japan Meteorological Agency, 2014]. Some reports indicate that tsunami waves reached heights of up to 40 meters at Omoe peninsula, Miyako city, Iwate prefecture, and travelled up to 10 km inland in Sendai area [NHK, August 13, 2011]. This height is also deemed the record in Japan historically [Yoshida, 2012]. The earthquake caused a vertical drop in the coastline 0.6 m, which allowed the tsunami to travel farther and faster onto the land. The tsunami raced outward from the earthquake epicenter at speeds that approached about 800 km per hour [Britannica, 2014]. Experts suggest that it would have taken 10 to 30 minutes to reach the areas first affected, and then areas further North and South based on the geography of the coastline [Deutsche Welle, March 11, 2011]. The timing of the earliest recorded tsunami maximum readings ranged from 15:12 to 15:21 or between 26 and 35 minutes after the earthquake had struck [Japan Meteorological Agency, 2011]. Tsunami have traveled across the Pacific Ocean to Chile and highly likely returned to the Japanese coast about two days later with 30­60 centimeters height [The Japan News, May 2, 2014].

2 Simulations available on http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/sendai11/

Source: Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami Joint Survey Group Map 4. March 2011 Tsunami runup heights along Japan coastline The most severe effects of the tsunami were felt along a 670-km long stretch of coastline from Erimo, Hokkaido, in the north to O arai, Ibaraki, in the South, with most of the destruction occurring in the hour following the earthquake [Biggs and Sheldrick, 2011]. The most severely affected areas were areas Kuji, O funato, Rikuzentakata Kamaishi, Miyako, O tsuchi, and Yamada in Iwate prefecture, Namie, So ma and Minamiso ma in Fukushima prefecture, and Shichigahama, Higashimatsushima, Onagawa, Natori, Ishinomaki, and Kesennuma in Miyagi Prefecture3. The tsunami inundated a total area of approximately 561 km2 or 4.53% of the total territories of the six Northeastern prefectures of Honshu island [Geospatial Information Authority, 2011]. The most affected was Miyagi prefecture where 16.3% of the territory was flooded by seawaters. The worst affected by flooding were Wakayabashi and Migagino words of Sendai (60.4% and 4.5% of the total areas inundated), Watari-cho (47.9%), Iwanuma (43.9%), Shishigahama town (38.5%), Yamomoto-cho (37.5%), Higashimatsushima (36.3%) and other areas (Map 5, Picture 1). The earthquake and the tsunami caused a nuclear accident in one of the world’s biggest nuclear power stations - the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Okuma and Futaba, Fukushima prefecture (Picture 2). The tsunami arrived at the plant station around 50 minutes after the initial earthquake. The 14 meter high tsunami4 overwhelmed the plant's seawalls and damaged cooling systems and control rooms (Figure 1). Three out of the six reactors (units 1, 3 and 4) suffered large explosions from March 12 to March 15, 2011 [Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2011]. Level 7 meltdowns occurred5 leading to releases of huge radioactivity into the environment [Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, April 12, 2011]. Diverse radioactive materials were released from the containment vessels of the power plant as a result of deliberate venting to reduce gas pressure, deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea, and uncontrolled events. The official data for the radionuclides released into the atmosphere from Fukushima accident are presented in Table 1.

3 Detail maps of areas hit by the tsunami are available at: http://danso.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/20110311/map/index_e.html 4 Nuclear Regulation Authority has concluded that the tsunami triggered the meltdown [NHK World, July 18, 2014]. It rejected the conclusion of the Diet commission (July 2012) that the earthquake caused the reactor to lose power- damaging pipes leading to the meltdown before tsunami hit the plant. 5 International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) runs from 0 (indicating abnormal situation with no safety consequences) to 7 (indicating accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects). Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 event.

130 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: JICA Source: U.S. Geological Survey Map 5. Areas flooded by tsunami Picture 1. Tsunami flooded areas of Sendai Radioactive elements were released by the nuclear plant into: the atmosphere in the form of radioactive gases or radioactive particles (aerosols) dispersed into the air, a portion of which fell on the ground soil and formed residual radioactive deposits; the marine environment, directly in the form of liquid releases into the sea and indirectly due to fallout on the sea's surface from radioactive aerosols dispersed over the ocean.

Source: Tokyo Electric Power Company Source: Wikipedia; Note: A - plant building; B - peak tsunami height; C – site ground level; D - average sea level; E - sea wall Picture 2. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Figure 1. Tsunami height at the nuclear plant

Table 1. Radionuclides released from Fukushima nuclear power plant (Bq)6 Nuclide Half life Amount Nuclide Half life Amount Xe-133 5.2 days 1.1×1019 Pu-238 87.7 years 1.9×1010 Cs-134 2.1 years 1.8×1016 Pu-239 24065 years 3.2×1009 Cs-137 30.0 years 1.5×1016 Pu-240 6537 years 3.2×1009 Sr-89 50.5 days 2.0×1015 Pu-241 14.4 years 1.2×1012 Sr-90 29.1 years 1.4×1014 Y-91 58.5 days 3.4×1012 Ba-140 12.7 days 3.2×1015 Pr-143 13.6 days 4.1×1012 Te-127m 109.0 days 1.1×1015 Nd-147 11.0 days 1.6×1012 Te-129m 33.6 days 3.3×1015 Cm-242 162.8 days 1.0×1011 Te-131m 30.0 hours 5.0×1015 I-131 8.0 days 1.6×1017 Te-132 78.2 hours 8.8×1016 I-132 2.3 hours 1.3×1013 Ru-103 39.3 days 7.5×1009 I-133 20.8 hours 4.2×1016 Ru-106 368.2 days 2.1×1009 I-135 6.6 hours 2.3×1015 Zr-95 64.0 days 1.7×1013 Sb-127 3.9 days 6.4×1015 Ce-141 32.5 days 1.8×1013 Sb-129 4.3 hours 1.4×1014 Ce-144 284.3 days 1.1×1013 Mo-99 66.0 hours 6.7×1009 Np-239 2.4 days 7.6×1013 Source: Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, 2011

There have been diverse estimates about the total amount of radioactive elements released into environment as a result of the nuclear accident. Assessments of Tokyo Electric Power Company7, related government agencies of Japan (Nuclear Safety Commission, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety for the major radioactive materials released into the air and the sea during the period March-September, 2011 are summarized on Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Estimates on amounts of radioactive materials released into atmosphere for March 12-31, 2011 as result of Fukushima nuclear plant accident (PBq) Organizations and dates: Rare Gas I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 INES* Tokyo Electric Power Company 500 500 10 10 900 (May 24, 2012) Nuclear Safety Commission - 130 - 11 570 (August 22, 2011) Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency - 150 - 8.2 480 (February 16, 2012) Institute for Radiological Protection and 2000 200 30 - Nuclear Safety (February 28, 2012) Reference: Chernobyl accident 6500 1800 - 85 5200 Source: Tokyo Electric Power Company, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Safety Commission, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency Note: * value obtained by converting amount of radioactivity into iodine equivalent

6 Becquerel (Bq) is a unit for measuring substance's radioactivity equal to number of nuclear decays per second. Sievert (Sv) is a unit to quantify biological effects of radiation. Bq is converted into Sv through formula that factors in elements including the type of nucleus and type of radiation exposure. 7 The operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plant

132 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Table 3. Estimates on amounts of radioactive materials released into ocean between March 26-September 30, 2011 as result of Fukushima nuclear plant accident (PBq) Organization Period of assessment I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 TEPCO March 26-September 30, 2011 11 3.5 3.6 Japan Atomic Energy Agency March 21-April 30, 2011 11.4 - 3.6 Institute for Radiological Protection March 21-mid-July, 2011 - - 27 and Nuclear Safety Source: Tokyo Electric Power Company, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, Japan Atomic Energy Agency

According to the May 2012 nuclear power plant’s estimates the cumulative radiation releases amounts 538.1 petabecquerel (PBq)8 of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, out of which 520 PBq was released into the atmosphere between March 12–31, 2011 and 18.1 PBq into the ocean from March 26 to September 30, 2011 [Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2012]. A total of 511 PBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13.5 PBq of caesium-134 and 13.6 PBq of caesium-137. Releases of other radioactive nuclides into air, groundwater and ocean such as strontium, plutonium-238, 239, 240, and 2419, and neptunium-23910 were also reported. At least 900 PBq had been released into the atmosphere in March 2011 alone. By November-December 2011 the emissions dropped from around 220 billion Bq immediately after the accident to 17 thousand Bq or about one-13 millionth the initial level11. One year after the accident the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety’s provisional estimates for the total radioactive releases into the air were: . radioactive noble gases: 6,550 PBq (the same order of magnitude as the Chernobyl accident), composed mainly of xenon-133; . radioactive iodine: 408 PBq (about ten times less than the Chernobyl accident), including 197 PBq of iodine-131 and 168 PBq of iodine-132; . radioactive tellurium: 145 PBq including 108 PBq of tellurium-132 with its decay product iodine-132, and 12 PBq of tellurium-129 with its decay product tellurium-129; . radioactive caesium: 58 PBq (about three times less than the Chernobyl accident), including 21 PBq of caesium-137, 28 PBq of caesium-134 and 9.8 PBq of caesium-136 [Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, 2012]. The Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety also estimated that between March 21 and mid-July, 2011 around 2.7×1016 Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82% having flowed into the sea before April 8, 2011. The later radioactivity represents the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed. Given the prevailing winds at the time of accident only 20% of the atmospheric fallout is estimated to have fallen on land with the majority of the remainder deposited to the North Pacific [Morino et al., 2011]. Contaminated waters were transported far into the Pacific Ocean by currents causing a great dispersion of the radioactive elements12 [Buesseler, 2014]. Various publications show greater details about different radioactive materials released by the nuclear plant and their geographical dispersion [Busby, 2012; Buesseler, 2014; Chino et al., 2011; Morino et al., 2011; Tsumune et al. 2012; UNSCEAR 2013 Report]. Different assessments of radioactivity from the Fukushima plant ranged from 10-40% of that of Chernobyl accident while significantly contaminated area is estimated to be 10-12% that of Chernobyl’s. For example, the largest source of Cs137 is global fallout from weapons

8 The Becquerel (Bq) is the The International System of Units (SI) derived unit of radioactivity defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. 9 120 gigabecquerel (GBq) 10 7.6 terabecquerel (TBq) 11 Due to human activities at the plant the emissions rose again up to 19 thousand Bq in January 2012. 12 Recently it has been announced that for the first time trace amounts of radioactive cesium­134 emitted from Fukushima nuclear plant were detected off the northern California coast in water collected about 150 km off Eureka in August 2014 [The Japan News, November 17, 2014]. testing amounting 950 PBq (including 600 PBq in the ocean), Chernobyl accident contributed 100 PBq, while releases from Fukushima plant are estimated to be between 4-90 PBq (including 10-50 PBq atmospheric and 3.6-41 PBq direct ocean) [Buesseler, 2014]. Cesium 137 leaks from Fukushima are compared with the amount released by 168 atomic blasts similar to that in Hiroshima in the end in of World War II [The Telegraph, August 25, 2011]. Since the accident there have been continued spills of contaminated water at the plant grounds and into the sea. On August 20, 2013 it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank [Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2013]. On February 27, 2014 it was revealed that another leak of 110 tons of contaminated water occurred [The Japan News, February 27, 2014]. A new up to a ton water leaks was reported on April 14, 2014 [NHK World, April 14, 2014]. On June 6, 2014 TEPCO announced that up to 3.4 tons of radioactive water may have leaked from barriers surrounding storage tanks [NHK World, June 6, 2014]. Moreover, about 11,000 tons of water used to cool melted-down fuel leaked out of reactor buildings into underground utility tunnels, from where it is believed to be flowing out to sea [NHK World, June 25, 2014]. Furthermore, the underground tunnels of the facilities have been filled with highly radioactive water, which is believed to be leaking into the nearby sea after mixing with groundwater [NHK World, November 25, 2014]. In June 2014 TEPCO found that radioactive water can easily spread in a deep layer of groundwater13 and could be spilling into the ocean. On June 4 as much as 4,700 becquerels of tritium per liter were detected in a well near the No.1 reactor building [NHK World, June 25, 2014]. Water pressure in the layer was lower than that of a shallower layer making it easier for contaminated water to spread in the deep layer. After a strong typhoon in October 2014 it was found high levels of radioactive cesium in groundwater (up to 460,000 becquerels per liter)14 in the compound of the nuclear plant in wells around the reactors buildings [NHK World, October 25, 2014]. TEPCO began pumping up groundwater from the wells on a trial basis in August 2014 and full-scale operations in October15. Since May 2014 TEPCO has been releasing water in the ocean from “groundwater bypass operation”16 as more than 8,600 tons of groundwater has been discharged so far [The Japan News, June 28, 2014]. The first (about 560 tons) groundwater released in May contained 0.016 becquerel of cesium-134 per liter, 0.047 becquerel of cesium-137 and 220 becquerels of tritium [The Japan News, May 21, 2014]. Consequently, the significant pollution of sea water along the coast near the nuclear plant persist as a result of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported towards the sea by surface and ground water running over contaminated soil as well as the leakages and releases from the power station17. Furthermore, in summer 2014 TEPCO announced that more than one trillion becquerels of radioactive substances were released as a result of debris removal work (280 billion becquerels per hour) at one of the plant's reactors [NHK World, July 23, 2014]. The plant is believed to be still releasing an average of 10 million becquerels per hour of radioactive material. Radioactive contamination from the nuclear plant has spread in the region and beyond though air, rains, dust, water circulations, wildlife, garbage disposals, transportation, and affected soils, waters, plants, animals, infrastructure, and population. High levels of radiation were detected in large areas surrounding the nuclear plant and beyond (Map 6). Besides, numerous anomalous “hot spots” have been discovered in areas far beyond the adjacent region – e.g. in the year after the accident there were about 150 reports in Tokyo alone [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2012]. The highest radioactive contamination has been within 20-30 km from the Fukushima nuclear power plant where the authorities have been implementing a 20 km (800 sq. km) exclusion zone and other restricted areas since March 12, 2011. On March 20 the reported air radiation rate outside the evacuation zone ranged from 0.7 μSv/h (35-40 km to West from nuclear plant) to 110 μSv/h (30 km to Northwest from the plant)

13 Deep layer of water is about 25 meters below the surface. 14 800 to 900 times the previous peak level of 500 becquerels per liter. 15 TEPCO plans to treat the tainted groundwater and discharge it into the ocean to deal with the buildup of contaminated water. Local people strongly oppose the plan and utility has yet to discharge water into the ocean. 16 Intended to reduce the amount of radiation-tainted water at the plant. Groundwater is pumped up from 12 wells near the 1 to 4 reactors before it flows into the basement of the reactor buildings, temporarily stored in a tank and is released into the sea once radiation levels are confirmed to be lower than TEPCO standards. 17 In October 2014 the concentrations of Cs-134 and Cs-137 in the seawater around Fukushima nuclear plant in outer layer varied between 0.0013-0.4 Bq/L and 0.011-1.2 Bq/L while in lower layer they were between 0.0013-0.099 Bq/L and 0.0046-0.034 Bq/L [Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2014].

134 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2011]. Radiation monitoring in 47 prefectures of Japan showed a wide variation, but an upward trend in 10 of them on March 23, 2011 [Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2011].

Source: Ministry of Environment, 2014 Source: Fukushima prefectural government

Map 6. Radioactive pollution caused Figure 2. Fukushima prefecture towns Fukushima accident (September 18, 2011) by radiation levels, March 11-31, 2011

March-May 2011 soil monitoring in Fukushima prefecture showed the presence of radionuclides reaching up to 710,000 Bq/kg of I-131, 282,000 Bq/kg of Cs-134, 290,000 Bq/kg of Cs-137, 270,000*6 Bq/kg of Te-129m, 100,000 Bq/kg of Te-132, 23,000*6 Bq/kg of Cs-136 and 4,300*6 Bq/kg of La-140 in samples from Namie town [Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2012]. More detailed surveys have found out that cesium 13718 had strongly contaminated the soils in large areas of eastern and northeastern Japan [Yasunaria et al., Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2011-2014]. On November 12, 2011, officials reported that long-lived radioactive cesium had contaminated 30,000 sq. km of the land surface of Japan while some 11,700 sq. km was found to have radiation levels that exceeded Japan’s allowable exposure rate of 1 mSv19 per year20 [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2011]. Outside Fukushima prefecture reported soil radiation of cesium-134 and cesium-137 was between 30,000 and 100,000 Bq/m2 in Ichinoseki and Oshu (Iwate prefecture), in Saku, Karuizawa and Sakuho (Nagano prefecture), in Tabayama (Yamanashi prefecture) and elsewhere. Plutonium-238 and 239+240, Strontium-89 and 90, Tellurium-129m and Silver-110m fallouts have been also detected in the affected regions [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2011, 2012]. The highest levels of Pu-239 and Pu-240 combined were 15 becquerels per square meters21 in Fukushima prefecture and 9.4 Bq in Ibaraki prefecture. Nevertheless, measured plutonium, and radioactive strontium, tellurium and silver were very small compared with the accumulated effective doses for 50 years of Cesium 134 and 137. In July-August 2011 detected concentrations of radioactive elements in river and well water samples in affected regions were: maximum values for river water of 1.9 Bq/kg for Cs-134 and 2.0 Bq/kg for Cs-137, for

18 Two months after the accident, with disappearance of radionuclides with a short half-life (Te-123, I-132 and I-131), the majority of residual deposits were made up by Cs-134 and Cs-137 (Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, 2012). The later were contributing more than 80% of the activity of residual deposits after May 20, 2011. 19 The sievert (Sv) is a derived unit of ionizing radiation dose in the International System of Units and measures the health effect of low levels of ionizing radiation on the human body. 20 On April 19, 2011 the official “safe” radiation exposure levels was drastically increased from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection limit for a member of the public is 1 mSv/y (for “Post-emergency situation” 20 mSv/y) and for the radiation worker 20 mSv/y. 21 Compared to a global average of 0.4 to 3.7 Bq/kg from the atomic bomb tests. well water of 0.85 Bq/kg for Cs-134 and 1.1 Bq/kg for Cs-137, and Strontium 89 and 90 in river waters of 5.5×10−2 Bq/kg and 1.8×10−2 Bq/kg accordingly [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, October 2011]. The extent of radioactive contamination of air, waters and soils in Japan has been monitored and updating constantly22. In Fukushima prefecture the radiation levels vary according to location (and even within the same locality because of the numerous “hot spots”), it has been decreasing but it still higher than the levels before the disaster23 (Figure 2, Table 4, Map 7). In other prefectures the environmental radioactivity levels have been stable or decreased but mostly they are still higher than the period before the accident (Table 5). The National Diet of Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission24 concluded that the Fukushima nuclear accident “cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster - that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response” [The National Diet of Japan, 2012]. It was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by these parties. They effectively “betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents”. Table 4. Evolution of environmental radioactivity in Fukushima prefecture (μSv/h) Minami Soso, Iwaki, Ken-poku, Ken-chu, Ken-nan, Aizu, Aizu Aizu,Minami Minami Iwaki City Fukushima Koriyama Shirakawa Wakamatsu Aizu Town Soma Taira Direction and South distance from North west, West, South West, West south North, southwest, nuclear power 63km 58km west, 81km 98km West, 115km 24km 43km plant Normal value* 0.04 0.04-0.06 0.04-0.05 0.04-0.05 0.02-0.04 0.05 0.05-0.06 April 2011 2.74 0.24 0.66 March 2012 0.63 0.1 0.17 June 11, 2013 0.35 0.18 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.09 March 8, 2014 0.27 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.13 0.08 Note: *radioactivity levels surveyed in 2010 Source: Fukushima prefectural government

22 Up to date environmental radioactivity levels can be found on http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/ 23 In April 2014 radioactivity levels inside 20 km zone of Fukushima nuclear plant was still extremely high - from 0.2 μSv/h in Nahara and Tomioka towns up to 12.5 μSv/h, 16.8 μSv/h and 28.6 μSv/h in Futaba, Namie and Okuma towns [Nuclear Radiation Authority, 2014]. 24 Formed to investigate the background and cause of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on October 7, 2011 and chaired by Kiyoshi Kurokawa.

136 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Nuclear Regulation Authority, 2013 Map 7. Evolution of air radiation rates in 80 km zone from Fukushima nuclear power plant

Recent disclosure of the records of interviews of the government panel investigating the nuclear crisis (so-called “Yoshida file”)25 also illustrates how badly the government handled crisis management at Fukushima nuclear power plant and how serious the situation was [NHK World, September 11, November 12, 2014; The Japan News, September 13, 2014]. Table 5. Environmental radioactivity at 1m height in prefectures of Japan (μSv/h) Prefecture Before March 20, March 20, March 20, March 20, December (monitoring post) March 11, 2011 2011* 2012* 2013 2014 5, 2014 Hokkaido 0.02-0.105 0.027-0.028 0.028-0.033 0.034 0.037 0.039 (Sapporo) Aomori (Aomori) 0.017-0.102 0.021-0.023 0.018-0.024 0.021 0.026 0.032 Iwate (Morioka) 0.014-0.084 0.025-0.040 0.021-0.029 0.038 0.039 0.032 Miyagi (Sendai) 0.0176-0.0513 0.15** 0.051-0.053 0.055 0.054 0.047 Akita (Akita) 0.022-0.086 0.034-0.041 0.034-0.036 0.054 0.052 0.056 Yamagata 0.025-0.082 0.040-0.129 0.037-0.039 0.092**** 0.092 0.089 (Yamagata) Fukushima 0.037-0.046 2.1*** 0.89 0.82 0.27 0.22 (Fukushima) Ibaraki (Mito) 0.036-0.056 0.159-0.263 0.074-0.075 0.077 0.079 0.071

25 Former manager of the power plant Masao Yoshida, former Prime Minister Naoto Kan and 17 others was relised in September 2014, and more 56 in November 2014. The government plans to disclose interviews with all 772 government and TEPCO officials if interviewees give approval. Prefecture Before March 20, March 20, March 20, March 20, December (monitoring post) March 11, 2011 2011* 2012* 2013 2014 5, 2014 Tochigi 0.030-0.067 0.136-0.164 0.050 0.079 0.084 0.073 (Utshunomiya) Gunma 0.016-0.049 0.069-0.103 0.025-0.026 0.071 0.076 0.064 (Maebashi) Saitama (Saitama) 0.031-0.060 0.052-0.062 0.046-0.047 0.047 0.055 - Chiba (Ichihara) 0.022-0.044 0.031-0.033 0.037-0.038 0.058 0.069 0.049 Tokyo (Shinjuku) 0.028-0.079 0.044-0.049 0.049-0.050 0.057 0.071 0.061 Kanagawa 0.035-0.069 0.046-0.048 0.044-0.045 0.042 0.052 0.038 (Chigasaki) Nigata (Nigata) 0.031-0.153 0.047-0.052 0.046-0.052 0.063 0.071 0.072 Toyama (Imizu) 0.029-0.147 0.049-0.054 0.046-0.048 0.064 0.084 0.085 Ishikawa 0.0291-0.1275 0.047-0.063 0.046-0.051 0.052 0.063 0.064 (Kanazawa) Fukui (Fukui) 0.032-0.097 0.046-0.053 0.044-0.049 0.061 0.073 0.071 Yamanashi (Kohu) 0.040-0.066 0.044 0.043-0.044 0.051 0.056 0.051 Nagano (Nagano) 0.0299-0.0974 0.06-0.067 0.038-0.040 0.067 0.070 0.065 Gifu 0.057-0.110 0.061-0.066 0.060-0.061 0.067 0.076 0.070 (Karamigahara) Shizuika 0.0281-0.0765 0.035-0.040 0.029 0.041 0.055 0.039 (Shizuoka) Aichi (Nagoya) 0.035-0.074 0.039-0.042 0.039 0.068 0.071 0.068 Mie (Yokkaichi) 0.0416-0.0789 0.046-0.051 0.045-0.046 0.070 0.081 0.071 Shiga (Otsu) 0.031-0.061 0.034-0.037 0.031-0.032 0.065 0.081 0.074 Kyoto (Kyoto) 0.033-0.087 0.039-0.045 0.037-0.038 0.048 0.063 0.054 Osaka (Osaka) 0.042-0.061 0.042-0.046 0.042-0.043 0.080 0.083 0.091 Hyogo (Kobe) 0.035-0.076 0.036-0.037 0.036-0.037 0.072 0.091 0.073 Nara (Nara) 0.046-0.080 0.048-0.053 0.047-0.048 0.077 0.062 - Wakayama 0.031-0.056 0.031-0.033 0.031-0.032 0.081 0.083 0.094 (Wakayama) Tottori (Touhaku) 0.036-0.110 0.063-0.075 0.062-0.063 0.071 0.073 0.081 Shimane (Matsue) 0.033-0.079 0.038-0.041 0.037-0.039 0.056 0.054 0.067 Okayama 0.043-0.104 0.049-0.053 0.048-0.049 0.067 0.082 0.075 (Okayama) Hiroshima 0.035-0.069 0.048-0.053 0.046-0.049 0.086 0.081 0.093 (Hiroshima) Yamaguchi 0.084-0.128 0.094-0.096 0.091-0.095 0.080 0.075 0.083 (Yamaguchi) Tokushima 0.037-0.067 0.037-0.039 0.037-0.038 0.069 0.070 0.070 (Tokushima) Kagawa 0.051-0.077 0.053-0.054 0.054-0.057 0.063 0.067 0.067 (Takamatsu) Ehime 0.045-0.074 0.047-0.051 0.046-0.048 0.084 0.098 0.098 (Matsuyama) Kochi (Kochi) 0.019-0.054 0.026-0.030 0.025-0.026 0.035 0.041 0.044 Fukuoka (Dazaifu) 0.034-0.079 0.036-0.040 0.036-0.037 0.066 0.060 0.070

138 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Prefecture Before March 20, March 20, March 20, March 20, December (monitoring post) March 11, 2011 2011* 2012* 2013 2014 5, 2014 Saga (Saga) 0.037-0.086 0.040-0.049 0.040-0.041 0.064 0.048 - Nagasaki (Omura) 0.027-0.069 0.028-0.033 0.030-0.031 0.074 0.053 0.065 Kumamoto (Uto) 0.021-0.067 0.027-0.032 0.027-0.028 0.049 0.043 0.066 Oita (Oita) 0.048-0.085 0.049-0.053 0.040-0.050 0.057 0.055 0.065 Miyazaki 0.0243-0.0664 0.026-0.028 0.026 0.060 0.034 0.038 (Miyazaki) Kagoshima 0.0306-0.0943 0.034-0.039 0.034 0.056 0.047 - (Kagoshima) Okinawa (Uruma) 0.0133-0.0575 0.020-0.021 0.023-0.031 0.021 0.022 0.034 Source: Nuclear Radiation Authority Note: * Minimum and maximum readings; ** Tohoku University data; ***MEXT data; ****March 24 data 3. Human damages and health effects The March 2011 earthquake and resulting tsunami killed almost 15,900 people26, injured more than 6,100 and destroyed the lives of thousands more (Table 6). The majority of deaths were from tsunami and among elderly.27 The biggest number of victims has been from Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures where whole communities were wiped out by the powerful tsunami. Three and a half years after the disaster 2,601 people are still listed as missing and search for them has been continuing. Table 6. Number of confirmed deaths, missing and injured person associated with March 2011 earthquake (February 10, 2014)

Prefectures Deaths Missing Injured Prefectures Deaths Missing Injured Hokkaido 1 - 3 Gunma 1 - 39 Aomori 3 1 111 Saitama - - 45 Iwate 4,673 1,142 213 Chiba 21 2 229 Miyagi 9,537 1,283 4,145 Kanagawa 4 - 138 Akita - - 4 Nigata - - 3 Yamagata 2 - 29 Yamanashi - - 2 Fukushima 1,607 207 182 Nagano - - 1 Tokyo 7 - 117 Shizuoka - - 3 Ibaraki 24 1 712 Mie - - 1 Tochigi 4 - 133 Kochi - - 1 Total 15,884 2,636 6,147 Source: National Police Agency

What is more, official data for the “disaster related deaths”28 have been growing reaching 3,076 in 10 prefectures by the end of March 2014 [NHK World, May 6, 2014]. The majority of victims are from Fukushima prefecture (1,691), followed by Miyagi prefecture (889) and Iwate prefecture (441).

26 Latest figure is 15,889 (September, 2014). 27 Around 94.2% of deaths are tsunami related. Around 600 are assumed to have died from earthquake-related stress and chronic disease, around 265 should be earthquake-collapse related, and around 230 could be related to other causes such as fire, landslides etc. Around 56% of the dead were over 65 years old [Vervaeck and Daniell, 2012]. 28 They are recognized by a panel of experts (including medical doctors and lawyers) set up by each municipality, and a sum of 5 million yen is paid as consolation money to family for death of a main income earner (half sum for other family members). June 25, 2014 data for Fukushima prefecture show that 1,729 people have died as a result of lingering effects of the accident exceeding the 1,603 deaths caused directly by the disaster [Fukushima Minpo News, June 26, 2014]. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify a relationship between deaths and the accident due to the long period of time that has lapsed29. Deaths associated with the disaster include people who died as a result of having to change their environment and lifestyle, and live as evacuees away from home, family, business and community for a long period time. Many of the Fukushima victims are from municipalities near the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant. For instance, in Minamisoma, Namie and Tomioka, which partly or fully have been off-limits due to high radiation, accordingly as many as 447, 317 and 225 deaths have been indirectly blamed on the disaster. What is more, at least 97 people affected by the disaster have died unattended30 in temporary housing units in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, and experts say that the number of solitary death cases would likely increase in future [The Japan News, March 2014]. Officials linked the number of suicide deaths to disaster of 2,916 as of September 2013 [LDP, 2014]. In 2013 disaster related suicides in Fukushima31, Miyagi and Iwate prefectures were associated with deteriorating health of 22 of them, money problems of nine more, and family issues of five. Many farmers from the affected areas and beyond who saw their businesses and livelihood destructed also suffered stress and anxiety [Murayama, 2012; Watanabe, 2011]. For instance, a 64-year-old farmer in Sukagawa was pushed over the edge since he lost “everything he had ever worked for during his life”32. One day after the government imposed a ban on the sale of cabbages he took his life [The New York Times, March 29, 2011]. Another dairy farmer in 50s killed himself on the land he struggled to maintain since tsunami and nuclear crisis began few months after the disaster [CNN, June 14, 2011]. There have been also many reports for affected survivors from disaster exposed to a high risk or suffering from various diseases after the accident – injuries, respiration problems due to dust an contamination, dehydration, exhaustion, shocks, etc. In a number of places rapidly spreading pneumonia epidemic (mostly among elderly) was registered due to overpopulated rooms, poor oral hygiene, destructed facilities, and lack of specialists and sufficient care [HNK World, July 28, 2014]. For instance, in the three months after the disaster in Kesenuma, Motoyashi and Otomo hospitals 225 were admitted suffering from pneumonia, 52 of whom consequently died. Similarly in Ishinomaki 122 were hospitalized in days after the disaster at rate 7 times higher than the normal one. What is more, as a result of long stay in temporary accommodations many experienced diverse health problems. For instance, in Ishinomaki, where there are 6000 people living in such accommodations, there has been increasing number of complains and sicknesses due to molt and bacteria multiplied in temporary houses [NHK World, July 23, 2014]. Another factor for increased health risk has been caused by radiation exposure after the nuclear accident. The levels of radiation exposure of population varied according to the direction from the Fukushima plant and the time spent in contaminated zones33. Major pathways humans were exposed to radioactive materials after the accident were: external exposure from radionuclides deposited on the ground; external exposure from radionuclides in the radioactive cloud; internal exposure from inhalation of radionuclides in the radioactive cloud; and internal exposure from ingestion of radionuclides in food and water [World Health Organization, 2012]. However, the gap between our understanding of the biological effects of radiation in humans and the determination of regulatory values in too wide [Fukumoto, 2013]. Workers in the nuclear plant have suffered the highest exposures34. According to the data 167 workers received radiation dose more than 100 mSv35, which is the level expert demonstrated measurably increases

29 Government intends to provide municipal authorities with information on accident-related deaths in an “aggressive manner” to help standardize norms for identifying such fatalities. 30 There is no precise definition of the Japanese term “kodokushi” (meaning “solitary death”) and officials do not record statistics on such deaths. 31 Disaster related suicide rate has been on the rise in Fukushima [The Japan News, March 13, 2014]. 32 The farmer was reported to have lost his house in the earthquake but had a field of 7,500 organically grown cabbages ready for harvest when the government prohibition was announced. 33 Biological effect (danger) of radiation vary according to the quility, energy, dose (how much one absorb), and the dose rate (the time one is exposed to a dose) of radiation, and the organs exposed and dose rate [Fukumoto, 2013]. 34 Reported maximum combined cumulative effective dose for TEPCO workers is 678.80 mSv while the avarage for 31,383 workers and contractors from March 2011 to December 2013 is 12.61 mSv [Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2014].

140 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 risks of cancer [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2014]. For additional 20,000 TEPCO workers36 and for roughly 150,000 citizens from the fallout zone exposures were lower. For instance, in Namie town and Iitate village, nearby communities where the evacuation was delayed, residents received 10 to 50 mSv. There are still occasional reports for radiation overexposure of workers at the plant [NHK World, May 8, 2014]. Furthermore, working in some areas37 and using some new methods (e.g. pouring cement into underground tunnels) are likely expose workers to more radiation than originally expected [NHK World, November 25, November 28,2014]. Experts estimates that for adults in Fukushima prefecture the average lifetime effective doses to be of the order of 11 mSv or less, and the first-year doses to be one third to one half of that [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2014; World Health Organization, 2012]. For children and other vulnerable groups (old people, sick persons) these doses have been much higher (Table 7). Table 7. Estimated average effective radiation doses in different regions of Japan (mSv) Fukushima Miyagi, Gunma, Tochigi, Age groups in 2011 Rest of Japan prefecture Ibaraki, Chiba and Iwate 1 YEAR EXPOSURE Adults 1.0 - 4.3 0.2 – 1.4 0.1 – 0.3 Child 10 year old 1.2 - 5.9 0.2 – 2.0 0.1 – 0.4 Infant 1 year old 2.0 - 7.5 0.3 – 2.5 0.2 – 0.5 LIFETIME EXPOSURE Adults 1.1 - 11 0.2 – 4.0 0.1 0.6 Child 10 year old 1.4 - 16 0.3 – 5.5 0.1 - 0.8 Infant 1 year old 2.1 -18 0.4 – 6.4 0.2 – 0.9 Source: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2014

Thanks to the timely undertaken measures by the authorities (warnings, protection, evacuation, monitoring, decontamination, treatment), the radiation levels for the general population have been well below the norms required to damage human health38. Nevertheless, there have been debates and great concerns about the risks for people exposed to lower doses since risks are lower and hardly to detect [Akiyama et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2013; Foodwatch, 2011; Hasegawa, 2013; Pacchioli, 2014; Rosen, 2013]. According to an official report 180,592 people in the general population were screened for radiation exposure in March 2011 and no case was found which affects health (Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, 2011). The World Health Organization anticipated that there would be no noticeable increases in cancer rates for the overall population, but somewhat elevated rates for particular sub-groups [World Health Organization, 2013]. For example, infants of Namie town and Iitate village were estimated to have a 6% increase in female breast cancer risk and a 7% increase in male leukemia risk. The latest UN report of more than 80 international experts also pointed out that no deaths or serious illnesses have so far been reported from the radiation exposure from the nuclear accident. It concluded that no

35 Cumulative exposure limit for workers responding to nuclear emergencies is 100 mSv. Three days after the accident, government raised the limit for workers at Fukushima plant to 250 mSv and kept it for 9 months [NHK World, July 10, July 30. 2014]. 36 Expert report asked the government to conduct a lifelong survey on 19,000 people who worked in immediate aftermath of the accident to see whether their exposure to radiation causes cancer or other illnesses. Such survey would provide important knowledge on radiation's impact on health and serve as a guideline for residents of Fukushima prefecture [NHK World, May 16, 2014]. 37 E.g. operator expected to lower radiation level to 1 millisievert an hour in No.3 reactor upper part but it found out that even after cleaning up radiation could reach 60 millisieverts an hour in some areas and over 10 mSv in many others. 38 Since April 2011 the maximum annual allowable radiation exposure to let evacuees return to the areas near nuclear plant is 20 mSv. For Fukushima schools a target of exposure dose 1 mSv/y was set up which should be used in decision making on limiting outdoor activity at schools. discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects (e.g. rate of cancer) are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants” [The Japan News, April 3, 2014; NHK World, May 28, 2014]. However, it warned that “an increased risk of thyroid cancer can be inferred for infants and children” stressing the need for continued research39. The maximum radiation dose for a year after the Fukushima crisis began was estimated at 9.3 mSv for adults in areas near the Fukushima plant and at 13 mSv for 1-year-old infants. People living and working in different locations of the affected regions have been exposed to diverse levels of radiation40. What is more, even in the same locations the radiation level often differs due to the different precision of instruments or local hot spots. In addition, people are constantly exposed to small amount of no harmful natural background radiation – it is approximately 2.1 mSv per person in Japan, including 0.3 mSv from space, 0.33 mSv from land, 0.48 mSv from Radon etc. and 0.99 mSv from food [National Institute of Radiological Science, 2014]. In addition, confusion has been also spreading among municipalities tasked with radiation cleanup under changing government decontamination policy41 [Fukushima Minpo News, July 22, 2014]. Under the new policy, the government will determine decontamination needs by using radiation exposure data collected from individual dosimeters (which tend to be lower than the current safe dose) leading to reduction areas of government-mandated decontamination. Some municipalities welcome that new policies since it will allow to scale down decontamination efforts in areas where radiation levels are unlikely to go down significantly. However, others are worried that residents will be confused. For instance, according to Date officials, the city measured the radiation exposure of its 52,000 citizens wearing dosimeters (July 2012-June 2013) and results showed that per-year exposure levels for nearly 70% of them (even in areas where aerial radiation levels exceeded 0.23 microsievert per hour) was less than 1 millisievert in total [Fukushima Minpo News, July 22, 2014]. Moreover, Tamura officials declare that city will not change its decontamination plan, since if the cleanup projects are scaled back, it would cause anxiety among residents. Some experts42 also suggest that new approach is inappropriate since many residents have deliberately stayed indoors and if they start to go out like they used to, the individual radiation doses might go up. The official monitoring of agricultural and food products conducted after April 2012 indicates that the violation rates on new food safety standard (1 mSv/year) have been much less than 1% [Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2014]. What is more, surveys in most affected regions indicate that the annual radiation intakes from foods have been below 1 mSv/year (Figure 3). For instance, according to the September–October 2012 survey the estimated annual radiation doses from radioactive cesium in foods were in safety limit (Figure 4). It ranges from 0.0009 to 0.0057 mSv/year being highest in Miyagi prefecture and certain regions of Fukushima prefectures. At the same time, annual radiation doses from radioactive potassium (naturally occurring in foods) were between 0.14 and 0.22 mSv/year as no significant changes found comparing to before the accident.

39 November 2014 interim report of expert panel, based on a survey of some 370,000 people aged 18 or younger in Fukushima prefecture, also suggests that that thyroid cancer cases are unlikely to be linked to exposure to radiation from the nuclear accident calling for more child thyroid checks [Fukushima Minpo News, November 15, 2014; NHK World, November 27, 2014]. 40 Government maintains that radiation exposure on residents in Fukushima Prefecture are no different from those of similar surveys in other prefectures [The Japan News, May 18, 2014]. 41 Government has been decontaminating areas whose aerial radiation reading is 0.23 microsievert per hour or more, based on its policy of keeping annual radiation exposure for individuals at 1 millisievert or less. 42 E.g. Keizo Ishii, director of the Research Center for Remediation Engineering of Living Environments Contaminated with Radioisotopes, Tohoku University.

142 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Nagasaki Kōchi K-40 Ōsaka Niigata Kanagawa Cs-134 & Tokyo Cs-137 Saitama Ibaraki Tochigi Fukushima (Aizu) Fukushima (Nakadōri) Fukushima (Hamadōri) Miyagi Iwate Hokkaidō 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22

Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

Figure 3. Estimation on annual dietary intake of radionuclides for September-October 2012 in Japan (mSv/year)

Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Figure 4. Evolution of effective dose from Cs-134 and Cs-137 in foods in Nakadori area of Fukushima Furthermore, radiation doses from radioactive cesium have been found to be decreasing over time - for 15 studied areas it was lower comparing to previous estimates for September-November 2011 (0.0024–0.019 mSv/year) and February-March 2012 (0.0009–0.0094 mSv/year). Likewise, in Fukushima prefecture (Nakado ri Area) the effective dose from radioactive cesium in foods has been decreasing constantly and it is less than 1% of the maximum allowed level43 [Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2012]. According to a large panel of experts the radiation uptake in such ranges is not harmful for the human health (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2012). Furthermore, “health effects” from extra cumulative exposure above the official limit are difficult to be verified based on the current available knowledge44. Therefore, even if people are exposed to more than “around 100 mSv” of the extra cumulative exposure, it will not necessarily mean they will have adverse health effect [Koizumi, 2011].

43 From 0,01 mSv/y in September-November 2011 it dropped to 0,038 mSv/y in September-October 2012. 44 There is a limitation to verify the effect arising from additional radiation exposure (including carcinogenesis and other influences since); difficulty to distinguish explicitly the effect of radiation and other effects; population of epidemiological studies were not large enough; and inaccuracy of estimated radiation exposure [Koizumi, 2011]. Some publications also demonstrate that the additional dose of Fukushima radionuclides received by consumers of Pacific Bluefin tuna can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 exposed people [Fisher et al. (2013]. November 2013-February 201 survey of the Fukushima Consumer Cooperative found out that the levels of radioactive cesium in home-cooked meals in the prefecture were slightly above the limit for radioactive cesium45 for 4% of participating households [Fukushima Minpo News, March 7, 2014]. Nevertheless, the internal exposure to radioactive materials of all screened household members was below the 300Bq threshold for human radiation exposure. Despite that in many places the radiation level and overall artificial exposure are less than the level in some onsens46 or certain medical check-ups, many show a great concern on current figures47. That worries have been further enforced by the controversial opinions of experts in the filed, slow process of decontamination in some areas and ecosystems (e.g. forests, farmlands), unresolved issue with safe disposal of contaminated debris in certain areas, some deficiency of the food safety control systems, continuing radiation leakages in the nuclear plant, etc. It is known that when a large amount of radioactive cesium enters ecosystem and agri-food chain, it quickly becomes ubiquitous, contaminating water, soil, plants, animals, foods, etc. Radioactive cesium bioaccumulates, bioconcentrates, and biomagnifies as it moves up the food chain. Routine ingestion of foods contaminated with “low levels” of radioactive cesium has been shown to lead to its bioaccumulation in the heart, endocrine tissues, kidneys, small intestines, pancreas, spleen and liver. This process occurs much faster in children than in adults. Our interviews with local residents have found out that the cases of diverse complains and hospitalization in Fukushima has been increasing since the nuclear disaster. What is more, it is believed that the health effects of the radiation release have been “primarily psychological rather than physical effects”. Many consumers and producers alike “lose peace of mind” having food with (lower than official safety limit but nevertheless) radiation contamination. As one Fukushima farmer was cited to say “his family is taking extreme care to protect their health by choosing only “safe” food, resulting in “a nerve-wracking lifestyle.” [Kakuchi, 2013]. Furthermore, long periods of evacuee life, lost property and employment have caused many people to grow isolated or develop physical or mental problems. For instance, evacuees from Namie reported that their health deteriorated after evacuating and they feel more irritable compared to before [Pushpalal et al., 2013]. Stress has been causing disputes among evacuees, lack of sleep, and increased smoking or drinking to alleviate psychological pain. Depression and family collapse have been also increasing. More than a half of evacuated live apart from the extended family, which is another reason for frustration. A 2014 survey indicates that 68% of evacuated households in Fukushima prefecture have one or more members with health problems such as lack of sleep or depression [NHK World, April 30, 2014]. Data from the Fukushima Center for Disaster Mental Health shows that consultations for emotional instability, such as irritation, depression and mood swings, increased 50% since 2012, forming 19% of total health consultations [The Japan Time, March 1, March 1, 2014]. Official survey has also found that almost 34% of children in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures who were aged 3 to 5 at the time of March 2011 earthquake now suffer from post­traumatic stress disorder such as sleeping disorders, flashbacks etc. [The Japan News, March 2, 2014]. It was also reported that many elderly men cannot cook, so they became unable to maintain a balanced diet or develop a habit of turning to alcohol, and as a result they can easily fall ill [The Japan News, March 20, 2014). All these problems have been further aggravated by the lack of enough specialized doctors, health care centers and social workers in all affected areas. Data show that the suicide-prevention hotline in Fukushima prefecture received record 18,194 calls in 201348 and consultations related to the 2011 disasters still stand out from the other issues [Fukushima Minpo News, June 5, 2014]. The content of consultations has also changed over time - unlike the first days of the

45 The highest level detected in one household of 2.6 Bq/kg for Cesium 137 and 1.1 Bq/kg for Cesium 134. 46 Hot springs regularly visited by many Japanese. 47 It is true in other countries as well – e.g. a recent US report on the lessons from the Fukushima crisis of the National Academy of Sciences notes that poor communication between the central government and local governments, as well as a lack of clear standards about radiation levels that require decontamination led to public distrust in the government [NHK World, July 25, 2014]. 48 In 2011 the hotline handled fewer calls than 2010 (13,677 versus 16,649) because the telephone network had been damaged by the quake and Koriyama’s office remained out of service for about a month afterward [Fukushima Minpo News, June 5, 2014]. In 2012 the number of calls was up 30% (17,881).

144 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 disasters, when new supply lines were in dire need, nowadays callers often discuss issues regarding mental distress. In 2011 almost 12% of all calls were related to the quake and nuclear crisis. In 2012 the later fell to just bellow 5% but counselors spent more hours talking to each person on average. Most recent topics range from arguments between spouses over whether to leave Fukushima, to the way fathers feel estranged from families after being forced to move out of the house to find work. Sense of loss and isolation, as well as pessimism about life in general, have recently stood out, while many used to mention “a sense of unity” and “preciousness of life” in the early stage of the disasters49. Free legal consultations service for the disaster victims50 has also been on a rise – e.g. in fiscal 2013 totaled 48,418 nationwide (up 12.6% from the previous year) as more than 80% (39,288 cases) were in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures [The Japan News, September 11, 2014]. Family legal troubles, including divorce and inheritance, topped the list at 39.2%, followed by financial troubles such as loans between friends at 25.4%, multiple debts, including double loan problems, accounted for 13.7%, and real estate issues such as land purchases by municipalities aimed at post­ disaster reconstruction were 10.5%. Healthcare has also been a major issue for the more than 30,000 people who have worked at the nuclear plant since the accident [NHK World, May 8, 2014]. There are reports that Fukushima disaster workers self medicating with alcohol to deal with stress, PTSD, depression, negative work environment, poor wages, wage­ skimming, substandard living conditions and fear about future [McCurry, 2013]. Surveys of the Fukushima Labor Bureau demonstrated that 68% of business operators involved in radioactive decontamination work have been violating the law [Fukushima Minpo News, March 13, 2014]. According to the officials 446 business operators were involved in 1,105 cases of legal violations, out of which 67% with labor conditions (such as failure to pay wages), and almost one third with health and safety (such as a lack of safety training, failure to conduct prior checks on the amounts of radiation at work sites, etc.). Only for April to August 2014 there were 130 complaints of unpaid wages and inadequate safety measures for workers employed to decommission the Fukushima plant [NHK World, September 22, 2014]. Some people are also concerned about the deteriorating work quality as the number of staff unfamiliar with working at nuclear plant environment51 increases [The Japan News, October 21, 2014]. According to TEPCO 25 workers experienced some work-related difficulties, such as injury or heat stroke in 2012, but that figure increased to 32 in 2013. What is more, in March 2014 a 55­-year-old man died after he was buried in soil while excavating it52. Consequently, the Nuclear Regulation Authority announced it will consider revisions to the law for protecting nuclear plant workers' health in emergencies responding to calls in negotiations that started 3 years ago with the Tokyo Occupational Safety and Health Center53 [NHK World, July 10. 2014]. The later stresses that such revision is vital for ensuring that nuclear plant workers are better prepared for emergencies and that workers must be informed of how radiation exposure could affect health and decide in advance whether to give consent. The number of workers taking part in the decommissioning and other work at the Fukushima nuclear plant has doubled to more than 5,700 in the past year [HNK World, September 29, 2014]. According to TEPCO contractors hire most of them54 and they are responsible for labor safety55 [NHK World, July 17, September 29, 2014].

49 According to experts the rise in calls is an alarming sign indicating that aftereffects have reached every corner of residents’ lives and reflecting the diversity of the mental problems rooted in March 11. 50 System provides free legal consultations to any quake victims who visit Japan Legal Support Center offices without any prerequisites (e.g. income). The government intends to extend the service period by three years after expiration date (end of March 2015). 51 Manpower shortages have occurred because veteran workers left Fukushima unsatisfied with short­term contracts and working environment. At the same time there are many employed from other regions of the country where it is dificult to find job with no experience in working at nuclear plant. 52 The first fatality since decommissioning work started. 53 Nationwide information center on occupational safety and health issue. Until middle of 2014 the nuclear regulator maintained that it is not in charge. 54 More than 10,000 workers are registered on TEPCO contractors' lists. 55 TEPCO recently started to take measures to improve working conditions – e.g. it is constructing a large rest building on the premises that can accommodate 1,200 people. Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulation Authority recently approved a proposal to study raising the emergency radiation exposure limit beyond the current legal accumulative limit of 100 mSv [NHK World, July 30, 2014]. It will decide on the level by referring to the overseas standards as well as on how to get prior consent from workers and train them for such cases. Therefore, the entire long-term health impact of the triple disaster is hardly to be assessed presently. 4. Evacuation and migration The earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear accident have caused a large evacuation involving some 470,000 (the third day after the earthquake) and over 320,000 displaced persons on a longer-term basis [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. By March 15, 2011 the official number of evacuated people overpassed 440,000 (World Health Organization, March 15, 2011). The greatest number of evacuees and stranded persons were from Miyagi, Fukushima and Iwate prefectures where they accounted for a good portion of the entire population (Table 8). The number of refugees moved to other prefectures was also quite considerable – 52,000 in Fukushima prefecture, 7,500 in Miyagi prefecture, and 1,500 in Iwate prefecture [Pushpala et al., 2013]. Table 8. Number of evacuation centers and evacuees, March 17, 2011 Share of population Prefectures Evacuation centers Evacuees Stranded % Aomori 32 367 - 0.03 Iwate 386 48,439 ≈10,000 4.39 Miyagi 1,063 191,467 >6,050 8.37 Yamagata* 28 2,712 - 0.23 Fukushima 556 131,665 98 6.3 Ibaraki* 185 7,567 - 0.25 Tochigi 148 1,028 - 0.05 Nigata* 51 2,674 - 0.11 TOTAL >2,398 385,919 >16,150 2.56 Note: * including evacuees from Fukushima and/or Miyagi Source: World Health Organization, 2011

Immediately after the nuclear accident the government recommended56 evacuation of about 78,000 people living within a 20-km radius of the power plant and sheltering in own homes of about 62,000 others living between 20 and 30 km from the plant. In April 2011, the evacuation of about 10,000 more people form areas further to the Northwest of the plant was recommended (so called “Deliberate Evacuation Area”) because of the high levels of radioactive material on the ground57. On April 22, 2011, Fukushima prefecture was divided into following areas (Map 8): . Restricted Area in 20 km radius around the nuclear plant where entry is prohibited (excluding those engaged in emergency response). . Deliberate Evacuation Area other than Restricted Area, where annual cumulative radiation dose was expected to reach 20 mSv per year. Overnight stay is prohibited but it is permitted to pass through or commute to workplace (in case continued operation is approved by local authority). . Evacuation prepared areas in case of emergency58 - 20-30 km radius from Fukushima nuclear plant where certain groups (pregnant women, with special needs) are not permitted.

56 Evacuation order was placed on March 15, 2011. A high percentage of residents of Minamisoma, Kawamata and Iitate received information from TV, radio or the internet [The National Diet of Japan, 2012]. The Mayor of Namie recounted that he made desision for evacuation on March 12 after learing from tv and there was not directives from government [Pushpalal et al., 2013]. 57 Population of 11 municipalities in six towns and villages (Tomioka, Okuma, Futaba, Namie, Katsurao and Iitate) of about 81,000 had to be evacuated from the no-entry zone after nuclear disaster. 58 Lifted on September 30, 2011.

146 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

. Specific Spots Recommended for Evacuation - sites with a cumulative dose of 20 mSv/y and above.

Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry,2011 Source: Reconstruction Agency, 2014 Map 8. Restricted, Deliberate evacuation, Map 9. Present status of evacuation and and Specific spots areas (September 30, 2011) restricted areas (March 30, 2014)59

In the end of 2011 the government decided to rearrange the areas to which evacuation orders have been issued into following categories (Map 9): . Areas to which evacuation orders are ready to be lifted - it is confirmed that the annual integral dose of radiation will definitely be below 20mSv. People can pass through the areas along main roads, return home temporarily (staying overnight is prohibited), and enter the areas for the purpose of public benefit. They can also resume businesses such as manufacturing and conduct related maintenance, repair, or transport activities. Resuming farming depends on the degree of limitation on rice planting and the extent to which radiation has been removed from the ground. For hospitals, welfare facilities, or shops, work is limited to that for preparation for resuming businesses. People are not required in principle to take or carry out protection measures, such as screening or measures to control the radiation dose when they enter the areas temporarily. . Areas in which residents are not permitted to live – the annual integral dose of radiation is expected to be 20 mSv or more. People can temporarily return home in the areas (but staying overnight is prohibited), pass through the areas along main roads, and enter the areas for the purpose of public benefit, such as for repairing the infrastructure or conducting disaster prevention-related work. Entry is not recommended but allowed during daytime. . No entry areas - the annual integral dose of radiation is expected to be 20 mSv or more within five years and the current integral dose of radiation per year is 50 mSv or more. People are legally required to evacuate from the areas, for which physical barriers to entry such as barricades are placed at the boundaries of the area. People may temporarily return home to meet domestic needs and requirements as far as possible, while those who are in charge thoroughly screen people for

59 On April 1, 2014 the evacuation order for a portion of Miyakoji District, Tamura City was lifted, which was the first complete lifting in the initial “no go zone” within a 20-km from the nuclear plant. On October 2014 evacuation advisory was lifted for the bulk of Kawauchi village within 20 km of the nuclear plant. The status of western part of the village also changed to a zone preparing for lifting of evacuation advisory. According to many these will be a test wether people would be ready to return back to areas surrounding nuclear plant [Fukushima Minpo News, October 1, 2014]. radiation, control individual doses of radiation, and require the people entering the zone to wear protective gear. . Restricted area – 20 km radius from the Fukushima plant (other than areas 1, 2, 3). . Specific spots recommended for evacuation. The evacuations greatly reduced (by up to a factor of 10) the levels of exposure that would otherwise have been received by those living in evacuated areas [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2013]. The overall number of evacuees has decreased significantly and in February 2012 there were 342,509 evacuees living in 1,200 municipalities in 47 prefectures around the country [National Policy Unit, 2012]. Most of them (94.1%) were in temporary and public housings60, hospitals etc., some 4.9 % lived with relative, friends etc., 97 stayed in hotels and similar facilities, and only 58461 remained in evacuation centers (community hall, school etc.) in 2 prefectures. The reconstruction process has been progressing rapidly, as most evacuees were moved to temporary built houses by September 201162. Some evacuees have moved to permanent homes and return to a normal life. Vital infrastructure such as major road, railway, harbors, and telecommunications network have been quickly restored, and essential public services such as hospitals, schools, water and energy supply etc. quickly re­established. In recent months there has been considerable progress (decontamination, lifting evacuation orders, rebuilding, re-opening administration, hospitals, schools, train services, etc.) in some parts of the evacuation zone around the crippled nuclear plant as well [NHK World, April 1, April 24, June 2, 2014; The Asahi Shinbun, April 7, 2014; The Japan News, June 1, 2014]. At the same time diverse national and local initiatives for building disaster resilient towns have been in progress, including the collective relocation of residential areas to safe places such as higher ground in 276 districts in 26 municipalities63, and the readjustment and leveling of land for residential areas in 58 districts in 19 municipalities [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Latest data indicates that while 81% of planed housing reconstruction started merely 11% have been completed64 [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. There are still more than 247,000 evacuated people living in temporary housing and other makeshift facilities nationwide (Figure 5). What is more, a significant number of them live outside home prefectures – e.g. in the end of August 2014 as many as 47,149 former Fukushima residents are living outside the prefecture, 6,974 people from Miyagi prefecture, and 1,513 from Iwate prefectures. Furthermore, many evacuees have been moved multiple times before settling to a “permanent” place or returning home65 [NHK, August 4, 2014].

60 By July 2011 there were built 46,081 units of temporary housing (about 88% of planned number) and 73% of evacuees had moved into 73% of the temporary housing available [World Health Organization, July, 2011]. 61 Compared with 41,143 in June 2011 [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. 62 At the same time only 99 evacuees were reported living is shelters in July 2013 and none since then [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. 63 It is estimated that 22,000 households need to be resettled to higher ground or further in land in the 3 disaster prefectures, including 6,900 in Ishinomaki, 3,000 in Higashi Matsushima, and 2,000 in Sendai [Yonekura, 2013]. The resettlement project budget for 5 years is 350 billion yen (out of 19 trillion yen of the overall Reconstruction budget). 64 Construction of public houses in most affected 3 prefectures is expected to complete in 2015 and private houses in 2017. 65 For instance, in the year after the accidents approximately 70% of the residents of Futaba, Okuma, Tomioka, Naraha and Namie had to evacuate four times or more [The National Diet of Japan, 2012].

148 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

470.000 500.000 342.509 332.691316.353 293.782 270.306 247.233

0

Source: Reconstruction Agency, National Police Unit Figure 5. Evolution of number of evacuees in post disaster years

In August 2014, a great portion of the evacuees still lives in “temporary housing, etc.” (93.38%) as most of them are in “private sector houses” (110,339 people in 46,221 houses), a significant portion “in temporary houses” (93,017 people in 42,590 houses), and the rest in “public houses, etc.” (21,979 people in 8,201 houses) [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. In Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures more than 90,000 people live in makeshift housing [The Japan News, September 12, 2014]. In the end of July 2014 the occupancy rate of temporary housing stood at 79% in Iwate prefecture, 80% in Miyagi prefecture, and 78% in Fukushima prefecture, while only a faction of planned public housing were completed - 12.7% in Iwate, 9.8% in Miyagi and 7.3% in Fukushima prefecture. Continued use of the makeshift facilities66 has been an issue as their conditions rapidly deteriorate (damages, bacteria, etc.). Recent deadly mudslides also caused fear about the safety of makeshift housing residents since some of these houses were built in sediment related “caution zones”67 [The Japan News, November 2, 2014]. The construction of public housing has remained slow, with only about 10% of planned 30,000 new low- rent units completed in most affected Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures by the end of August, 2014 [NHK World, September 10, 2014]. According to the officials selecting locations and acquiring land plots take time as well limited availability of workers and building materials have been delaying factors. Recent data indicate that about 330 of the completed units in 19 municipalities are unoccupied while in other locations applicants outnumber the available units68. The progress in projects to relocate tsunami stricken communities has also been slow and merely 10% of the areas planned for relocated communities had been developed by the end of January 2014 [NHK World, March 11, 2014]. A new town is coming to existence in Tamaura­Nishi district of Iwanuma (Miyagi Prefecture), where residential land has been developed for a collective relocation project [The Japan News, September 11, 2014]. About 60% of about 1,800 people who lived in the city’s six districts along the tsunami hit coast will move into the housing units. The new town will have 336 residences, including 178 publicly operated housing

66 In principle, people are allowed to live in the temporary housing for up to two years but the maximum period was extended to five years in Iwate and Miyagi under a special measure for areas hit by large-scale disasters, and until the end of March 2016 in Fukushima. 67 In August 2014 a wave of mudslides swept away houses in such caution zones in Hiroshima. In Miyagi and Iwate prefectures 52 still live in temporary housing and prefectural governments are considering the transfer residents in such areas to other locations. 68 Vacancy is attributed to the changing needs of evacuees during delayed reconstruction – e.g. many people started rebuilding their lives by finding jobs and homes in communities where they had moved while some simply cannot afford to move again. units scheduled to be completed by the end of the fiscal 201469. Bus services started in October 2014, but a large supermarket is set to be opened in summer 2015. The post disaster reconstruction has been much more delayed in Fukushima prefecture [The Japan News March 11, 2014]. A mid October public opinion poll indicated that for 86% of voters reconstruction work “has not progressed at all,” or “has not sufficiently progressed” [The Japan News, October 28, 2014]. More than three and held years after the accident about 127,000 Fukushima prefecture residents are still displaced, of which 101,000 are from the “Evacuation Order Area”70 [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. The number of evacuees within Fukushima prefecture is 81,00071, and most of them (92,59%) are living in temporary houses (including private), 4,94% are in employees houses, etc., and the rests are staying in houses of relatives and friends. Furthermore, around 45,000 of Fukushima evacuees are still evacuated outside72 the prefecture [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Most of them are in Tokyo (6,300), Yamagata (4,700), Nigata (4,100), Ibaraki (3,400) and Chiba (3,300) prefectures. Available data show that 81% of them live in the temporary housing complexes including apartments or civil servants housings, and the rest stay with relatives and friends [Fukushima Prefecture Government, 2014]. About 40% of the first batch of public housing for people displaced by the Fukushima nuclear disaster will not be ready by the end of fiscal 201573, forcing those who evacuated to wait longer for permanent homes [Fukushima Minpo News, August 5, 2014]. According to the prefecture it takes longer than expected to conclude deals with landowners of construction sites for large housing complexes while work to transform forests and rice paddies into residential land is also going slowly. The cleaning up and disposal of enormous amount of earthquake and tsunami debris has been largely completed in Miyagi and Iwate prefectures but still legging behind in Fukushima prefecture [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Decontamination of lands, houses, roads etc. in the evacuation and other contaminated zones has been a complex and slow process with less than a half of houses decontaminated in the three most affected prefectures. About 70% of monitored 58 municipalities in 7 prefectures had completed or almost completed decontamination by the end of March 2014 while remaining 16 failed to meet initial deadline as 12 cities and towns have sought extensions from 1 to 3 years of government funding for the clean up [NHK World, May 15, 2014]. The decontamination has not been proceeding as planned in evacuation zone as well [NHK World, June 10, 2014]. The Environment Ministry was planning to finish decontaminating 11 cities, towns and villages by the end of March 2014 but extended the decontamination period for 6 of them by 2 to 3 years. About 17,500 households were registered in the high-radiation evacuation zones as of April 2014 [NHK World, June 25, 2014]. All 24,500 former residents in 7 municipalities in no-entry zone remain evacuees [NHK World, June 23, 2014]. In no entry areas there are 9,100 homes designated as unsuitable for living for a long period of time since radiation exposure exceeds 50 millisieverts per year. The government has yet to decide whether to conduct full-scale operations to remove the radioactive materials because it is unclear whether decontamination will be effective and feared that workers may be exposed to high levels of radiation. What is more, experimental decontamination74 results show that current decontamination technology has limits and considerable time would be needed to clean up tainted areas. Radiation levels in some areas near the damaged nuclear plant have been more than halved due to decontamination but still remain high [NHK World, June 10, 2014]. For instance, radiation levels in residential districts of Namie town averaged 3.26 to 8.47 microsieverts per hour (about 40 to 50% of the pre­decontamination levels) and in Futaba town averaged 3.01 to 4.46 microsieverts per hour (about 20 to 30% of the pre­decontamination levels). These

69 Some people have already started to live in 27 newly built residences, 120 housing units are currently being constructed, while other residences have yet to be built. 70 Including 32,000 from Evacuation lifting preparation area, 23,000 from Residence restricted areas, and 25,000 from Returnnig back difficult areas [Reconstriction Agency, 2014]. 71 about 24,000 people of them evacuated to Iwaki and an increasing number have resettled in the city [The Japan News, October 28, 2014]. 72 Only reported number to the government. It is assumed that the actual number should be higher. 73 In August 2014 the prefectural government revealed that 1,600 housing units of the first 3,700 planned will likely face delays up to 9 months (residents were scheduled to move in by March 2016). Additional 1,190 more expected to be built in the same period are likely to be delayed by a year. 74 Carried at 6 locations in October 2013 - January 2014 in areas regarded as unsuitable for living (annual exposure to radiation exceed 50 millisieverts).

150 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 figures are more than 10 times higher than the government set level (0.23 microsieverts per hour) that requires decontamination. Consequently, the government will consider whether to carry out full-scale decontamination of such areas after asking former residents whether they hope to return to hometowns as well as receiving suggestions on reconstructing the no entry areas. This estimate suggests that decontamination work may reduce radiation levels at no entry zones below the government set maximum annual threshold of 20 millisieverts in 10 years [NHK World, June 23, 2014]. In places with an annual radiation reading of 100 millisieverts, decontamination would lower levels to a range of 9 to 19 millisieverts by 2021 while areas with 50 millisieverts would see a drop to between 6 and 11 millisieverts75. Nevertheless, radiation levels in no-go zones are expected to remain far above the internationally recommended safe level even a decade after the nuclear disaster76. Besides, the progress in decontamination work does not necessarily mean residents’ return is smooth [The Japan News, October 28, 2014]. For example, evacuation instructions were lifted in eastern parts of the Miyakojimachi district in Tamur in April 2014 but only about one third of the 354 registered residents have returned until October (mostly elderly). This is largely because living circumstances in the district have not returned to previous state77. August 2014 survey in Namie and Tomioka indicated that 50% of former residents have made decision “never return to hometowns” [NHK World, October, 2014]. The later figure was much higher than in 2013 indicating that some “undecided” have taken decision not to return for a good because of difficulties (e.g. lack of infrastructure, sufficient government support, etc.) and risks78. In December 2013 the government compiled new guidelines for helping people affected by the nuclear accident including financial assistance for residents who plan to return home because their evacuation orders have been lifted and those who need to move elsewhere. For residents of areas where evacuation orders are still in place, the government will cover the cost of purchasing homes if people want to start new lives elsewhere, and provide a lump sum compensation for the mental distress they could suffer after 2017. Many evacuees have been refusing to return back even after decontamination is completed because of the persisting high radiation in forests around houses, and some hot spots in neighboring areas. That is especially true for the younger generation who chose to stay away because of the health risk, and destructed business and community infrastructure (schools, medical facilities), etc. In some cases (e.g. Kawauchi village) there has been a drop in the radiation levels79 and improvements in infrastructure but the government postpone removal of the evacuation advisory after consultations with and opposition by residents [The Japan News, July 14, 2014]. Residents in the area where the evacuation advisory was lifted on October 1, 2014 numbered 275 of 139 families, out of total, 48 people of 22 families have applied for long-term stays at their homes80 [Fukushima Minpo News, October 1, 2014]. For some places there is no clear timetable for the end of decontamination and rebuilding process. Consequently, evacuees have been rebuilding their new life and business in other places. For instance, 67% of the Okuma evacuees who answered a government questionnaire in October 2013 said they did not wish to return home under current conditions [NHK World, July 3, 2014]. They have been asking for more public support to acquire new houses outside hometown not seeing any prospect of restoring infrastructure, as

75 Based on a hypothetical model in which a person spends 8 hours a day outdoors and lives in a house built of wood. In case decontamination does not take place, the annual radiation reading of 100 millisieverts would naturally drop to 37 millisieverts by 2021, and a reading of 50 millisieverts would drop to 19. 76 According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection the average person should not be exposed to more than one millisievert annually. 77 Before the disaster residents were able to reach hospitals and large commercial facilities in Okuma in about 30 minutes by car, which is still in evacuation zone. 78 In 2013 one third of evacuees from Namie responded that they will never return because “there is no hope of radiation levels decreasing”, “the nuclear accident will not be brought under control”, and ”it will be difficult to rebuild social infrastructure” [Pushpalal et al., 2013]. Among those who want to return, 70% stated that certain conditions would have to be met before they return such as decrease in radiation levels, rebuilding infrastructure for daily living, and having a certain percentage of other residents also returning. 79 By an average of 63% from tprior to decontamination work and bellow government safety standards. 80 53.5% of the village population (2,758) live inside the village on a temporary or permanent basis. radiation levels remain high, and their houses and farmland ruined. Evacuees are also having concerns about the safety of an intermediate storage facility for nuclear waste, which will be built in the town. According to the evacuees the compensation from TEPCO and other financial aid they have been receiving is not enough to rebuild their lives [NHK World, July 3, 2014]. They asked the Okuma government to request more state compensation for evacuees who have given up returning home rather than for decontamination. They also called on the municipal government to present support measures for them as the head of the district suggesting “the town government should work not only for evacuees hoping to return home but also for those giving up the idea”. In many places diverse organizations have been set up to support residents who will return. For instance, a community-based organization has been set up to support residents who will return to Naraha town after the evacuation order is lifted81 [NHK World, June 30, 2014]. The support organization (including three officials and volunteers) will provide services such as keeping the houses in order, weeding residents' gardens, building ties among residents, and consultations on radiation exposure. Data suggests that more and more evacuees have been settling down permanently away from hometowns [NHK World, June 25, 2014]. Residents of evacuation zones are entitled to tax reductions if they acquire a new house or land while they have to live elsewhere and such was given to nearly 1,400 applicants during the fiscal year that ended in March, 201482. Major reasons for the slow progress of reconstruction and returning back of the evacuees have been: a slow pace of decontamination of lands, existing hotspots and restricted mobility in evacuated areas, difficulties of land acquisition for building cites, series difficulties in safe disposal of contaminated soil and debris, population fears regarding radiation hazards, lack of job opportunities, unrestored critical services and infrastructure, problems for attracting bids from contractors, spikes in construction material prices and manpower shortages, absence of communities consensus for certain projects, uncertainty for future developments, etc. [The Japan News, March 4, March 11, April 3, April 4 and April 11, 2014; Hasegawa, 2013; Matanle, 2012; NHK World, March 11, May 8, May 29, 2014]. According to the mayors in most affected prefectures many among them do not expect reconstruction work to be completed by the end of fiscal 2015 [The Japan News, March 4, 2014]. Many residents of evacuated towns and villages require “more decontamination” before allowed returning home [The Japan News, April 3, 2014; NHK World, May 8, 2014)]. Some part of the population also think that more efforts have to be concentrated on areas that were damaged by the earthquake (rather than the tsunami and radiation) that need to be rebuilt [The Japan Times, March 19, 2014]. All these issues have caused further pressure to accelerate reconstruction process and pledge by the government people to feel not only “the hard side of reconstruction, but also reconstruction of their hearts” [Abe, 2014]. It has also lead to a shift from the previous policy (December, 2013) of “eventually having all those who were forced to live as evacuees return home” and include support measures for evacuees who have decided to live elsewhere than their hometown”. In June 2014 the Reconstruction Agency announced that the government is granting about 80 million dollars to Fukushima prefecture and its 16 municipalities to assist local rebuilding projects (such as designing public rental housing for returning residents who had to evacuate), for resumption of farming and industrial activities, etc. [NHK World, June 17, 2014]. That money is part of about 1.6 billion dollars earmarked by the government to help local governments jump start projects in areas where evacuation orders have been being lifted hoping that will speed up rebuilding efforts in areas that experienced delays because of evacuation orders. Fukushima prefectural government estimates that ¥3.9 trillion will be needed for reconstruction work over a 10­year period from fiscal 2016 [The Japan News, October 28, 2014]. The process of evacuation and reconstructions has been associated with a number of challenges such as: failure for timely evacuation from certain highly contaminated areas, slow response of authorities, lack of sufficient public information in the first stages of the disasters, mistrust to public and private institutions, multiple displacements of many evacuees, divided communities and families, bad communication between different organizations, lack of financial resources, insufficient manpower and building materials, ineffective use of public funds, discrimination toward some evacuees, emotional conflicts between evacuees (about “self- evacuation”, compensations, rebuilding modes), insufficient and unequal compensation, substandard labor conditions for decontamination workers, increased number of individual and organized criminal cases, numerous lawsuits against TEPCO and authorities, revisions in national energy, disaster prevention etc.

81 Early 2015 after decontamination work is over. 82 More than twice the number of cases in the previous year.

152 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 policies, etc. [Akiyama et al. 2012; Fukushima Minpo News, February 17, March 13, 2014; Hasegawa, 2013; The Japan News, March 4, March 6, March 11, March 12, March 27, April 4, 2014; The Japan Times, March 13, 2014; NHK World, March 13, June 12, 2014; Manoliu, 2014]. The 2011 disasters occurred at areas that had been facing problems of depopulation and aging [Nemoto, 2014]. Populations of prefectures hardest hit by the disasters have continued to decline during the last 3 years [NHK-World, March 11, 2014]. In Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures total population dropped by more than 132,000 between March 1, 2011 and February 1, 2014. In the first year the population declined by about 85,000 as many people died or were evacuated, in the second year, the number fell by 29,000, and the third year by 17,00083. Fukushima prefecture has seen the largest population decline in post disaster years - 86,077 people since March 1, 2011 (Figure 6). What is more there has been significant decline in age groups up to 65, and increase in older population84. Most people especially younger one have been reluctant to return to home places due to the health risk, lack of basic infrastructure and services, reduced employment opportunities etc. What is more, the overall population has been decreasing due to out-migration since the nuclear accident (Figure 7). The most recent data show that Fukushima prefecture saw its population fall at a slower pace of 0.72% in 201385, which is seen by officials as an indicator that the impact of the nuclear accident has softened [The Japan News, June 25, 2014]. On the other hand, Miyagi prefecture registered a 0.06% increase apparently due to a rise in the number of people moving to take part in reconstruction work. In 2011 Fukushima's fertility rate fell 0.04 point from the previous year to 1.48 and another 0.07 point to 1.41 in 2012 [Fukushima Minpo News, June 5, 2014]. In 2013 the number of newborn babies in the prefecture was 14,546 last year or up 776 from 2012. The total fertility rate stood at 1.53 which was the levels prevailing in the years immediately before the disasters. The later increase was the largest among all Japanese prefectures and boosted prefectural rate to the 15th highest level across the nation (from 33rd in 2012).

2000000

1500000 March 1, 2011

1000000 June 1, 2014

500000

0 Total Age 0-14 Age 15-64 Above 65 Unknown

Source: Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Figure 6. Population dynamics in Fukushima prefecture in post disaster years

83 Populations began rising recently in some stricken areas (e.g. Iwanuma, Miyagi) due to progress in community relocation projects as well in urban and inland areas such as Sendai and Morioka. 84 Currently, 27.3% of the total population is older than 65, of which 53.6% older than 75. 85 On the backgrownd of the drop of 0.19% for the country as a whole.

60000 50000 Intra-prefectural migrants 40000 30000 In-migrants from other 20000 prefectures 10000 0 Out-migrants to other -10000 March 2010- March 2011- March 2012- March 2013- prefectures February 2011 February 2012 February 2013 February 2014 -20000 -30000 Net-migration (net loss) -40000

Source: Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Figure 7. Number of intra-prefectural migrants, in-migrants, out-migrants and net losses in population in Fukushima prefecture All that has been a consequence of policy measures of the prefectural government to cope with a population decline including improved childbearing and rearing environment offering free medical care for young people aged 18 or less, increasing indoor play areas and expanding a scheme for detecting radioactive materials in school lunch meals, among other things. 5. Economic damages and impacts The earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear accident have caused immense damages in North-eastern Japan and beyond (Picture 3 and Picture 4). They affected directly 62 municipalities in six prefectures, among them 28 in the three worst affected prefectures86 [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2012].

Source: Associate Press, March 11, 2011 Picture 3. Tsunami hit lands and property Picture 4. Debris from earthquake and tsunami The latest figure shows that 1,220,360 buildings in 20 prefectures have been damaged from the earthquake and tsunami, out of which 10.43% totally collapsed, 22.35% half destroyed, and the rest partially damaged, flooded or burned down (Table 9). The biggest property damages have been registered in Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Iwate prefectures. Most of the totally and half destroyed buildings were from coastal municipalities - 94% and 75% accordingly87. According to experts 42% of damages to buildings come from the earthquake, 39% from the tsunami, and 19% from the nuclear disaster [Daniell et al., 2011].

86 Computer servers in some municipalities were seriously damaged or destroyed, resulting in a loss of essential data. 221 public officials died or remain missing from 17 municipalities in 3 prefectures. 87 Coastal municipalities generally go much inland and therefore not impacted by the tsunami.

154 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

In addition, there have been reports for numerous damaged roads, bridges, dikes, railways and landslides in 14 prefectures (Table 10). In the three most affected prefectures the March 2011 disaster left approximately 2,580,000 households without electricity supply, around 420,000 households without gas supply, about 1,660,000 households without Liquefied Petroleum gas supply, and approximately 2,300,000 with interrupted water supply [Government of Japan, 2012]. The triple disaster has cased destruction of many businesses, which incurred big direct and indirect losses in certain sectors (manufacturing, energy, transport, agri-food, etc.) and supply chains in Japan and worldwide [Fujita et al. 2012; Government of Japan, 2012; OECD, 2013; UFJ, 2011]. Table 9. Number of property damages associated with March 2011 earthquake (February 10, 2014) Totally Partial Flooded Flooded Non Totally Half Partially Prefectures burn burn above bellow dwelling collapse collapse damaged down down floor floor houses Hokkaido - 4 - - 329 545 7 469 Aomori 308 701 - - - - 1006 1402 Iwate 19107 6598 33 - 6 18554 4368 Miyagi 82911 155086 135 - 7796 222893 28893 Akita ------3 3 Yamagata ------2 96 Fukushima 21235 73388 77 3 1061 338 167211 1117 Tokyo 15 198 1 - - - 4847 1101 Ibaraki 2628 24327 31 1799 779 185795 19949 Tochigi 261 2118 - - - - 73246 295 Gunma - 7 - - - - 17246 - Saitama 24 199 1 1 - 1 1800 33 Chiba 801 10121 15 157 731 54931 660 Kanagawa - 41 - - - - 459 13 Nigata ------17 9 Yamanashi ------4 Shizuoka - - - - - 5 13 9 Mie - - - - 2 - - 9 Tokushima - - - - 2 9 - - Kochi - - - - 2 8 - - Total 127290 272788 297 3352 10218 747989 58426 Source: National Police Agency

Table 10. Places with infrastructure damages associated with March 2011 earthquake (February 10, 2014)

Damaged Break of Damaged Prefectures Damaged roads Landslides bridges dikes railways Aomori 2 - - - - Iwate 30 4 6 - - Miyagi 390 12 51 45 26 Akita 9 - - - - Yamagata 21 - 29 - - Fukushima 187 3 9 - - Damaged Break of Damaged Prefectures Damaged roads Landslides bridges dikes railways Tokyo 295 55 6 - - Ibaraki 307 41 - - - Tochigi 257 - 40 - 2 Gunma 36 - 9 - - Saitama 160 - - - Chiba 2343 - 55 - 1 Kanagawa 160 1 2 - - Gifu 1 - - - - Total 4198 116 207 45 29 Source: National Police Agency

There have been considerable damages in agriculture, fishery and forestry sectors. Around 23,600 hectares of farmland were washed away or flooded by the tsunami as well as considerably salinized by the seawaters [Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2014]. In Aomori, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures approximately 4,550,000 poultry, 5,850 hogs, and 750 beef cattle were drowned, crushed or starved [Tohoku Regional Agricultural Administration, 2011]. In addition, large areas of farmland have been contaminated, and many livestock, crops and other products destroyed or devaluated due to the Fukushima nuclear disaster [Bachev and Ito, 2013; Koyama, 2013; Watanabe, 2013]. In total 28,612 fish vessels, 1,725 common use facilities and 319 harbors were damaged by the disaster [Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2014]. In Miyagi, Iwate, and Fukushima prefectures an estimated 90% of the fishing boats were rendered unusable by the tsunami [The Japan Times, April 28, 2011] and almost all fishing-ports destructed [Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2014]. Similarly, there were desolation of forest lands in 458 points, damaged facilities for forest maintaining and conservation in 275 points, damaged forest roads in 2,632 points, damaged forests amounting 1,065 ha, damaged cultivating facilities for forest products in 476 points, and damaged of processing and marketing facilities, etc. in 115 points [Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2014]. Furthermore, enormous amount of rubble and debris have been created by the earthquake and tsunami. In affected 239 municipalities of 13 prefectures the total amount of disaster debris is estimated to be about 20 million tons and tsunami deposits around 10 million tons [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. The debris (some of them radioactive) has been an enormous obstacle to rescue and impeded reconstruction. In the most affected Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures the amount of debris and tsunami deposits reached 22.63 million tons [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. In Miyagi prefecture the amount of tsunami-related debris was 19 times greater than a normal year’s waste while in Iwate prefecture it was 11 times greater [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2012]. The amount of debris washed out by the tsunami in the three prefectures is estimated to be about 5 million tons, 70 % of which deposited on seabed along Japan coasts and the remaining 30% becoming floating debris88 [Ministry of Environment, 2012]. The debris and tsunami deposits in these prefectures have been stored in almost 1,700 temporary cites, debris account for more than 60% of the total amount, and around two- third of all debris and tsunami deposits are in Miyagi prefecture (Table 11). What is more, the nuclear accident has contaminated huge areas of lands, property infrastructure, and debris in Fukushima and neighboring prefectures (Map 10). Heavily contaminated areas are located in 101 municipalities of 8 prefectures, and divided into: “Special Decontamination Area” (overlapping with Evacuation Order Area), where decontamination and waste management is done by the Government, and “Intensive Contamination Survey Area”, overseen by the local municipalities.

88 Some debris have been collected or sunk. Therefore floating debris still drifting are less than 1.5 million tons.

156 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Table 11. Amount of total and treated debris and tsunami deposits in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima* prefectures (January 31, 2014) Total amount Debris Tsunami deposits Prefectures (10000s tons) Amount Treated (%) Amount Treated (%) Iwate 556 400 97 145 93 Miyagi 1,874 1,121 98.7 739 98 Fukushima 349 174 68.4 78 44 Total 2,778 1,694 95.2 961 89 Note: * exclude evacuation area Source: Ministry of Environment, 2014

1,3

2,2 1,9

3

10,4 1,1

Buildings, etc. Lifeline utilities Social infrastructure Agriculture Others

Source: Ministry of Environment, 2014 Source: Cabinet Office of Japan, June 24, 2011

Map 10. Special decontamination (red) and Figure 8. Estimated economic damages of Intensive contamination (yellow) areas the March 2011 earthquake (trillion yens)

In October 2011, the government announced that it will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up the vast areas contaminated by radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster as country faces the prospect of removing and disposing 29 million cubic meters of soil from a sprawling area in Fukushima and four nearby prefectures [Reuters, October 20, 2011]. Furthermore, evacuated zones have become home to an increasing number of wild animals like rats, boars and their offspring with domestic pigs, which have been causing huge (unaccounted) damages to empty houses and farms [NHK World, July 11, 2013, May 6, 2014]. The initial official estimate for the direct economic losses from the March 2011 disaster was about 16.9 trillion yen ($210 billion USD) or 4% of the Gross Domestic Product of Japan89 (Figure 8). The greatest share of damages (61.5%) was for “Buildings, etc. (Housing, offices, plants, machinery, etc.)”, followed by “Others (including agriculture, forestry and fisheries)” (17.7%), “Social infrastructure (river, road, harbors, drainage, and

89 That is more than twice than the 1995 Great Hanshin Eartquake wich caused damage of approximately ten trillion yen ($102.5) billion or 2.5% of Japan's GDP at the time [Wikipedia, 2014]. airport, etc.)” (13%) and “Lifeline utilities (water service, gas, electricity, and communication and broadcasting facilities” (7.7%). Anticipated damage in the sector “Agriculture” accounted for 11.24% of the total amount. Most damages have been concentrated in Fukushima, Iwate, and Miyagi prefectures where there was a significant destruction of the basic infrastructure and the economic activity (Figure 9 and Figure 10). In March 2011 the Index of Industrial Production in the country and the most affected areas dropped considerably – with 15% and 35% accordingly (Figure 11). In March 2011 the Index expressing Status of Activity declined 30% in Iwate prefecture, 40% in Fukushima prefecture and 80% in Miyagi prefecture comparing to the previous month [National Institute for Research Advancement, 2013].

Source: National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA), 2013 Figure 9. Trends in index for expressing status of recovery of basic infrastructure (February 2011=100)

Source: National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA), 2013 Figure 10. Trends in index expressing status of activity (February 2011=100)

158 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Reconstruction Agency, 2014 Figure 11. Index of industrial production The insured losses from the Great ast Japan Earthquake were estimated at ¥2,750 billion, or 16% of total direct economic losses90 [Raghieri and Ishiwatari, 2014]. The insurance payouts stemming from the quake had reached ¥1,234.6 billion as of May 201291 [Takabe and Inui, 2013]. In addition, ¥360.3 billion (as of December 2012) monetary donations were distributed to the affected by the disaster via the Japanese Red Cross, the Central Community Chest of Japan and local authorities in affected areas. There are approximately 80,000 businesses in the tsunami-affected areas, 740,000 in the earthquake- affected areas, and 8,000 in the evacuation zones of the Fukushima nuclear plant [Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2012]. The most of them have seen their businesses severely destructed after March 2011 [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. The basic economic indicators demonstrate that considerable part of the local economy in disaster areas have recovered to approximately pre-disaster levels. Nevertheless, many challenges still remain especially for small and middle size enterprises and certain sectors such as agriculture, fishery, food processing etc. Up-to-date merely 36.6% of the recipients of Group subsidies for recovery and development of facilities (549 groups of approximately 10,000 business operators) report they have recovered sales above the level before the disaster [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Similarly, only 63% of damaged by tsunami agricultural lands have been restored for farming and 78% of destructed fishery processing facilities resumed operations. The overall value of agricultural, forestry and fisheries products in Fukushima prefecture has declined considerably, and there has been no or only a slight recovery in these sectors of the economy (Figure 12). The high level of radiation has caused some Fukushima forests to be abandoned and there is concern about the long-term management of forestry resources [NHK World, May 6, 2014]. Summer festivals are significant event in Japan in terms of keeping tradition and as attracting tourists and overall economic benefits. Data show that visitor figures for 14 major summer festivals in Tohoku six prefectures fell by 1.01 million or 6.5% from the previous year [The Japan News, July 24, 2014]. Despite that

90 Residential assets represented 78% of insured losses. Rice is greatly insured in Japan but insurance almost did not cover rice production losses (disater happened before rice-growing season). In Miyagi prefecture the agricultural insurance scheme has covered damages to green-houses of ¥1 billion. 91 General Insurance Association of Japan designated specific total loss zones, based on satellite imagery, and any total loss claims filed from the area did not require additional confirmation speeding up the payout process. Out of ¥1,200 billion generated by the 741,000 claim payments made, 60% was paid within two months and 90% within five months [Raghieri and Ishiwatari, 2014]. numbers have been rising with 14.96 million visitors in 201392, this is still 4.2% fewer than in 2010. In 2013 visitors to the Sendai Tanabata, Morioka Sansa Odori and Soma Nomaoi festivals declined, respectively to 2.06 million (down 12.5%), to 1.3 million (down 3.6%) and 167,000 (down 22.4%) comparing to the pre- disaster period.

2500

2000

1500 Agriculture Forestry 1000 Fishery 500

0 2009 2010 2011 2012

Note: * multiplied by 10 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Figure 12. Dynamics of values of agricultural, forestry* and fishery* products in Fukushima prefecture Tourism was an important part of the Fukushima economy and the number of overnight stays in hotels and other accommodations dropped more than 65% in March 2011 comparing to the same period of 201093 [Tourist Agency, 2014]. There has been some recovery in certain parts of the prefecture (Figure 13) but the overall level is far bellow the pre-disaster period – in December 2013 it was still 26% bellow (comparing to 0.3% up nationwide).

70.000 60.000 56.225 57.179 50.000 48.315 44.459 40.000 35.179 30.000 20.000 10.000 0 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Source: Tourist Agency, 2014

Figure 13. Number of overnight stays in hotels and other accommodation in Naukomi, Fukushima prefecture

By March 2012 as many as 644 companies in 40 prefectures had been forced into bankruptcy by the disaster, including 157 service companies, 150 manufacturers, and 113 wholesalers [The Japan Times, March 11, 2012]. They left behind liabilities of ¥925.4 billion and had employed 11,412 people. April­September 2014 data show that the number of corporate bankruptcies in Japan fell but rose in Tohoku (and Shikoku) for the first time in six years [The Japan News, October 10, 2014]. In order to support firms in Fukushima prefecture, which are under the weight of so-called “double loans”, the Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake Affected Business (a unit of the Deposit Insurance

92 In addition, 6 prefectural capitals of the region have been hosting the Tohoku Rokkon­sai (Festival of the six souls in Tohoku) in rotation since 2011 to support disaster reconstruction efforts which draw 200,000 visitors a year [The Japan News, July 24, 2014]. 93 At the same time the national figure declined around 35%.

160 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Corporation of Japan) set up a special team (May 2014) to extend support [The Japan News, June 6, 2014]. Firms94 need enhanced assistance since they have difficulty developing long-term plans for business restoration due to the ongoing nuclear crisis. Furthermore, land prices95 in disaster hit prefectures grew or slowed the pace of reduction in the last year96 as an increasing number of residents moved to higher ground from coastal areas [The Japan News, July 2, 2014]. In Miyagi prefecture the average land price grew 2.4%, marking the steepest growth in the country’s 47 prefectures. In Fukushima land prices rose 0.8% rising for the first time in 22 years97. Some $30 billion has been paid to 84,000 nuclear accident refugees and around $20 billion to 300,000 tsunami survivors in the Tohoku region [World Nuclear Association, 2014]. The evacuees received JPY 100,000 ($1,030) per month in psychological suffering compensation, which is tax-exempt and paid unconditionally. In October 2013, about 84,000 evacuees received the payments as an average family of four got about JPY 90 million ($900,000) in compensation from TEPCO. The average compensation for real estate was JPY 49.1 million ($490,000), JPY 10.9 million ($110,000) for lost wages, and JPY 30 million ($300,000) as “consolation money” for pain and suffering [Asahi Shinbun, October 26, 2013]. In mid April 2011 a Panel to address compensation for nuclear related damage acting as intermediary98 established “Guidelines for determining the scope of compensation for damage caused by the accident”99. The government and nuclear plant operators also established the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation100. Some JPY 900 billion ($11.5 billion) were released to the company through bonds issued to the Nuclear Damage Facilitation Fund to cover compensation payments101. In February 2012 the government approved a further JPY 690 billion ($8.9 billion) in compensation support from the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund giving the government voting rights102. In the end of July 2012 TEPCO sold the government 50.11% of the voting and 25.73% no voting rights shares, and became government-controlled company. In June 2013 TEPCO requested a further JPY 666 billion ($6.7 billion) in government support through the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund, bringing the total amount to JPY 3.79 trillion ($38 billion). More than half of the request (some JPY 370 billion, $3.7 billion) resulted from the re­evaluation of the evacuation zone around the damaged plant and a re­examination of the estimated amount regarding compensation for mental damages, loss or depreciation of valuables such as housing lands and buildings. About JPY 43 billion ($431 million) was due to a higher estimate of compensation coming from damages by “harmful rumors” to the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food processing and distribution industries103. By mid May 2014 TEPCO had paid JPY 3808 billion ($38 billion) in compensation, fairly evenly split between businesses and individuals, based on decisions of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation, and covered by loans from the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund [World Nuclear Association, 2014]. Some $16 billion was distributed evenly among 85,000 evacuees ($188,200 each person

94 Principal repayments began in summer 2014 for some afflicted companies that received loans from the government financial institutions. 95 “Rosenka” or prices of land facing major streets, used to calculate inheritance and gift taxes. 96 although the average price for the country fell for the 6 straight year (dropped by 0.7% on average in 2013) with exception of the 3 major metropolitan areas (Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya). 97 Land prices in evacuation zones have been appraised at zero due to difficulty in conducting on-site surveys. 98 Established within the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, led by Law Professor Yoshihisa Nomi of Gakushuin University, Tokyo. 99 According to the Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage the TEPCO liability is exclusive and absolute regardless of fault [World Nuclear Association, 2014]. The government may relieve the operator of liability if it determines that damage results from “a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character” (which it did not do here). 100 It received JPY 7 billion ($91 million) in public funds and JPY 7 billion from 12 nuclear plant operators, including TEPCO’s of JPY 2379 million ($30 million). 101 A more comprehensive business plan was introduced in March 2012, involving compensation payments of JPY 910 billion ($11.6 billion) annually. 102 For JPY 1 trillion (about $12.5 billion) paid through the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund. 103 As restrictions on shipment of foodstuffs from affected area continue an additional JPY 240 billion ($2.4 billion) was included to cover for the further compensation claims. including children). In December 2013 the government raised the upper limit of financial assistance from JPY 5 trillion to JPY 9 trillion ($86 billion). By the end of November 2013 TEPCO received 2,035,000 applications from individuals and businesses for compensations related to the Fukushima nuclear accidents, and paid a total amount of 3,168.7 billion yen [Nomura and Hokugo, 2013]. Until the end of January 2013 the biggest amount of compensation was paid to “Natural Persons” (48.5%)104, followed by “Legal Persons and Sole Proprietors” (30.9%), and “Groups Representing Members” (20.6%) such as Agricultural Cooperatives, Fishery Cooperatives, Fukushima Prefecture Residents Health Care Fund105, and Others [Nomura and Hokugo, 2013]. The greatest compensation payments were for demands from Fukushima prefecture (75%), followed by Kanto region (17.1%), Hokkaido and Tohoku region (4.6%), and Other regions (3.2%). “Mental anguish” and “Damage from incapacity of work” took the largest portion of compensation payments to Natural persons (Figure 14). Most compensation payments to Legal Persons and Sole Proprietors106 were for “Lost earning” (94.5%), and for applicants from Evacuation Areas (other than agriculture), Tourisms and Service industries (Figure 15).

1,4 1,3 1,2 Mental anguish 1,6 4,5 8,5 Damage from incapacity of work 4,9 Loss or reduction of property value 51,9 Damage demanded by simplified form for 24,6 evacuation expenses Injury or death

Damage from evacuation to area of "voluntary evacuation comensation" Temporary access expenses

Evacuation and homecoming expenses

Others

Source: Nomura and Hokugo, 2013 Figure 14. Share of TEPCO payments to Natural Persons by damage categories (%)

14,5 Other tah agriculture in the 4,5 Evacuation Areas 28,1 Tourism industry 6,7 Service industry 21,2 6,8 18,1 Manifacturing Processing and distribution

Agriculture

Source: Nomura and Hokugo, 2013 Figure 15. Share of TEPCO payments to Legal Persons and Sole Proprietors by damage categories (%)

104 TEPCO has been paying 100,000 yen (USD990) a month to each residents who was forced to evacuate – figure calculated by referring to the approximate 120,000 yen monthly benefit that is paid through automobile liability insurance to hospitalized as a result of traffic accident [Pushpalal et al. 2013]. Local government argue that figure is low and ask for monthly compensation for psychological duress be increased to 350,000 yen. 105 Fund received by Fukushima prefectural government for financing long-term healthcare of residents. 106 Not including payments to farmers, fishermen and others who apply through “Group Representing Victims”.

162 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The nuclear disaster and the suspension of nuclear reactors has been also a severe blow for the nuclear industry in the country. For instance, TEPCO logged a net loss of ¥173.26 billion, against the year before profit of ¥437.93 billion, due to a special loss of ¥218.8 billion for compensation for the crisis at Fukushima nuclear power plant [The Japan News, August 1, 2014]. It logged a group recurring profit of ¥52.51 billion in April­June 2014 against a loss of ¥29.49 billion a year before, marking the first profit for the period in 4 years107. Meanwhile, four other regional power suppliers108 suffered group recurring losses of ¥74.7 billion, due largely to hefty costs for fuel for thermal power generation with total recurring losses109. The macroeconomic impact of the March 2011 disaster has been also significant (Figure 16). Country’s real Gross Domestic Product contracted almost 4% during January-March 2011 (comparing to 2010), and Japan has been experiencing a trade deficit as a result of the increased import.

140.000,0

120.000,0

100.000,0 Net exports of goods and services

80.000,0 Exports of goods and services

Imports of goods and services 60.000,0 Gross domestic product

40.000,0

20.000,0

0,0 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar

-20.000,0 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013

Source: Statistics Bureau, MIAC, 2014 Figure 16. Evolution of GDP, export and import of Japan Nevertheless, the share of Tohoku region and the three most affected prefectures in Japan’s GDP and population is small - 8% and 4% accordingly [Statistics Bureau, 2012]. Besides, the disaster created a big demand for jobs, incentives for investments, and potential for economic growth associated with the recovery and reconstruction businesses (relief, rebuilding, decontamination, innovation etc.). What is more, there has been a huge government budget for recovery, reconstructions, compensations and development. Following the disaster, the Government approved two supplementary budgets of 6.14 trillion yens for relief and recovery (May and July 2011), and launched a ten-year reconstruction program (focusing on Fukushima, Miyagi and Iwate prefectures) with expended budget of 25 trillion yens for the period 2011- 2015 [Government of Japan, 2012; Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. For instance, the government has promoted the “Japan As One’ Work Project” as countermeasures against employment during the restoration stage, which resulted in the job placement of over 64,000 people in the disaster-hit 3 prefectures by October 2011 [Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare, 2011]. With the compilation of the Project 580,000 jobs are expected to be generated.

107 It reflects electricity rate increase under system allowing power firms to pass higher fuel costs for thermal power generation on to customers. Consequently, group sales in the first quarter of fiscal 2014 rose 9.1%, labor costs grow 18.5% (booked expenses in advance to ease salary cuts from July), while fuel costs fell 1.8% thanks to an improvement in thermal power generation efficiency. 108 Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Kansai Electric Power Co., Kyushu Electric Power Co. and Okinawa Electric Power Co. 109 Smaller than the combined year before recurring losses of ¥233 billion at nine of the 10 utilities. Subsequently, there has been a rapid recovery of infrastructure and economic activities in the country, including the most affected regions. By March 2013 the Index expressing status of recovery of basic infrastructure in Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefecture reached 91%, 88% and 81.1% accordingly (National Institute for Research Advancement, 2013). At the same time the national Activity Status Index augmented by 14.8% comparing to the pre-disaster period, with appositive dynamic in Iwate prefecture (1.6%) and staying still bellow the pre-disaster level in Miyagi (93.6%) and Fukushima (82.2%) prefectures. There has been a sizeable or complete recovery of damaged lifeline infrastructure in the months after the disaster – e.g. 96% of Electricity, 86% of Gas, 95% of LP Gas, 99% of Fixed line and Wireless phones, 100% of Mail delivery and Gas stations (as of October 2012), 98% of Water and 90% of healthcare facilities (as of March 2012) and 92% of public school facilities (as of March 2013) [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Similarly, there has been substantial progress in recovery and reconstruction of long-term infrastructures such as land, transportation networks, utilities, fish processing facilities, etc. (Figure 17).

Rivers measures Sewer Public school facilities Water utilities Healthcare facilities Harbors Rails Aquaculture facilities Fish processing facilities Farmlands Fishing ports Roads Coastal forests Coastal measures 0 20 40 60 80 100

Note: * farmland, and healthcare, school, and fish processing facilities (March, 2014), Aquaculture facilities (December 2012) Source: Reconstruction Agency, 2014

Figure 17. State of full-scale recovery and reconstruction of public infrastructure after Great East Japan Earthquake (July, 2014)*

The progress of reconstruction of different type of public infrastructure has not been similar in different affected areas. For instance, in Fukushima prefecture reconstruction started in 85% of planed cites, and in 65% have already completed (Figure 18). In Aizu and Nakadori regions progress has been substantial – in 100% and 99% of planed cites (26 and 536 accordingly) construction has been completed. On the other hand, in coastal Hamadori region in a fifth of planed (1,537) cites reconstruction has not started yet [Reconstruction Agency, 2014].

164 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Public housing 89

Parks and urban…5 Construction Sewage 3 completed Fishery ports 170 196 112 Construction started Ports 245 47 40 Construction Roads and bridges 644 42 77 not started yet Coastal measures 26 78 50 Rivers and erosion… 178 64 33

0 200 400 600 800

Source: Reconstruction Agency, 2014 Figure 18. Progress in reconstruction of public infrastructure in Fukushima prefecture, July 1, 2014 There has been also a constant recovery of sales of all industries in most affected prefectures (Figure 19). However, the rate of post-disaster recovery has not bee similar in all sectors of affected industry. There is a fast and above pre-disaster recovery of construction industry. On the other hand, the recovery in wholesale, service, and food processing industries has been slower. For instance, comparing with the same period of 2010 for January-March 2014 the number of guests in hotel rooms in affected 6 prefectures was 14.3% lower, and in most affected 3 prefectures 10.6% lower while there was a growth of 1.4% nationwide [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Economy of the three main affected prefectures has been showing a positive employment trend, with the ratio of job offers to jobseekers consistently higher than the national average since early 2012 [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. For instance, in Fukushima prefecture the later ration jumped from 0.42 in 2010 to 1.24 in 2013. This trend in affected regions is particularly true when it comes to jobs in public welfare, construction, transportation industries, the service sector, as well as certain specialist skills jobs. Furthermore, there has been a boom in technological innovations and the new sectors such as energy saving, renewable (solar, wind, biofuel) energy, nuclear safety, debris cleaning, processing and disposal, research and development, robotics, ITC, no-soil and solar sharing farming etc. with huge investments of leading players, numerous new comers, joint ventures, etc. [Asiaone News, June 26, 2013; Fukushima Minpo News, November 7, 2014; JETRO, 2013; NHK World, June 12, 2012, June 30, July 8, July 25, 2014; The Japan Times, March 23, 2014].

Others Transportation Less than 10% Construction 10-30% Hotels 30-50% Wholesale and retail 50-70% Food and fishery processing 70-90% Manufacturing 100% Total Increase

0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: Reconstruction Agency, 2014 Figure 19. Percent of sales recovery comparing to pre-disaster state in “Group subsidy recipients”, July 2013 For instance, academic and corporate experts developed a technology to eliminate 90%­95% of radioactive cesium from fly ash resulting from the burning of combustible garbage110 in Fukushima prefecture as a demonstration plant for cesium elimination opened in Hirono town [Fukushima Minpo News, November 7, 2014]. Leading telecommunication and internet corporation SoftBank intends to invest in solar and wind power generation in Northeast Japan [NHK World, June 20, 2014]. Similarly, the Tokyo metropolitan government is going to invest 100 million yen in a project to build a mega solar power plant in the Matsukawa district of Fukushima city [Fukushima Minpo News July 1, 2014]. The government has decided to create a research center111 in Fukushima prefecture operated jointly by members of industry, government and academia, to bring experts together from all over the world to develop improved technologies for decommissioning the crippled reactors at Fukushima nuclear plant [The Japan News, June 20, 2014]. The plan pledges to bring together 200 domestic and overseas experts with knowledge of reactor decommissioning at the joint research center from five countries112. Nevertheless, there have been differences in the progress of recovery between Fukushima, Miyagi and Iwate prefectures. In Fukushima prefecture the overall progress has been lagging behind with regard to the recovery of economic activity, including production, consumption, and distribution [National Institute for Research Advancement, 2013]. In the three prefectures there has been also unlike speed in the infrastructure recovery by individual cities, towns and villages. The later have been mostly associated with differences in the recovery of rail systems, treatment of debris, education and medical care. For instance, in Fukushima prefecture merely 68% of debris and 44% of tsunami deposits outside the evacuation areas has been treated [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. In the Special Decontamination Area113 the progress of implementation of planned decontamination work also differ substantially (Figure 20).

Namie Tomioka Minami-soma Okuma Roads Katsurao Forest Kawamata Farmland Iitate Living area Kawauchi Naraha Tamura

0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: Ministry of Environment Figure 20. Progress in implementation of decontamination work in Special Decontamination Area by September 30, 2014 (per cent) Similarly, there is a considerable difference in the progress of decontamination in Municipality Decontamination Areas114 in Fukushima and other prefectures (Figure 21). Furthermore, while the decontamination of public facilities (administration facilities, schools, parks and sport facilities, etc.) has been

110 In an experiment, the plant reduced radioactive cesium content of fly ash from 5,100 to 309 Bq/kg. 111 Operations of tentatively called “international joint research center for safe decommissioning” would start in fiscal 2016. 112 Including United States and Russia who were involved in efforts following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 1979 Three Mile Island crisis. 113 Responsibility of the central government. 114 Responsibility of local governments in 94 municipalities, including 36 in Fukushima prefecture, 19 in Ibaraki prefecture, by 9 in Chiba and Gunma prefectures, by 8 in Miyagi and Tochigi prefectures, 3 in Iwate prefecture, and 2 in Saitama prefecture [Reconstruction Agency, 2014].

166 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 entirely or largely completed115 reaching the end of full decontamination will likely take few more years [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Besides, recent media reports indicate that some of the land along the coastal area flooded by the tsunami remains unused [NHK World, September 11, 2014]. Municipal governments hit by the disaster have purchased land in the inundated areas hoping the financial assistance will help former residents move to higher ground away from the sea. However, according to 25 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures they have so far purchased a total of 2,600 ha116 but 37% remains untouched because municipalities have no idea how to utilize the land, pieces of land are scattered making it difficult to put them to use, and businesses hesitate to move into the areas that were once flooded by tsunami.

Houses

Roads Other prefectures

Fukushima Farmlands prefecture

Forests

0 20 40 60 80 100 Source: Reconstruction Agency, 2014 Figure 21. Progress of decontamination of Municipality Decontaminated Areas, as of March 2014 (percent) There have been also some new challenges associated with the reconstruction and decontamination. The government’s employment measures seem have resolved unemployment problem but they have been turning job seekers away from the traditional local industries like fisheries, agriculture, etc. According to the Kesennuma Chamber of Commerce and Industry “local companies are beginning to be restored but the government’s emergency employment measures have begun to choke off the local key industries” [The Japan News, March 01, 2014]. In Kesennuma construction workers are now paid about ¥10,000 a day, and those getting jobs via the government’s emergency employment program (e.g. patrolling temporary housing units) receive about ¥8,000 a day, while the fishery processing firm pays only about ¥6,000. What is more, there has been a huge proportion of the unused budget for the reconstruction – it was announced that 35.3% of the ¥7.51 trillion budget set aside in fiscal 2013 to rebuild disaster areas was left unused117 [The Japan News, July 31, 2014]. The proportion of the unspent funding was almost unchanged from fiscal 2012 (35.2%), indicating that the country has made little progress in overcoming delays in implementing reconstruction projects. According to the Reconstruction Agency funds were unutilized because it took time to obtain local consent for reviews of reconstruction plans and to acquire land as well as because bidding for many reconstruction projects ended in failure due in part to price hikes for construction materials [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. The budget implementation rate stood at 62.8% for projects to assist disaster victims and at 77.5% for projects to revitalize industries. But the rate was low, at 47% for reconstruction projects related to the nuclear crisis at Fukushima nuclear power plant. OECD ranked the March 2011 earthquake as the costliest disaster in Japan’s post-war history with 3.5% of GDP in property damage not including the costs of nuclear accident (Organization for Economic Co-

115 E.g. for public facilities, shools, etc. 90% in Fukushima prefectures and 100% outside Fukushima prefectures [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. 116 For about 2.1 billion dollars. 117 Reconstruction budget for fiscal 2013 consisted of the special account budget for reconstruction programs and funds carried over from fiscal 2011­2012. Of the total, ¥4.86 trillion was executed. Of the unused funds, ¥1.96 trillion will be carried over to fiscal 2014 and ¥691.7 billion will be used to finance projects other than those originally planned. operation and Development, 2013). There has been a considerable contraction of the real GDP growth in 2011 and 2012 comparing to the pre-disaster projections of the national and international organizations (Table 12). Table 12. Macroeconomic impact of Great East Japan EARTHQUAKE Growth of Gross Domestic Product FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Bank of Japan - January 2011 (%) 3.3 1.6 2 OECD – December 2010 (%) 3.7 1.7 1.3 Real dynamics (%) 1.3 -0.4 -0.3 Change real – projected (percentage points) - (2 - 2.4) - (2 - 2.1) - (1.6 – 2.4) Source: Bank of Japan, OECD

Recent experts estimates also indicate that the overall macroeconomic impact of the disaster (on stock prices, housing prices, and so on) has not been so huge118 when compared with the effects of previous crisis such as real estate bubble in 1990 and fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 [Kawaguchi, 2014]. Most contemporary problems of the Japanese economy have been attributed to other factors (structural problems, inefficient policies, weak yen) rather than the 2011 disaster [The Japan News, April 23, 2014; OECD, 2013]. According to the initial prediction, the March 2011 earthquake is likely to be the costliest natural disaster119 in the world history [Kim, 2011]. One year after the disaster the direct economic loss from the earthquake and tsunami was estimated to be between 237 and 303 billion USD, and from the nuclear power plant incident around $65 billion [Vervaeck and Daniell, 2012]. Indirect losses were assessed between 185 to 345 billion USD across the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear plant. According to the initial estimates of property damages and income losses are contrasted with the amounts shouldered by the insurance industry, TEPCO, donors and the government, those directly affected will on average have to come up for about 23% of the overall losses (Table 13). That catastrophe might turn out as the most expensive but the burden for the insurance industry will likely be lower120 since the low proportion of individuals with earthquake insurance in Japan121. Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty about the full costs related to the nuclear accident. The process of compensation of victims, decommissioning of the nuclear plant, and decontamination, rebuilding businesses and social life in affected areas will last many years and incur enormous costs. Table 13. Estimated distribution of costs related to the Great East Japan earthquake Organizations and type of costs Amount (billion yen) Share of B Share of C Property and Life Insurances 2,295 9.3 10.2 TEPCO 151 0.6 0.7 Government 16,133 65.7 72 Donations 298 1.2 1.3 Total (A) 18,877 76.8 84.2 Damage through property losses -16,900 Costs for cleanup operations -845 Income losses 2011 -6,822 Total losses (B) -25,412 Income losses for 2011 and 2012 -4,670 Medium-term losses (C) -23,260 Short-term difference (B – A) -6,535 23.2 Medium-term difference (C – A) -4,383 15.8 Source: Waldenberger and Eilker

118 Calculated losses in Net Present Income accounts for 3.5 trillion yen for 2011-2012 or about 1% of GDP [Waldenberger and Eilker, 2014]. 119 Later it was fund out that the nuclear disaster was a “man made” disaster which could have been prevented. 120 E.g. in the case of the hurricane Katrina (2005). 121 End of March 2010 only 23% of all private households were insured, including in Miyagi 33%, in Fukushima 14%, and Iwate 12% [Waldenberger and Eilker, 2014].

168 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

For instance, the total number of applications and lawsuits for damages, and the type and requested amount of compensations from TEPCO are not publicly known122.. According to the recent information TEPCO has paid about ¥3.53 trillion in compensation using government bonds while the total amount of compensation is estimated to be about ¥4.91 trillion [The Japan News, March 12, 2014]. According to the company available funds are not sufficient for compensation of the amount of payouts required [Tokyo Electric Power Company, February 24, 2014]. Nevertheless, the government will eventually pay all TEPCO’s debt since it was placed under effective state control since June 2012 [The Japan News, March 27, 2014]. What is more, the estimated amount of compensation has been growing up each time the governmental panel has issued new guidelines. Besides, there have been reported thousands applicants and claimants seeking compensation or resolution of disputes on compensation from TEPCO or authorities through court or other ways [The Japan News, March 12, 2014; The Japan Times, March 13; 2014; NHK World, March, 17, May 8, May 26, May 27, 2014]. For example, in 2014 the Center for Settlement of Fukushima Nuclear Damage Claims123 made proposals to settle claims filed by groups of residents of Namie Town and Iitate Village [NHK World, October 22, 2014]. However, TEPCO has rejected it saying blanket compensation without consideration for individual circumstances would not ensure equality. Increased number of false claims and swindling compensation funds for millions of yens has been also reported124 [NHK World, June 2, 2014; The Japan News, August 3, 2014]. In addition, there are lawsuits against the central and local governments related to earthquake and tsunami damages. For instance, families of 23 schoolchildren from Okawa Elementary School, Ishinomaki city suits prefectural and local governments for the deaths of their children’s claiming that the arrival of tsunami was foreseeable because of issued warning but school did not evacuate children to higher ground [The Japan News, May 19, 2014]. Similarly, a man claims his wife died because the Meteorological Agency initially predicted the ensuing tsunami would be much lower than it actually was (3 minutes after the earthquake) and updated warning did not reach his wife due to the poor condition of the city's address system [NHK World, March 13, 2014]. Recently a district court in Sendai has ruled that the death of a woman five months after the earthquake was related to the disaster125 [NHK World, December 9, 2014]. The family considered the death to be disaster- related and applied for compensation but the municipal government rejected it. For the first time the court ruled against a local government's decision of this kind stating that the extremely poor living conditions caused by the disaster were a burden to the woman's mind and body and led to her death. Similarly, a group of residents from a Iitate village is seeking state arbitration for a rise in compensation so all villagers can be entitled to equal damages126 regardless of radiation levels of areas [NHK World July 22, November 14, 2014]. According to the residents from the two zones with lower contamination the difference is dividing them. They ask the Center for Settlement of Fukushima Nuclear Damage Claims to urge TEPCO to pay equal damages. The residents also seek the payment of consolation money (about 30-thousand dollars per person) since they were exposed to more radiation because the evacuation order was not issued until more than one month after the meltdown. Evacuees also call for around 172,000 dollars per person in compensation for ruining their village lives. About a half of all Iitate residents (2,837) joint the group.

122 Despite our request to TEPCO we have not been provide with information about the number, type and amount of applications for compensations. 123 Until end of August 2014 more than 8,000 cases were settled by the Center [NHK World, September 2, 2014]. 124 Tokyo police arrested 2 men who under name of a dummy company defrauded TEPCO of 40,000 dollars making a false claim that staffing agency suffered a sales drop because it received fewer job orders from hotels in Fukushima prefecture. Police believe other people were involved as well who submitted fake applications to steal more than 200,000 dollars in total [NHK World, June 2, 2014]. Police have also arrested four people on suspicion of defrauding TEPCO of ¥12 million in nuclear compensation [The Japan News, August 3, 2014]. They included an official of a Tokyo NGO that does paperwork on behalf of clients for claiming damages from harmful rumors - not operating event company in Koriyama faced cancellations from customers due to concerns over radiation exposure. 125 A 85-year-old remained in heavily damaged house for about a month and died from pneumonia. 126 Entire village is designated for evacuation, but it is categorized into three different zones, each with a different radiation level and differing amounts of compensation. The evacuees want the current monthly compensation per capita more than tripled to 350,000 yen (3,000 dollars) per month. Finally, there are unknown amount of private costs related to dispute and compensation associated with the triple disaster. For instance, about 30 residents of Urayasu City (northeast of Tokyo) whose homes were damaged by massive liquefaction in the March 2011 earthquake127 filed a lawsuit against the real estate company (Mitsui Fudosan) due to failure to reinforce ground when it developed the area more than 30 years ago128 [NHK World, October 8, 2014]. Central government offered Fukushima prefecture, and the two candidate towns for interim storage facilities of highly radioactive waste (Okuma and Futaba) a total of ¥374 billion (2.2 billion dollars) over 30 years as financial assistance for regional development and restoration of local residents’ lives [The Japan News, July 31, 2014; NHK World, July 30, 2014]. First year’s payment includes ¥90 billion for the local governments for rebuilding lives of local residents and for regional development (measures to repair damage to public image) while remaining ¥50 billion is for reconstruction of infrastructure in Okuma and Futaba (water supplies, sewerage systems and roads)129. In addition, the government will continue to pay for 30 years allowances to areas hosting power plants planning to add ¥1.1 billion to the current ¥6.7 billion a year as subsidy130 which is normally paid to municipalities hosting nuclear plants and typically used to develop local communities and improve residents’ health131. (Some) Experts underline the uncertainty related to the total costs of the nuclear disaster since their level has been expanding constantly [Okuyama, 2014]. Early in 2014 the government estimated it would take JPY11.16 trillion and 40 years to clean up the Fukushima site [World Nuclear Association, 2014]. It is largely made up of more than 2.5 trillion yen for decontamination, 1.1 trillion yen for interim storage facilities, 2 trillion yen for reactor decommissioning and contaminated water treatment, and over 5 trillion yen for compensation from TEPCO132. Up to date huge challenges in decommissioning the nuclear rectors have been associated with changes in timetables and costs tags. The current timetable calls for the process of removing spent fuel assemblies from the storage pool to begin in fiscal 2017, and removing melted fuel to begin 3 years later. However, the Government and TEPCO officials recently announced that they are planning to delay the start of removing spent fuel units until fiscal 2019 (by 2 years) and the start of removing melted fuel till 2025 (by 5 years) [NHK World, October 30, 2014]. The latest experts estimate to clean up areas designated as uninhabitable133 is for 6.6 billion US dollars including fees for transportation and storing contaminated soil [NHK World, June 10, 2014]. The 2013 estimated cost of decontaminating other areas were 19.2 billion dollars including spending for setting up the initial storage sites and follow-up checking of radiation levels. The government calculated that building intermediate storage facilities to keep contaminated soil for up to 30 years would cost about 10.4 billion dollars including the funds needed to buy land for such facilities. Finally, the decommissioning of nuclear reactors has just begun and it would take 30-40 years costing 20 billion dollars [NHK World, August 2, 2014]. Experts find the latest Cost Verification Committee’s estimate “over-optimistic” and predict that nuclear disaster costs are bound to increase further134 [Okuyama, 2014]. It is assessed that more and more public funding has been injected but the support for victims is being stopped or reduced. If compensation is conducted in good faith, damage costs could become as high as the annual tax revenue of the nation, or 43 trillion yen [Okuyama, 2014].

127 Liquefaction caused by the quake damaged about 27,000 houses [NHK World, October 8, 2014]. 128 The plaintiffs demanded that the company pay compensation totaling about 7.8 million dollars but the court has turned down residents' claim. Similar lawsuits have been filed elsewhere. 129 Government plans to pay out the initial ¥140 billion as a lump sum when facilities are constructed so that the local governments can use money flexibly by setting up funds or through other measures. 130 Total ¥7.8 billion a year or ¥234 billion over 30 years. 131 Local authorities are not satisfied with the amount of money offered and asked government to increase the sum. The government also indicated that it would stop paying subsidies for the offline Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant, located 10 km south of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi, which local people are calling to be decommissioned. 132 In December 2011 damage costs were forecasted to be “merely” 5.8 trillion yen for things such as compensation for residents, decontamination, and nuclear reactor cooling. 133 Government has not decided yet whether to conduct cleanup operations in such areas. 134 E.g. unpecedented construction of ice walls as a temporary method of halting groundwater flow into reactor buildings is under way which will cost ¥31.9 billion [The Japan News, June 6, 2014]. Power consumption of 45.5 million kilowatt­hours of electricity equivalent to that of 13,000 ordinary households, running more than ¥1 billion annually will be needed to keep the underground walls frozen. Implementation of this progect is associated with many dificulties and its efficiency uncertain.

170 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Furthermore, some of the economic costs and impacts from the March 2011 disaster could hardly be measured in quantitative (e.g. monetary) terms such as: lost lives and piece of mind, destroyed livelihood and accumulated with many generations capital (community relations, permanent crops, livestock herds, established brands, networks), degradated natural resources (lands, waters, biodiversity, landscape, eco- systems), labor health implications (reduced productivity, increased healthcare costs) etc. [Bachev and Ito, 2013]. Particularly, in the first five months of 2014 police have recorded 90 cases of burglary in 8 municipalities surrounding the crippled nuclear plant, which totaled about 1,200 since 2011 [NHK World, June 12, 2014]. Excessive use of aging nuclear power plants is problematic both in terms of safety and cost [The Japan News, October 20, 2014]. In the wake of the March 2011 crisis, a new rule has been adopted that puts a reactor’s operating life at no longer than 40 years in principle135. Major utilities have set aside cash reserves to fund decommissioning costs but if a plant closes ahead of schedule and the reserve fund fails to cover decommissioning costs, a utility could face a huge financial burden. What is more, if reactors are decommissioned, host municipalities will be unable to receive subsidies from the central government and there will be negative impacts on local economy. Finally, the 2011 disasters has led to increased public concerns about disaster preparedness and management efficiency, and fundamental revisions of country’s disaster management, nuclear safety and energy policies. The later has been result of the 2011 experience and the post disaster reconstruction and development as well as some recent natural disasters like huge mudslides in Hiroshima (August 2014), unexpected volcanic eruption at Mount Ontake (September, 2014), strong Typhoon Vongfong (October 2014), and a 6.7 eartquake in Nagano prefecture (November 2014). Recent surveys indicated that 35% of industry sites see liquefaction risk [The Japan News, June 24, 2014], 76% of the public is concerned about aging infrastructure [The Japan News, July 2, 2014], over 70% of schools see risk of tsunami [The Japan News, April 7, 2014], around half of the municipalities within 30 km from nuclear power plants have yet to draw up plans for evacuation in the event of a nuclear accident [NHK World April 19, 2014], some prefectures failed to supply the iodine tablets required for people living within 30 km of nuclear power plants [NHK World, May 9, 2014], less than a half of companies in Tokyo store food and provisions for emergencies in spite of a legal requirement for businesses to prepare for possible large-scale disasters136 [The Japan News, May 26, 2014], nearly 30% (more than 17,000 districts) in mountainous regions as well more than 30% (about 6,300) of fishing villages in the country could become inaccessible in the event of a major earthquake or other natural disasters [NHK World, October 22, 2014], volcano experts are calling for a review of the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s safety requirements and taking into consideration the limitations of volcanic eruption prediction [NHK World, November 3, 2014], etc. A panel of nuclear experts137 monitoring reforms at the TEPCO maintains that the utility's nuclear safety culture “has not yet reached desired level in terms of preparing for the unexpected” [NHK World, May, 1, 2014]. TEPCO management problems led to troubles with systems used to purify contaminated water, repeated water leaks, and preparations for cleanup work. The experts recommend that the utility make sure workers are fully aware that they are dealing with a special plant, which caused an accident, and to learn from measures taken at overseas nuclear facilities. All these have been associated with new public and private measures to modernize infrastructure, enhance safety and disaster preparation, shift to renewable and energy saving technologies, etc. For instance, the Government set concrete numerical targets to promote the nation’s countermeasures to prepare for disasters and reduce damage on a long-term basis [The Japan News, May 16, 2014]. The two plans are compiled based on the basic law (December 2013) to make Japan more resilient against disasters138 and include measures such as: enhancing information and telecommunications networks, building road

135 Depending on approval by the Nuclear Regulation Authority, the operation of a nuclear facility could get a one­time maximum extension of 20 years. Of the nation’s 48 reactors, seven are about 40 years old. 136 E.g. metropolitan ordinance (April 2013) obliges all companies to store drinking water and food for 3 days for employees as a measure to help those who unable to go home after disater. 137 Independent advisory panel set up after the 2011 accident and chaired by the former US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein. 138 a basic plan on making Japan disaster ready and disaster resistant, and a 2014 action plan concerning numerical targets of respective measures. networks to enable drivers to take detours in the wake of major disasters and boosting the oil supply system, raise the completion rate of sea embankments from the current 31% (2012) to 66% by fiscal 2016, etc. Similarly, government obliges local governments to compile evacuation rules that limit the time for operating floodgates and tide gates in coastal areas139 in the event of tsunami [The Japan News, November 2, 2014]. In addition, multiple nuclear disaster drill has been held in vulnerable regions of the country (including Kawauchi, Fukushima prefecture) under the new disaster preparedness guidelines140, which highlighted existing problems [NHK World, November 3, 2014; The Japan News, November 22, 2014]. The new policy is that in the process of disaster preparation and responses the needs and desires of local people are to be addressed – e.g. in the process of reconstruction, land relocation planning, seawalls building, etc. For instance, 2011 disaster seriously damaged or destroyed 60% of seawalls with length of about 300 km in Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures. The central and prefectural governments are currently pushing a project to build 390 km of new seawalls with ¥800 billion from state coffers [The Japan News, June 23, 2014]. However, many communities are opposed141 to the project as local residents consider the proposed walls “too high” leaving less land available along the coasts, adversely affecting fisheries, and block ocean views, and affect negatively fishery and tourism industries on which local residents depend. What is more, cost-effectiveness of the seawalls is to be more carefully estimated142. Some communities have already lowered the planned height of seawalls, while taking such measures as transferring houses to higher ground and building seawalls in locations further inland. Some experts suggest that it is important to recover, preserve and expend coastal ecosystems such as coastal forests and igune not only as important ecological and cultural assets but as an effective measure for reducing damage from natural disasters143 [Ogata and Pushpalala, 2013]. The Cabinet Office has set up a new section dedicated to helping local municipalities prepare for accidents at nuclear power plants consisting of 50 workers from the Secretariat of the Nuclear Regulation Authority and other relevant government ministries and agencies [NHK World, October 14, 2014]. In November 2014 the Diet approved a bill to join an international treaty on sharing the costs of compensation in a nuclear disaster144 [NHK World, October 24, November 19, 2014]. The government expects the treaty to encourage foreign companies to join the cleanup and decommissioning of reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. There has been a response in private sector as well. For instance in October 2014 the Nuclear Risk Research Center was established as a part of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (run jointly by Japanese power companies) [NHK World, October 1, 2014]. The center's aim is to pinpoint associated risks, including those at plants that have met government requirements to restart, and help power companies fix the problems. According to the Center chief145 “Japan has been slow to introduce risk analysis because most people think everything that meets government requirements is safe, and such attitudes must change to ensure safety”.

139 There are about 27,000 floodgates and tide gates nationwide and 75% of them need to be manually closed if quake tremors are detected. In March 2011 eartquake 198 firefighters died or went missing and 30% were working to close such gates. 140 revised after Fukushima accident. Such drills have been organized every year since the 1999 accident at a nuclear- processing plant in Ibaraki Prefecture. 141 E.g. in Miyagi prefecture approval for the project is to be received from 40 of 276 communities where the construction of new seawalls is planned. Under its plan, Miyagi Prefecture will raise the height of seawalls from the pre­disaster average of 4 meters to 7.5 meters. However, that height will be insufficient to block gigantic tsunami such as in March 2011, which occurred once in a millennium. 142 The higher the seawall the more effective it is as a safeguard against tsunami. Higher seawalls are more expensive to construct, ruin scenic views, take a toll on the environment, and entail higher maintenance costs. The life of concrete seawalls is roughly 50 years, which makes rebuilding inevitable at some point in the future. 143 In 2011 disasters they prove particularly effective in reducing impact of tsunami, preserving houses from damages and debris. 144 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage obliging signatories to set aside 47 billion yen (about 400 million dollars) for compensation in the event of a nuclear accident. If the total damage surpasses this amount, other countries will provide funds to supplement it. The pact stipulates that a lawsuit for compensation can only be filed in a country where a nuclear accident occurred, and liability for damages is concentrated against a nuclear power plant operator. 145 George Apostolakis, specialized in analyzing risks at nuclear plants, served on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission until June 2014.

172 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The insurance industry is set to raise earthquake insurance premiums by an average 15.5% which is the first hike in 18 years [The Japan News, June 29, 2014]. Meanwhile, the proportion of newly concluded fire insurance contracts in fiscal 2013 (including earthquake damage coverage146) rose 1.6 percentage points from the previous year to a record high of 58.1%147 [The Japan News, August 26, 2014]. Miyagi prefecture saw the highest proportion (85.2%), as the pace of growth was the steepest in Hyogo (3.2 points), and third in Iwate, Tochigi, Kyoto, Tottori, Kagawa and Ehime prefectures (2.6 points). The Fukushima accident has triggered many anti-nuclear protests in Japan during 2011 [BBC News, 2011; Slodkowski, 2011] and afterwards. The previous Government of Yoshihiko Noda ordered all nuclear reactors to be stopped for safety checks, considered to freeze plans to build new reactors, questioned whether private companies should be running nuclear plants, and focus on reducing dependence from nuclear and promotion of renewable energy148. After the 2011 accident all nuclear reactors were shut down for maintenance or refueling, and for the stress tests demanded by the government. Only two were restarted (in the Ohi facility) but shut down on September 14, 2013 leaving all 48 commercial nuclear reactors off-line. Since then the Nuclear Regulatory Authority has received safety-screening applications for 19 reactors at 12 nuclear plants [NHK World, June 10, 2014]. Nuclear power accounted for 30% of the nation’s electricity generation before the nuclear crisis while now nearly 90% of the power generated by nuclear plants is being compensated for by thermal power [The Japan News, April 12, 2014]. The shortage of energy, the high energy149 and fuel import150 costs, and security risk from relying on imported energy have been pressing current government to speed up safety inspections and resuming operations of nuclear plants [The Japan News, July 18, November 7, 2014; NHK World, May 13, 2014]. In addition, the Government has been calling for power conservation without setting numerical power- saving targets anymore151 [The Japan News, May 16, November 3, 2014; NHK World, July 1, 2014]. Power suppliers have been worried about the possibility of electricity shortages and being hit by glitches152 [The Japan News, May 18, June 30, 2014], while most companies have been expending energy conservation technologies and products [The Japan News, May 18, 2014]. Nevertheless, eight of the 10 regional power utilities, including TEPCO, continue to secure recurring profits153 due to postponement of equipment renovation and higher efficiency in thermal power operations [The Japan News, November 1, 2014]. The schedule for safety inspections is uncertain and no nuclear reactors restarted by the end of 2014 due to lack of readiness154, uncompleted formal procedures155 or strong opposition by local governments and

146 Earthquake insurance, offered as an option to fire insurance, covers damage to housing and household goods from temblors, tsunami and volcanic eruptions. 147 As of the end of March, the number of earthquake insurance contracts in force stood at 15,838,144, up 5.2% from a year before. That is all-time high for the 11th straight year. 148 Energy White Paper (October 2011) calls for a reduction in the nation’s reliance on nuclear power omitting a section on nuclear power expansion in the previous year’s policy review. 149 Electricity rates TEPCO charges households have risen by 40% from before the crisis, while Kansai Electricity Power Co. have increased by nearly 30% [The Japan News, April 12, 2014]. Electricity bills for households have jumped about 20% and for businesses about 30% [The Japan News, May 30, 2014]. According to experts as things stand now, the additional rate hikes are inevitable. 150 In 2013, imports of fossil fuels including liquefied natural gas as a percentage of GDP stood at 5.7% - higher than in 2008 (5.5%) when the prices of resources soared, and in 1974 (5.4%) during the first oil crisis [The Japan News, June 18, 2014]. 151 since summer 2014. Government worries that it will restrict corporate activities and hinder economic recovery. 152 In fiscal 2013, a total of 169 cases of thermal power plant shutdowns, mainly due to glitches, were reported by 9 of 10 regional power suppliers – that is up 70% from 2010 level. 153 in April-Setember 2014 TEPCO reported profit of ¥242.8 billion, a second straight profit and even topping the ¥201.3­billion profit before the nuclear accident. Only Hokkaido Electric Power Co. and Kyushu Electric Power Co. suffered recurring losses since they relied heavily on nuclear energy. 154 Nuclear Regulation Authority criticized the plant operators being not serious enough about improving safety and attitude simply aiming to satisfy screening criteria [NHK World, June 25, 2014]. 155 E.g. formal approval by the local authorities. communities, including a court ban156. Recent court order against resuming operations at the Ohi nuclear plant could affect other similar lawsuits across the country157 [NHK World, May 21, 2014]. There have been numerous protests and a lawsuit against reopening Sendai nuclear station in Kagoshima prefecture scheduled to be the first resuming operations [NHK World, May 30, June 1, June 13, 2014]. Recently the hosting city assembly and prefectural government approved the Sendai plant restart, and operations will likely resume early next year after all safety inspections are complete [NHK World, October 20, November 7, 2014]. According to the March 2014 survey, 59% of the respondents opposed to the restart of nuclear plants, outnumbering the 28% supporting the move [The Asahi Shinbun, March 18, 2014]. In all previous surveys (July and September, 2013, January, 2014) the majority of respondents (56%) opposed the restart of reactors. Furthermore, regarding a nuclear phase-out plan, 77% supported it while only 14% opposed it. Asked about how anxious they feel about the possibility of a serious accident at a nuclear power plant other than the Fukushima plant, 36% said they were “greatly” anxious, and 50% were anxious “to some degree”. August 2014 survey also indicated that more than 60% of local governments that host or surround a nuclear power plant158 are cautious about restarting idled reactors even if they meet new safety guidelines [NHK World, September 8, 2014]. About 67% report they were undecided whether to approve the restart of reactors, about 12% said they will approve or hope to approve in the future, while 8% indicated they will not approve or will never approve159. The major reason for opposition or cautious for 30% is because inspections by the nuclear regulating body have not yet finished, for 25% that the central government has not yet dealt with the issue, and for 23% because residents are worried. The basic energy plan160 of the new Abe administration defined nuclear energy as “an important base load electricity source” and clearly stated that nuclear power plants will resume operations after safety is confirmed [The Japan News, April 12, 2014]. The nuclear reactors will be restarted since the new safety guidelines (introduced in July 2013) are the strictest in the world and the safety inspections will confirm compliance. Energy industry reaction has been to maintain nuclear – e.g. in 2014 shareholders meetings of TEPCO, Kansai Electric Power Company and Kyushu Electric Power Company the anti-nuclear proposals of not restarting and scrapping nuclear reactors have been rejected [HNK World, June 26, 2014; The Japan News, June 26, 2014]. Nevertheless, there is strong opposition to restart nuclear power plants by various groups, including some prominent politicians (like Ex-PMs Junichiro Koizumi and Morihiro Hosokawa)161 suggesting that nuclear power is not safe, it is the most expensive, disposal cites for nuclear waste are not secured, the evacuation routes not secured, and anti-terrorism measures insufficient [NHK World, July 7, September 24, November 2, 2014]. The lack of a single power outage since the nuclear reactors have been offline is evidence that people can live without nuclear energy and calls for more renewables. Anti­nuclear power groups also criticize the Nuclear Regulation Authority for the conflict of interests of the appointed new Commissioner (Satoru Tanaka) with close ties with the industry compromising the watchdog's neutrality [NHK World, July 8, July 16, 2014]. Experts suggest that further delays in restarting reactors at the nation’s nuclear power plants will slow the recovery of the domestic economy, while the resumption of reactor operations could halve Japan’s trade deficit [The Japan News, July 26, 2014]. According to estimate, if all 19 reactors162 resume operations in fiscal 2015 the total nuclear power generation would be less than a half of the output of fiscal 2010. That will reduce

156 Most lawsuits since late 1960s by residents seeking to halt nuclear facilities have been dismissed [NHK World, May 21, 2014]. On May 20, 2014 the Fukui District Court ordered Kansai Electric Power Co. not to restart 3 and 4 reactors at Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture becouse safety of the idled reactors is not ensured. It was the first court order in Japan to ban nuclear plant operations since 2011 nuclear accident. The lawsuit was filed by 189 local residents in November 2012 claiming that plant operator underestimate of possible earthquakes and reactors lack sufficient cooling systems. 157 There are now about 30 lawsuits pending against 16 nuclear plants and other nuclear facilities in Japan, including those under construction or in the planning stage. 158 Included 146 prefectures and municipalities within a 30-kilometer radius of a nuclear power plant. 159 There is no legal framework for the government to obtain approval from local municipalities to restart reactors. 160 Which serves as a guideline for the government’s energy policy. 161 Who launched an organization dedicated to ending Japan's reliance on nuclear power [NHK World, May 7, 2014]. 162 Nuclear Regulation Authority is currently inspecting the safety of 19 reactors at 12 nuclear plants. If all 19 reactors resume operations, nuclear power generation capacity would be 124.3 billion kilowatt­hours.

174 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 the nation’s trade deficit163 to ¥7.2 trillion, providing certain conditions (such as overseas economic growth) are met. If 19 reactors resume operations, imports of fossil fuels are estimated to total ¥25.8 trillion in fiscal 2015. This is ¥900 billion lower than the ¥26.7 trillion in fossil fuel imports estimated under the scenario of having just 9 reactors in operation, and ¥1.5 trillion lower than when no reactors operate in the nation. In the latter case, imports were predicted to reach ¥27.3 trillion. Under such circumstances, the cost of power generation is likely to rise to ¥11.2 per kilowatt-hour from ¥8.2 in fiscal 2010, putting additional upward pressure on electricity prices164. Moreover, if the price of crude oil rises by $10 per barrel, imports of fossil fuels will increase ¥1.9 trillion, which is likely to lower the nation’s gross domestic product by 0.2%. Therefore, the progress of safety inspections at the nuclear reactors will have a significant impact on the Japanese economy165. Due to the suspension of nuclear reactors the thermal power generation accounted for 88% of Japan’s electricity supply in fiscal 2013, increased by 26 percentage points from 2010 [The Japan News, June 18, 2014]. The nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in fiscal 2012 soared about 8% from those in 2010 as utilities discharged about 30% more gases contributing to global warming [The Japan News, May 30, 2014]. The government intends to diversify energy sources aiming to raise the share of renewable (solar, wind, hydro and geothermal) energy in the electricity supply to more than 13.5% of the nation's electricity in 2020, and more than 20% by end of 2030, from about 10% in 2012 [The Japan News, April 4, 2014]. It also started reexamining the renewable energy purchase system making it mandatory for electric power companies to purchase electricity generated by renewable energy sources (solar and wind power) at fixed prices166 for up to 20 years [The Japan News, July 8, 2014]. Large numbers of applications have been filed for solar power generation, which entails relatively high purchase prices. Since the utilities pass the costs to the consumers the amount in a typical family’s utility bill soared from ¥87 to ¥225 a month in 2014167. It is estimated that higher power costs have been also hampering pay rise of manufacture industry workers in average lost salary per year ¥52,000 [The Japan News, September 4, 2014]. In order to make up for a maximum 40% increase in electricity costs in comparison to pre­disaster levels, workers could see their annual pay cut by as much as ¥100,000 while if manufacturers deal with the situation by reducing employment as many as 180,000 jobs could be lost. Another problem is that operations have started at only 10% of the approved mega solar power plants168. Seven of the nation’s 10 major utilities (including Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Kyushu Electric Power Co.) are freezing new applications by producers keen to access their grids with electricity generated through solar, wind and other renewable sources since they exceeded the capacity their grids can accept169 [The Japan News, October 9, 2014]. A major weak point of solar and many

163 Which hit a record high of ¥13.8 trillion in fiscal 2013. In January­June 2014 Japan’s trade deficit hit ¥7.6 trillion, the worst since such records began in fiscal 1979. The surge is mainly accounted for by growing imports of such fossil fuels as oil and liquefied natural gas. 164 If no reactors resume operation, the power generation cost will surge to 13 – 60% higher than the price in fiscal 2010 - making it difficult to avoid further electricity rate hikes. 165 NRA has given priority to safety inspections on reactors at Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai nuclear power plant, and they are expected to resume operations early 2015. Dates for restarting the remaining reactors are unknown and restarting all 19 reactors in fiscal 2015 is considered difficult. 166 Purchase prices have been set at levels more than double those in Europe. 167 Households and businesses will have to pay ¥38 trillion in the next two decades because of surcharges on utility bills [The Japan News, July 8, 2014]. 168 This may be an attempt to increase profits by building facilities at a time when solar panel prices decrease after obtaining approval for undertaking projects when purchase prices are high. Official survey on 4,700 large solar power projects that have yet to begin generating electricity resulted in canceling certification on 144 after considered as inappropriate (The Japan News, July 8, 2014). 169 If renewable energy providers approved by the government were all operating, they would have a supply capacity of 70 million kilowatts, which is 90% of the government’s target (20%). Furthermore, latest survey indicates that combined acceptance capacity of utilities is up to 47% of the total authorized amount of 30 million kilowatts - e.g. Kyushu Electric and Tohoku Electric will only be able to accommodate accordingly about 8 million kilowatts and about 5-6 million kilowatts compared to 18 and 12 million kilowatts to be generated by authorized renewable energy suppliers in their service areas [The Japan News, December 7, 2014]. other renewable energy sources is that output can fluctuate sharply depending on weather conditions and the time of day. Failure to maintain a steady balance with demand presents the risk of disrupting the frequency and voltage of electricity supplies, which could in turn cause power outages and damage equipment and facilities170. Calculations of independent experts also shows that the electricity from nuclear power is the second cheapest energy to produce at ¥8 per kilowatt-hour171 even after such expenses as costs related to accident compensation were factored the production cost rose to ¥8.4 [The Japan News, October 26, 2014]. Production cost of electricity from renewable energy sources is comparatively high – e.g. large mega solar power facilities generate electricity at ¥30.6 per kilowatt-hour, electricity from wind power cost ¥21.2 per kilowatt-hour, etc. Beside, some renewable energy producers have been gleaning excessive profits while users have borne the financial burden. The government has limited the role of the Atomic Energy Commission an advisory panel that has served to promote nuclear energy for over half a century172 [NHK World, April 18, 2014]. The commission no longer will draw up the policy and focus to solving problems related to nuclear power, such as how to deal with radioactive waste and what do to with damaged Fukushima power plant. The number of commissioners has been also reduced (from 5 to 3) and a new code of conduct introduced to ensure neutrality and transparency. A bill has been enacted for the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund’s reorganization to allow the state-backed body to provide financial assistance for decommissioning the reactors at Fukushima nuclear plant [The Japan News, May 14, 2014]. The government will take the lead in work to decommission the reactors and contain the radioactive water at the nuclear plant. The body will provide TEPCO with technical instructions on how to proceed with the decommissioning work, monitor whether the utility maintains adequate budget and manpower for decommission, and promote development of related technologies. The government is also planning to review the law on compensation for accidents at nuclear power plants according to which the power companies in principle bear unlimited responsibility for damage payments in the event of an accident [NHK World, June 3, 2014]. The Government has been taking action to increase transparency following the failure to do so in the first days after the nuclear accident. It announced that will publicize interviews with TEPCO and government officials about the accident173 if they give consent [HNK World, June 5, 2014]. TEPCO shareholders are also asking the government to release interviews since they are important for examining responsibility for the accident, and plan to take legal action if it is turned down [HNK World, June 5, 2014]. 6. Impacts on agri-food chains There have been a huge number of destructed agricultural communities, farms, and agricultural lands and properties from the March 2011 disasters (Picture 5).

170 Greater the use of renewable energy, more adjustments must be made to the supply of electricity generated through such sources as thermal power generation. Greater amount of electricity from renewable could be accepted through installing huge storage batteries and building more transmission lines to share surplus. Implementing later steps on a large scale will come with a price (trillions of yen) but there are not even rules in place for covering such expenses. 171 After coal (¥7.8). All expenses including the building and maintenance of plants were factored into the costs of energy, including the processing of spent fuel rods in the case of nuclear power. 172 Commission’s role came under review following disclosures 2 years ago that it held secret meetings only with pro­nuclear parties (power utilities and bureaucrats) during compiling the policy. 173 A government appointed accident investigation committee interviewed 772 people after the 2011 accident for a report. Until now they have not been disclosed on grounds that they were conducted with understanding that the government would not do so.

176 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Tohoku Chiikizukuri Picture 5. Minamisanriki (Shizugawa Ward) before and after 2011 tsunami The total number of damaged Agricultural Management Entities of different type (private farms, corporate entities, cooperatives, local public bodies, etc.) reached 37,700 or around 16% of all Agricultural Management Entities in the affected eight prefectures (Table 14). Reported area of agricultural land damaged by the 2011 disasters in the six coastal and six inland prefectures is around 24,500 ha (Table 15).

Table 14. Number of damaged Agricultural Management Entities by 2011 earthquake (March 11, 2012) Total number of Damaged agricultural Entities damaged by Prefectures Agricultural management entities tsunami entities Number Share - % Number Share - % Aomori 3,733 180 4.8 170 4.6 Iwate 35,321 7,700 21.8 480 1.4 Miyagi 47,574 7,290 15.3 6,060 12.7 Fukushima 50,945 17,200 33.8 2,850 5.6 Ibaraki 56,537 1,430 2.5 180 0.3 Tochigi 25,010 1,330 5.3 - - Chiba 17,224 1,220 7.1 430 2.5 Nigata 5,311 1,190 22.4 - - Nagano 312 210 67.3 - - Total 241,967 37,700 15.6 10,200 4.2 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Table 15. Area of damaged agricultural land by the 2011 earthquake (March 11, 2012) Damaged agricultural Tsunami damaged Share of completely Share of restored Prefectu land agricultural land restored agricultural tsunami damaged res Area % in total Area % in damaged land (%) land (%) (ha) cultivated land (ha) land Aomori 107 0.1 77 72 94.4 92.2 Iwate 1,209 0.8 725 60 22.2 3.9 Miyagi 14,558 10.7 14,341 98.5 33.3 32.5 Fukushi 5,927 3.9 5,462 92.1 9.3 4.1 Ibaraki 1,063 0.6 208 19.6 90.1 97.1 Chiba 1,162 0.9 663 57.1 100.0 100 Totaasal 24,026 2.7 21,476 89.4 32.9 27.3 Yamagta 1 0.0 - 0 100.0 - Prefectu Damaged agricultural Tsunami damaged Share of completely Share of restored res land agricultural land restored agricultural tsunami damaged Tochigi 198 0.1 - 0 land (%) 98.0 - land (%) Gunma 1 0.0 - 0 100.0 - Saitama 39 0.0 - 0 100.0 - Niigata 117 0.1 - 0 73.5 - Nagano 95 0.1 - 0 69.5 - Total inl 451 0.1 - 0 85.8 - TOTAL 24,477 1.6 21,476 87.7 33.8 27.3 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

There have been registered damages in 36,092 places including: damaged agricultural land in 18,186 areas, damaged agricultural facilities (mainly storage reservoirs, drains, pumps, shore protection facilities for agricultural land) in 17,317 points, damaged coastal protection facilities for agricultural land in 139 points, and damaged facilities for daily life in farming villages (mainly community sewerage) in 450 points [MAFF, 2014]. Furthermore, there has been radioactive contamination of farmlands from the nuclear accident’s fallout (Map 11). Recent survey in the most affected regions shows that contamination with cesium of paddy fields ranges from 67 up to 41,400 Bq/kg and other lands (arable, meadows, permanent crops) from 16 to 56,600 Bq/kg (Table 16). There has been also enormous destruction of livestock, fruit trees and crops in affected by the disasters regions. The total crop and livestock damages from the 2011 earthquake are estimated to worth 14.2 billion yen [MAFF, 2012]. In Aomori, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures alone the registered livestock damages include 187 dairy heads (171 drowned and 16 crushed or starved), 458 beef cattle (466 drowned and 12 crushed or starved), 5,850 hogs (4,037 drowned and 1,813 crushed or starved), and 4,549,620 poultry (174,800 drowned and 4,374820 crushed or starved) [Tohoku Agricultural Administration Office, 2011]. Damages on farms have been particularly big in areas around the Fukushima nuclear plant, where most agricultural land, livestock and crops were heavily contaminated and destructed [Koyama, 2012, 2013; Watanabe, 2013]. In the most affected evacuation areas farming activity has been suspended or significantly reduced, and majority of livestock and crops destroyed.

Source: MAFF, 2012 Map 11. Farmland soil radiation (Mar. 23, 2012)

178 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Table 16. Share of contaminated with Cs farmlands, as of December 28, 2012 (percent) Prefecture Paddy fields Other farmlands s Range 500- 1000- > Range 500- 1000- > 0-500 0-500 (Bq/kg) 1000 5000 5000 (Bq/kg) 1000 5000 5000 Miyagi 72-1,310 61.9 28.6 9.5 0 110-860 50 50 0 0 Fukushima 50-41,400 39 16.1 40.8 4 40-56,600 34.3 21.2 41.6 2.9 Ibaraki 0 0 0 0 230-560 50 50 0 0 Tochigi 110-1,040 50 41.7 8.3 0 62-2,630 66.7 11.1 22.22 0 Gunma 85-170 100 0 0 0 49-560 95 5 0 0 Chiba 67-120 100 0 0 0 < 16-190 100 0 0 0 TOTAL 67-41,400 4.2 17.8 35.6 3.4 16-56,600 46.2 19.2 32.4 2.2 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

According to the officials the number of farm households in the evacuation zones was 5,400 and the farming area 11,000 ha, including 73.3% of paddy fields, 25.6% of uplands, and 1.1% permanent crops [Fukushima Prefectural Government, March 2012]. That comprises 8% of the total number of farmers and 9% of the farming area in Fukushima prefecture in 2010. The numbers of beef cattle in the evacuation areas was 10,836, of milk cows 1,980 and of pigs 40,740, accounting respectively for 15%, 12% and 22% of the overall numbers of livestock in 2011. The estimate figure for chickens was 1,589 or 30% of the total number in the prefecture in 2009. A large scale contamination of crops, livestock and agri-food products by radionuclides has happened as a result of the direct radiation exposure, the fallouts and distributed by wind and rains radioactive elements, the crop and livestock uptakes from leaves, soils, waters and feeds, the diffusion from affected inputs, buildings and equipment, the dissemination through transportation and wildlife, etc. Up to the Fukushima nuclear plant accident there had been no adequate system for agri-food radiation regulation and inspection to deal with such a big disaster [MAFF, 2011]. On the wake of the accident a number of measures were taken by the government to guarantee the food safety in the country. Within a week from the nuclear accident (March 17, 2011) Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare introduced Provisional regulatory limits for radionuclides in agri-food products174 (Table 17). Table 17. Provisional regulatory limits for radionuclides in agri-food products (Bq/kg) Products I-131 Cs-134 + Cs-137 Drinking water 300 (100)* 200** Milk/Milk Products 300 (100)* 200** Vegetables/Fish 2000 500** Cereals/Meat/Eggs - 500** Note: *for infants; ** values take into account the contribution of radioactive strontium Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

On 29 March 2011, the Food Safety Commission of Japan drew up a report guaranteeing that the ongoing measures based on provisional regulation values are effective enough to ensure food safety for consumption, domestic distribution and exportation. On 4 April 2011 the authorities decided to use the ongoing provisional regulation values for the time being and set up provisional regulation value for radioiodines in seafood on the next day. During the year after the nuclear accident officials tested 137,037 agri-food samples across the country and detected 1,204 cases (0.88%) exceeding the provisional safety limit in 14 prefectures [Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare]. Most of the contaminated food samples were in Fukushima prefecture (59.63%), followed by Saitama (10.55%), Ibaraki (7.14%), Tochigi (6.23%) and Miyagi prefectures (5.32%). The share of contaminated items

174 Based on intervention exemption level of 5 mSv/y and 50% contamination rate [MHLW, 2011]. in all inspected samples was highest in Saitama (3.64%), Fukushima (3.33%) and Kanagawa (1.98%) prefectures, and in Tokyo (1.42%). The majority of highly contaminated items In Fukushima prefecture were vegetables, fishery products and meats, in Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures vegetables, in Miyagi prefecture beef, in Tochigi prefecture vegetables and meats, in Saitama prefecture and Tokyo tea leafs. More than 3600 fishery products were tested in Fukushima prefecture during the first year after the accident, and 34.7% of them found above 100 Bq/kg [Fishery Agency, 2014]. In the rest of the country from almost 5000 inspected fish samples 4.5% were above safety norm. The mandatory and voluntary restrictions on shipment covered a number of products from designated areas of affected regions. In addition, there was a ban on rice planting on 8000 ha of paddies in evacuation (95%) and other contaminated areas [MAFF, 2012]. What is more, several municipalities (Minami-shi, Hirono- machi, Kawauchi-mura and Tamura-shi) called for voluntary restraints on planting of paddy rice on total area of 5,600 ha. In order to meet growing public safety concerns since April 1, 2012 new175 official limits on radioactive cesium176 in food items have been enforced in the country (Table 18). Four categories of Drinking water, Infant foods and Milk, and General foods are distinguished, and new safety standards are more stringent than in international ones177. Table 18. New Standard limits for radionuclides in food in Japan (Bq/kg) Food item Cs-134 + Cs-137 Drinking water 10* Milk 50* General Foods 100* Infant-food 50* Note: * limit takes into account the contribution of radioactive strontium, plutonium etc. Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

For some raw materials and processed food (like rice, beef, soybean) were set transitional measures and longer periods (until December 31, 2012 or “the best before date”) for complete enforcement of the novel safety standards. (Figure 26). In the last two years the number of (official, collective, private) food inspections has multiplied in the 17 most vulnerable prefectures178 and around the country. Officially tested food items doubled in 2012, 0.85% of all samples were found exceeding safety limit for radionuclides, and a few highly contaminated items were detected in 4 more prefectures (Aomori, Nigata, Yamanashi and Hiroshima) (Figure 27). The biggest number of unsafe food items was detected in Fukushima (58.05%), Iwate (10.96%), Tochigi (10.79%), and Miyagi (6.91%) prefectures. The portion of highly contaminated food items was biggest in samples from Fukushima (3.95%) and Iwate (1.03%) prefectures. Most of the detected items were fishery products, wild animal meats, vegetables and mushrooms. In Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, and Iwate prefectures there were also detected samples of drinking water exceeding safety standard.

175 Annual maximum permissible dose from radioactive cesium in foods reduced from 5mSv to 1mSv - the same level as Codex GLs [MHLW, 2012]. 176 Standard limits are not established for radioactive Iodine, which has been no longer detected (short half-life), and Uranium, which level is almost the same in the nuclear power plant site as in the nature environment [MHLW, 2012]. 177 E.g. maximum allowed radioactive substances in EU and USA in grains are accordingly 1250 Bq/kg and 1200 Bq/kg, in vegetables 500 Bq/kg and 1200 Bq/kg, in drinking water 100 Bq/l and 1200 Bq/kg. 178 Regular tests on 98 items have been carried out in Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Akita, Yamagata, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Niigata, Yamanashi, Nagano, and Shizuoka prefectures.

180 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Figure 26. Transitional measures for enforcement of new standards for radionuclides in food in Japan

350000 321688

300000 278275

250000

200000 Tests

150000 137037 Above safety 100000 level 50000 1204 2372 974 0 Until March 31, April 1, 2012- April 1, 2013- 2012 March 31, 2013 March 12, 2014

Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Figure 27. Number of radionuclide food tests and items above safety standard in Japan In FY 2013 the number of inspections increased further but only 0.30% of samples were found with level higher than the safety standard179. The bulk of highly contaminated items were in Fukushima prefecture (62.42%) followed by Gunma (10.99%), Tochigi (8.42%) and Miyagi (8.32%) prefectures. The greatest segment with highly-contaminated items was detected in samples from Fukushima (1.5%) and Yamanashi (1.18%) prefectures. Most of the detected items in Fukushima prefectures were fishery products, agricultural products (vegetables, soybean, rice, etc.) and wild animals meat; in Miyagi prefecture agricultural products (bamboo shoot, vegetables, etc.), wild animal meat and fishery products; in Gunma and Tochigi wild anima meats; and in Yamanashi prefecture mushrooms.

179 No drinking water sample above safety limit was detected. Official inspections results in the last two years indicate that for all agricultural food products, but mushrooms and wild edible plants, the number of samples with radioactive cesium above safety limits is none or insignificant (Table 19).

Table 19. Results of inspections on radioactivity levels in agricultural products in Japan* Products March, 2011 - March 31, 2012 April 1, 2012 – April 1, 2013 – March 31, 2013 March 31, 2014 Above Above Number Above Above Number of Number of provisional new of maximum maximum samples samples limit limit samples limit limit Rice 26,464 39 592 10.4 milln 84 11 million 28 Wheat and burley 557 1 27 1,818 0 592 0 Vegetables 12,671 139 385 18,570 5 19,657 0 Fruits 2,732 28 210 4,478 13 4,243 0 Pulse 698 0 16 4,398 25 6,727 59 Other plants 498 1 16 3,094 14 1,613 0 Mushrooms and wild 3,856 228 779 6,588 605 7,583 194 edible plants Tea/Tea infusion** 2,233 192 1,562 867** 13** 446** 0** Raw milk 1,937 1 7 2,453 0 2,052 0 Beef 91,973 157 1096 187,176 6 208,477 0 Pork 538 0 6 984 1 693 0 Chicken 240 0 0 472 0 385 0 Egg 443 0 0 565 0 418 0 Honey 11 0 1 124 0 66 0 Other livestock 23 0 0 99 1 118 0 Note: * for crops in 17 northeastern and eastern prefectures, for livestock products all prefectures Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Test data for marine fishery products radioactive contamination also indicate that the number of cases above safety limit has dropped considerably (Figure 28). In Fukushima prefecture, in the months after the accident, the share of highly-contaminated fish was 57.7% but it reduced by half after one year. The portion of samples above safety limit decreased considerably to around 1.5-1.7% in the last three quarters180. In other prefectures the share of contaminated fish decreased from 4.7% to less than 1% in 3nd quarter of 2012. Currently there are still a number of products from certain areas of 17 prefectures, which are subject to mandatory or voluntary shipment restrains181. In Fukushima prefecture mandatory and voluntary restrictions cover a wide range of vegetables, fruits, livestock and fish products grown in heavily contaminated areas. In addition, there is still a ban on rice planting on 2,100 ha (almost 3 times lass than in 2013) and overall production management restrictions on 4,200 ha paddies in the evacuation area.

Source: Fishery Agency Figure 28. Monitoring results for marine fishery products radioactive levels in Japan

180 After the 2nd quarter of 2012, monitoring has been focusing on species that have records more than 50 Bq/kg. 181 More details and updates on requests for shipment restrains and other measures are available at: http://www.maff. go.jp/e/quake/presssince130327.html

182 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The official estimate for the inflicted damage on agriculture by the 2011 earthquake is 904.9 billion yen182 (Figure 29). The biggest share of the damages is for agricultural land (44.3%) and agricultural facilities (30.4%), followed by the coastal farmland protection facilities (11.3%), community facilities (7%), agricultural livestock etc. (mainly country elevators, agricultural warehouses, PVC greenhouses, livestock bams, compost depos) (5.4%), and agricultural crop and livestock etc. (1.6%).

142 493 Agricultural land 633

Agricultural facilities etc.

1022 4006 Coastal farmland protection facilities

Community facilities

2753 Crop and livestock, etc.

Livestock production facilities, etc.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Figure 29. Damages to agriculture from 2011 earthquake as of July 5, 2012 (100 million yen) The greatest amount of damage has incurred in Miyagi prefecture representing 56.5% of the total worth (Figure 30). The second most affected prefecture was Fukushima with 26.4% of the total damage. Iwate and Chiba prefectures have also incurred considerable damages - 7.8% and 4.8% of the total.

Nigata Shizuoka Nagano Kanaga… Chiba Saitama Gunma Tochigi Ibaraki Fukushi… Yamaga… Akita Miyagi Iwate Aomori 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Agricultural land Agricultural facilities etc. Coastal farmland protection facilities Rural community facilities

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Figure 30. Damages to agriculture in different prefectures from 2011 earthquake as of July 5, 2012 (100 million yen)

A survey on economic situation of agricultural management entities in the tsunami damaged areas have found out that in 2011 the sales revenues from agricultural products dropped by 68% comparing to 2010 and the agricultural income by 77% [MAFF, 2013]. The biggest decrease in sales and income experienced farmers in Miyagi prefecture, followed by producers in Iwate and Fukushima prefectures (Figure 31). Severe blows on

182 Damage to Sector Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2,426.8 billion yen) is 18 times as large as for 2004 Nigata Chuetsu Easrtquake and about 27 times bigger than for 1995 Great Hanshin Easrtquake [MAFF, 2013]. sales and income were registered by producers in the three dominant type of farming in the region as those specialized mainly in facilities vegetables saw the highest decrease in sales and income (86% and 76% accordingly), followed by the rice and open field vegetable producers [MAFF, 2014]. There have been some improvements in sales and incomes in all areas but in 2013 they were still far bellow the 2010 level – 24% and 36% accordingly [Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2014]. The fastest recovery has been registered in Miyagi farms’ sales and income (49% and 48% increase), followed by the Iwate (23% and 32% increase) and Fukushima (21% and 13% increase) producers’ results. The slower growth of income compared to sales (in Iwate and Fukushima prefecture) was due to the higher costs associated with the post-disaster cleaning and rebuilding. There has been a good progress in recovery of sales and income of rice and vegetable farms but in 2013 their levels was still considerable lower than in 2010. The fastest income growth was registered by the rice producers (54%) due to restoration of farmland and augmentation of sales (62%). The slower pace of post-disaster recovery in the facility grown vegetables was caused by the prolonged farmland restoration and the high (facility) rebuilding costs after the land restoration is complete and operation resumed [Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2014].

100 80 60 Iwate prefecture 40 Miyagi prefecture 20 Fukushima prefecture 0 Sales Income Sales Income Sales Income

2011 2012 2013 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Figure 31. Evolution of agricultural sale and income of agricultural management entities in tsunami-damaged areas (2010=100) In the first year after the disaster there was augmentation of the agricultural output value in 69.8% out of the 43 tsunami-damaged municipalities. In the rest of the affected municipalities there was no progress (11.6%) or even a reduction (18.6%) in the agricultural output, including in 58.3% of the damaged municipalities in Iwate prefecture, a half in Aomori prefecture, 26.7% in Miyagi prefecture, 16.7% in Ibaraki prefectures, and zero in Fukushima and Chiba prefectures [MAFF, 2013]. There are official estimates on some of the damages from the Fukushima nuclear disaster as well. After the nuclear accident, the Gross Agricultural Product in Fukushima prefecture shrunk by 47.9 billion JPY [MAFF]. Furthermore, there has been agriculture-related damages amounted to 62.5 billion JPY (by May 2012). The annual loss from the nuclear accident in the prefecture is estimated to be around 100 billion JPY [Koyama, 2013]. Some of the direct damages to farms production and marketing have been specified with the compensation claims of farmers to TEPCO. By mid April 2013 demand compensation though the Fukushima Taskforce was 109,3 billion yen, while the received compensation were 97,2 billion yen or 89% of the demand (Figure 32). Most of the claims have been for lost work due to evacuation orders and for crops damages. Until May 2012 the amount of compensation demands reached 62.5 billion yen with a greatest portion of claims being for the untilled land (compensation for suspension of work) horticulture and livestock damages (Table 20). The amount of money received as compensation for the same period accounted for 73% of the claimed damages.

184 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Fukushima Prefectural Union of Agricultural Cooperatives Figure 32. Claims for damages against TEPCO by the Fukushima Prefecture JA Group Table 20. Breakdown of Fukushima Prefecture Union Compensation Claims (100 million yen）

On May 1, 2012 On May 1, 2013 Claims Value Share in total (%） Value Share in total (%) Rice 11 1.8 32 2.9 Horticulture 130 20.8 264 24.2 Fruit 62 9.9 75 6.8 Milk 18 2.9 20 1.8 Livestock disposal 99 15.8 100 9.2 Other livestock damages 85 13.6 162 14.8 Pasture 27 4.3 50 4.6 Untitled land (for work suspension) 163 26.1 325 29.8 Business damages 30 4.8 64 5.8 TOTAL 625 100 1,092 100 Source : Central JA Union for Fukushima Prefecture

The progress in compensation payments has been slow and uneven due to the delays in TEPCO’s review process and demands for further documentation, lack of sufficient funds for satisfying all claims, multiple disputes, etc. Besides, there has been no amelioration in the payments of compensation due to the lack of funding and multiple disputes. TEPCO continues to receive claims for damages of farmers and agri-food business from around the country. However, up to date total amount of claims received by and paid to different affected agents is not easy to find. According to JA almost 100,000 farmers lost about 58 billion yen ($694 million) by March 1, 2012 or 25% of production [Takada and Song, 2012]. Published information for TEPCO payments to Groups Representing Victims for 2011-2012 shows that Agricultural Cooperatives received 280,400 million yen [Nomura and Hokugo, 2013]. The greatest share of the groups agricultural payments went to Fukushima (29.8%), Ibaraki (13.8%) and Shizuoka (10.4%) prefectures. Nevertheless, all these assessments do not include important “stock damage” (material funds, damage to production infrastructure, contamination of agricultural land, facilities for evacuation, and usage restrictions on machinery) as well as the loss of “society-related capital” (diverse tangible and intangible investments for creating production areas, brands, human resources, network structure, community, and cultural capital, ability to utilize resources and funds for many years). According to experts the later losses are quite difficult to measure and “compensate” [Koyama, 2013]. Likely wise, much of the overall damages from the 2011 disasters on farmers livelihood and possessions, physical and mental health, environment, lost community relations etc. can hardly be expressed in quantitative (e.g. monetary) terms. Many farms livelihood and businesses have been severely destructed as a result of loss of life, injuries and displacement, and considerable damages on property (farmland, crops, livestock, homes, material assets, intangibles such as brands, good reputation, etc.), related infrastructure, and community and business relations. What is more, thousands of farmers in Fukushima and neighboring regions have been continuing to suffer enormously from the radioactive contamination of farmlands and agricultural products, the official and/or voluntary restrictions on production and shipments, and the declined markets and prices for their products [JA ZENCHU, 2012; Koyama 2013a, 2013b; Ujiie 2011 and 2012; Watanabe, 2011; Wataname 2013]. There has been a significant short and longer-term negative impact of the triple disaster on farm management entities in the most affected prefectures and beyond. According to a survey disaster affected negatively almost 55% of Japanese farms (Figure 33). A 2012 survey has found out that the most severely affected have been farmers in Tohoku and Kanto regions, and the least affected in Hokuriko and Kinki regions. In the worst hit Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, and Chiba prefectures more than 88 89% of all farms “are still affected” or “were affected in the past” from the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident. Among different sectors of agriculture the most farms have been affected by the disasters in beef and facility flowers production (Figure 34). The major reasons for the negative impacts of the triple disasters have been “decline in sell prices” and “harmful rumors” while the damaged inputs supply and production affected less farms (Table 21). What is more, for farmers still affected by the disasters the importance of the first two factors increased considerably in 2012 comparing to the disaster year.

Kyushu

Kinki

Hokuriko Currently still affected

Kanto It was affected but not now Not affected until now Tohoku

Japan 0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: Japan Finance Corporation

Figure 33. Adverse effect of Great East Japan Earthquake on farm management in different regions of Japan (March 2012) Broilers Pigs Dairy Currently still Facilities flowers affected Tea It was affected but not now Open field vegetables Rice 0 20 40 60 80 100 Source: Japan Finance Corporation Figure 34. Adverse effect of Great East Japan Earthquake on farm management in different subsectors of Japanese agriculture (March 2012)

186 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Table 21. Reasons for those who are currently adversely affected in different regions (August, 2011; January 2012)* Damage to Damage input Damage to Decline in sell Harmful rumors production supply distribution prices 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Japan 24.5 23.2 41 27.1 44.4 33 65.8 74.4 52.8 60.5 Hokkaido 12.6 14.1 55.9 39.7 34.4 31.3 63.5 79.8 44.1 46.4 Tohoku 46.3 38.2 51.5 25.2 60.8 41.0 55.2 65.8 58.3 72.0 Kanto 34.1 26.1 28.8 17.6 45.2 27.8 69.6 72.8 72.9 76.1 Hokuriko 12.4 14.8 47.6 29.6 40 24.1 44.8 63 45.7 55.6 Tokai 7.6 7.3 30.5 18.2 41.9 34.5 86.7 87.3 35.2 43.6 Kinki 5.4 11.4 25 28.6 29.3 25.7 73.9 77.1 44.6 28.6 Chugoku- 6.3 9.7 31.7 23.9 33.7 29.2 72.6 80.5 38.0 50.4 Shikoku Kyushu 8.6 9.1 27.9 29.9 40.5 32.5 77.5 86.8 37.5 36 Source: Japan Finance Corporation Note: *multiple answers

There has been a great variation in the importance of different factors affecting producers in individual sectors of agriculture (Table 22). For instance, “damaged production” has been a major factor for the most broilers producers, “damaged input supply” for the majority of pigs, upland crops, and open field vegetables producers, while “declined sell prices” and “harmful rumors” impacted farmers in all sectors. Furthermore, in 2012 the impact reduced sell prices further increased for most subsectors, while of the harmful rumors for all producers.

Table 22. Reasons for those who are currently adversely affected in different subsectors (August 2011; January 2012) Damage to Damage input Damage to Decline in sell Harmful rumors production supply distribution prices 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Rice 26.3 27.4 48.8 32.3 36.7 33.5 41.2 55.9 53.7 67.9 Upland 10.4 16.3 63.6 55.6 32.9 34.1 50.3 73.3 41 49.6 crops Open field 9.2 19.9 41.4 43.8 38.5 42.5 81 70.5 51.7 54.8 vegetables Facilities 28.3 32.7 24 35.6 41.9 36.5 78.7 65.4 48.4 54.8 vegetables Tea 13.5 13.4 8.7 15.9 40.4 34.1 69.2 67.1 80.8 87.8 Fruit trees 14.7 21.3 35.3 20 42.2 41.3 56.9 65.3 49.1 61.3 Facilities 15.5 19.8 26.8 25.2 52.1 27 88.7 88.3 14.6 19.8 flowers Mushrooms 23 38.3 27 36.2 48.6 31.9 77 76.6 44.6 57.4 Dairy 32.3 26.3 50 21.2 42.9 29.8 71.8 84 57.1 58.2 Beef 22.4 18.4 29.5 10.5 55.9 35.6 96.7 94.8 87.4 80.8 Pigs 49 22.8 66.9 16.5 56.6 15.2 35.2 75.9 34.5 53.2 Hens 37 18.2 47.8 12.1 45.7 24.2 28.3 78.8 41.3 27.3 Broilers 67.7 72.7 90.3 45.5 51.6 18.2 6.5 36.4 6.5 63.6 Source: Japan Finance Corporation Note: *multiple answers

One year after the disasters around a third of damaged agricultural land was completely restored, including 27% of the tsunami damaged farmlands. During the same period about 90% of tsunami-afflicted farmland was cleaned of rubble, a large part of agricultural infrastructure reconstructed (including 100% of major draining pumping stations and 7.3 km priority restoration zones of coastal farmlands, and 92% of the rural community sewages) [MAFF, 2012]. Consequently, 70% of all damaged farms in 9 prefectures and 40.2% of tsunami damaged farms in 6 prefectures and 40% of resumed farming (Figure 35).

100 Iwate 80 prefecture

60 Miyagi prefecture 40 Fukushima prefecture 20 Total 3 prefectures 0 Total 9

prefectures

Tsunami- damaged Tsunami- damaged Tsunami- damaged

Damaged Damaged Damaged Source: MinistryMarch of 11,Agriculture, 2012 ForestryMarch and 11, Fisheries 2013 February 1, 2014 Figure 35. Share of agricultural management entities, which resumed farming (percent) By March 2013 restoration and salt removal on 38% of the tsunami-damaged farmland was completed and they were available for farming (with restoration on another 63% ongoing) [MAFF, 2013]. That was close to the target in the 3 years plan for complete restoration of tsunami-damaged farming set by the Basic Guidelines for Reconstruction of Agriculture and Rural Communities after the Great East Japan Earthquake. The latest figures indicate that 63% of tsunami damaged agricultural land has been made again available for farming [Reconstruction Agency, 2014], and more than 55% of the affected farms resumed operation. The biggest progress in restoration of the damaged farms has been achieved in Iwate prefecture and for the tsunami damaged farms in Miyagi prefecture. On the other hand, in Fukushima prefectures restoration of operations in damaged farms has been progressing slowly. Until June 2014 merely 29.9% of the tsunami- damaged farmland has been restored and become resumeable for farming, 82.3% of damaged agricultural facilities have been restored, and 60.9% of agricultural management entities resume operations [MAFF, 2014]. Similarly, merely 69.3% of the planed agricultural lands (paddy, upland, orchards and pastures) from the Municipality decontamination area have been actually decontaminated [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Moreover, some parts of heavily contaminated areas remain almost untouched and probably require a long time before farming can be resumed. Major reasons for “not resuming farming” in the three most affected prefectures have been the impact of nuclear accident, unavailable arable land, facilities and equipment, undecided place of settlement, and funding problems (Figure 36). Moreover, importance of most of these factors has been decreasing due to progression in reconstruction, returning of evacuees, restoration of farmlands and public support measures. On the other hand, the significance the nuclear crisis as a reason deterring effective resumption of operations by majority of farms has been increasing. Most critical factors for “not resuming farming” for majority of farms in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures have been unavailable arable land and facilities (Figure 37). Other important factors for a significant number of farms in these prefectures are that farmers have still not decided on the place of settlement (affecting 60% of damaged farms in Iwate prefecture), funding of farming activities is an issue, and equipment can not be secured. On the other hand, the most important obstacle to restart operations for the most Fukushima farmers has been the “impact of nuclear accident”.

188 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

90 Place of settlement not 70 desided Not arable land and facilities 50 Equipment cannot be 30 secured Not enouph labor 10 Funding is consern -10 March 11, 2012 March 11, 2013 February 1, 2014

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2014

Figure 36. Reasons for not resuming farming in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, multiple answers (% of farms)

There is no official statistics on whether farmers have been able or not to harvest any produce on officially restored land in affected prefectures. However, there are reports that some of already desalinated and restored tsunami-damaged farmland is still unproductive. For instance, farmers have been unable to harvest any soybeans in a 30­hectare area out of planted nearly 45 hectare field in Rokugo, Eastern Sendai [Ishikawa and Ishikawa, 2014]. According to farmers remained high salt concentration in the farmland soils might have been reason for that.

100 Place of settlement not 80 desided 60 Not arable land and facilities 40 Equipment cannot be secured 20 0 Not enouph labor Iwate prefecture Miyagi prefecture Fukushima prefecture

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2014 Figure 37. Share of farms with diverse reasons for not resuming farming, multiple answers (%) After March 2011 the food industry in the disaster regions and throughout the country was also seriously affected by the production drops, business suspensions, distribution ruptures, etc. due to damaged plants, rolling blackouts, packaging material production shortages, gasoline shortfalls, etc. [MAFF, 2011]. Regular surveys on food industries dynamics reviled that 71% of the country’s food companies were “affected” by the March disasters, including more than 35% “still affected” at the beginning of 2014 (Figure 38). The strongest hit were food-industry companies in Tohoku’s most affected regions (Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures) (92.5%) and in Northern (84.6%) and Southern (82.3%) Kanto region. Similarly, 57.9% of country’s food companies have been negatively affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster as about 35% still affected in the beginning of 2014 (Figure 39). The most severely affected have been the companies in Northern Kanto (83.4%) and in Tohoku’s Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures (81.9%). There is difference in the adverse impact in different subsectors of food industry. According to 2014 survey the earthquake and tsunami have affected negatively the selling prices, procurement of ingredients and raw materials, and demand from trade partners of a good number of food industry companies [Japan Finance Corporation, 2014]. Disasters affected uniformly strong the Procurement of ingredients and raw materials of the majority of companies in all subsectors. In addition, disasters affected the Demand from trade partners of many companies in Wholesale trade, and the Sales volume, number of consumers, and the Price of ingredients and raw materials in Restaurants business. Fukushima nuclear disaster has also affected mostly Demand from trade partners, Sales volume, and Procurement of ingredients and raw materials of many food companies. However, while most food Manufactures and Wholesale traders suffered mainly from the decrease in the demand of trade partners, for the most the Restaurants operators and Retailers the Procurement of ingredients and raw materials has been

predominately affected by the nuclear accident.

Kyushu

Shikoku Chugoku

Kinki Still affected at present

Tokai Unaffected at

present Hokuriko

Koshinetsu/ Unaffected

Chiba,

Tokyo,

Saitama, Kanagawa

Unknown

Tochigi

Ibaraki,

Gunma,

Akita,

Aomori,

Yamagata

Iwate,

Miyagi,

Fukushima

Hokkaido Japan

0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: Japan Finance Corporation Figure 38. Earthquake-tsunami disaster effects on food industry in Japan (January, 2012, 2013, 2014)

190 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

2014 2013

Kyushu 2012 2014 2013

Shikoku 2012 2014 2013

Chugoku 2012 2014

2013 Kinki 2012 2014 2013 Tokai 2012 2014 2013 Still affected at present

/Hokuriko 2012 Koshinetsu Unaffected at present 2014 Unaffected

2013 Chiba, Tokyo, Unknown

Saitama, 2012 Kanagawa 2014

2013

Tochigi Ibaraki, Gunma, 2012 2014

2013

Akita, Aomori,

Yamagata 2012 2014

2013 Iwate,

Miyagi, 2012 Fukushima 2014 2013

Hokkaido 2012 2014 2013 Japan 2012

0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: Japan Finance Corporation

Figure 39. Impact of Fukushima nuclear power plant accident on food industry in Japan (January, 2012, 2013, 2014)

Due to genuine or perceived health risk many Japanese consumers stop buying agricultural, fishery and food products originated from the affected by the nuclear accident regions (“Northern Honshu”). Even in cases when it was proven that food is safe some wholesale traders, processors and consumers restrain buying products from the contaminated areas [Futahira, 2013; Koyama, 2013; MAFF, 2012; Watanabe 2011, 2013]. After the nuclear accident, there was a considerable decline in absolute and relative prices of affected farm products and products from the contaminated regions. Fukushima prefecture has lost its comparative advantage to other farming regions. For instance, there was a considerable decline in the wholesale prices of beef cattle in Fukushima prefecture and in Japan after the accident (Figure 40). The prices in the country have been recovered and there has been gradual recovery of beef prices in Fukushima prefecture as well. Nevertheless, prices for different categories of beef are still 12-13% lower in Fukushima comparing to Japan. There have been similar trends for rice and vegetables as well [Watanabe, 2013].

2500

2000

1500 Fukushima A5 Fukushima A4 1000 Japan A5 500 Japan A4 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 2011 2012 2013

Source: Central JA Union for Fukushima Prefecture

Figure 40. Evolution of wholesale prices for beef cattle in Fukushima prefecture and other parts of Japan (yen per kg)

There has been significant change in the purchase behavior of a great number of consumers after the March 2011 disasters. The July 2011 survey found out that a good share of consumers decreased the purchased amount of fresh (10.6%) and processed (9.8%) food, ornamental flowers (21.6%), confectionary (15.2%), etc. [Japan Finance Corporation]. On the other hand there is an increase in purchase mineral water (17.6%). These changes were more dynamic in the worst affected East Japan than in the other parts of the country. In the months after the earthquake, the item most emphasized by the consumers at the time of purchase of fresh food was “production location” and for processed food the “origin of raw materials” [Japan Finance Corporation]. However, for the majority of consumers there was not change of the place to buy fresh (88.5%) and processed (89.1%) food comparing to the pre-duster period [Japan Finance Corporation, 2011]. The consumer attitude to purchase food products from the affected by the nuclear disaster regions has evolved in post disaster years (Figure 41). Currently, relatively more and more consumers do not mind the impact of the nuclear disaster when purchase agri-food produce. Nevertheless, still significant share of consumers do not buy fresh (31.8%) and processed (28.3%) products from that regions because of the impact of the nuclear disaster.

192 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Processed

2013 Fresh Do not know Do not buy fresh/processed food Processed

No chance to buy 2012 Fresh Do not buy because of impact

Processed Conscious but buy products Do not mind about impact 2011 Fresh

0 10 20 30 40

Source: Japan Finance Corporation Figure 41. Awareness when purchase fresh and processed food from the region after Fukushima nuclear power plant accident (July 2011, January 2012, January 2013)

Recent data indicate that a good portion of Japanese consumers (36.5%) “often” or “sometimes” purchase purchase foodstuffs from affected by the 2011 disasters areas (Figure 42). The latest figure is much higher in Tohoku region then in the other parts of the country.

Kyushu, Okinawa Shikoku Chugoku Kinki Often Chubu Sometimes Kanto Small Tohoku No impact Hokkaido Do not know Japan

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Source: Japan Finance Corporation

Figure 42. Purchase of (processed goods and agricultural products) foodstuffs produced in areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake (including eating out) (January 2014) Nevertheless, for a great proportion of the consumers it is important to select the region of agro- food products and they purchase “rarely” or “not at all” from the affected regions. Many consumers in the affected regions and throughout Japan have seen their direct procurement (e.g. prices) and transaction (information, search, assurance etc.) costs for supply of needed safe agri-food relatively from alternative regions, countries or guaranteed sources increased [Bachev and Ito, 2013]. However, there are no detailed studies on these effects of the nuclear disaster yet. Nevertheless, some research proves that a major way to minimize the transaction costs for supply of radiation safe product from a big number of costumers is to use “origin of product” selective governance [Uijie, 2012]. A segment of consumers went even further to purchase only from the “guaranteed sources” like some Tokyo residents using direct sales contract to buy rice from Kyushu farms [Kakuchi, 2013]. On the other hand, some Fukushima farmers see growing new crops (like cucumbers) and opting for direct sales to customers (rather than supermarkets) as a way to recover operations. Some experts argue that both producers and consumers are victims of the “reputation damage” [Koyama 2013]. According to 2013 survey 26.1% of the consumers do not even know that inspections of radioactive contamination are being conducted [Consumer Affair Agency, 2013]. In order to facilitate communication with consumers, promote and recover Fukushima agricultural products numerous initiatives have been undertaken by farmers, agricultural organizations, NGOs, authorities, business, retailers etc. such as: direct sells by farmers, on spot radiation tests, recovery markets, Farmers’ Document and Farmers Café events, government “Eating for support” initiative, joint ventures with shops, promotion complains with participation of top officials, celebrities, journalists, and farmers in big cities, international fairs etc. [Fukushima Minpo News, January 27, 2014; Inoue, 2014; The Japan News, March 8, 2014; Koyama, 2013; NHK World, May 17, September 21, 2014; MAFF, 2014]. Fight against “harmful rumors” that led to plummeting prices and sales of farm products have been also a high priority for local and national authorities. For instance, Fukushima prefecture is spending about 1.7 billion yen ($16.6 million) this fiscal year to fight rumors about radiation - fourfold budget increase over the previous year [Inoue, 2014]. Dynamics of demand has been a result of lack of sufficient capabilities in the inspection system, inappropriate restrictions (initially covering all shipments in a prefecture rather than from contaminated localities), revealed rare incidences of contamination in generally safe origins, low confidence in the official “safety” limits and inspections, lack of good communication, harmful rumors (“Fu-hyo”), and in certain cases not authentic character of traded products [Bachev and Ito, 2013]. The “reputation damage” has been particularly important factor for the big agri-food producing regions like Fukushima, Ibaraki etc. which products have been widely rejected by consumers [Futahira, 2013; Fukushima Minpo News, May 11, 2014; Koyama, 2013; Watanabe, 2013]. The 2011 disasters also affected considerably the international trade with agricultural products. Around 40 countries imposed restrictions on agri-food import from Japan after the nuclear accident, including major importer such China, United States, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea. The European Union required food and animal feed from 12 prefectures to be checked prior the export to prove that radioactive iodine and cesium levels do not exceed EU standards. In addition, agri-food items from 35 other prefectures had to be shipped along with a certificate of origin to verify where the products were produced. Few months after the nuclear crisis some countries (like Canada, Thailand) lifted or eased restrictions on Japanese food imports. Rice exports to China with government-issued certificates of origin and produced outside the prefectures Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Niigata, Nagano, Miyagi, Saitama, Tokyo, Tochigi and Saitama became possible in April 2012. In October 2012, EU also substantially eased import restrictions from 11 prefectures but kept restrictions for products from Fukushima prefecture. Radioactive material tests certificates are usually required [MAFF, 2014]. By March 1, 2013 as many as of 10 countries completely lifted radionuclide related restrictions on food products from Japan including Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Columbia, Guinea, Myanmar, Malaysia and Serbia [Reconstruction Agency, 2014]. Due to the foreign countries’ import restrictions and the experienced damages, the value of Japan’s farm and livestock product exports declined substantially - in April-December 2011 the export plunged by 40.9 billion yen (11%) from the year before [MAFF, 2012]. Furthermore, in January-March, 2012 the value of country’s export of agricultural products was 89 million (12.77%) lower than for the same period before the disaster. Consequently, there was a considerable decease in the overall agricultural (including fields crops and livestock products) as well fishery products export in 2011 (Figure 43). At the same time, there was a significant increase in the import of agricultural, forestry and fishery products as imports of farm products jumped 16% to 5.58 trillion yen in 2011 (Figure 44).

194 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

300.000 250.000 200.000 2010 150.000 2011 100.000 2012 50.000 0 Agriculture Field crop Livestock Forestry Fishery total products products products products

Source: Statistical yearbook of MAFF Figure 43. Dynamics of agricultural, forestry and fishery export of Japan (million yen)

6.000.000 5.000.000 4.000.000 2010 3.000.000 2.000.000 2011 1.000.000 2012 0 Agriculture Field crop Livestock Forestry Fishery total products products products products

Source: Statistical yearbook of MAFF Figure 44. Dynamics of agricultural, forestry and fishery import of Japan (million yen) In April-December 2012 it was registered a 5.98% growth in the export of agricultural products of the country [MAFF, 2014]. Moreover, a slight augmentation of the annual exports of agricultural and field crops products was reported but the export value was still bellow 2010 level. The overall import of agricultural and crop products decreased but it was still above the pre-disaster levels. At the same time fish products exports continue to enlarge. There have been also positive effects on product, technological and organizational development and innovation in agriculture and related industries. The enormous public funding as well as the novel business possibilities (and restrictions) have created new opportunities for revitalization and expansion of farming and agri-business in the most affected regions and beyond trough technological and organizational modernization. There have been huge incentives for investment in soil decontamination, emergency aid, agri-food safety, production recovery and modernization, product and technologies innovations and diversification, agri- food marketing, reconstructing of business and infrastructure, other public and private research and development projects. All they have been opening up more entrepreneurial, employment and income opportunities for agricultural and general population, and diverse form of business and non-for profit ventures. According to experts there are many companies (especially from outside of affected areas) wanting to lease in abandoned farmland and start large-scale corporate farming. That will let consolidate and enlarge farm size, introduces large-scale machineries and innovations, explore economies of scale and scope, increase investment and efficiency, diversify and improve competitiveness of farming enterprises. In a line with new policies for agriculture (decentralization, liberalization, land consolidation, etc.) and intention to use Tohoku reconstruction as “a model for the entire country” new approaches for accumulating farmlands have been also reviewed. The goal is to promote land accumulation by leasing farmlands to current or future farm operators. For instance, since April 2013 the Sendai city in collaboration with the JA Sendai introduced a new approach to “bulk management of farmland” (Figure 45). Sendai city and JA Sendai act as intermediary by implementing bulk lease management practices of farmlands in the relevant areas so that borrower farmer are able to cultivate land that have been consolidated in a single place according to the scale of their farming and the status of operations.

Source: City of Sendai, 2014

Figure 45. Bulk management approach for farmland consolidation in Sendai

The experience with reconstruction Sendai agriculture shows a good result – e.g. the East Sendai District Farmland Consolidation Project covers 1,979 ha out of the 2,244 ha of the total District area [City of Sendai, 2014]. The ratio of consent by the landlords for farmland consolidation is 94.6%. Furthermore, new technologies have been widely experimented and introduced in disaster areas. For instance, a large futuristic vegetable plant has been recently opened led by Fujitsu Ltd. (Picture 6). Aizuwakamatsu Akisai Vegetable Factory uses renovated 2,000 m2 idle semiconductor-manufacturing clean (free of environmental contaminants and pests) room facility of the company in Aizuwakamatsu, Fukushima Prefecture [Fukushima Minpo News, 26 January 2014]. Production technology is chemical-free and completely controlled to maintain optimal growing and atmospheric conditions.

Source: Lisa, 2014

Picture 6. Aizuwakamatsu Akisai Vegetable Plant, Picture 7. Solar sharing project in Factory, Fukushima prefecture Odaka district, Fukushima prefecture

The factory produces low-potassium leaf lettuce on a demonstration basis handling the whole process of production ranging from seed sowing to shipment. Initial daily output of 1,800 heads of leaf lettuce is to be boosted to a maximum 3,500. Production space will be also expanded (by 1,000 m2) in the future. About 30 people are employed as staff is expected to increase as output grows. The product, containing 86% less potassium on average, is intended for people suffering from chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis. It is also kid-friendly since a low nitrate level makes it less bitter and more appealing to children.

196 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Another prospective technology invented in Japan is “solar sharing” - a process in which farmers generate solar power on the same land where they grow crops. Farmers in Fukushima prefecture have been testing that new technology and hope to sell power to help improve farmland or cover losses in income caused by radiation fears [Asiaone News, June 26, 2013]. In Minami­Soma, the prefectural government has begun a model project (Picture 7). A 2,000 square meter piece of farmland in the city’s Odaka district is an example of solar sharing. On the farmland, 500 solar panels, each 70 centimeters by 1.6 meters, are installed atop 1.9­metre poles. Below the rows of panels, eggplants, chili peppers and produce are grown on an experimental basis. Other innovations have been also experimented. For instance, Dutch bio-farming company Waterland International and a Japanese federation of farmers made an agreement in March 2012 to plant and grow camellia on 2000 to 3000 ha [The Mainichi Shimbun, Aril 4, 2012]. The seeds will be used to produce bio- diesel, which could be used to produce electricity. The affected region has a big potential for production of clean energy since some 800,000 ha could not be used to produce food anymore. Experiments have been carried out to find out whether camellia was capable of extracting cesium from the soil since experiment with sunflowers had no success. Increasing applications of ICT in agriculture have been also reported leading to precision technologies, higher farming productivity, efficient use of resources, enhanced food safety, and improved relations with counterparts and consumers [NHK World, July 15, 2013]. 7. Environmental impact The March 2011 disasters have had enormous environmental impacts [Kontar at al., 2014; ME, 2013; NASA; Urabe et al., 2013; UNSCEAR, 2014; WWF, 2013]. There have been numerous surface ruptures, ground cracks, mass movements (rock falls and landslides), land uplifts and subsidence, alterated landscape and seacoast in affected by earthquake and tsunami areas. Furthermore, a huge amount of rubble and debris have been created after the disaster. Most of these damages and waste have been “trivial” and once the infrastructure is repaired, none of them will matter at all [McNeill, 2011]. What is more, the large-scale reconstruction plans for the affected areas have included appropriate measures for rebuilding and better disaster protection of communities, cleaning and recycling of debris, and recovery and conservation of natural environment [Iwate Prefecture, 2011; Sendai City, 2011; Fukushima Prefectural Government, 2012; Government of Japan, 2014]. The earthquake and tsunami have caused huge destructions of soils, landscape, natural flora and fauna, and entire coastal ecosystems. Unknown number of wildlife have been killed, injured or displaced. Large land areas have been damaged by the seawaters, salinity and other pollutants, and become unsuitable for farming and natural habitats. Tsunami badly affected about 1,718 ha of coastal disaster-prevention forests in 253 sites situated over an extensive area from Aomori to Chiba [Ministry of Environment, 2012]. In Rikuzentakata, Iwate the destruction left nothing but a single tree out of a coastal protection pine forest with more than 60,000 trees planted two century ago [National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2011]. In addition, many traditional Igune were destructed by tsunami and consequently cut because they were composed by badly damaged by salt water Japanese cedar [Ogata and Pushpalala, 2013]. One year after the tsunami, the landscape near the mouth of the Kitakami River183 remains irrevocably altered, farmland north and east of nearby Nagatsura become river bottom, the river mouth widened, and water from Oppa Bay crept inland, leaving only a narrow strip of land and new islands near the river mouth [National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2012]. Similarly, tsunami tide swept away all fishing weirs and hatcheries in Kido River which boast large numbers of returning salmon on Honshu island184 [Fukushima Minpo News, April 16, 2014]. A trial study in

183 In March 2011 wide swaths of floodwater covered the north and south banks of the river channel, and sediment fills the river's mouth. Research suggests that waves from the tsunami traveled nearly 50 km upstream from the mouth of Kitakami River [NASA, 2012]. 184 On April 15, 2014 Naraha fisheries cooperative released young salmon into the river for the first time since the disaster. It is considering rebuilding hatcheries and resuming egg collection/hauling in fall 2015 in hope to restart release of self-hatched young salmon in spring 2016 [Fukushima Minpo News, April 16, 2014]. 2013 has found out that both fish born before the and after disaster are returning185 to rivers significantly altered by the tsunami [NHK World, November 20, 2014]. Only a third of salmon born before the disaster made their way upstream while 38.88% never entered rivers since environs changes (riverbeds and embankments) may make it difficult to find a way back. A study has found out that soil liquefaction in the March 2011 earthquake was more widespread than previously thought [The Japan Times, Match 6, 2014]. Nearly 9,700 zones in 189 municipalities across 13 eastern and northeastern prefectures experienced soil liquefaction due to the earthquake, and while reclaimed land along coastlines was especially susceptible, it also occurred inland along rivers and land developed for housing. Monitoring of the changes in vegetation in areas submerged by the tsunami along the Pacific coastline shows that “Changed to barren land” areas (where weeds grow abundantly in damaged areas) occupies the greatest share - around 30% of the total area (Figure 46). This is followed by “Changed for artificial use” such as developed lands and debris storage areas etc. (10% of the overall area). After the disaster “Changed to barren land” occupies a significant portions in Iwate (40%), Fukushima (40%), and Miyagi (30%) prefectures while “Flowed out/Sink areas” are seen in about 5% of the land in these prefectures.

Source: Biodiversity Center of Japan, Ministry of Environment, 2013 Figure 46. Vegetation changes in areas submerged by March 2011 tsunami (percent) In other prefectures “No change” areas are prevailing. However, in some places like Sosa City and Yokoshiba-Hikari Town of Chiba prefecture “Remained Forest” and “Lodging/Die back” areas occupied the greater share. Monitoring on changes in the sandy and muddy beaches due to the tsunami also indicates that “Sand dune vegetation” and “Coastal forest” were vastly reduced and mostly were transformed through man-made developments or changed into “Barren lands” included under “Others” (Figure 47). “Sand dune vegetation” in Aomori prefecture, “Sand dune vegetation” and “Coastal forest” in Miyagi prefecture, and “Coastal forest” in Chiba prefecture were changed to “Others” by almost the same extent in terms of the area. Natural environment survey in Matsukawaura Lagoon has found out a trend toward recovery of species numbers and population densities of benthic animals, forest bird species declined due to the elimination of coastal forests, while some water bird species showed an increase in numbers [World Wide Fund, 2013]. Besides, a large amount of water springs is observed due to ground subsidence, suggesting the possibility that a sandy environment will be sustained. In Shizugawa Bay rocky-shore denudation was still observed despite the decrease in algae-eating animals such as sea urchins [World Wide Fund, 2013]. In surveyed two bays there are new kinds of places functioning as habitats for living creatures including remaining driftwood and concrete rubble, swamp environments that appeared on land due to ground subsidence, and unused rice fields.

185 Salmon usually returns to its river 3 to 5 years after birth.

198 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Biodivercity Center of Japan, 2013 Source: Biodivercity Center of Japan, 2013

Figure 47. Changes in areas of beaches Figure 48. Distribution of seaweed Algae in due to March 2011 tsunami (ha) Mangokura lagoon in 2006 and 2012

Monitoring of the marine environment has found out a great disturbance of Zostera forest caused by the tsunami (Figure 48). For instance, in Mangokuura lagoon, Ishinomaki City, the ground was seen to have subsided by about 0.9-1.5 meters, becoming muddy as sludge accumulated, distribution area of the Zostera was drastically reduced, and their population growing from the coast up to about 100 meters out at sea was exterminated. The study of Sendai Bay and the Sanriku Ria coast showed that 30–80% of taxa indigenously inhabiting intertidal flats disappeared after the tsunami [Urabe et al., 2013]. Among animal types, endobenthic and sessile epibenthic animals were more vulnerable to the tsunami than mobile epibenthic animals like shore crabs and snails. At the same time, some species reallocated or increased their population after tsunami. For examples, Scopimera globosa and Grandidierella japonica not seen before the disaster in Gamo lagoon, Sendai city have been observed and their population increased [Biodiversity Center of Japan, 2013]. Other study have also confirmed that tsunami not only took away many benthic taxa from the intertidal flats but also brought in some taxa from elsewhere [Urabe et al., 2013]. Enhanced habitats in the seawater have been also reported due to reduced fishing after disasters [Biodiversity Center of Japan, 2013]. For instance, estimated number of chub mackerel in waters near Kinkasan is now 2.6 times higher and there are 80% more adult fish than in the summer of 2010 [The Japan News, March 29, 2014]. The study on marine pollution has found out that PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), HBCDs (brominated flame retardants) and PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers, brominated flame retardants) were detected in all analyzed marine life [World Wide Fund, 2013]. High concentrations of HBCDs were detected in some specimens and PCB concentrations in Pacific cod were found to be about four times higher than before the earthquake and tsunami disaster. A positive correlation was seen between trophic level (level in the food chain) and concentration of PCBs, HBCD and PBDEs, suggesting bioconcentration throughout the food chain. The radiation contamination after Fukushima accident has also affected the natural environment. Experts suggested similar to the Chernobyl accident biological anomalies in plants and animals such as population decease, mutations, etc. [Akimoto, 2014; ISHES, 2011; Nakanishi and, Tanoi, 2013]. For instance, a study on the effects of radioactive contamination following Fukushima disaster demonstrated that the abundance of birds was negatively correlated with radioactive contamination, and that among 14 species in common between the Fukushima and the Chernobyl regions, the decline in abundance was steeper in Fukushima [Møller et al., 2012]. A year after the nuclear disaster scientists found (“unexpected”) mutated butterflies suggesting that mutations have been passed down from the older generations. Other studies have also reported a link between elevated radiation levels after nuclear disaster and abnormalities in insects such as pale grass blue butterfly [Hiyama et al., 2012]. Radioactive isotopes originating from the Fukushima nuclear reactor were found in resident marine animals and in migratory Pacific Bluefin tuna, which caused a worldwide public anxiety and concern [Fisher et al., 2013]. Diverse studies on sea and fresh water fish in vast areas suggest that concentration of Cs has not decreased suggesting additional uptake [Buesseler, 2014; Mizuno and Kubo, 2013]. The United Nations assessment on the effects of nuclear accident on non-human biota inhabiting terrestrial, fresh-water and marine ecosystems concluded that radiation exposure have been high in the most contaminated areas, and there are risks for individuals of certain species, but it is geographically constrained with no long-term effects on populations [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2014]. Nevertheless, experts warned for follow up assessments of exposure and trends in marine environment. More recent scientific models suggest that radiation exposures to wildlife within 100 km of the power plant were not high enough to cause a long-term harm such as prevent populations of plants and animals from reproducing and surviving [Strand et al., 2014]. Nevertheless, there have been some impacts on wildlife in contaminated areas. For example, evacuation zones have become home to an increasing number of wild animals like rats, boars and their offspring with abandoned domestic pigs, etc. [NHK World, July 11, 2o13, May 6, 2014]. There have been reported changes in population, areas of habitation, behavior and eating habits of these wildlife. For instance, the wild monkey (Japanese macaques) population is rapidly increasing in Odaka Ward of Minami­Soma, which is under an evacuation advisory, and said to have reached about 390 or three times its pre-crisis level [The Japan News, August 22, 2014]. The monkeys and other animals found in evacuation advisory areas (such as wild boars and raccoons) believed to be expanding habitats taking over areas formerly inhabited by people. During the year ending in March 2014 the average radiation level in Fukushima forests fell to 0.44 microsieverts or more than a half compared to two years ago [NHK World, May 6, 2014]. The amount of radioactive materials in new leaves is about one fifth of those contained in leaves that started growing before the disaster. According to forecasts the forest radiation will drop to around 30% from the current level over the next 20 years. Officials say that workers' fear of radiation has led to abandonment of some forests and that is causing concern about long-term management of forestry resources. Recently it has been found out that most of the radioactive cesium that leaked from the Fukushima nuclear plant settled in a common mineral that comes from granite [NHK World, November 11, 2014]. According to scientists it is important to identify how the element exists in the soil predicting that most of the radioactive cesium in Fukushima soils is likely to be found in black mica. That finding is expected to encourage others to develop ways to remove it from contaminated lands186. The first assessments of “health effect” on farm and domestic animals and plants in the most affected areas have been also completed. Many of the farm livestock in the contaminated area has been slathered or died. However, a farmer M.Yoshizawa kept 360 cows187 alive at his 80­acre spread inside the nuclear evacuation zone in defiance of a government kill order [Uncanny Terrain; Fackler 2014]. The farmer could monitors effects of prolonged radiation and there are reports that white spots on the fur and skin are appearing on some of his Japanese black cattle [CAN, August 2013; Fackler 2014]. The first study of cattle abandoned in the evacuation area188 and euthanized indicates that in all examined specimens deposition of Cs 134 and Cs 137 was observed [Fukumoto, 2013]. Organ-specific deposition of radionuclides with relatively short half-life was also detected such as Silver-110m in the liver and Te 129m in the kidney. A linear correlation was found between radiosesium concentration in peripheral blood189 and in each organ as the resulting slopes were organ dependent with the maximum value obtained for skeleton muscles (Figure 49). The levels of rediosesium in the organs of fetuses and infants were 1.19 fold and 1.51fold higher than in corresponding maternal organs. Radiosesium concentration in organs was found to be dependent on the feeding conditions and the geographical locations location where cattle were caught. Radioactive Ag110m was detected in all the liver samples and no relation was found between the activity concentration in blood and liver. The data indicate that the liver is the primary target organ that accumulates silver.

186 Scientists still don't know how the radioactive cesium chemically combined with minerals in soil around the plant. 187 More than half are ones that others left behind. 188 79 cattle, including 3 fetuses from pregnant cattle and 3 mother-infant pairs, all obtained between August 29 - November 15, 2011. 189 Thus the activity concentration d Cs in organ can ne estimated from that of blood.

200 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Source: Fukumoto, 2013 Note: *Group 1 and 3 Minamisoma, Group 2 Kawauchi. Group 1 kept in stall barge after the accident, fed with radionuclide-free pasture grass and contaminated rainwater. Group 2 and 3 allowed to graze freely on contaminated grass. Figure 49. Cs analysis of different groups cattle* from evacuation area

As far as Te129m is concerned it was detected in 62% of cattle examined. Its deposition in kidneys suggests that Te132190 also accumulated in kidney shortly after the nuclear accident. These results suggest that monitoring of Te132 and I131 warrants more attention in terms of assessing health risk to the thyroid. The study have expended to measurement of radioactivity in animals other than cattle. It was found that the radioactivity in each organ was higher in swine than in cattle but its transfer to organs from the blood was higher in cattle than in pigs. Therefore, bio distribution of radioactivity substances is species-specific and that further study is necessary to assess the effect of radionuclides in humans. The study has also revealed that the problem is not only radioactive caesium but also other radionuclides. Analyses of this type191 are extremely valuable for the assessment of environmental pollution, bio distribution, metabolism of radionuclides, dose evaluation and the influence of internal exposure as well as likely consequences for humans from long-term exposure192. It is estimated that the Great Japan Earthquake generated more than 20 million tons of debris193 in the three most affected prefectures, of which about 5 million tons is estimated to have been washed out by the tsunami [Prime Minister of Japan and cabinet, 2014]. A major portion of the later (3.5 million tons) is considered to have deposited on seabed along Japan’s coast, and remaining 30% become floating debris. Since 2011 some 1.5 million tons of debris has been collected or sunk, and the amount of floating debris still drifting is considered to be less than 1.5 million tons. By March 2014 processing of all disaster debris and tsunami deposits were completed with exception of some (Evacuation) areas of Fukushima Prefecture [Reconstruction Agency 2014]. The official data indicate that almost all disaster debris were removed (99%) as treatment and disposal of 97% of them completed (over 80% recycled) (Figure 50). Similarly, around 96% of the tsunami deposit were removed and processing of 92%

190 With half-life 3.2 days and decay product I132. 191 The team collected tissue samples from different animals (cattle, swine, Japanese macaque, wild pigs, horses) which are currently being examined. 192 The amount of radioactivity concentration does not reflect biological effects but it is the first clue for understanding the biological effect of radiation. 193 Tsunami washed out collapsed houses, cars, woods, ships, aquaculture facilities, fixed fishing nets, cargo containers, etc. More than 90% of floating debris is parts of collapsed houses and driftwoods, which are difficult to sink. finished (almost all recycled). Approximately 85% of debris and nearly all of the tsunami deposits can be recycled, and materials used in public works projects in disaster-affected area [Ministry of Environment, 2014].

100 90 80 70 60 50 100 40 85 30 20 48 10 26 13 0 6 March 2012 May 2012 July 2012 Macrh 2013 September Macrh 2014 2013

Source: Reconstruction Agency Figure 50. Processing rate of disaster waste in coastal municipalities (percent) The major issues associated with the cleaning have been the availability and selection of storage sites, methods of incineration, decisions about recycling, and waste treatment and disposal [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2012]. Debris swept away by tsunami are still drifting in the Pacific Ocean with much of it washing ashore in North America [The Japan News, March 22, 2014]. According to the officials western U.S. coastline will continue to see debris for years to come contaminating seawater and beaches. It is estimated that about 400­thousand tons of the 1.5­million tons of debris adrift in the Pacific Ocean could reach the US and Canada by October 2014 [NHK World, May 5, 2014]. There have been found shellfish and algae native to Japan on debris that has already washed ashore causing concern about the creatures' possible impact on ecosystems [NHK World, May 5, 2014]. Japan's Environment Ministry has launch a 3 years study (starting July 2014) to find out whether the 2011 tsunami debris carries living organisms from Japan and what is their possible impact on ecosystems on North America's west coast. Recently the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sent marine experts194 to Japan to report their analysis of the seawater off the coast of Fukushima nuclear plant, and compare results from Japanese and IAEA laboratories to assess accuracy of Japanese data [NHK World, November 1, 2014]. The IAEA has been advising Japan to disclose comparative analysis of the results of more than one institution to enhance transparency and ease concerns of neighboring countries. A large-scale decontamination of soils, waters, infrastructure, property etc. has been going on involving central and local authorities, private and collective organizations, individual and communities efforts, etc. Consequently, a good progress has been achieved in cleaning up residential and natural environment in many places. A pilot work for forest decontamination in 4 Fukushima localities195 started in September 2014 (for completion March 2015), covering a forest area tens of hectares wide in each selected municipality [Fukushima Minpo News, July 31, 2014]. The demonstration work seek to lay the groundwork for resuming forestry business and reducing anxiety among evacuees hoping to return to hometowns as well identify effective methods of decontamination and ways to minimize workers' exposure to radiation.

194 From Environment Laboratories in Monaco who collected samples in September to examine the effects of radioactive materials on the ocean's ecosystem. 195 30 ha in Tamura city's Miyakoji district (evacuation order lifted in April, 2014); 10 ha each in Minamisoma city's Odaka district and Iitate village's Nimaibashi district; and 30 ha in Kawauchi village's Modo district (last three districts are designated as areas preparing for lifting of evacuation orders). Locations are privately owned where the central government is to undertake decontamination.

202 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

According to some experts the undertaken large-scale decontamination by the authorities and at grass- room level196 would create new environmental problems such as: huge amounts of radioactive waste, removal of top soil, damage to wildlife habitat197 and soil fertility, increased erosion on scraped bare hillsides and forests, and intrusion by people and machinery into every ecosystem scheduled for remediation etc. [Bird, 2012]. September 2014 data indicate that in temporary storage sites (in Kotakizawa, Jikenjo, Shin-Baba, Baba, Goshi and Ogita districts) where removed soil has been collected and stored, the air dose rate at the entrance of the sites shows no difference after removed soil is stored, and radioactive materials has never been detected from leachate or groundwater under the sites [Ministry of Environment, 2014]. In July 2014 TEPCO reported that it recovered about 80% of a radioactive substance that leaked with contaminated wastewater in 2013198. The substance with the highest concentration in the water was radioactive strontium with an estimated 45 trillion becquerels of radioactivity [HNK World, July 2014]. Most strontium has been recovered by collecting soil soaked with the contaminated water while remaining 20% likely seeped into soil below tanks and other facilities. According to TEPCO the substance remains in the soils and it is highly unlikely that it was carried into the sea by underground water. TEPCO recently revised its storage plan199 with planning to build additional tanks to store 100,000 tons of radioactive water at the nuclear plant. Tanks at the cite can store about 480,000 tons of radioactive water, but 90% of the 1000 storage tanks are already full [NHK World, April 4, 2014]. Company expects the amount of contaminated water to be less than 800,000 tons by March 2016. More tanks are added in case the planned one are not enough or preventative measures (including frozen underground walls) do not work as well as planned [NHK World, July 14, 2014]. In April-November 2014 TEPCO tried to freeze radiation-contaminated water in underground tunnels in order to prevent water used to cool melted-down fuel to leak out of reactor buildings into tunnels where it mix with ground water, seep into the ground and end up in the sea200. In November the company gave up that plan (water did not freeze) and announced that underground tunnels containing radioactive water will be blocked off by newly developed cement201 [NHK World, November 21, 2014]. A separate and larger project has been underway to freeze soil and create a wall of ice 1.5 km stretch around the four reactor buildings (Picture 8). TEPCO plans to lay 1,500 meters of pipes around the four reactor buildings hoping to complete the construction work by the end of March 2015 and start circulating refrigerant of minus 30 C202. The ice walls are intended to prevent groundwater from coming into the reactor building basements, which are filled with highly contaminated water from operations to cool the overheating reactors. The work has been delayed due to a suspension in freezing the water in the tunnels as part of the work areas overlap.

196 E.g. in Iitate-mura villagers have been carrying decontamination actions and trials with support of a recovery group “Resurrection of Fukushima” [NHK World, December 9, 2013]. 197 Including negative impact on some species on the Fukushia prefecture’s Red List of endangered or threatened species (such as “vulnerable” grassland butterfly and the Japanese peregrine falcon). 198 In August 2013 about 300 tons of wastewater contaminated with radioactive substances leaked from a storage tank at the plant. 199 Previous plan included building tanks to store 830,000 tons of water by the end of March 2015. 200 Utility tunnels between the 2 and 3 reactors and the sea are estimated to hold a total of 11,000 tons of radiation- contaminated wastewater. TEPCO hopes to remove wastewater from tunnels around all reactors in fiscal 2014 [NHK World, June 16, 2014]. 201 Latest plan will not affect the larger project to freeze soil and create a wall of ice around reactors. 202 So that two-meter thick frozen soil walls will be created within a few months.

Source: NHK World, July 23, 2014 Source: Yomiuri Shinbun, December 9, 2014 Picture 8. Wall of frozen soil in Fukushima plant Picture 9. Bags with contaminated soils There has been also many technical problems such as failures in cooling systems, multiple leakages, high radiation at the plant cite, delays and/or changes in plans, etc. [NHK World, April 4, April 13, May, 31, June 4, June 9, June 10, June 19, June 22, July 8, October 22, October 30, 2014]. All that has been coupled by high uncertainties on state of affairs and risks, and likely effects of undertaken actions. For instance, the effects of the groundwater bypass operation203 intended to reduce the amount of radiation-tainted water at the plant has been apparently having limited effects [The Japan News, June 28; NHK World, July 25, 2014]. In the first 2 months water levels at observation wells near the reactor buildings204 dropped by only around 10 cm at most. Water levels tend to rise after rains and it is vital to reduce the amount of rainwater infiltrating the soil but little progress has been made due to a delay in land leveling205. It has been also found that Cesium in groundwater rises at plant after storm as well water near the embankment was more than 3 times higher (251,000 becquerels of cesium per liter) the level before heavy rainfall from Typhoon Phanfone [NHK World October 15, 2014]. Similarly, some experts warns that there is no reason to place overly high expectations on the ice walls [The Japan News, June 6, 2014]. There are fears associated that if soil is not frozen evenly it could cause subsidence, or if the ice walls melt due to problems with cooling functions, there could be a widespread danger of radioactive water flowing outside the buildings. It is essential to carry out several measures in parallel. The amount of contaminated water has increased by 300-400 tons a day and sooner or later there will be no more sites available for the construction of storage tanks at the plant. Experts have also pointed out the need to purify contaminated water before discharging it into the ocean [The Japan News, June 6, 2014]. Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) introduced for that purpose has continued to malfunction206. Recently TEPCO has unveiled an improved system (sophisticated ALPS) for decontaminating radioactive water207 planning to put 3 systems into full operation in December 2014 treating 2,000 tons of water daily [NHK World, October 16, 2014]. TEPCO has showed a system to remove radioactive substances from tainted underground water before releasing it into the sea. The utility plans to discharge well water from around reactor buildings at the facility to

203 Groundwater is pumped up from wells near the plant’s 1 to 4 reactors before it flows into the basements of the reactor buildings and mixes with high-level radioactive water there. It is temporarily stored at tanks and then released into the sea after radiation checks. Company began to pump up groundwater in early April, and the release of pumped-up water started in late May as more than 8,600 tons of groundwater have been released into the Pacific so far [The Japan News, June 28, 2014]. The fishermen's federation (regardless of differences in opinions) accepted the plan [NHK World, March 31]. Water bypass operation, once fully implemented, will reduce the the daily buildup up of highly radioactive water at the plant to 100 tons down from roughly 400. 204 3 wells located 70 to 150m from the reactor buildings. 205 Current plan is to cover soil near the wells with asphalt by the end of March 2015 to keep rain from seeping into the ground [NHK World, July 25, 2014]. 206 Current system is supposed to be capable of treating up to 750 tons of water daily with its 3 processing lines but its operation has been plagued by trouble. A second version of system started trial operations in September 2014. 207 The new system can process more than 500 tons of water a day with only one line and it is expected to leave less radioactive waste and be less prone to glitches.

204 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 stem the buildup of contaminated water208. The officials say the system removed most radioactive materials to undetectable levels in trial runs but its plan has met opposition from local fishermen [NHK World, October 16, 2014]. One of the TEPCO’s engineers properly described the progress as “trial and error continues” since dealing with new technology and equipment, making mistakes, and are unknown results [NHK World, July 4, 2014]. Furthermore, the process of decommissioning the nuclear reactors is at the beginning stare and is expected to last 30-40 years209 and associated with many challenges such as lack of experiences, available technologies, uncertainties and risks, public concerns, lack of disposal cite, etc. [NHK World, August 2, 2014]. For instance, there is a lots of uncertainty related to the state and schedules of operations – e.g. it is extremely difficult to remove melted fuel from the No.1 to No.3 reactors. Operation schedule is to start work at the No.1 and 2 reactors in fiscal 2020, and at the No.3 in fiscal 2021, but workers still do not know where or in what state the fuel lies as a result of the meltdowns at the 3 reactors [NHK World, October 22, 2014]. In October 2014 it was announced that the decommissioning of Fukushima reactors may be further delayed [NHK World, October 16, October 22, 2014]. The work was to begin in July 2014, but have been delayed after radioactive dust from the plant was blamed for contaminating rice paddies when the operator removed debris from the plant's No.3 reactor in August 2013210. The No.1 reactor building has a cover to prevent massive amount of radioactive material from spreading. TEPCO began drilling holes in the ceiling and spraying chemicals inside to stop dust from spreading, planning partially to remove the cover in late October. The operator hopes to begin full-scale dismantling of the cover in March 2015 and complete the task in about a year211. The government and TEPCO set a timetable for removing fuel out of the storage pool at the No. 1 reactor from the reactor building after April 2017, but delays are also likely. Last but not least important, up to date, it has been difficult to secure cites for long-term and permanent disposal of radioactive waste [NHK World, April 7, June 15, 2014; The Japan News, March 8, 2014]. Until now contaminated soil, leaves, and mud removed during decontamination work, and other radioactive waste have been stored at temporary sites across Fukushima prefecture (Picture 9) at more than 70,000 locations [The Japan News, December 9, 2014]. According to expert there are 3 million tons of tainted biomass in Fukushima and its disposal is a big challenge [The Japan Times March 23, 2014]. In addition, there have been collected a huge amount of contaminated soils, debris, incinerated ash, mud from sewage, straw, etc. located in Tokyo and 11 other prefectures. In the end of March 2014 there are a total of 143,689 tons of materials defined by the Government as “designated waste” 212 [The Japan News, July 9, 2014]. The later contain radioactive substances measuring more than 8,000 Bq/kg, and according to law213 should be handled in the prefecture where it originated under the responsibility of the central government. A site for the final disposal of radioactive waste has not been chosen yet. There is a government plan to build interim storage facilities in Okuma and Futaba to store contaminated soil, waste and ash from burned

208 About 300 tons of underground water is flowing into the buildings daily. Tainted water is believed to be leaking into the sea with underground water. 209 With first stage (removal of 270 tons of fuel from 3 melted reactors) around 20 years and disposal and dismantling another 15 years. Decommissioning work has progressed fastest at the No.4 reactor where nearly 90% of the fuel rods have been removed and work is to end in 2014. Removal of fuel from the No.3 reactor building is to begin in fiscal 2015, and work at the No.1 and 2 buildings in fiscal 2017. Radiation levels remain extremely high in the No.2 building and there is no specific schedule for fuel rod removal there [NHK World, October 22, 2014]. 210 Recently the Nuclear Regulation Authority announced that it is highly unlikely that radioactive particles from the Fukushima nuclear power plant contaminated rice fields [NHK World, October 31, 2014]. Removal work released dust particles with 110 billion becquerels of radiation with relatively large diameters of several micrometers. According to the authority such particles had an environmental impact only in the plant compound and rice paddy contamination may have come from river and ground water [NHK World, October 31, 2014]. 211 Debris removal is planed to begin before October 2016. 212 Containing radioactive substances measuring more than 8,000 Bq/kg. 213 On special measures concerning the handling of pollution from radioactive materials. contaminated materials214. These sites are to operate for up to 30 years but residents of candidate places continue to suspect that they will eventually be used for final disposal facilities and insist for safeguards [NHK World, May 27, June 8, 2014]. Some residents are also against since the storage facilities would harm the towns' image and make it difficult to restart farming due to consumers concerns about safety of agricultural products [NHK World, June 2, 2014]. Besides, some residents complained about the offered price, saying it's not enough to rebuild their lives215 elsewhere but government has no revised the planned purchase prices [NHK World, October 14, 2014]. Meanwhile, Government is proceeding with the plan seeking residents' understanding while briefing residents about safety measures related to transportation and storage of radioactive wastes [NHK World, May 28, June 7, June 15, September 30, 2014]. Late August 2014 the prefectural government and the host towns formally accepted the construction of storage facilities on their territories [Fukushima Minpo News, August 31, 2014]. In November 2014 both Houses of the Diet approved Fukushima waste bill for the construction of temporary storage facilities216 for radioactive waste near the crippled nuclear plant [NHK World, November 4, 19, 2014]. The bill obliges the government to ensure to ensure the waste is safely stored in the facilities and complete within 30 years the final disposal of radioactive waste (including contaminated soil) after moving it outside Fukushima prefecture. Furthermore, the government announced it will set superficies (surface) rights for land allowing landowners to keep property rights for the land217 to be used for building temporary storage facilities [NHK World, July 28, 2014; The Japan News, July 29, 2014]. In addition, 820-million dollars of grants will be handed over directly to the 2 towns as a part of the 3 billion dollars in subsidies that will be given to the prefecture and municipalities to help rebuild communities and peoples' lives [NHK World, August 26, 2014]. A little progress has been also made in deciding on final disposal facilities locations for handling more than 146,000 tons radioactive waste from the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Tokyo and 11 other prefectures (Figure 51). For instance, up to date one of the warehouses storing rice straw (supposed to be used as livestock feed) covered in sheets of silver foil to protect against the sun’s rays, stands in area of farming paddy in Tome, Miyagi Prefecture218 [The Japan News, September 12, 2014].

120000 121.341 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 4693.292 3 9823.533 10.510 0 1.0181.187 3.664 3 9

Source: Ministry of Environment Figure 51. Amount of Designated waste in Japan, June 30, 2014 (tons)

214 They will able to accommodate enough waste to fill Tokyo Dome more than 20 times and will dispose waste containing up to 100,000 Bq/kg of radioactive materials. Government plans to purchase 16 square km of land in the area and start transporting radioactive soil to the facilities in January 2015. 215 Government plan to purchase land at around half of its value before the nuclear accident as compensation for housing would depend on the age of buildings [NHK World, September 30, 2014]. Landowners who decline to sell but allow usage of plots would be paid 70% of the purchase price. Prefecture would cover the difference between pre-disaster value and the amount of compensation. 216 The government acquires all shares in a state company (Japan Environmental Safety Corporation) that will run the business of storing nuclear waste 217 Initially, the government planned to buy land for the temporary facilities to ensure stable management but some landowners refuse to sell. Local communities claim attachment to ancestral land and fear that temporary facilities would become final disposal sites if the land is nationalized. 218 City government initially explained that the warehouses would be kept in the farmer’s vicinity for only two years (until January 2014).

206 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The central government219 plans to construct a safe concrete double-walled structure underground to contain buried designated waste (Picture 10). Waste will be put into containers and bags, which will then be stored inside a concrete double walled structure to be buried underground, and after being buried that the structure will be covered with a second layer of concrete and soil220 [The Japan News, July 9, 2014]. The government has been considering locations to newly build final disposal in five prefectures (Miyagi, Tochigi, Ibaraki, Gunma and Chiba) because there are large amounts of “designated waste”221 [The Japan News, July 9, 2014]. Local residents have been strongly opposing to the construction of facilities due to fears about radiation, environmental threat, and risk that agricultural products will become unsellable (Picture 11). In 2014 the Environment Ministry officials held meetings with officials from Miyagi prefecture and the three “candidate” municipalities (Kurihara, Taiwan and Kami) on one of which territory it aims to construct the final disposal facilities but all municipalities opposed.

Source: Ministry of Environment Source: The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 9, 2014

Picture 10. Plans for final disposal facility for Picture 11. Kami residents against construction of final designated radioactive waste disposal facilities

There are nine temporary storage facilities for designated waste on the premises of the Teganuma sewage treatment facility in Chiba prefecture. Each of them stores 526 tons of designated waste generated in Matsudo, Kashiwa and Nagareyama in the northwestern part of the prefecture. Since the later do not have adequate storage facilities, the prefecture accepted their waste at the sewage facility on a “temporary basis”, with a time limit set for the end of March 2015 [The Japan News, July 9, 2014]. In Tome, storing Miyagi prefecture’s largest amount of designated waste (like straw), the difficulty of securing storage sites has led to some waste being stored by individuals. Much of the radioactive waste in Nasu-Shiobara, Tochigi prefecture is also temporarily stored on private property. Local officials and people in these places fear that if situation is prolonged for a long period of time waterproof sheets used to store designated waste will deteriorate. Residents near the sewage facility in Chiba prefecture filed a lawsuit demanding the elimination of the storage facilities. The government needs to create the disposal facilities222 because storage is reaching capacity in 5 prefectures [NHK World, July 30, 2014]. In response to the failure of previous administration to select cites “without consulting local residents”, the current government revised the process as municipal councils were set

219 The central government is responsible for the disposal of “designated waste” in each prefecture. 220 Amount of additional radioactivity along the borders of facilities’ premises is expected to be less than 0.01 millisievert a year and “health risk negligible” (average radiation dosage in nature is 2.1 millisieverts per year). 221 Material from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident that has radiation levels exceeding 8,000 Bq/kg. For prefectures with small amounts of designated waste plans are to bury the waste underground in existing disposal facilities [The Japan News, September 12, 2014]. 222 They are for sewage sludge, incinerated ash, and other waste contaminated with more than 8,000 Bq/kg of radioactive materials. up in every prefecture to decide on selection methods while taking into consideration local residents preferences [The Japan News, July 9, 2014]. Up to now only three prefectures (Chiba, Tochigi and Miyagi) decided on their selection process of candidates. The government was able to propose the candidate sites in Miyagi Prefecture (Kami, Kurihara and Taiwan) but local opposition is strong, and final decision is not made and planned field surveys blocked by residents [NHK World, October 24, 2014]. The government has also chosen a state-owned property in Shioya town, Tochigi prefecture as a possible final disposal site for radioactive waste [NHK World, July 30, August 18, 2014]. The local government and citizens have been opposing saying it will have a negative effect on natural water resources and local agricultural and food products223. The mayor suggested a counterproposal on radioactive waste224 calling for all radioactive waste to be stored at an intermediate facility in a no-entry evacuation zone on the Daiichi plant compound [NHK World, November 7, 2014]. Recently government allocated ¥5 billion in 2014 fiscal year’s budget to five prefectures (Miyagi, Tochigi, Ibaraki, Gunma and Chiba) to carry out regional developments and take measures to counter harmful rumors hoping it will help win understanding of local residence. The Atomic Energy Agency is reported to be looking at the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel instead of reprocessing it225 [NHK World, July 29, 2014]. The government has long maintained the policy of reprocessing all spent nuclear fuel226 and conducted few studies about disposing it as waste. A basic energy plan adopted in April 2014 upholds the nuclear fuel recycling policy but for the first time it called for studies on ways to directly dispose of spent fuel without reprocessing it [NHK World, July 25, 2014]. A series of challenges led to the later move: a reprocessing plant in Rokkasho Village, Aomori prefecture has suffered numerous troubles being unable to start full operation more than 20 years since construction began; nuclear power plants have accumulated 17,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel; fast breeder reactor Monju, Fukui prefecture is designed to use recycled plutonium but facility has been plagued by troubles227 and its future is uncertain. The agency's analysis is expected to lead to greater discussions on how to deal with the stockpile of spent nuclear fuel and wastes. Spent nuclear fuel is known to have higher radiation levels than high-level radioactive waste, and compared to reprocessing, direct disposal would mean more than a 4­fold increase in nuclear waste volume. Besides, the government lacks any prospect of finding a place that would accept a nuclear dumpsite. Top officials at the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan charged with the selection and construction of the final disposal facilities, were replaced recently in view of the planned restart of nuclear power plant operations. Since 2002 the Organization charged with the selection and construction of the final disposal facilities has been asking municipal governments to indicate willingness to accommodate the final disposal facilities [The Japan News, July 23, 2014]. Until now only one local government (Toyo, Kochi prefecture) has announced its candidacy (2007) but its efforts have been buckled under opposition from local residents. In December 2013 the central government switched to a policy in which it would play a leading role in narrowing down prospective candidate sites beforehand and then requesting two or more municipal governments to accommodate the facilities. The central government plans for radioactive waste to be mixed with glass, and the vitrified waste to be stored in metal containers buried at least 300 m deep underground228. Some in the government voiced a cautious view that presenting candidate sites before the local elections next spring will cause disarray, and the candidate sites will most likely be presented after that [The Japan News, July 23, 2014].

223 In September 2012, the ministry chose a state-held forest in Yaita City as the prefecture's candidate site but the plan faced criticism and it had to start the selection process again. In October the mayor of Shioya and the leader residents group handed petition to the Minister - population is 12,000 but the petition was signed by about 173,000 from across Japan [NHK World, October 29, 2014]. 224 State should pay sufficient compensation to Fukushima and dispose radioactive waste in one place. 225 Agency's draft report says it is technically possible to directly dispose of spent nuclear fuel at a low radiation level. If spent nuclear fuel is buried 1,000 m underground for 1 million years, the radiation level at the earth's surface will peak in 3,000 years, at 0.3 microsieverts per year. 226 Extract plutonium and reuse it as fuel at nuclear power plants. 227 Including a fire and failed inspections. 228 Final disposal facilities are to be about 6 sq. km to accommodate at least 40,000 metal containers. Existing amount of spent nuclear fuel is equivalent to 25,000 such metal containers (stored at nuclear plants and other sites). Many nuclear plants already have no more room to store spent nuclear fuel.

208 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

All these difficulties and uncertainties make it difficult to access the full environmental impact of the March 2011 disasters, and require a long-term monitoring of effects on the individual components and entire ecosystems [ISHES, 2011; ME, 2012a; UNSCEAR, 2014; WWF, 2013]. A 2014 government report points out that the release of radioactive materials following the Fukushima nuclear accident remains Japan's biggest environmental problem [NHK World, June 6, 2014]. What is more, Japan emitted the largest amounts of greenhouse gases on record229 in the fiscal 2013 (a climb of 1.6% since 2012) blamed on the increased use of fossil fuels (including coal) since the 2011 nuclear disaster [NHK World, December 5, 2014]. At the same time, people’s enthusiasm for power saving fades down from increased willingness to save power after rolling blackouts following Fukushima crisis. Recent survey shows that 60.7% of respondents wanted to save power, set air conditioning temperatures at appropriate levels or take other measures to curb global warming (down from 71.9% in June 2012 survey) while purchasing environmentally friendly products was cited by 36.9% (down from 47.4%) [The Japan News, September 25, 2014]. Conclusion The unprecedented triple disaster in Northeast Japan in March 2011 was among the worst in the Japanese and world history. The earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident have had immense impacts on diverse aspects of people life in the most affected regions, the rest of the country, and beyond. Agriculture, food industry and food consumption have been among the worst hit. The excellent individual and community disaster preparedness, and well-established national system of disaster management, have been a major reason for the adverse impacts to be much lower that it would have been elsewhere in a similar disaster. Furthermore, a superior disaster recovery experience, good organization, and enormous public support from government, other organizations, volunteers, etc. have allowed a rapid recovery and a successful reconstruction of a great part of devastated regions and sectors. For home country of the paper author (Bulgaria) a recovery from such a disaster certainly would have taken decades. Almost four years after the disaster there are still a number of challenges associated with the recovery and reconstruction in Tohoku region and elsewhere. They are mostly related with a big number of evacuees with destructed life and businesses (temporary accommodation, health problems, lost relations and employment, etc.), continuing outmigration from the badly affected areas, slow pace of rebuilding of devastated infrastructure, housings and businesses, prolong decontamination process in some places, on- going crises in Fukushima nuclear plant, consumer reluctance to visit and buy products of affected regions, etc. In addition, the 2011 disasters have considerably aggravated some already existing problems of the rural regions such as: aging and shrinking population, lack of labor and young entrepreneurs, low competitiveness and efficiency, income and services disparities, etc. Subsequently, the speed and extent of disaster recovery and post-disaster reconstruction differ quite substantially among individual agents, (sub)sectors, and (sub)regions. Besides, there are great uncertainties associated with the long-term social, health, economic, environmental, policy etc. consequences of the 2011 disasters. On the other hand, the disasters have had positive impacts on the development of certain (more resilient, adaptive) sectors in the most affected regions and some (traditional, prospective) sectors in other parts of the country. The post disaster recovery and reconstruction have also given opportunities and induced considerable policies and institutional modernization in various (energy, agricultural, security) sectors, and improve disaster prevention and management, food safety information and inspection, technological and product innovation, jobs creation and investment (including in “new” areas such as research and innovation, ICT, renewable energy, robotization), farmlands consolidation and enhancement, infrastructural amelioration, organizational restructuring, etc. Not least important, the failures of government bureaucrats to foresee, prevent, communicate, and deal with the March 2011 disaster and its consequences have thought individual agents to take decentralized actions – self-recovery and reconstruction, community and business initiatives, private and collective safety

229 1.395 billion tons - most since comparable data are available (1990) and 1.3% up from the 2005 levels. By 2020 the target is to cut emissions by 3.8% from the 2005 levels. checks and decontamination measures, voluntary shipment restrictions, new production and marketing methods, movements for fundamental policies change, etc. This study was just an attempt to assess the overall impact of the March 2011 disasters Understandably the research is incomplete due to the “short” period of time after the disasters, insufficient and controversial data, difficulties to adequately assess longer term implications, etc. Therefore, more future studies are necessary to evaluate and update the “known” impacts of the 2011 disasters. Besides, further in depth “micro” studies are needed to fully understand and estimate the impacts of the disasters in each location and community, type of enterprises and productions, and component of supply chain, etc. There are a number of major lessons that can be learned from the study of the March 2011 disasters’ impact on and post disaster reconstruction of agri-food sector in Japan. First, the triple March 2011 disaster was a rare but a high impact event, which came as a “surprise” even for a country with frequent natural disasters and well-developed disaster risk management system like Japan. Therefore, it is necessary to “prepare for unexpected”, and design, build and test a multi-hazard disaster risk management for the specific conditions of each country, region, sector, etc. Accordingly appropriate measures and sufficient resources (funding, personnel, stock piles, shelter cites, transportation means) have to be planed for the effective prevention, early warning, mitigation, response, and post disaster relief and recovery from big disasters and accidents. Besides state resources it is important to mobilize huge private, community, NGOs, and international capabilities, expertise and means. For instance, a public-private partnership is necessary to properly identify and designate available public and private resources (accommodations for a longer stay, relief supply, etc.) in case a big disaster occurs and evacuation needs arise. Second, the risk assessment is to include diverse (health, dislocation, economic, behavioral, ecological, etc.) hazards and complementary, (food, supply, natural, biological) chain, spin offs, and multilateral effects of a likely (natural, man made, combined) disaster. Modern methods and technologies are to be widely employed (mass and social networks, computer simulation, satellite imaging, etc.) for effective communication, preparation of disaster maps, assessment of likely impacts, planning of evacuation routs, relief needs, and recovery measures, secure debris and waste management, etc. It is crucial to involve multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholders teams in all stages of risk management to guarantee a holistic approach, “full” information and transparency, adequate assessment of risks, preferences and capabilities, and maximum efficiency. Third, the risk management system is to be discussed with all stakeholders, and measures taken to educate and train individuals, organizations and communities for complex disasters and all contingencies. The individual responsibilities are to be well-specified and effective mechanisms for coordination of actions of authorities, organizations, and groups at different levels put in place and tested to ensure efficiency (speed, lack of duplication and gaps) during emergency. Individual and small-scale operators dominate in the agri-food sector of most countries around the world, and their proper information, training, and involvement is critical. The later is to embrace diverse agri-food and rural organizations, consumers, and population of each age group, which all commonly have no disaster management “culture”, knowledge, training, and plans (particularly for large disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear and industrial accidents). Forth, it is necessary to modernize the specific and overall formal institutional environment (property rights, regulations, safety standards, norms) according to the needs of contemporary disaster risk management. A particular attention is to be put on updating agri-food safety, labor, health, and animal welfare standards, and ensure adequate mechanisms, qualified agents, and technical instruments for effective implementation and enforcement. Establishment of an accessible cooperative, quasi public or public agricultural (crop, livestock, machineries, building, life and health) insurance system, including assurance against big natural, nuclear etc. disasters is very important for many countries for rapid recovery of affected agents and sectors. Modernization of the out of dated (often informal) lands, material, biological and intellectual property registration and valorization system is also important for effective post disaster compensation, recovery and reconstruction. That is particularly true for the great number of subsistent and “semi-market” holdings dominating the agro-food sector around the globe, which usually suffer significantly from disasters (often losing all possessions) but get no market valuation, insurance and/or public support. Sixth, it is important to set up mechanisms to improve efficiency of public resource allocation, avoid mismanagement and misuse of resources as well as reduce individual agents’ costs for complying with regulations and using public relief, support and dispute resolution (e.g. court) system. That would let efficient allocation of limited social resources according to agents needs and preferences, intensify and speed up transactions, improve enforcement (of rights, laws, standards) and conflict resolution, decrease corruption, and eventually accelerate recovery and reconstruction. In this respect it is obligatory to involve all stakeholders in

210 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 decision-making and control, increase transparency etc. at all levels and stages of disaster planning, management, and reconstruction. In the case of a post-disaster evacuation it is essential to secure proper (police, voluntary group) protection of private and public properties from thefts and wild animal invasion in disaster and evacuation zones. Seventh, different agents and elements of agri-food chain are affected unlikely from a disaster and have dissimilar capability to recover. Most farming assets (multiannual crops, irrigation facilities, building, brands, biodiversity, landscape) are interlinked with the land, and if the later is damaged a rapid recovery (rebuilding, relocation, alternative supply) is very costly or impossible. Similarly, smaller-scale and highly specialized enterprises, small-member communities and organizations, and visitors and tourists to the disaster regions, are all more vulnerable and have less ability to protect, bear consequences and recover. All that require differential public support (intervention, compensation, funding, assistance) to various types of agents it order to provide emergency relief, accelerate recovery and diminish negative long-term consequences. Eight, there is also a strong “regional” specificity (interdependency) of agrarian, food and other rural assets. Subsequently, if a part of these assets/products is damaged or affected (e.g. destruction of critical transportation, communication, distribution, electricity and water supply etc. infrastructure; a nuclear, chemical, pathogen etc. contamination) the negative externalities impact all agents in the respective region (including undamaged lands, livestock, produce and services). In order to minimize damages it is important to properly identify (locate) risk and take prevention measures, recover rapidly critical infrastructure, strictly enforce quality (safety, authenticity, origin) of products and adequately communicate them to all interested parties (producers, processors, distributors, consumers, international community). Ninth, good management of information and communication is extremely important in emergency, recovery, and post disaster reconstruction operations. The March 2011 disasters have proven that any delay, a partial release or controversies of official information have hampered the effective (re)actions of agents, and adversely affected public trust and behavior (e.g. buying products from disaster regions). Before, during and after a disaster all available (risk, monitoring, measured, projected) information from all reliable sources is to be immediately publicized in an understandable by everyone form through all possible means (official and community channels, mobile phones, social media, etc.). It is essential always to publish alternative (independent, private, scientific, international) information as well, including in foreign languages, which would build public trust and increase confidence. In Japan it has not been easy to find all available information related to the Match 2011 disasters in a timely and systematized way (updates, diverse aspects, unified measurement, time series, alternative sources), which make many foreigners and local alike skeptical about accuracy. Tenth, a big disaster like the Match 2011 in Japan often provides an extraordinary opportunity to discuss, introduce and implement fundamental changes in (agricultural, economic, regional, energy, disaster management) policies, improve disaster management and food security, modernize regulation and standards, relocate farms and houses, consolidate lands and operations, upgrade infrastructure, restructure production and farming organizations, introduce technological and business innovation, improve natural environment, etc. All such opportunities are to be effectively used by central and local authorities through policies, programs, measures, and adequate public support given for all innovative private and collective initiatives in the area. Eleventh, it is important to learn from the past experiences and make sure that “lessons learned” are not forgotten. The impacts and factors of a disaster, disaster management, and post disaster reconstruction are to be continuously studied, knowledge communicated to public, and “transferred” to next generation. It is critical to share “good” and “bad” experiences with disaster prevention, management and recovery with other regions and countries, in order to prevent that happening again. It is particularly important to share the advance Japanese experience at international scale through media, visits, studies, conferences, etc. and turn Tohoku in a disaster risk management hub for other regions and countries. It is essential not to copy but adapt the positive Japanese experiences to the specific (institutional, cultural, natural) environment and risks structure of each community, subsector, region, and country. References: [1] Abe, S. (2014). Press Conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on the Upcoming Third Anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake, March 10, 2014 [2] Al­Badri, D. and Gijs, Berends (eds.). (2013): After the Great East Japan Earthquake: Political and Policy Change in Post­Fukushima Japan. Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press. [3] Aoki, M. (2012). Cesium contamination in food appears to be on wane, The Japan Times, September 25, 2012. [4] Akiyama, N., H. Sato, K. Naito, Y. Naoi, T. Katsuta (2012). The Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Crisis Management - Lessons for Japan-U.S. Alliance Cooperation, The Sasakawa Peace Foundation. [5] Akimoto, S. (2014). Morphological abnormalities in gall-forming aphids in a radiation-contaminated area near Fukushima Daiichi: selective impact of fallout?, Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., DOI: 10.1002/ece3.949 [6] Bachev, H., Ito, F. (2013). Impacts of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster on Japanese Agriculture and Food Chains, P. Gorawala and S.i Mandhatri (editors), Agricultural Research Updates, 6: 1-75. [7] Biggs, S., Sheldrick, A. (2011). Tsunami Slams Japan After Record Earthquake, Killing Hundreds, March 11, 2011, Bloomberg.com. [8] Bird, W. (2012). As Fukushima Cleanup Begins, Long-term Impacts are Weighed, Biodiversity Energy Forests Policy & Politics Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Asia, January 9, 2012. [9] Bird, W. (2013). After Fukushima: Japan's new model for farms, The Christian Science Monitor, March 11, 2013. [10] Busby, C. (2012). Comparing Fukushima releases with Chernobyl, http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/ subtopic/fukuchernobylcomparison2012.pdf [11] Bullones, C.L. (2013). Fish with 2,500 times legal limit for radiation caught near Fukushima plant, The Japan Daily Press, January 21, 2013. [12] Burch, K. (2012). Consumer perceptions and behaviors related to radionuclide contaminated food: an exploratory study from Kansai, Japan, Norwegian University of Life Sciences. [13] Brumfiel, G. (2013). Fukushima: Fallout of fear, Nature, January 16 http://www.nature.com/news/ fukushima-fallout-of-fear-1.12194 [14] Buesseler, K. (2014). Fukushima and Ocean Radioactivity, Oceanography, 25 (1): 93-105. [15] Chino, M., H. Nakayama, H.Nagai. H.Terada, G. Katata, Yamazawa, H. (2011). Preliminary estimation of released amount of 131I and 137Cs accidentally discharged from the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant into the atmosphere, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 48(1): 129-134. [16] Chang, K. (2011). Quake Moves Japan Closer to U.S. and Alters Earth's Spin, The New York Times, 13 March 2011. [17] Daniell, J.E., Wenzel, F., Vervaeck, A. (2011). The Socio-economic effects of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 13, EGU2011-14270. [18] Fackler, M. (2014). Defying Japan, Rancher Saves Fukushima’s Radioactive Cows, The New York Times, January 11, 2014. [19] Fisher, N., K. Beaugelin­Seiller, T. Hinton, Z. Baumann, D. Madigan, Garnier­Laplace, J. (2013). Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(26): 10670– 10675. [20] Fujita, M., H. Nobuaki, J. Sagara, Adam, B. (2012). The economics of disaster risk, risk management, and risk financing. Economic Impacts, Knowledge Note 6-3, IBRD-World Bank. [21] Futahira, S. (2013). Nuclear power plant accident and recovery of fishery, presentation at the JA Conference in Fukushima, May 18, 2013.

212 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[22] Fukumoto, M. (2013). Distribution of Artificial Radionuclides in Animals Left in the Evacuation Zone of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [23] Furutani, T., Uehara, K., Murai, J. (2012): A Study on Community Based Reconstruction from Nuclear Power Plant Disaster ­ A Case Study of Minamisoma Ota Area in Fukushima, Journal of Disaster Research, 7(7): 432­438. [24] Fuyuki, K. (2013): Agricultural Recovery Efforts in Tsunami-Damaged Areas: Case Studies, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [25] Hamada, N., Ogino, H. (2013). Earthquake Food safety regulations: what we learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 111: 83–99. [26] Hiyama, A., C. Nohara, S. Kinjo, W. Taira, S. Gima, A. Tanahara and J. Otaki (2012): The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly, Scientific Reports 2, Article number: 570 doi:10.1038/srep00570. [27] Hasegawa, R. (2013). Disaster Evacuation from Japan’s 2011 Tsunami Disaster and the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, IDDRI Study No5. [28] Hori, C. (2012). Farm Land Policy and Agriculture Recovery after the Great East Japan Earthquake, Mizuho Research Institute Ltd. [29] Johnson, R. (2011). Japan’s 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami: Food and Agriculture Implications, Congressional Research Service. [30] Goldman, J. (2011). Impact of the Japan earthquake and tsunami on animals and environment, Scientific American, March 22, 2011. [31] Gilhooly, R. (2013). Renewable village offers lifeline to Fukushima farmers, New Scientist 2950, December 31, 2013. [32] Gundersen, A., Caldicott, H. (2012). The Ongoing Damage and Danger at Fukushima, Fairewinds Energy Education. Web. 6 Nov. 2012. [33] Ishikawa, T. (2014). Japan farmland unproductive 3 years on, The Yomiuri Shimbun/Asia News Network, March 2, 2014 [34] Inajima T., Nakayama, M. (2011). Radiation Readings in Fukushima Reactor Rise to Highest Since Crisis Began, April 27, 2011. [35] Inoue, K. (2014): Fukushima takes new approach to ease fears of radiation in food, The Asahi Shimbun, February 25, 2014. [36] Ishii, K. (2013). Les situations actuelles d’Odaka, 2013.4.12, manuscript provided by the author. [37] Ishii, K., Morlans, S. (2013). La Reprise des Activites Agricoles dans les Regions Contaminees après L’Accident de Fukushima, e ographie et cultures, 86: 65-82. [38] Kachi, H. (2014). Short Supply Drives Fukushima Beef Prices Up, WSJ Japan Real Time Blog, January 17, 2014. [39] Kamiya S. (2011). Debris removal, recycling daunting, piecemeal labor, The Japan Times, June 30, 2011. [40] Kageyama, Y. (2012). Japan farmers plant, pray for radiation-free rice, The Associate Press, May 28, 2012. [41] Kakuchi, S. (2013). Fukushima Fallout Hits Farmers, Inter Press Service, July 30, 2013 [42] Kaltofen, M. (2011). Radiation Exposure to the Population of Japan after the Earthquake, APHA, https://apha.confex.com/apha/139am/webprogram/Paper254015.html [43] Kawaguchi, Y. (2014). What Investors Have Learned from the Major Earthquake ­ Psychological Changes from the Viewpoint of Stock Prices and Housing Prices, The Japan News, March 6, 2014. [44] Kim, V. (2011). Japan damage could reach $235 billion, World Bank estimates, The Los Angelis Times, March 21, 2011. [45] Kirikawa, T. (2014). Progress on Treatment of Disaster Debris from Great East Japan Earthquake, Japan Environment Quarterly, Volume 5, March 2014. [46] Koch, P. (2013). A Study of the Perception of Ecosystems and Ecosystem-Based Services Relating to Disaster Risk Reduction in the Context of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [47] Koizumi, N. (2011). Remarks from the chairperson of Food Safety Commission of Japan About the assessment of the effect of food on health of radioactive nuclides in foods, Food Safety Commission of Japan. [48] Kontar, Y., Santiago-Fandino, V., and T. Takahashi (Eds.) (2014). Tsunami Events and Lessons Learned Environmental and Societal Significance, Springer. [49] Koyama, R. (2013a). The Influence and Damage caused by the Nuclear Disaster on Fukushima’s Agriculture, Nuclear Disaster on Fukushima’s Agriculture, 商学論集 第81 巻第4 (in Japanese). [50] Koyama, R. (2013b). Towards Effective Countermeasures Against “Reputation Damage”, Institute of International Studies and Training, November 29. [51] Lisa, A. (2014). Fujitsu Converts Fukushima Microchip Factory into a Radiation-Free Lettuce Farm, Inhabitat, May 19, 2014. [52] Liou, Y., H. Sha, T. Chen, T.Wang, Y. Li, Y. Lai, Chiang, M., Lu, L. (2012). Assessment of disaster losses in rice paddy fields and yield after tsunami induced by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 20(6): 618-623. [53] Manoliu, C. (2014). Recovery and Resilience: Japanese Communities After The 3/11 Earthquake: An Actor Oriented Perspective, An STS Forum on Fukushima Interdisciplinary conversations about Fukushima & the NE Japan Disaster. [54] Matanle, P. (2012). The Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Meltdown. An Assessment One Year On, The Japan Society of the UK Lecture Geographical Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, April 14, 2012 [55] McCurry, J. (2013). Plummeting morale at Fukushima Daiichi as nuclear cleanup takes its toll, The Guardian, October 15, 2013. [56] McNeill, J. (2011). Quake, Tsunami Environmental Impact May be Minimal, Scholar Says, Georgetown University, March 22, 2011. [57] Miyashita, K. (2014). Minimizing the Contamination of Agricultural Environment toward Food Safety – With primary focus on the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Food and Fertilizer Technology Center publications [58] Mizunom T., Kubo, H. (2013). Overview of Active Cesium Contamination of Freshwater Fish in Fukushima and Eastern Japan, Fukushima Update, Scientific Reports 3. [59] Mori, N., Takahashi, T., Yasuda, T., Yanagisawa, H. (2011): Survey of 2011 Tohoku earthquake tsunami inundation and run-up, Geophysical Research Letters, 38. [60] Morino Y., Ohara, T., Nishizava, M. (2011). Atmospheric behavior, deposition, and budget of radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant in March 2011, Geophysical Research Letters 38.

214 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[61] Møller, A., A. Hagiwara, S. Matsui, S. Kasahara, K. Kawatsu, I. Nishiumi, H. Suzuki, K. Ueda, T. Mousseau (2012). Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl, Environmental Pollution, 164: 36–39. [62] Moqsud, M., Omine, K. (2013). Bioremediation of Agricultural Land Damaged by Tsunami http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56595 [63] Murayama, T. (2012). Social impacts induced by radiation risk in Fukushima, 'IAIA12 Conference Proceedings', Energy Future The Role of Impact Assessment, 32nd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 27 May- 1 June 2012, Porto, Portugal. [64] Nagashima, S. (2013). Works done by JA Fukushima for restoration, after 2 years from the disaster, presentation at the JA Conference in Fukushima, May 18. [65] Nakanishi, T. K. Tanoi (editors) (2013). Agricultural Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, Springer. [66] Nemoto, T. (2014). For Accelerating the Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake, Presentation of the Minister for Reconstruction, February 2014 [67] Nomura, T., Hokugo, T. (2013). Situation of Compensation In Japan Based on the presentation at the NEA Workshop on “Nuclear damages, liability issues and compensation schemes”, OECD NEA [68] Oacchioli, D. (2014). Health Risks, Oceanus, WHOI, 20-23. [69] Ogata, K., Pushpalal, D. (2013). Japanese Literature Survey of Ecosystem Services in Disaster Risk Reduction, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [70] Oka, T. (2012). Application of cost-benefit analysis to the regulation of foodstuffs contaminated with radioactive substances, Japanese Journal of Health Physics, 47(3): 181-188. [71] Okuyama, S. (2014). Three Years After the Nuclear Accident, The Japan News, April 22, 2014. [72] Osawa, J. (2011). Radiation Detected in Tea Leaves in Japan, Wall Street Journal. 11 May. [73] Ranghieri, F. and M. Ishiwatari (editors) (2014). Learning from Megadisasters. Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake, Word Bank, Washington DC. [74] Rosen, A. (2013). Critical Analysis of the WHO’s health risk assessment of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe [75] Yoshida, R. (2012). 869 Tohoku tsunami parallels stun, Japan Times, 11 March 2012. [76] Parvaz, D. (2014). Can Japan revive its nuclear ghost towns? Aljazeera, March 6, 2014. [77] Pushpalal, D., J. Rhyner, and V. Hossini (2013). The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [78] Pushpalal, D. (2013). A Journey through the Lands of the Great East Japan Earthquake, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [79] Pushpalal, D., Z. Yan, T. Thi, Y. Scherbak and M. Kohama (2013). Tears of Namie: An appraisal of Human Security of Township of Nanmie, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. [80] Saito, M. (2011). Radiation found in seaweed near crippled Japan plant, Reuthers, May 13. [81] Sekizawa J. (2013). Appropriate Risk Governance on Radionuclide Contamination in Food in Japan, in S. Ikeda and Y. Maeda (editors), Emerging Issues Learned from the 3.11 Disaster as Multiple Events of Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Nuclear Accident, The Society for Risk Analysis Japan, 31-35. [82] Slodkowski, A. (2011). Japan anti-nuclear protesters rally after quake, Reuters, June 15, 2011. [83] Strand, P., T. Aono, J. E. Brown, J. Garnier-Laplace, A. Hosseini, T. Sazykina, F. Steenhuisen, Batlle, J. (2014). Assessment of Fukushima-Derived Radiation Doses and Effects on Wildlife in Japan, Environment Science Technology Letters, 1 (3): 198–203. [84] Suppasri, A. and E. Mas (2013). Field Guide of tsunami damage and reconstruction site visit in Miyagi prefecture, International Research Institute of Disaster Science [85] Takada, A. and Y. Song (2012). Fukushima Farmers Face Decades of Tainted Crops as Fears Linger, Bloombeg, March 19, 2012. [86] Takabe, I., Inui, T. (2013). The Estimation of Great Earthquake Impacts on Japanese Labor Market, Agricultural Sector and GDP, Proceedings 59th ISI World Statistics Congress, 25-30 August 2013, Hong Kong, 722-728. [87] Takeuchi, T., Fujioka, E. (2013). The agony of Fukushima farmers, in Stories & Facts from Fukushima, Vol.1, JANIC. [88] Thompsonm, J., Matsutani, M. (2013). Japanese fast-food chain Yoshinoya to sell Fukushima produce, Financial Times, October 1, 2013. [89] Tsumine D., T. Tsubono, M. Aoyama, Hirose, K. (2012). Distribution of oceanic Cs 137 from Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant simulated numerically by a regional ocean model, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 111, 100-108. [90] UFJ (2011). The Economic Impacts of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake: A Supply-Side Analysis, UFJ, Economic Review, 6(3). [91] Ujiie, K. (2011). An analysis of willingness to accept for radioactive contamination on agricultural products http://www.u.tsukuba.ac.jp/~ujiie.kiyokazu.gf/files/CP_JT.pdf [92] Ujiie, K. (2012). Japanese Consumer Evaluation of Radioactive Contamination on Food: Rationality and Emotion, ppt presentation provided by the author. [93] Umeda, S. (2013). Japan: Responses to the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center. [94] Urabe J., T. Suzuki, T. Nishita, Makino, W. (2013). Immediate Ecological Impacts of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami on Intertidal Flat Communities, PLOS/One [95] Vervaeck, A., Daniell, J. (2012). One Year Summary of Losses in the Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami of March 11th 2011, Eartquake-report.com [96] Waldenberger, F., Eilker, J. (2014). The Economic Impact of the Tohoku Earthquake, L’Ecole des Haute Etudes [97] Watanabe, A. (2011). Agricultural Impact of the Nuclear Accidents in Fukushima: The Case of Ibaraki Prefecture, in Disaster, Infrastructure and Society Learning from the 2011 Earthquake in Japan, (1): 291- 298. [98] Watanabe, N. (2013). Current State of Losses from the Nuclear Accident and Support Measures by JA- Affiliated Organizations:, Norinchikin Research Institute. [99] Watts, J. (2011). Japan tsunami: A shortage of petrol and food but many bodies to bury, The Guardian, March 15, 2011. [100] Watts, J. (2011). After Japan's quake and tsunami, freezing weather threatens relief efforts, The Guardian, March 16, 2011. [101] Wines, M. (2011). Japan Nuclear Crisis Erodes Farmers’ Livelihoods, The New york Times, March 29, 2011. [102] Yomiuri Shimbun (2011-2014): different issues (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp)

216 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[103] Yasunaria, T., Stohlb, A., Hayanoc, R., Burkhartb, J., Eckhardtb, S., Yasunarie, T. (2011). Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident, PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/11/1112058108 [104] Yonekura, H. (2013). Resettlement after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Tohoku, in The Great East Japan Earthquake 11 March 2011 – Lessons Learned and Research Questions, Conference proceedings, UNU-EHS, Bonn. *** Arirang News (2011): Highly Radioactive Substances Detected in Tokyo, May 15, 2011. *** Asiaone News (2013): Solar sharing' spreading among Fukushima farmers, Asiaone News, June 26, 2013. *** BBC News (2011): Anti-nuclear protests take place in Japan, March 25, 2011. *** Biodiversity Center of Japan (2013): Impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake on the Natural Environment in Tohoku Coastal Regions, Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment *** Britannica (2014): Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011, Britannica, Academic Edition. *** Channel News Asia (2013): Beta Burns on Fukushima cattle ignored by Japanese officials, Channel News Asia, August 2013. *** City of Sendai (2014). Fresh breeze of Change in Agriculture Starts Here, City of Sendai, March 2014. *** Cyberpunk World (2014). Japan is building a futuristic farm in Fukushima, January 8, 2014. *** Deutsche Welle (2011). Japan's tsunami victims only had 15 minutes warning, March 11, 2011. *** Deutsche Welle (2011). Quake shifted Japan by over two meters, Deutsche Welle, March 14, 2011. *** Foodwatch (2011). Calculated Fatalities from Radiation. Officially Permissible Limits for Radioactively Contaminated Food in the European Union and Japan, German Society for Radiation Protection, Berlin. *** Fukushima Minpo News (2014). different issues http://www.fukushimaminponews.com/ *** JA-ZENCHU (2011). Recovery and Reconstruction by Rower of Cooperation, Central Union of Agricultural Cooperatives. *** JAIF (2011-2012). different issues (http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/) *** JANIC (2013). Stories & Facts from Fukushima, Vol.1, March 25, 2013. *** JETRO (2013). Renewable Energy/Secondary Battery, November 2013. *** JICA (2013). The Study of Reconstruction Processes from Large-scale Disasters - JICA’s Support for Reconstruction, Final Report, Japan International Cooperation Agency. *** Japan Finance Corporation (2011-2013). Findings on the impact of the earthquake on food industry, July 2011 survey (in Japanese). *** Japan Finance Corporation (2011-2013). Findings of the impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake has given to farm management, August 2011 survey (in Japanese). *** Japan Finance Corporation (2011-2014). Consumer Survey results on changes in purchasing behavior of consumers after Earthquake, July 2011 survey (in Japanese). *** JFS (2011). Sunflower Project to Clean Up Radioactive Soil in Fukushima, Japan for Sustainability, August 31, 2011. *** Japan Meteorological Agency (2014). Information on the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake, Japan Meteorological Agency. *** Japan Meteorological Agency (2013). Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Japan Meteorological Agency. *** Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (2011). Subsidence investigation due to the 2011 Tohoku-Pacific Ocean earthquake, Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, April 2011. *** Government of Japan (2012). Road to Recovery, March 2012. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log, International Atomic Energy Agency, March 24, 2011. *** Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (2012). Summary of the Fukushima accident's impact on the environment in Japan, one year after the accident, IRSN, February 28, 2012. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). Japan Earthquake Update, International Atomic Energy Agency, March 19, 2011. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident, International Atomic Energy Agency, April 26, 2011. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). IAEA international fact finding expert mission of the Fukushima dai-ichi npp accident following the great east Japan earthquake and tsunami. June 2011. *** International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2012). The Great East Japan Earthquake. Learning from Megadisasters, Knowledge Notes, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington DC. *** Institute for Studies in Happiness, Economy and Society (2011). How Did the Great East Japan Earthquake Affect Ecosystems and Biodiversity? Institute for Studies in Happiness, Economy and Society. *** BBC News (2011). Anti-nuclear protests take place in Japan, March 25, 2011. *** Biodiversity Center of Japan (2013). Impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake on the Natural Environment in Tohoku Coastal Regions, Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment. *** Britannica (2014). Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011, Britannica, Academic Edition. *** Channel News Asia (2013). Beta Burns on Fukushima cattle ignored by Japanese officials, Channel News Asia, August 2013. *** City of Sendai (2014). Fresh breeze of Change in Agriculture Starts Here, City of Sendai, March 2014. *** Cyberpunk World (2014). Japan is building a futuristic farm in Fukushima, January 8, 2014. *** Deutsche Welle (2011). Japan's tsunami victims only had 15 minutes warning, March 11, 2011. *** Deutsche Welle (2011). Quake shifted Japan by over two meters, Deutsche Welle, March 14, 2011. *** Foodwatch (2011). Calculated Fatalities from Radiation. Officially Permissible Limits for Radioactively Contaminated Food in the European Union and Japan, German Society for Radiation Protection, Berlin *** Fukushima Minpo News (2014). different issues http://www.fukushimaminponews.com/) *** JA-ZENCHU (2011). Recovery and Reconstruction by Rower of Cooperation, Central Union of Agricultural Cooperatives. *** JAIF (2011-2012). different issues (http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/) *** JANIC (2013). Stories & Facts from Fukushima, Vol.1, March 25, 2013. *** JETRO (2013). Renewable Energy/Secondary Battery, November 2013. *** JICA (2013). The Study of Reconstruction Processes from Large-scale Disasters - JICA’s Support for Reconstruction, Final Report, Japan International Cooperation Agency. *** Japan Finance Corporation (2011-2013). Findings on the impact of the earthquake on food industry, July 2011 survey (in Japanese). *** Japan Finance Corporation (2011-2013). Findings of the impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake has given to farm management, August 2011 survey (in Japanese). *** Japan Finance Corporation (2011-2014). Consumer Survey results on changes in purchasing behavior of consumers after Earthquake, July 2011 survey (in Japanese).

218 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

*** JFS (2011). Sunflower Project to Clean Up Radioactive Soil in Fukushima, Japan for Sustainability, August 31, 2011. *** Japan Meteorological Agency (2014). Information on the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake, Japan Meteorological Agency. *** Japan Meteorological Agency (2013). Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Japan Meteorological Agency. *** Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (2011). Subsidence investigation due to the 2011 Tohoku-Pacific Ocean earthquake, Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, April 2011. *** Government of Japan (2012): Road to Recovery, March 2012. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011): Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log, International Atomic Energy Agency, March 24, 2011. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011): Japan Earthquake Update, International Atomic Energy Agency, March 19, 2011. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident, International Atomic Energy Agency, April 26, 2011. *** International Atomic Energy Agency (2011). IAEA international fact finding expert mission of the Fukushima dai-ichi npp accident following the great east Japan earthquake and tsunami. June 2011. *** International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2012). The Great East Japan Earthquake. Learning from Megadisasters, Knowledge Notes, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington DC. *** Institute for Studies in Happiness, Economy and Society (2011). How Did the Great East Japan Earthquake Affect Ecosystems and Biodiversity? Institute for Studies in Happiness, Economy and Society *** Iwate Prefecture (2011). Iwate Prefecture Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Reconstruction Plan, August 2011. *** Kyodo News (2011). Spinach with radiation 27 times higher than limit found in Japan, March 21. *** Landline (2013). Nuclear Farming, May 25, 2013. *** LDP (2014). 267,000 remain evacuees as earthquake-tsunami disasters’ 3rd anniversary approaches, March 10, 2014. *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2011). Response to Emergency Radionuclides in Foods after the Nuclear Power Plant Accident, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2010-2014). Statistical yearbook of MAFF. *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2013). Agricultural output of tsunami damaged municipalities, December 25, 2013 (in Japanese). *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2013). Business conditions of agricultural and fisheries management bodies in tsunami affected areas, July 26, 3013 (in Japanese). *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2014). Business conditions of agricultural and fisheries management bodies in tsunami affected areas for 2013 (in Japanese). *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2014). Business resumption status of agricultural management entities in disaster prefectures, February 1, 2014 (in Japanese). *** Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2014). Reconstruction master plan overview of the agriculture and rural, June 26, 2014 (in Japanese). *** Ministry of Environment (2012). The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2012-2020, Ministry of Environment. *** Ministry of Environment (2012). Estimated total amount of debris washed out by the Great East Japan Earthquake, Ministry of Environment. *** Ministry of Environment (2014). Progress on Off-site Cleanup Efforts in Japan, Ministry of Environment, February and October, 2014. *** Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2012). Report of Survey on Health and Nutrition of National Public, Health Service Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. *** Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2013). Survey of Dietary Intake of Radionuclides (September to October 2012), Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Press Release June 21, 2013. *** Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2014). Levels of Radioactive Contaminants in Foods Tested in Respective Prefectures, December 5, 2014 report. *** Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2011). Readings at Monitoring Post out of 20 km Zone of Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, March 20, 2011. *** Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2011). Results of the Survey on the Distribution of Radioactive Substances by MEXT (Survey on the Movement of Radioactive Substances in River Water and Well Water), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. *** Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2012). Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake, http://www.mext.go.jp/ *** National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2011). Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami: Looking Back from Space, Earth Observatory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, March 14, 2011. *** National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2012). Effects of the Tohoku Tsunami on the Kitakami River, Earth Observatory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, March 11, 2012. *** National Institute for Research Advancement (2013). Status of Recovery and Current Problems in Three Disaster-hit Prefectures What the Data Tells Us Indexes for Recovery and Reconstruction following the Great East Japan Earthquake, National Institute for Research Advancement. *** NHK World (2011-2014). different issues http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/ *** NISA (2011). Seismic Damage Information, the 110th Release, 23 April, Nuclear and Industrial Safely Agency of Japan. *** Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (2011). NISA News Release, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, April 12, 2011. *** Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (2011). Accident of Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the evaluation on the state of the reactor core of Unit 3, Unit 2 Unit 1, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, July 6, 2011 (in Japanese). *** Nuclear Regulation Authority (2012). Readings of soil monitoring (All Results for May 2011), Nuclear Regulation Authority, September 2012. *** Nuclear Regulation Authority (2014). Monitoring information of environmental radioactivity level, Nuclear Regulation Authority *** Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). OECD Economic Surveys Japan, The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. *** Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and NEA (2012). Japan’s Compensation System for Nuclear Damage As Related to the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, OECD and NEA.

220 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

*** Reconstruction Agency (2014). Efforts and the current state of reconstruction, 26 August 2014 (in Japanese). *** Reuters (2011). Japan to spend at least $13 billion for decontamination, October 20, 2011. *** Resilient ITS (2014). Made in New Japan, Government of Japan, http://mnj.gov-online.go.jp/its.html *** http://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/Fukushima/WHO_Fukushima_Report2013_Criticism _en.pdf *** Science Council of Japan (2011). Emergency Recommendation Regarding the Systematic Inspection against Rumors on Foods and Farming Stemming from the Nuclear Disaster September 6, 2011, Science Council of Japan. *** TEPCO (2012). Estimation of the released amount of radioactive materials into the atmosphere as a result of the accident in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, Estimation made as of May 2012, Tokyo Electric Power Company. *** TEPCO (2012). Result of estimation of the released amount of radioactive materials into the ocean (in the vicinity of a port) as a result of the accident in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, Estimation made as of May 2012, Tokyo Electric Power Company. *** TEPCO (2014). Press Release, Tokyo Electric Power Company, February 24, 2014. *** TEPCO (2014). Report on the Investigation and Study of Unconfirmed/Unclear Matters In the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, Progress Report No.2, TEPCO, August 6, 2014. *** The Asahi Shimbun (2011-2014). different issues http://www.asahi.com/english/ *** The Japan Daily Press (2011-2014). different issues http://japandailypress.com/ *** The Japan News (2011-2014). different issues http://the-japan-news.com/ *** The Japan Times (2011-2014). different issues http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ *** The Mainichi Daily News (2011-2014). different issues http://mainichi.jp/english/ *** The National Diet of Japan (2012). The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, Executive summary, The National Diet of Japan. *** The New York Times (2011). Japan Nuclear Crisis Erodes Farmers’ Livelihoods, March 29, 2011. *** The New York Times (2012). Levels of Radioactive Materials Rise Near Japanese Plant, April 16. *** The Telegraph (2011). Fukushima caesium leaks 'equal 168 Hiroshimas, August 25, 2011. *** United Nations Environment Programme (2012). Managing post-disaster debris: the Japan experience Report of the International Expert Mission to Japan – 2, UNEP, June 2012. *** United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2014): UNSCEAR 2013 Report, Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, New York *** US Geological Survey (2014), Magnitude 9.0 – Near the East Coast of Hohshu, Japan, US Geological Survey. *** World Health Organization (2011). Japan earthquake and tsunami Situation Report No. 6, World Health Organization, March 15, 2011. *** World Health Organization (2011). Japan earthquake and tsunami Situation Report No. 9, World Health Organization, March 18, 2011. *** World Health Organization (2012). Preliminary dose estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, World Health Organization, Genève. *** World Health Organization (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on a preliminary dose estimation, World Health Organization, Genève. *** World Wide Fund (2013). Japan Report on the Nature and Livelihood Recovery Project. A prelim assessment of ecological and social-economic changes in selected areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, 2011, World Wide Fund

222 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10 ).04

AN ANALYTICAL VIEW OF USING E-COMMUNICATION TOOLS IN PROMOTING OF SELECTED PILGRIM TOURISM SITES IN SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Martina FERENCOVÁ Faculty of Public Administration, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Slovakia [email protected] Veronika MIŠENČÍKOVÁ Roman Catholic Archbishopric Košice, Slovakia [email protected] Sebastian KOT The Management Faculty, Czestochowa UT, Poland [email protected] Suggested Citation: Ferencová, M., Mišenčíková, V., Kot, S. (2014). An analitic view of using e-communication tools in promoting of selected ligrim tourism sites in Slovak Republic, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 223-229. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).03. Available from: http://www.asers.eu/ journals/jemt/curent- issue. Article’s History: Received November, 2014; Revised December, 2014; Accepted December, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract: Using promotional tools with an emphasis on e-communication instruments is an integral part of modern marketing strategy of companies, firms and organisations. An analysis of their use in the area of culture – aimed at cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites - isalso topical taking into consideration all target groups. This article examines the use of e-communication tools with an emphasis on social networks when promoting selected cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites according to a designed e- communication model. The results of the analysis indicate a below average and insufficient use of e- communication tools, mainly social networks when promoting selected cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites in the Prešov region in the east of the Slovak Republic. Keywords: cultural heritage monuments, pilgrimage sites, promotional tools, social networks. JEL Classification: M3 1. Introduction Apart from offering a good product available to a specific target group (in terms of prices and distribution), it is inevitable that a company interacts with its clients (Kotler and Keller, 2007).The necessity of communication with the market and the significance of communication status result from a basic philosophy of marketing, i.e. knowledge of the market, its needs and the most effective way of meeting those needs (Gúčik et al., 2011; Karas and Ferencova, 2010). “Due to the economic environment in constant change, tourism is flexible and has a great capacity for adaptation, facilitated by the small size and rapid decision making. Tourism easily adapts to the requirements and demands of consumers” (Simionescu, 2014, p. 63) including with respect to certain "aspects of the relation between tourism and social diversity" (Giusti and Viviani, 2013, p. 57), tourism and national diversity and also tourism and religious diversity, respectively including with respect to demographic indicators (Moisa, 2010) or regional specifics (Jeleňová, 2014). Marketing communication in tourism is to create and stimulate demand for a product, to differentiate the product and a firm from their competitors, to stabilise a turnover, to build and take care of the brand, and to strengthen a corporate image (Rajčák and Rajčáková, 2012; Herbuś and Ślusarczyk, 2012). Synergistic effect of using an appropriate combination of instruments of marketing communication is enhanced by modern information technology and media. Communication with a customer by means of the internet is currently the most dynamic and effective communication form. Levinson (2011), Chaffeyet al (2009) and others argue that the internet is a medium that may fulfil all communication aims and is currently unsurpassable. 2. E-marketing and e-communications In the context of e-marketing, e-communication (communication over the internet) uses the so called modern tools and means of promotion, mainly on-line social media (Traedaway and Smith, 2012.). Their use has several advantages: interconnecting (“interweaving”) and community building, fostering greater openness and transparency, the possibility of obtaining different views, opinions, and perspectives, creating and sharing knowledge, motivating and mobilising people to joint activities, coordinating resources and activities (Scearce et al., 2010). Social media allow for a free information flow among users, facilitate the interaction between them and the expression of ideas. They include blogs, wiki, social bookmarking, media space for sharing, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace and the like. These can support virtual communities so that they would influence and communicate with one another (Taylor et al., 2012). These tools with an emphasis on social networks became our survey interest when examining the promotion of selected cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites (Grondys et al., 2014). 3. Material and methods In the survey, religious cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites were identified by means of key word phrases, the Prešov region, cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites (using a search engine). After selecting these monuments and sites,the websites presenting them were searched for (preferably the websites of the monuments themselves as well as the websites of parishes, towns and others, for example tourist portals and the like). A survey sample– cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites located in the Prešov region, in the east of the Slovak Republic - was defined on the basis of the survey and selection (Table 1). Table 1 A survey sample A religious cultural heritage No Analysed websites monument/pilgrimage site 1. St. James Church in Levoča www.chramsvjakuba.sk 2. Basilica Minor of St Aegidius (St Giles) in Bardejov www.bardejov.sk/mesto/turizmus/pamiatky 3. Cathedral Temple of St John the Baptist in Prešov www.presov.grkatpo.sk/about.html 4. St Nicholas Church in Prešov www.presov.rimkat.sk/farnost-sv-mikulasa.html 5. Calvary – St Cross Church in Prešov www.presov.sk/portal/?c=12&id=3106 6. Lutheran College in Prešov www.presov.sk/portal/?c=12&id=3087 7. The Synagogue in Prešov (a museum) www.synagoga-presov.sk/ 8. Ľutina – Death of the Virgin Mary Basilica Minor www.bazilikalutina.sk/ 9. Wooden churches (UNESCO) www.drevenechramy.sk/ 10. Red Monastery (a museum) www.muzeumcervenyklastor.sk/ 11. Mariánskahora (Marian Hill) – Zvir Hill near Levoča www.rkc.levoca.sk/k_marianskahora.html 12. Litmanová – a pilgrimage site www.horazvir.sk/ 13. Gaboltov – a pilgrimage site www.gaboltov.rimkat.sk/gallery.php?ideme=index 14. St Martin’s Cathedral in SpišskáKapitula www.farnost.kapitula.sk/?page_id=120 15. Tročany – a wooden church with and an icon www.zdch.grkatpo.sk/?trocany Source: Authors’ elaboration

The aim of the paper was to analyse the current state of using e-communication tools by selected cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites located in the Prešov region, in the east of the Slovak Republic. The analysis focused on the use of e-communication tools and it was performed according to an e- communication model (model elements were theanalysis criteria) developed for the needs of research grant

224 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

APVV SK-PL-0061-12. The e-communication model (of promotional tools on the internet) contained 4 elements: . Applied e-communication tools: YouTube (the number of videos, updatedness) Facebook (updatedness, photos, invitations, a number of fans, information and a number of shares), a website, blog, Google+, PageRank, PPC, E-mailing, banners, external banners (160 points); . Information (on a selected monument): history, photographs, opening hours and entrance fees, contacts (40 points); . Services (services provided at the location and in its vicinity): accommodation, catering services, tourism within 30 km, historical sites within 30 km (40 points); . Graphics (a website providing information on the monument): a visual impact, website content, a layout, user-friendliness of the website (40 points) Scores for particular criteria ranged from 0 to 10 points (with 10 points being the highest awarded score and 0 the lowest one). The maximum number of points that the promotion of a monument on the internet could score was 280 points. Table 2 Categories according to the number of points Category Value Description 1 280 – 211 Above average use of promotional tools on the internet 2 210 – 140 Average use of promotional use on the internet 3 140 – 70 Below average use of promotional tools on the internet 4 69 – 0 Insufficient use of promotional use on the internet Source: Authors’ elaboration

4 values and 4 categories, on the basis of which the results of the analysis of e-communication tools for promoting selected monuments and pilgrimage sites were assessed, are discussed in the Results of analysis section. Descriptive statistics tools (column and spider graphs) were used to process data. 4. Results of the analysis Graph 1 shows the overall results of the analysis of the survey sample elements, that is of all selected cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites in the Prešov region, in the east of the Slovak Republic, according to scoring based on the communication model. The results obtained from analysingthe use of e-communication tools according to the developed e- communication model (Graph 1) show that none of the pilgrimage sites or monuments ranked in the first, above average category. The third, below average category contains as many as 6 historic monuments and 1 pilgrimage site. In some cases, the points were scored thanks to publishing information on services available in the vicinity. Totally three monuments did not publish information on services. In one case there was very little professional and trustworthy content regarding the monument. 5 monuments and 1 pilgrimage site ranked in the fourth, insufficient category. These sites did not have any information on services at all and used promotional internet tools very little. Červený kláštor (Red Monestary), Gaboltov as well as the Synagogue in Prešov were the only exceptions. Tročany scored the lowest number of points. It does not have the website and itpromotes itself by no internet tools. The website,with some information on Tročany, had well assessed graphics but the information on the monument itself was not sufficient. The highest score of 171 points was obtained by a pilgrimage site Ľutina, followed by a pilgrimage site on ZvirHill near Litmanová with 142 points. Both sites use internet tools for promotion with an emphasis on social networks to the greatest extent. Only these two sites were placed in the second, average category. They gained approximately the same amount of points for information on the pilgrimage site. However, they do not mention services (accommodation, catering, tourism and historic monuments) on their websites, which might be considered as a disadvantage and a starting point for improving information service for target groups. Graphics of these pilgrimage sites was assessed almost equally, with Ľutina scoring 6 more points than Litmanová. We describe the analysis of these pilgrimage sites in more details in the following text by means of column and spider graphs and their interpretations.

Promotion Information on the momument/site Information on services Graphics

Ľutina ­ gréckokatolícke pútnické miesto Chrám sv. Jakuba v Levoči Drevené kostoly UNESCO (Hervartov,… Levoča – Mariánska hora - pútnické miesto Evanjelické kolégium v Prešove Katedrála sv. Jána Krstiteľa v Prešove Synagóga v Prešove Tročany ­ ikona 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Graph 1 Graphic illustration of overall analysis results Source: Authors’ elaboration Ľutina – Death of the Virgin Mary Basilica Minor - www.bazilikalutina.sk The best known and the most significant Greek Catholic pilgrimage site in Slovakia with the oldest and the only Greek Catholic Basilica Minor in Slovakia. It was promoted to basilica minor in1988 by an apostolic brief by John Paul II. On 20 August 2011 the basilica was enriched with a reliquary with a relic (blood) of the St John Paul II. Another relic was donated by the Prešov archbishop and metropolitan JánBabjak SJ. It is the relic of St. Nicholas. As can be seen from Graph 2, a pilgrimage site Ľutina uses promotional possibilities at the rate of 111 out of 160 points, which represents 69,38 %. Criteria for providing information gained 31 out of 40 points, which represents 77,50%. The area of providing information on services in the vicinity scored 0 out of 40 points. Criteria relating to graphics of the website scored 29 points out of 40, that is 72,50%.

100,00% 77,50% 72,50% 80,00% 69,38% 59,05% 60,00% 58,00% A monument/pilgrimage site 40,00% 19,67% 20,00% Average 20,00% 0,00% 0,00% Promotion Information Services Graphics 111/160 31/40 0/40 29/40

Source: Authors’ elaboration Graph 2 Percentage rating– Ľutina Promotion Information Services Graphics Pilgrimage sites Average Graph 3 clearly illustrates that the pilgrimage site Ľutina excels in using Facebook, Google+ and its own website that includes contact details, photographs and history. As one of the few ones, it uses banners as a modern e-communication tool on both internal and external websites.

226 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

A monument/pilgrimage site Average

YouTube-a number of videos Work 10 Youtube-topicality Layout 9 FB-topicality Content 8 FB-photos 7 Visual side FB-invitations 6 Monuments within 30 km 5 FB-fans 4 3 Hiking within 30 km 2 FB-information 1 Catering 0 FB-sharing

Accommodation Google+

Contact details Website

Accessibility Blog Fhotographs Page Rank History PPC Banners extern E-mailing Bannners

Source: Authors’ elaboration Graph 3 Criteria scoring– Ľutina Litmanová– ZvirMount– a pilgrimage site - www.horazvir.sk ZvirHill near Litmanová is a well-known Greek Catholic pilgrimage site. From 1990 to 1995 the Virgin Mary kept appearing to two girls IvetkaKorčáková and KatarínaČešelková. Below the summit there is Basilica of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary that was granted the title by John Paul II in 1984. Every year, on the 2 of June, a pilgrim takes place there. As shown in Graph 4, the use of promotional possibilities on the internet and of internet tools gained 85 out of 160 points, representing 53,13%. Criteria for providing information were given 34 out of 40 points, which is 85%. Graphics obtained 23 out of 40 points that is 57,50%. It exceeds the average only in promotion and information on the monument.

100,00% 85,00%

80,00% 58,00% 53,13% 57,50% 60,00% Pilgrimage sites 40,00% 59,05% 19,67% 20,00% Average 20,00% 0,00% 0,00% Propagation Information Services Graphics 85/160 34/40 0/40 23/40

Source: Authors’ elaboration Graph 4 Percentage rating– Litmanová– a pilgrimage site Data of the Graph 5 present that Litmanová excels on Facebook in topicality, the number of photographs and invitations. It has more fans, information and shares on Facebook than the average. On its own website it stands out for photographs, a contact and banners.

Pilgrimage site Average

YouTube­a number… Work 10 Youtube-topicality Layout FB-topicality Content 8 FB-photos Visual side 6 FB-invitations Monuments within… FB-fans 4 Hiking within 30 km 2 FB-information Catering 0 FB-sharing

Accommodation Google+

Contact details Website Accessibility Blog Fhotographs Page Rank History PPC Banners extern E-mailing Bannners

Graph 5 Criteria scoring – Litmanová – a pilgrimage site Source: Authors’ elaboration Pilgrimage sites Ľutina and Litmanová in the Prešov region in the east of the Slovak Republic gained the highest scores. They actively use e-communication tools, social networks and in terms of the designed communication model they ranked in the second average category. Conclusion On the basis of the survey and results of the analysis it can be stated that when promoting selected cultural heritage monuments and pilgrimage sites in the Prešov region, in the east of the Slovak Republic, e- communication tools lie in the range of below average (141 – 70 points) to insufficient use (69 – 0 points). Average rating for the elements of our e-communication model analysed in this paper suggests that there are considerable gaps in: . presenting services in the vicinity of selected monuments and pilgrimage sites (average 8 points); . providing relevant and attractive information on selected monuments and pilgrimage sites (average 20 points); . graphic design of the website portals presenting the monuments and pilgrimage sites (average 23,62 points), as well as in using e-communication tools with an emphasis on social networks (average 31,46 points ). If e-communication is to create and stimulate demand for the product – a cultural heritage monument or pilgrimage site – and to differentiate it from the competition, build and maintain its brand, and strengthen its positive image, it is inevitable and desirable that e-communication tools are actively used in the product promotion with an emphasis on social media in marketing terms. References [1] Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick, F., Mayer, R., Johnson, K. (2009). Internet marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice. Fourth Edition. New Jersey: PrenticeHall. [2] Giusti, A., Viviani, A. (2013). Social diversity: A look at tourism, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, Volume IV, 2 (8): 57-59.

228 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[3] Grondys, K., Ślusarczyk, B., Kot, S. (2014). Logistics view on religious tourism. In: Management 2014 Business, Management and Social Sciences Research, Stefko R., Frankovsky M., Vravec J., (eds.) Presov: Bookman s.r.o. [4] Gúčik, M. et al. (2011). Marketing cestovného ruchu.1.vyd. BanskáBystrica : Slovak-SwissTourism. [5] Herbuś, A., and Ślusarczyk, B. (2012). The use of corporate social responsibility idea in business management. In: Polish Journal of Management Studies, Vol6. [6] Jeleňová, I. (2014). Využívanie sociálnych sietí samosprávnymi krajmi na komunikáciu s občanom. In: Ľudský kapitál a spoločnosť. Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie. Košice: Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach, Fakulta verejnej správy, pp. 163-167. [7] Karas, L., and Ferencova, M. (2010). The survey of attitudes of students of management toward travel tour prices. In: Polish Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 2. [8] Kotler, Ph., Keller, K.L. (2007). Marketing management. 14. vyd. Praha: Grada Publishing, a.s. [9] Levinson, J.C. (2011). Guerilla marketing: Nejúčinnějšía finančněnenáročný marketing. Brno: Computer Press, a.s. [10] Moisa, C.O. (2010). The place and role of mobility in the development of youth travel. In: Polish, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 2. [11] Rajčák, M., Rajčáková, E. (2012). Marketingová komunikácia: Aktuálne trendy – metódy – techniky. Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave, Fakulta masmediálnej komunikácie [12] Scearce, D., Kasper, G., Grant, H.M. (2010). Workingwikily, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/working_wikily [13] Simionescu, S. (2014). Particular features of the revenue and expenditure in tourism activities of travel agencies, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, Volume V, 1(9): 63-69. [14] Taylor, R., King, F., Nelson, G. (2012). Student Learning Through Social Media. Journal of Sociological Research, Vol. 3, No. 2. [15] Traedaway, CH., Smith, M. (2012). Facebook Marketing: An hour a day. 2nd Edition. Indiana: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).05

EVOLUTIONAL-GENETIC APPROACH TO FORMATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS OF THE AGRICULTURAL TERRITORIES

Vladimir Vasilievich RASSADIN P.A. Stolypin Ulyanovsk State Agricultural Academy, Ulyanovsk, Russia Aleksandr Jurievich PAVLOV Penza State Technological University, Penza, Russia Vera Nikolaevna BATOVA Penza State Technological University, Penza, Russia [email protected] Andrey Vladimirovich KOLESNIKOV Saratov State Law Academy, Saratov, Russia Suggested Citation: Rassadin, V.V., Pavlov, A.J., Batova, V.N., Kolesnikov, A.V. (2014). Evolutional – genetic approach to formation of sustainable development indicators of the agricultural territories, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 230-236. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).05. Available from: http://www.asers.eu/ journals/jemt/curent-issue. Article’s History: Received November, 2014; Revised December, 2014; Accepted December, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract The system of sustainable development indicators of agricultural territories is substantiated in the article from the position of evolutionary-genetic approach. The sustainable development in many respects is determined by the stability of such constituents as labour resources, process of production, natural environment, legal, organizational-economic and information space. The sustainable development is represented by the function of economic potential and economic activity of population, residing in the agricultural territories. The factorial structure of source and relative indicators of economic potential and economic activity of population was considered. The development and realization of the programme of provision of the sustainable development in the region requires creation of the regional geoinformation systems and active usage of labour resources. It is necessary to name among priority tasks on creation of resources of space data in the form of bases of geodata as inventory and generalization of natural-resource, medico-biological and ecological information in the region, calculation and estimation of space sustainable development indicators of its agricultural territories. Keywords: sustainable development, evolutional-genetic theory of production factors, economic potential, economic activity, agricultural territory. JEL Classification: Q260 Q50

1. Introduction Social-economic development and transformations of the last decades in many countries of the world economy demonstrated the essential developments in the ways of conducted reforms and strategies of transformations. The evolutional-genetic processes finally determine the continuity of public development, selection and engineering of the economic methods, prognosis of the ways of development of countries and regions in modern conditions of integration, globalization and many others (Martishin 2006). The bases of evolutional-genetic approach were considered on the different historical steps and in different scientific schools, in the native and foreign social-economic literature, but especially actual, as it was observed, this problem became in the modern conditions of the civilized development (Hodgson and Knudsen 2006). 2. Main text

230 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The intensive process of closing the natural and public sciences (for example, biology particularly genetics, physics and economy) is the typical feature of modern development of the scientific knowledge (Andersen 2004). On the assumption of above-said the application of natural-scientific methods of study becomes rationale in the process of studying the economic phenomena and problems of social-economic development. First of all, it is connected with the insufficient substantiation of the traditional explanations of economic processes and phenomena, necessity of modelling and prognosis of further social-economic development of the society. Within the frameworks of realization of sustainable development policy of agricultural territories, actuality of consideration of the range of logically interrelated problems is increased with setting the relation of usage of natural-scientific methods, applied in the humanitarian sciences, in particular economy. In the end of XX century the world community began to discus widely the issues of formation of “new economy”, in which the production must be integrated with the solution of natural-scientific and humanitarian tasks. The position of Russian fund of fundamental studies, set since 2013 the nomination “Natural-scientific methods of studies in the humanitarian sciences” is significant. In connection with it, the realization of the principles of sustainable development and synergetic effect will become a determining motif of activity on all levels – from governments to the separate person in nearest future. The transition to sustainable development in the real sector of economy is connected, first of all, with adaptation of the methods, applied in the natural sciences to the humanitarian profile sciences (Aghion and Howitt 1992). In spite of the measures, taken in the transition period, creation of mixed economy in the village is in the stage of formation. The absence of effective agrarian policy stimulated the intensive migration of village inhabitants in the city. Moreover, the mechanism of market competition divided territory in dependence on available economic resources. The issue of provision of sustainable economically safe growth appeared. The solution of this problem is connected, first of all, with necessity of rooting the natural-scientific methodology in economy, as well as formation and development of the new paradigm of social-economic sciences (Binmore and Samuelson 2006). Unfortunately, the majority of native studies on the sustainable development emphasize attention on the ecological constituent, leaving the economic one without proper attention. So the necessity in theoretical and practical substantiation of this problem for understanding the essence of sustainable development of agricultural territories on the basis of using the evolutional-genetic approach appears (Binmore Samuelson 1999). Together with it, the actual issue is application of laws of such natural science as physic, in particular, adaptation of its sections – statics and dynamics, to the economic processes, characterizing the development and stability of social-economic systems (Brousseau and Glachant 2008). Analyzing the state of scientific development on studying engineering and business-processes recently, it is necessary to mark that, first of all, the evident domination of statistical studies and consideration of stabilities of the separate economic subjects (Nishibe 2006). However, the regional policy must be directed more not on the compensation of traditionally formed branch asymmetry, but on the new institutional approaches of the territorial development as a subject of economic activity with taking into account the natural-scientific aspects (Hodgson and Knudsen 2006). The evolutional approach in the economic science formed on the turn of different scientific disciplines. The basic principles of evolutional approach in the economy were borrowed from the evolutional biology. The analogies of mechanisms for inheritance, changeability, natural selection and diversity, are offered, and economic agents complete with each other for the general resource (Kyuntstsel 2010). The effect on the part of physics is expressed in that the economic phenomena possess some properties, typical for physical processes: non-equilibrium, stochastic behaviour, availability of self-maintaining processes (Colander et al. 2004). The evolutional approach in the economy can be considered as methodological alternative of non- classical approach. In the focus of analysis the non-balanced process are located, and the economy is considered as the system that constantly bears changes of different character (Brousseau and Glachant 2008). The development and implementation of the strategies of social-economic regional development is impossible without using the objective indicators of sustainable development (Foster 2005). The management of regional economic system supposes uninterrupted process of multi-criteria evaluation of appearing deviations in the social, economic and natural-resource area for its setting on the trajectory of the competitive, sustainable and economically safe development (Marks 2007). Formation of the development indicators is closely connected with the search, monitoring and classification of the actual statistical indicators, characterizing the resource provision and social-economic state of territories (Nelson 2006). However, the most important stage for creation of the system of sustainable development indicators of the agricultural territories is their theoretical substantiation. Theoretical-methodological approaches to substantiation of the system of sustainable development indicators of the agricultural territories (STB) are sufficiently reflected in the scientific literature. Probably, it is connected with the fact that representation about sustainable development and threshold value of its indicators can’t be unambiguously determined, as the regional reproduction process is determined by the aggregate of factors: natural-resource, ecological, labour, information, productive-technological and etc. (Safarzynska and Bergh 2010). The author’s conception offered below represents the substantiation of sustainable development indicators of the agricultural territories. 3. Case studies The sustainable development (STB) in wide sense should be understood as long-term purposeful self-maintaining development, at which the regional economy structure is not destroyed, the created conditions of life don’t lead to human degradation, and destructive economic processes are not developed to the scales, threatening the economic security of the regions (Orekhova et al. 2012). The provision of such development supposes growth of the economic development potential and economical activity increase in the region (Saviotti 2008). The stability of development of the agricultural territories can be represented by the function of potential for economic development (PED) and economic activity (EA) in the agricultural territories, which are on the territory of region: STB = F(PED; EA) The basis of formation of sustainable regional development indicators can be determined by the evolutional-genetic approach to the estimation of economic potential and economic activity in accordance with the new evolutional-genetic theory of production factors (Silva and Teixeira 2009). The basis of evolutional- genetic approach makes representation about endogenous “development nucleus” of the economic system and six basic factors of production: human (A), technical-technological (T), natural-resource (M), institutional (Ins), organizational (O) and informational (Inf). The specified factors determine six-dimensional state of economic potential and economic activity of the population (Table 1). Table 1. Factorial structure of economic potential (PED) and economic activity of EA Factors of production PED EA А PEDa EA Т PEDt EA М PEDm EA Ins PEDins EA О PEDo EA Inf PEDinf EA

Based upon the factorial structure of constituents of the regional security, the structure of indicators can be represented in the following type (Table 2): Table 2. Structure of sustainable development indicators Labour resources (А) STBа = F(PEDа; EAа) Technologies of production means (Т) STBt = F(PEDt; EAt) Sustainable development Natural environment (М) STBm = F(PEDm; EAm) (STB) Institutional environment (Ins) STBins= F(PEDins; EAins) Organizational space (О) STBo = F(PEDo; EAo) Informational space (Inf) STBinf = F(PEDinf; EAinf)

The state of sustainable development (STB) of the region and agricultural territories, which are on its territory, is determined by the stability: labour resources (STBа), production process (STBt), natural

232 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 environment (STBm), institutional environment (STBins), organizational environment (STBo), and regional informational space (STBinf). In the estimation process of sustainable development indicators of the agricultural territories, the choice of basic statistical indicators is important, on which basis the following calculation of relative (total) indicators is conducted (Hodgson and Knudsen 2010). The basic indicators in the course of economic regional potential estimation was determined by the volume of gross regional product in its interregional profile, i.e. gross municipal product (Q), and economic activity – the quantity of enterprises and organizations in each municipal region (O). For economic regional potential estimation PED, the range of source statistical indicators is offered (Table 3). Based upon the main calculation statistical indicator – the value of gross municipal product, the value and estimation of time dynamics of economic potential of agricultural territories is possible: . labour constituent PEDa = F(Q/A; A/Q); . technical-technological constituent PEDt = F(Q/T; T/Q); . natural-resource constituent PEDm = F(Q/M; M/Q); . institutional constituent PEDins = F(Q/Ins; Ins/Q); . organizational constituent PEDo = F(Q/O; O/Q); . informational constituent PEDinf = F(Inf/Q).

Table 3. Factorial structure of the source and relative economic potential indicators of agricultural territories (PED) Economic Source indicators Relative indicators potential (PED) Quantity of agricultural territories involved, Labour productivity (Q/A), production labour PEDa persons (A) capacity (A/Q) Technological return of the production funds Cost of basic funds, involved into PEDt (Q/T), technological capacity of gross agriculture, mln. RUB (T) municipal product (T/Q) Resource return (harvesting) (Q/M), Planted areas of all agricultural cultures in PEDm resource capacity of agricultural production the region, ths.ha (M) (M/Q) Level of legal discipline of organizations Quantity of crimes in the area of economy PEDins (Ins/O), organizational provision of economic in agricultural territories, units (Ins) crimes (O/Ins) Quantity of profitable organizations and Organizational productive return of gross PEDo enterprise in agricultural territories, units agricultural product (Q/O), organization (О) capacity of gross municipal product (O/Q) Expenditures on the informational- Informational capacity of gross agricultural PEDinf communicative technologies in agricultural product (Inf/Q) territories, mln. RUB/year (Inf)

The labour constituent PEDa can be expressed through the effectiveness of usage of labour resources on the basis of estimation of labour productivity (Q/A) and labour capacity of the production process (A/Q), measured by correlation of the value of annual gross municipal product (Q) and quantity of those, involved into municipal formation economy, i.e. PEDa = F(Q/A, A/Q). The technological constituent PEDt is characterized by the technological return of the production funds (/) and technical capacity (/) of the manufactured gross product, measured by correlation of the value of annual gross municipal product and cost of basic funds on each municipal formation separately, i.e. PEDt = F(Q/T, T/Q). The natural-resource constituent PEDm of economic potential of each municipal region on the separate area can be characterized by the value of resource return (Q/M) and resource capacity (M/Q) of the agricultural production, measured by the quantity of gross corns gathering from each hectare of planted area (t/ha) and area losses of land plots on the production of one tone of corns (ha/ton), i.e. PED = F(Q/M, M/Q). The economic potential is also characterized by the state of institutional PEDins, organizational PEDo, informational environment PEDinf in the agricultural territories, determining the transaction constituent PED. It goes about the level of legal discipline in organizations (Ins/O), i.e. about quality of made economic crimes in the calculation for organization, and also organizational provision of economic crimes (O/Ins), including the frequency of conduction of economic crimes of each n-th organization. The organizational return of gross municipal product production (Q/O) is measured by the share of manufactured gross municipal product in calculation for one organization, and organizational capacity of gross municipal product (O/Q) – quantity of organization, producing the unit of gross municipal product. Finally, the informational capacity of gross municipal product (Inf/Q) is determined by the expenditures on informational-communicative technologies in the region at production of gross municipal product unit. The source statistical indicators, necessary for estimation of the economic activity (EA) in the agricultural territories are represented in Table 4. Table 4. Factorial structure of source and relative indicators of economic activity (EA) Economic ٭Source indicators Relative indicators activity (ЕА) Organizational provision of labour quantity of agricultural territories ЕАа employment of population (О/А); labour involved, persons (A) capacity of organizations (А/О) Organizational provision of investments in the Investments into basic capital on ЕАt basic capital (investment deficit) (O/Ti); agricultural territories, mln. RUB (Тi) investment capacity of organization (Ti/O) The area of economically developed and Organizational provision of economic ЕАm anthropogenic transformed territory in development of agricultural territories (O/M); the agricultural territories, km2 (М) space capacity of production usage (M/O) Indebtedness on the credit juridical Organizational provision of credit ЕАins persons in the agricultural territories, indebtedness (O/Ins); volume of credit mln. RUB (Ins) indebtedness of organizations (Ins/O) organizational provision of unprofitable Quantity of unprofitable organizations in organizations in economy of agricultural ЕАo the agricultural territories, units (Оu) territories (O/Ou); total weight of unprofitable organizations (Ou/O) Expenditures of organization on Organizational provision of informational ЕАinf connection services in the agricultural activity (O/Inf); informational capacity of territories, mln. RUB (Inf) organizational activity (Inf/O) The indicator “quantity of enterprises and organizations in agricultural territories” (O), unit, accepted as ٭ :Note a quality of basic calculation indicator.

Based upon the basic calculation statistical indicator – quantity of organizations and enterprises (O), the calculation and estimation of the time dynamics of relative indicators of economic activity in agricultural territories is possible: . Labour force demand ЕАа = F(O/А; А/О); . Investment activity Eat = F(O/Ti; Ti/O); . Activity of natural space usage (activity of nature usage) EAm = F(O/M; M/O); . Usage of contractual obligations EAins = F(O/Ins; Ins/O); . Economic activity of organizational activity EAo = F (O/Ou; Ou/O); . Value of organizational demand on the information services EAinf=F(O/Inf; Inf/O). The estimation of labour force demand in the agricultural territories (EAa) can be executed on the basis of organizational provision of population labour employment (O/A) in the form of quantity of enterprises and organizations in the agricultural area in calculation for unit of population number (for example, for 1 ths. of human), and labour capacity of organization (A/O), measured in the quantity of regions, involved in the economy in calculation for one organization. Investment activity in the regions (ЕАt) is determined by the level of organizational provision of investments in the basic capital (O/Ti) in the form of quantity of organizations and enterprises in the regions

234 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 per unit of basic funds cost, ad investment capacity of organization (Ti/O), measured by the cost of basic funds in calculation for one organization. The most important constituent of economic activity, which determine the total state of ecological safety of agricultural territories and region on the whole, is activity in the area of nature usage (EAm) that is extremely important to take into account in the process of further estimations of state of ecological safety of the region. The activity in the area of nature usage can be evaluated by the area of economically developed and anthropogenic transformed agricultural territory, and two relative indicators – organizational provision of economic development of agricultural territory (quantity of enterprises – nature users for unit of agricultural area) (O/M), space capacity of nature usage (the area of economically developed territory in calculation for each agricultural enterprise) (M/O). The economic activity also can be evaluated by estimation of the contractual obligations execution of enterprises and organizations (EAins), namely, organizational provision of credit indebtedness (O/Ins) and volume of credit indebtedness in calculation for one organization. The economic effectiveness of organization activity (EAo) is evaluated by the value of organizational provision of unprofitability in the economy of agricultural territories (O/Ou), i.e. relation of quantity of all organizations in the region to quality of unprofitable organizations and total weight of unprofitable organizations to the general number of enterprises and organizations in the agricultural territories. The value of demand of organizations for information services (EAinf) is the most important indicator of information space development, determined, on the one part, as organizational provision of information activity (O/Inf), i.e. as quantity of organizations in the calculation for unit of expenditures on the informational- communicative technologies in the region, and, on the other part, as informational capacity of organization activity (Inf/O), determined by relation of expenditures on informational-communicative technology in the region in calculation for one organization. Sustainable development indicators formed and offered for practical usage are able to objectify the process of further estimation of space heterogeneity of factors, determining the economical sustainable state of agricultural territories. The quantitative estimations of the state of factorial spaces obtain at that in the form of range indicators in geoinformation system reveals the additional possibilities in zoning of the regional territories on the level of sustainable development of agricultural territories entering into it. The range estimation of economic potential and economic activity of agricultural territories allows characterizing not only the current state of sustainable development of agricultural territories, but also to build the prognosis estimation. Conclusions In the process of development of methodical approaches to studying the sustainable development of agricultural territories the following conclusions were obtained: . It is necessary to note the high productivity of realization of evolutional-genetic approach to substantiation of the indicators of sustainable development, which allow offering new indicators of sustainable development of territories and objective defining of the initial statistical indicators, necessary for their calculation. . Providing the sustainable development of agricultural territories objectively requires implementation and realization of monitoring for the factors of production at the regional level, adjusted to the natural, social and economic features of their territory. The purpose of conducting the monitoring of production factors is prognostication of sustainable development states, including estimation of the prospects of economic activity development and economic policy conducted in the region. . The development and implementation of the complex of sustainable development programmes requires active usage of the resources of space data about social-economic and natural-resource state of agricultural territories. The effective means of keeping resources of space data are geoinformation systems, integrating the available information about natural-resource and social-economic potential of agricultural territories. It is necessary to name among priority tasks on creation of resources of space data in the form of bases of geodata as inventory and generalization of natural-resource, medico- biological and ecological information in the region, calculation and estimation of space sustainable development indicators of its agricultural territories. . Introduction of monitoring of the production factors must take place upon condition of creation of the regional geoinformation systems and thematic geoportals, providing free access of the interested persons, organizations and public to the bases of socio-economic indicators and sustainable development indicators of agricultural territories created in the geoinformaiton system. Implementation of the scientific researches complex and introduction of the regional monitoring system in the deed of implementation of effective and ecologically secure economic policy in the region. Acknowledgements The article is prepared within the frameworks of execution of the Russian Fund grant of fundamental researches # 14-36-50427 “The research of formation of labour resources and conservation of agricultural territories on the basis of usage of evolutional-genetic approach”. References [1] Aghion, P., and Howitt, P.A. (1992). Model of Growth through Creative Destruction. Econometrica 60(2): 323-351. [2] Andersen, E.S. (2004). Population thinking, price's equation and the analysis of economic evolution. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 1: 127–148. [3] Binmore, K., and Samuelson, L. (1999). Evolutionary drift and equilibrium selection. The Review of Economic Studies, 66: 363–393. [4] Binmore, К., and Samuelson, L. (2006). The evolution of focal points. Games and Economic Behavior, 55(1): 21–42. [5] Brousseau, E., and Glachant J.-M. (2008). New Institutional Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [6] Colander, D., Holt, R., and Rosser, B. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4): 485–499. [7] Foster, J. (2005). The self-organizational perspective on economic evolution: a unifying paradigm. In The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics (pp. 367–390). Cambridge University Press. [8] Hodgson, G., and Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin's Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution. University of Chicago Press. [9] Hodgson, G., and Knudsen, T. (2006). Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61(1): 1-19. [10] Kyunttsel, S.V. (2010). Evolutional approach at modelling of economic processes: methodological aspect. PhD diss., Moscow State University – Higher School of Economics. [11] Marks, R.E. (2007). Validating Simulation Models: A General Framework and Four Applied Examples. Computational Economics 30(3): 265-290. [12] Martishin, O.E. (2006). Evolutional-genetic mechanism of the world economic development. PhD diss., Rostov-on-Don State University. [13] Nelson, R. (2006). Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(5): 491-510. [14] Nishibe, M. (2006). Redefining Evolutionary Economics. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 3(1): 3-25. [15] Orekhova, E.A., Pliakin, A.V., and Ekova, V.A. (2012). Evolutional-genetic approach to formation of the system of sustainable development indicators of municipal establishments. Scientific bulletin of Belgorod State University. Series: History. Political Science. Economy. Information study 1-1(120), vol. 21, http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evolyutsionno-geneticheskiy-podhod-k-formirovaniyu-sistemy-indikatorov- ustoychivogo-razvitiya-munitsipalnyh-obrazovaniy [16] Safarzynska, K., and van den Bergh, J. (2010). Evolutionary models in economics: a survey of methods and building blocks. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(3): 329-373. [17] Saviotti, P.P. (2008). Micro and macro dynamics: Industry life cycles, inter-sector coordination and aggregate growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(2): 167-182. [18] Silva, S.Т., Teixeira, A. (2009). On the Divergence of Evolutionary Research Paths in the Past 50 years: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Account. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(5): 605-642.

236 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).06

EVOLUTIONAL-GENETIC APPROACH TO FORMATION OF SUSTAINABLE INTERNATIONAL TOURISM AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THAILAND. COINTEGRATION AND THE GRANGER CAUSALITY

Anothai HARASARN Faculty of Management Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand Surachai CHANCHARAT* Faculty of Management Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand [email protected]

Suggested Citation: Harasarn, A., Chancharat, S. (2014). International tourism and economic growth in Thailand: Cointegration and the Granger causality test, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 237-248. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).06. Available from: http://www.asers. eu/journals/jemt/curent-issue Article’s History: Received November, 2014; Revised November, 2014; Accepted December, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract: The purpose of this paper was to investigate long-run and short-run relationship between income and tourism demand, focused on an econometric model test. Moreover, this paper filled the gap in research as it compared the relationship between tourists from five important countries who visited Thailand as a destination country. The Engle and Granger cointegration method was used to explore the relationship between income and tourism demand. Before testing, researchers proved causality between income and tourism demand using the Granger causality test for the annual data from 1981 to 2012 in regards to five important countries related to Thailand tourism. The results of the cointegration test indicated that there was a long-run relationship between tourists’ arrivals and income. The short-run relationship indicated that Korean tourists have the fastest speed of adjustment, the most loyalty to Thailand tourism, while Chinese tourists have the slowest one. Moreover, empirical evidence showed that England has a bidirectional relationship. A unidirectional relationship growth leads tourism in Japan and Korea. In contrast, tourism leads growth in China. This study identified that there was no causality relationship with Malaysia. These finding are important for policy makers who formulate tourism policy to enhance tourism development and economic growth. Keywords: Economic growth, Tourism development, Thailand JEL Classification: C32, C51, L83 1. Introduction The tourism industry is very important to the economy of a country. Studies in several countries have found a linkage between tourism development and economic growth, such as in Spain (Gomez 1996), Asia Pacific (Hing and Dimmock 1997), Brazil (Santana 2000), China (Zhang et al. 2000), Japan (Gilbert and Terrata 2001), Jamaica (Karagiannis 2003) and Niagara in Canada (Jayawardena et al. 2008). Moreover, tourism benefits widely relate to other industries in a country. As such, the tourism industry can be classified into three types. Primary core businesses, for example, are guides and hotel businesses. Secondary core businesses are souvenir businesses and restaurants. The last supporting businesses include advertising, public relations, money exchange, meeting incentive convention exhibitions (MICE) and other infrastructure services, for instance, mass transportation, construction and telecommunication. Therefore, the tourism industry increases income, employment and entrepreneurship in a country, leading to wealth and the growth

* Corresponding author economy of the country. At present, worldwide tourism is rapidly expanding and is the biggest business in the world, compared to other businesses (Tisdell 2002). 2. A General overview of Thailand tourism demand In Thailand, the tourism industry has substantially grown, producing an income amount of twenty four thousand million dollars in 2011, which is an increase of 23.92% from 2010. The above income from tourism industry accounts for 7% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Thailand. (National Statistical Office National Information 2013).Therefore, tourism industry is main industry which conduce enormous income to Thailand and Thai economy development depend on performance of tourism industry. It leads to employment, income of export and broadly link with other industries both direct and indirect. The aforementioned reasons, therefore Thailand government is developing and supporting the tourism industry for increase income of tourism and in order to stimulate economic growth. Moreover, studying for testing hypothesis of casual relationship between tourism development and economic growth is important and essential, because of outcomes of studying lead to understand of format and direction of relationship which contribute to formulation economic policy in macro level of Thailand which conduce to the most correct direction. However, a review of the literature has found that, while there is a focus on examining the relationship between tourism development and economic growth in the context of other countries, there is no literature that examines the relationship between tourism development and the economic growth of Thailand (Chancharat 2011).Therefore, the emphasis of this study is on investigating this topic in the context of Thailand. The Thai economy depends on the tourism industry because it increases employment and income for the people. It also influences income from exports and relates to other industries, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between Thai tourism development and economic growth. Furthermore, tourism encourages good international relationships and aids in business recovery and enlargement on a regional level. Researchers have used cointegration to investigate the causal relationship between tourism development variables that are measured from the number of international tourism arrivals and economic growth variables that are measured from Gross National Income (GNI) in an econometric model. In Thailand, China, England, Japan, Korea and Malaysia are countries that bring plentiful income to Thai tourism (see Table 1). Therefore, these five countries are significant tourism markets for Thailand. Hence, it is important to investigate the dynamic shift of tourists from these five countries to Thailand by using an econometric model.

Table 1. International tourist revenue and number of tourists’ arrivals in Thailand during 2003-2012 ( in million dollars) CHINA ENGLAND JAPAN KOREA MALAYSIA YEAR Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Arrivals Arrivals Arrivals Arrival Arrivals 2003 0.62 335.27 0.54 549.09 1.01 699.14 0.69 483.77 1.34 640.10 2004 0.78 489.28 0.63 769.06 1.18 935.96 0.91 591.07 1.39 825.21 2005 0.76 507.88 0.68 869.75 1.18 999.73 0.82 718.46 1.34 450.08 2006 1.03 709.51 0.74 1123.42 1.29 1039.26 1.10 856.58 1.58 815.44 2007 1.00 825.53 0.74 1374.21 1.25 1232.50 1.07 836.20 1.55 872.42 2008 0.94 854.84 0.76 1484.00 1.11 1074.90 0.90 806.09 1.83 1078.77 2009 0.82 675.07 0.78 1252.21 0.98 842.94 0.62 532.68 1.75 914.73 2010 1.13 1084.48 0.76 1392.85 0.98 986.65 0.80 777.02 2.05 1201.96 2011 1.70 1902.32 0.77 1630.80 1.10 1237.81 1.00 1119.39 2.49 1633.15 2012 2.76 3408.75 0.80 1766.21 1.34 1606.57 1.15 1346.22 2.55 1781.20 Source: Department of Tourism, 2014

In addition, the study examines the economic factors which effect tourism demand in the short run and long run. The outcomes from the study will benefit planning and tourism promotion policies and investments that will conform to tourism demands in Thailand. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to test the cointegration relationship between income and tourism demand using the Engle and Granger cointegration method, which is appropriate for testing relationships of equation that have only one pair (two variables). Before testing, the researchers proved causality between income and tourism demand using the Granger causality test.

238 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Previous studies were done using certain countries in Europe and Asia as destination countries, such as in England (Song et al. 2000), Sweden (Salman 2003), Hong Kong (Song et al. 2003), Singapore (Khan et al. 2005) and Japan (Asemota and Bala 2012). However, there are few studies that examine Thailand as a destination country. Furthermore, there have been no studies that compare the relationships between tourists from China, England, Japan, Korea and Malaysia and Thailand as the destination country, nor are there many studies that have used an econometric model with Thailand as destination country. Therefore, this study proposes to fill the gap left from previous studies. In this study, the econometric model was applied to tourism development in Thailand. This study constructed an econometric model of tourism demand and estimated the demand elasticity for five major Thailand tourism markets using cointegration and error correction models. The short run error correction model provided beneficial information on how quickly adjustment occurred among variables to recovery balance in response to the short term disturbance of tourism demand in Thailand. Finally, we investigate and compare the speed of adjustment among the difference countries in this study. 3. Literature review A study of international tourism demands with time series data was developed concept using economic theory and an econometric model (Lim 1997; Narayan 2003; Li et al. 2006; Song et al. 2010).The comparison data between country of origin and destination were analyzed in terms of international tourism demand (Song and Li 2008). However, the economic and social data, which were dependent and independent variables, these variables were always found were non stationary. The time series data which were non-stationary, were used for regression analysis perhaps accounted for the spurious relationship problem of variables in model. However, the time series data, which was non stationary, had may be a long-run relationships if deviation from the equilibrium relationship in the long-run was stationary; that relationship was named cointegration (Engle and Granger 1987). Therefore, the cointegration test is a stationary test of deviation which comes from an estimate of long-run equilibrium relationship of time series variable which is non-stationary. If time series variables have cointegration, this indicates that the variables have a long-run relationship. The popular cointegration test is a two-step residual based (Engle and Granger 1987). The Engle and Granger method is a simple test and appropriate for testing one equation or a cointegration of equation with only one pair (only two variables). If cointegration testing found time series variables have a long-run equilibrium relationship, then a model of adaptation in short-run to long-run equilibrium could be constructed; this model, the Error Correction Model (ECM), links variables between short- run and long-run. The prominent of ECM is the speed of adjustment term which indicated that how dependent variable change for response to non equilibrium and could estimated coefficient by ordinary least square (OLS) technique which without spurious regression problem. Khan et al. (2005) used the Engle-Granger method for testing quarter data in Singapore and found that business tourist demands in every country have long-run relationships with import. Furthermore, Salman (2003) used monthly data for testing cointegration using the Engle-Granger model for testing the relationship of tourists in Sweden, who come from countries in Europe and the Scandinavian region, and found that income, exchange rate and consumer price index (CPI) have a statistically significant long-run relationship with Sweden’s international tourism demand. In addition, Asemota and Bala (2012) studied tourism demand for Japan from five Eastern countries by using annual data and the Engle-Granger method and found that that there is a short-run and long-run relationship between amount of tourists and price of tourism and price of substitute goods. Income per capita of tourist was the most important variable. Moreover, testing using the ECM indicated that the United States and Canada have short-run adaption to quickly reach equilibrium, which shows that tourist from these countries have the most loyalty to Japan tourism. However, there are few studies that look at cointegration between income and tourism demand with Thailand as the destination country. Previous studies were found that tested the following variables. First, tourism demands of foreign tourists as the dependent variable, which measured the amount of tourist arrivals and/or departures. This variable is popular because of convenience of collecting data (Akis 1998; Katafono and Gounder 2004; Giacomelli 2006; Munoz 2007; Gormus and Gocer 2010) Second, income factors which affect tourism demand as an independent variable. The level of income of the population from the origin countries are important factors when describing tourism demands of foreign tourists (Salleh et al. 2008; Allen et al. 2009; Aslan et al. 2009; Honafiah and Harun 2010). The level of income affects tourist expenditure because travelling abroad is an expensive activity. Therefore, income subtracted from necessary expenditure of the population in the country of origin was a suitable variable for the description the tourism demand model of a foreign tourist. Because level of income referred to individual income and was not directly measured, the gross domestic product per capita (GNI) was used as a substitute for the level of income of the population from the country of origin. The income of tourists is a positive factor in increasing tourism (Suriya 2005). The majority of economic theory is a description of the relationship between economic variables, for which econometrics is the important analysis tool. However, there is a problem if there are two economic variables; which variable will effect changes in the other variable? Therefore, before analyzing using econometrics, the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable by the model should be looked at although the dependent variable and independent variable are clearly formulated by the model. However, the question that arises is if the dependent variable is only determined by the independent variable or whether both the dependent variable and independent variable interact each other. This question was tested by causal testing or Granger causality (Granger causality test), which was proposed by Granger (1969) and Sim (1972). In the literature review about the relationship between tourism development and economic growth of a country, it was found that the majority of case studies analyzed the arrival of international tourists, income from international tourism and expenditure for tourism. However, income, international trade value and export value were studied in view of economic growth. Moreover, Granger causality, generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH), the Gregory-Hensen test, Autoregressive distribute lag bounds test (ARDL bound test) and the Error Correction Model were used to test those relationships. The context study of various countries was classified into 4 characteristics, as is shown in Table 2. The causality relationship between tourism development and economic growth are widely studied. The studies are based on different methodologies, variables, time coverage and countries. The results from the studies are categorized into four types. First, there is a bidirectional causality between tourism development and economic growth. It indicates that incoming tourism and economic growth have a reciprocal influence (Khan et al. 2005; Lee and Chien 2008). Second, there is a unidirectional causality from tourism development to economic growth. This means that incoming tourism influences economic growth (Dritsakis 2004; Brida et al. 2008). Third, there is a unidirectional causality from economic growth to tourism development. This denotes that economic growth has influence on incoming tourism (Oh 2005; Tang and Jang 2009). Finally, there is non- causality between tourism development and economic growth. This suggests that incoming tourism and economic growth do not have a reciprocal influence. However, in the case of Thailand, although (Chancharat and Chancharat 2010) have studied the relationship between tourism development and economic growth, the study was about a single country, not multiple countries. Therefore, this study focuses on testing this relationship between Thailand and five important countries that have Thailand as their destination country by comparing each of the pair. Table 2. Tourism growth nexus

Econometric Country Causal Authors Variable Time coverage methodology coverage relation TIME SERIES DATA Khan et al. Granger - Tourist arrivals Tourism  1978:Q1-2000 :Q3 Singapore (2005) causality test - Trade value Growth Kim et al. Granger - Tourist arrivals Tourism 1971:M01-2003 :M07 Taiwan (2006) causality test - GDP Growth - Tourist arrivals Lee and Tourism Co-integration - Tourism receipts 1959-2003 Taiwan Chien(2008) Growth - GDP Chen and - Tourism receipts EGARCH-M Tourism Chiou-Wei - GDP 1975:Q1–2007:Q1 Korea model Growth (2009) - Exchange rate Katircioglu The ARDL - Tourist arrivals Tourism 1960-2006 Turkey (2009) bounds test - GDP Growth - Tourism receipts Akinboade Granger - GDP South Tourism and Braimoh 1980-2005 causality test - Exchange rate Africa Growth (2010) - Export value

240 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Econometric Country Causal Authors Variable Time coverage methodology coverage relation - Tourist arrivals Lean and Granger 1989: M01-2009 : M02 Tourism  - Product of Malaysia Tang (2010) causality test Growth industrial Index Massidda - Tourist arrivals Tourism and Mattana SVECM 1987:Q1-2009:Q4 Italy - GDP Growth (2013) - Tourism receipts Dritsakis Tourism  ECM - GDP 1960-2000 Greece (2004) Growth - Exchange rate - Tourist Brida et al. Granger expenditure Tourism 1980: Q1- 2007: Q2 Mexico (2008) causality test - GDP Growth - Exchange rate Croes and Granger - Tourism receipts Tourism Vanegas 1980 -2004 Nicaragua causality test - GDP Growth (2008) Chen and - Tourism receipts EGARCH-M Tourism Chiou-Wei - GDP 1975:Q1–2007:Q1 Taiwan model Growth (2009) - Exchange rate Chancharat - Tourist arrivals and Gregory- - Tourism receipts Tourism 1979-2007 Thailand Chancharat Hansen test - GDP Growth (2010) - Exchange rate The ARDL - Tourist arrivals Gharty Tourism bounds test - GDP 1963-2008 Jamaica (2010) Growth ECM - Exchange rate Granger -Tourism receipts Growth Oh (2005) 1975-2001 Korea causality test - GDP Tourism Tang and Granger - Tourism receipts Growth 1981: Q1- 2005: Q4 USA Jang (2009) causality test - GDP Tourism Granger -Tourism receipts Growth Kadir (2010) 1995: M01-2006: M04 Malaysia causality test - Trade value Tourism CROSS SECTION DATA Al-Qudair Granger - Tourist arrivals 9 Islam Tourism 2002 (2004) causality test - Trade value countries Growth OECD : Tourism Lee and OECD and - Tourism receipts Growth non- Chang Panel causality 1990-2002 non OECD - GDP OECD : (2008) countries Tourism Growth PANEL DATA Samimi et al. Panel vector - Tourist arrivals Developing Tourism 1995-2009 (2011) autoregressive - GDP countries Growth Caglayan et Panel Granger - Tourism receipts 135 Tourism 1995-2008 al. (2012) causality - GDP countries Growth Notes: “Tourism Growth” denotes bidirectional causality between tourism development and economic growth. “Growth Tourism” denotes causality running from economic growth to tourism development. “Tourism Growth” denotes causality running from tourism development to economic growth.

4. Data and Methodology Variables and Data The variable suggested by the literature review about tourism demand and annual data from 1981-2012 (32 observations) were used for analysis. The details for each variable are discussed in the following: In this study, the number of tourist arrivals, which served as a proxy for tourism demand, was a dependent variable and the data were formed into a logarithm. The time series data used five countries’ international tourist arrivals to Thailand in 2013 (Department of Tourism 2014). These are China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and England, which have continually contributed to Thailand’s tourism for the last decade. The secondary data were derived from the Tourism Statistic Report, which was organized by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT). Furthermore, the Gross National Income (GNI) of each country in real terms, which served as a proxy variable for income, was an independent variable and the data were formed intoa logarithm. The secondary data derived from the International Financial Statistics (IMF) Methodology Cointegration and error correction mechanisms were used with non-stationary data, so as not to have spurious regression problems. In addition, cointegration and error correction mechanisms were used for analysis equilibrium relationship in the long-term and the speed of adjustment in the short term. Before estimating the model, it was necessary to test the order of integration for every variable in order to avoid the spurious regression problem, as in the following processes. Unit root test The first step to achieve a cointegration analysis is to determine the order of integration of the variables. In this paper, we used the augmented Dickey-Fuller test (ADF), Dickey-Fuller test statistic using a generalized least squares (DF-GLS) and Phillips and Perron test (PP) to test the unit root hypothesis. The unit root test is the test constant of mean and variance’s variable when changed over time. The unit root test at level [I(0)] is considered by comparing the calculated statistic from the t-statistic at 95% critical value, which must be less than Mackinnon’s critical value. If t-statistic is more than Mackinnon’s critical level, it means that the variable has a unit root. If the variable is non stationary (has unit root) then differencing data until calculated statistic less than Mackinnon critical value. The number of differencing meaning to integration order which a series in integrated of order d, I(d) if it can be difference d times to complete stationary. However, the tested variable in the long-term relationship must have integration order in the first difference [I(1)]. Long-term equilibrium relationship analysis (cointegration) by Engle and Granger The time series data, especially in economic data, was studied and found that it increased over time and was non-stationary. It illustrated that mean and variance was not stable and changed over time. The relationship test of variable by ordinary least square (OLS) is most likely to cause spurious regression problems. Consequently, when estimating the relationship between variables of equation, a spurious relationship. However, Engle and Granger (1987) developed this concept and concluded that the data set is analyzed by a regression equation. Although, data set is non-stationary, the variable has cointegration. Results of analysis regression equation does not have a spurious regression problem, as in the following test; 1)Test stationary of data and estimate equation by OLS; 2) Consider residuals which derive from estimate regression equation. Residual is tested for investigate stationary at level [I(0)] by unit root test with ADF test that has no constant and time trend, as the following equation shows. * p  Yt 1Yt1  i Yti1  ut i2 Assumption for test, as the following:

* H0: α1 = 0

* H1: α1 < 0 Criteria for the test compares calculated absolute value with absolute of critical value. If the result of the test is found to have calculated absolute value more than absolute of critical value, it represents H0: the data is stationary and does not have a unit root. Moreover, the data has a long-term equilibrium relationship between dependent and independent variables.

242 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Short-term adjustment test with Error Correction Model (ECM) The time series variables, which have long-term equilibrium relationships, were applied to construct a short-term adjustment model to lead to long-term equilibrium. This model is called the Error Correction Model (ECM), which represents short-terms and long-terms changing simultaneously. This study was considered a short-term adjustment model and the estimated coefficient by OLS did not have spurious regression, as the following test shows: . Estimate cointegration equation by OLS then calculate error correction term. Accordingly, the previous, independence and dependence variables are tested stationary and should have the same or similar integration order. . Coefficient of Error Correction Term must be less than 0 which means that there are adjustments from the short-term to the long-term equilibrium. Coefficient of error correction term represents speed of adjustment for equilibrium. Granger Causality test Khan et al. (2005) concluded that cointegration is necessary but not a sufficient condition for Granger causality in that mere correlation does not imply causation. Granger (1998) recommended a useful approach to test for Granger causality between two variables. The fundamental idea is that if a change in X leads to a change in Y, then X could be a cause of Y. This indicates an unlimited regression of Y against past values of Y, with X as the independent variable. A limited regression is also needed in the test, regressing Y against past values of Y only. Pindyck and Rubinfield (1998) concluded that the fundamental idea is to confirm whether the addition of past values of X as an independent variable can conduce significantly to the explanation of variations in Y. Khan et al. (2005) evaluated the two regressions to test the null hypothesis that X does not cause Y by using the total of square residuals from each regression to compute the F statistic, then tested whether the group of coefficients is significantly different from zero. The null hypothesis will be rejected if they are significantly different from zero, indicating that X causes Y.

5. Results and Discussion Before testing the cointegration, researchers tested for the order of integration of the series. The results of the unit root test from the variables from five countries are shown in Table 3 that presented the results of ADF, DF-GLS and PP test to the level and first difference of both variables. The tests provide evidence of non- stationary in the level and evidence of stationary in the first difference. The unit root test for all variables indicate that they have integration order in first difference [I(1)]. Therefore, we proceed to estimate a long-run relationship of the variables. Table 3. Unit root test with constant linear trend for LNT and LNY series LNT LNY Conclusion Conclusion Level 1st difference Level 1st difference CHINA ADF -1.41(0) -4.59***(0) I(1) -0.84(0) -5.46***(0) I(1) DF-GLS -1.70(1) -4.49***(0) I(1) -1.12(0) -4.41***(0) I(1) PP -1.48(1) -4.59***(0) I(1) -0.84(0) -7.18***(0) I(1) England ADF -1.97(0) -7.20***(0) I(1) -1.30(0) -3.73*(0) I(1) DF-GLS -2.16(0) -7.17***(0) I(1) -1.53(0) -3.66*(0) I(1) PP -1.84(1) -8.12***(5) I(1) -1.71(0) -3.88*(0) I(1) JAPAN ADF -0.89(4) -5.17***(2) I(1) -1.40(0) -4.18**(0) I(1) DF-GLS -1.17(0) -4.47***(2) I(1) -1.22(0) -3.90***(0) I(1) PP -1.37(3) -3.41***(0) I(1) -1.49(0) -4.18**(0) I(1) KOREA ADF -1.33(0) -4.52***(0) I(1) -1.51(0) -4.61***(0) I(1) DF-GLS -1.42(0) -4.68***(0) I(1) -1.51(0) -4.72***(0) I(1) PP -1.33(0) -4.52***(0) I(1) -1.59(2) -4.57***(6) I(1) MALAYSIA ADF -1.33(0) -7.29***(0) I(1) -1.91(0) -4.73***(0) I(1) DF-GLS 0.41(0) -1.58***(1) I(1) -2.00(0) -4.90***(0) I(1) PP -1.33(7) -7.29***(0) I(1) -2.04(0) -4.68***(0) I(1) Notes: LNT is the natural logarithm of total number of tourist arrivals, LNY is the natural logarithm of real GNI. Numbers in brackets are lag lengths used in ADF test and DF-GLS test (as determined by AIC) to remove serial correlation in the residuals. When using the PP test, numbers in brackets represent Newey-West Bandwith (as determined by Bartlett-Kernel). All ADF, DF-GLS and PP tests were performed by trend and intercept across the model. *, ** and *** indicates that the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected at the 10, 5 and 1% significance level, respectively.

For the estimated long-run relationship, we progress to test cointegration by using the residuals’ base method of Engle and Granger (1987). If the residuals from the regression are stationary, it is considered that the variables are cointegrated. The results presented in Table 4 show that the variables of all countries have cointegration. There is strong evidence of cointegration in the case of England, Korea and Malaysia.

Table 4. Engle and Granger cointegration test Country t-statistic K China -2.4517** 0 England -3.5975*** 0 Japan -1.7404* 0 Korea -3.9899*** 0 Malaysia -3.9155*** 0 Note: *, ** and *** indicates that the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected at the 10, 5 and 1% significance level, respectively

Table 5 reports the results of the long-run elasticity. The estimated elasticity has expected signs. The results indicate that income in the visitors’ countries has a positive significant influence on their decisions to visit Thailand. The results indicate that 1% increase in real GNI in the visitors’ countries results in an increase in tourist arrivals to Thailand by 1.51%, 1.51%, 1.17%, 1.65% and 0.83% from China, England, Japan, Korea and Malaysia, respectively. The low income elasticity of Malaysia implies that the decision to travel in Thailand is relatively insensitive to the economic situation. Moreover, it may be interpreted that the demand for tourism in Thailand is considered as normal or necessity goods. In contrast, tourists from China, England, Japan and Korea consider traveling in Thailand as superior or luxury goods. We proceed to construct an error correction model that describes the short run dynamics consistent with the long-run relationship. The results of ECM are presented in Table 6. The error correction term (ECTt-1) are all significant and have the expected negative signs. The estimated coefficient of the error correction term measures the speed of adjustment to equilibrium in the dynamic mode

Table 5. OLS estimates of the long-run models (dependent variable; LNTt) Country Constants LNYt R2 China 2.1351** 1.5119*** 0.7679

England -2.4467*** 1.5121*** 0.9531 Japan 1.4752 1.1714*** 0.8279

Korea -2.5989 1.6567*** 0.9688 Malaysia 7.0000*** 0.8305*** 0.8935 Note:*, ** and *** indicates that the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected at the 10, 5 and 1% significance level, respectively

The results indicate that the speed of adjustment is fastest in the case of Korea, followed by England, Malaysia and Japan, while China has the slowest adjustment rate. The error correction model confirms the previous results in Table 6 -- that Korea has the highest loyalty to Thailand’s tourism. The estimated speed of

244 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 adjustment in the case of Korea is 69.4% and is statistically significant. However, any crises or shocks will have a longer effect on tourism demand in Thailand. In the case of China, speed of adjustment is 8.4% Table 6. Error correction model (dependent variable; D(LNTt) Country Constant D(LNYt) Error(-1) R2 China 0.1824*** 0.0411 -0.0839 0.0777 England 0.0684** 0.2251 -0.3729*** 0.2165 Japan 0.0538*** 0.0221 -0.2996*** 0.4372 Korea 0.0748* 0.6386* -0.6939*** 0.5254 Malaysia 0.0408** 0.4078** -0.3701*** 0.3388 Note:*, ** and *** indicates that the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected at the 10, 5 and 1% significance level, respectively.

In Table 7, the results indicate LNT Granger cause to LNY in the case of China. It rejects the null hypothesis (H0) that there is a causality relationship in the direction from LNT to LNY. Hence, it concludes that there is a causality relationship from tourism development to economic growth. Therefore, policy formulation intended to stimulate or develop tourism sectors eventually encourages economic growth. In contrast, in the case of Japan and Korea, LNY Granger cause to LNT, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. There is a causality relationship in the direction from LNY to LNT. Hence, it is concluded that there is a causality relationship from economic growth to tourism development. Therefore, policy which promotes economic growth will be effective in enlarging the tourism sector. This means that the economic development of each country also impacts the development of the tourism sector in each country. Moreover, in the case of England, it rejected both the hypotheses that there is a causality relationship in the direction from LNT to LNY and from LNY to LNT. Hence, it is concluded that there is a bidirectional causality relationship between economic growth and tourism development. Therefore, a policy which stimulates economic growth or the tourism sector is a policy which has a reciprocal benefit. However, in the case of Malaysia, both hypotheses are accepted that tourism development does not have an effect on economic growth and economic growth does not affect tourism development. Table 7. Granger causality test Null hypothesis China England Japan Korea Malaysia LNT does not Granger Cause LNY 3.09502* 7.35110*** 0.82548 0.17336 1.86066 LNY does not Granger Cause LNT 0.63248 2.58438* 6.99622*** 16.4287*** 0.63209 Note: *, ** and *** indicates that the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected at the 10, 5 and 1% significance level, respectively. Conclusion In this paper, we used the cointegration and error correction models to estimate an econometric model for Thailand’s tourism, taking into account China, England, Japan, Korea and Malaysia which represented important major countries to Thailand’s tourism industry from 1981-2012.The results of the cointegration indicated that there is a long-run relationship between tourist arrivals and the causal variables (economic growth, income). The estimates of the income elasticity exceed unity in the case of China (1.51), England (1.51), Japan (1.17) and Korea (1.66). These values far exceed unity and are statistically significant. Hence, the estimates of income elasticity in the case of China, England, Japan and Korea were more than one, which means a rise of income level in these countries will be followed by a rise in tourism from these countries to Thailand. Therefore, Thailand’s government and tourism organization should pay attention to monitoring and forecasting the expected level of economic activities in these countries. Moreover, the long-run and error correction models indicated that Korea had the highest loyalty to Thailand’s tourism. Therefore, agencies related to tourism should formulate policies or strategies to maintain relationships with loyal countries to Thailand’s tourism. In addition, the empirical evidence showed that the causality between tourism and economic growth is bidirectional in the case of England, but in the case of Japan and Korea it is unidirectional from economic growth to tourism development. This is in contrast to China that has a causality relationship from tourism development to economic growth. Finally, based on the results of this paper, it is important for policy makers to formulate a tourism policy to enhance tourism development and economic growth. Acknowledgement An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Fourth National Conference on Applied Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, August 27-28, 2013. The authors are grateful to the reviewer and participants for their comments and suggestions on the earlier draft of this paper. Moreover, the authors acknowledge financial support from National Research University Development Project (MIE-2554- Ph.D-05), Khon Kaen University. All remaining errors are our own. References [1] Akinboade, Oludela A., and Braimoh, Lydia A. 2010. International tourism and economic Development in South Africa: A Granger Causality Test. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(2): 149-163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.743 [2] Akis, Sevgin. 1998. A compact econometric model of tourism demand for Turkey. Tourism Management 19(1): 99-102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(97)00097-6 [3] Allen, David, Yap, Ghialy, and Shareef Riaz. 2009. Modeling interstate tourism demand in Australia: A cointegration approach. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 79(9): 2733-2740, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.matcom.2008.10.006 [4] Al-Qudair, Khalid.H.A. 2004. The causal relationship between tourism and international trade in some Islamic countries. King Saud University. http://colleges.ksu.edu.sa/Papers/Papers/The%20relatioship%20between%20tourism%20and%20trade.pdf [5] Asemota, Omorogbe Joseph, and Bala, Dahiru Abdullahi. 2012. Modeling tourism demand in Japan using cointegration and error correction model. International Review of Business Research Papers 8(2): 29-43, http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/3.%20Joseph.pdf [6] Aslan, Alper, Kula Ferit, and Kaplan, Muhittin. 2009. International tourism demand for Turkey: A dynamic panel data approach. Research Journal of international Studies 9(1): 65-73. [7] Brida, Juan Gabriel, Sanchez Carrera, Edgar Javier, and Risso, Wiston Adrián. 2008. Tourism’s impact on long-run Mexican economic growth. Economics Bulletin 23(21): 1-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1076225 [8] Caglayan, E., Sak, N., and Karymshakov K. 2012. Relationship between tourism and economic growth: A panel granger causality approach. Asian Economic and Financial Review 2(5): 591-602, http://www.aessweb.com/pdf-files/591-602.pdf [9] Chancharat, Surachai. 2011. Thai tourism and economic development: The current state of research. Kasetsart Journal (Social Science) 32(2): 340-351, http://kasetsartjournal.ku.ac.th/kuj_files/2011/ A1110061100224677.pdf [10] Chancharat, Surachai, and Chancharat, Nongnit. 2010. Tourism development and economic growth: Evidence from Thailand. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 8(1): 65-77. [11] Croes, Robertico, and Vanegas, Manuel. 2008. Cointegration and causality between tourism and poverty reduction. Journal of Travel Research 47(1): 94-103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287507312429 [12] Chen, Ching Fu., and Chiou-Wei, Song Zan. 2009. Tourism expansion, tourism uncertainty and economic growth: New evidence from Taiwan and Korea. Tourism Management 30(6): 812-818, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.013 [13] Dritsakis, Nikolaos. 2004. Tourism as a long run economic growth factor: An empirical investigation for Greece using causality analysis. Tourism Economics 10(3): 305-316, http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/ 0000000041895094 [14] Engle, Robert F., and Granger, C.W. 1987. Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 55(2): 251-276, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1913236 [15] Giacomelli, A. 2006.Tourism demand. PhD diss., University of Insubria. Italy. [16] Gilbert, David, and Terrata, Mikiko. 2001. An exploratory study of factors of Japanese tourism demand for the UK. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13(2): 70-78, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09596110110381843

246 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[17] Ghartey, Edward E. 2010.Tourism, economic growth and monetary policy in Jamaica. Paper presented at the 11th annual SALISES 2010 conference, March 24-26, in Port of Spain, Trinidad-Tobago. [18] Gomez, Venancio Bote. 1996. Research in Spain on tourism and economic development. The Tourist Review 51(1): 5-11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb058210 [19] Gormus, Sakir and Gocer, Ismet. 2010. The socio-economic determinant of tourism demand in Turkey: A panel data approach. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 55: 88-99. [20] Granger, C.W.J. 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3): 424-438, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912791 [21] Granger, C.W.J. 1988. Granger causality, cointegration, and control. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 12(2-3): 551-559, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(88)90055-3 [22] Hanafiah, H., and Harun, F. 2010. Tourism demand in Malaysia: A cross-sectional pool time-series analysis. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 1(2): 200-203, https://www.academia.edu/3258565/Tourism_demand_in_Malaysia_A_cross-sectional_pool_time- series_analysis [23] Hing, Nerilee, and Dimmock, Kay.1997. Contemporary tourism issues in Asia Pacific journals 1989-1996: A thematic perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9(7): 254-269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596119710190859 [24] Jayawardena, Chandana, Patterson, Daniel J., Choi, Chris, and Brian, Ryan. 2008. Sustainable tourism development in Niagara. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20(3): 258-277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110810866082 [25] Kadir, Norsiah and Jusoff, Kamaruzaman. 2010. The cointegration and causality test for tourism and trade in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Finance 2(1): 138-143, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5539/ijef.v2n1p138 [26] Karagiannis, Nikolaos. 2003. Tourism, linkages and economic development in Jamaica. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15(3): 184-187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 09596110310470257 [27] Katafono, Resina and Gounder, Aruna. 2004. Modelling tourism demand in Fiji. Working Paper, Economics Department Reserve Bank of Fiji, Suva, Fiji, http://rbf.gov.fj/docs/2004_01_wp.pdf [28] Katircioglu, Salih T. 2009. Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johensen approach for cointegration. Tourism Management 30(1): 17-20, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.004 [29] Khan, Habibullah, Toh, Rex S., and Chua, Lyndon. 2005. Tourism and trade: Cointegration and Granger causality tests. Journal of Travel Research 44(2): 171-176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287505276607 [30] Kim, Hyun Jeong, Chen, Ming Hsiang, and Jang, SooCheong. 2006. Tourism expansion and economic development: The case of Taiwan. Tourism Management 27(5): 925-933, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2005.05.011 [31] Lean, Hooi Hooi, and Tang, Chor Foon. 2010. Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis stable for Malaysia? A note. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(4): 375-378, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.759 [32] Lee, Chien-Chiang, and Chang, Chun-Ping. 2008. Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at panels. Tourism Management 29: 180-192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.013 [33] Lee, Chien-Chiang, and Chien, Mei-Se. 2008. Structural breaks, tourism development and economic growth: Evidence from Taiwan. Mathematics and computers in Simulation 77(4): 358-368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2007.03.004 [34] Li, Gang, Wang, Kevin K.F., Song, Haiyan, and Witt, Stephen F. 2006. Tourism demand forecasting: A time varying parameter error correction model. Journal of Travel Research 45(2): 175-185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287506291596 [35] Lim, Christine. 1997. Review of international tourism demand models. Annals of Tourism Research 24(4): 835-849, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00049-2 [36] Massidda, Carla, and Mattana, Paolo. 2013. A SVECM analysis of the relationship between international tourism arrivals, GDP and trade in Italy. Journal of Travel Research 52(1): 93-105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287512457262 [37] Munoz, Teresa Garin. 2007. German demand for tourism in Spain. Tourism Management 28(1): 12-22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.020 [38] Narayan, Paresh Kumar. 2003. Tourism demand modeling: Some issue regarding unit roots, co- integration and diagnostic tests. International Journal of Tourism Research 5: 369-380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.440 [39] Oh, Chi-Ok. 2005. The contribution tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tourism Management 26(1): 39-44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.014 [40] Pindyck, R.S., and Rubinfeld, D.L. 1998. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. McGraw-Hill. [41] Salleh, Norlida, Siong-Hook, Law, Ramachandran, Sridar, Shuib, Ahmad, and Noor, Zaleha. 2008. Asian tourism demand for Malaysia: A bound test approach. Contemporary Management Research 4(4): 351- 368, http://dx.doi.org/10.7903/cmr.v4i4.1178 [42] Salman, A. Khalik. 2003. Estimating tourist demand through cointegration analysis: Swedish data. Current Issues in Tourism 6(4): 323-339, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667959 [43] Samimi, Ahmad Jafari, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. 2011. Tourism and economic growth in developing countries: P-VAR approach. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 10(1), 28-32, http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr10(1)11/5.pdf [44] Santana, Guilherme. 2000. An overview of contemporary tourism development in Brazil. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12(7): 424-430, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 09596110010347310 [45] Sims, Christopher A. 1972. Money, income and causality. The American Economic Review 62(4): 540- 552, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806097 [46] Song, Haiyan, Romily, Peter, and Liu, Xiaming. 2000. An empirical study of outbound tourism demand in the UK. Applied Economics 32(5): 611-624, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000368400322516 [47] Song, Haiyan, Wong, Kevin K.F., and Chon Kaye K.S. 2003. Modelling and forecasting the demand for Hong Kong tourism. Hospitality Management 22(4): 435-451, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278- 4319(03)00047-1 [48] Song, Haiyan, and Li, Gang. 2008. Tourism demand modelling and forecasting—A review of recent research. Tourism Management 29(2): 203-220, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.016 [49] Song, Haiyan, Li, Gang, Witt, Stephen F., and Fei, Baogang. 2010. Tourism demand modeling and forecasting: how should demand be measured. Tourism Economics 16(1): 63-81, http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/000000010790872213 [50] Suriya, Komsan. 2005. Tourism demand for Lampang province: A quantitative approach. Paper present at the Asian forum on business education conference, November 30-December 2, in Ubonratchathani, Thailand. [51] Tang, Chun-Hung, and Jang, SooCheong. 2009. The tourism-economy causality in the United States: A sub-industry level examination. Tourism Management 30(4): 553-558, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2008.09.009 [52] Tisdell, Clem. 2002. Economics and tourism development: Structural features of tourism and economic influences on its vulnerability. Working paper [No.17], School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/90522/2/WP%2017.pdf [53] Zhang, Guangrui, Pine, Ray, and Zhang, Hanqin Qiu. 2000. China’s international tourism development: Present and future. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12(5): 282-290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110010339634 *** Department of Tourism. 2014 Thailand tourism statistics. http://www.tourism.go.th/home/listcategory/11/217 *** National Statistical Office National Information. 2013. Tourism Hub. http://www.nic.go.th/gsic/uploadfile/ Tourism-Hub.pdf

248 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).06

EVALUATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS PROGRAM IN THE GAZA STRIP, PALESTINE

Amal Khalil SARSOUR The Palestinian Health and Research Council, El Naser Street, Gaza Strip, Palestine Abdelnaser OMRAN School of Economic, Finance and Banking, College of Business Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia Yahia ABID School of Public Health-Al Quds University, Gaza Strip, Palestine Guy ROBINSON Centre for Regional Engagement, University of South Australia, Australia Suggested Citation: Harasarn, A., Chancharat, S. (2014). International tourism and economic growth in Thailand: Cointegration and the Granger causality test, Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, (Volume V, Winter), 2(10): 249-268. doi:10.14505/jemt.v5.2(10).07. Available from: http://www.asers. eu/journals/jemt/curent-issue Article’s History: Received November, 2014; Revised November, 2014; Accepted December, 2014. 2014. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved. Abstract Environmental education aims to extend students’ knowledge about the environment, challenge the attitudes and behaviors that form the basis of environmental citizenship and develop skills to enable them to take pro-environmental action. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were applied to measure the influence of an Outdoor environmental health awareness program for children in Gaza city, Palestine. Program impacts on children’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviors were examined by incorporating observations of children’s engagement in Program activities as well as conducting a focus group discussion with the children. A self- reported questionnaire was applied to collect data for the assessment of the effectiveness of a short-term environmental health awareness program implemented for the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades of a children’s primary school in an after-school setting in Gaza City. Pre- and post-tests were designed to determine the changes in the levels of environmental health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of school children who participated in this program. Keywords: environmental health, awareness, knowledge, behaviors, children. JEL Classification: C32, C51, L83 1. Introduction In Palestine governmental and non-governmental organizations exert prominent intervention efforts in implementing formal environmental health education inside schools and non-formal environmental health education outside schools. Different researches have investigated learning outcomes resulting from the impacts of outdoor environmental awareness programs on the level of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among children (Goodwin et al., 2009). However, there has been a lack of variation in terms of tools used in evaluating the efficiency of these programs, with few tools currently available to measure environmental learning across all the dimensions of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors of young children (Ballantyne et al., 2005). Qualitative research is gaining acceptance in the social sciences, but quantitative methods often still dominate research in program evaluation (Knapp & Poff, 2001). However, there are no reports of an equivalent control group wherein students also take the pre- and post-test (Camargo & Shavelson, 2009). Therefore, merely attributing significant changes to a specific program or to other conditions can be ambiguous. In an attempt to strengthen the evaluation of the awareness program, the present paper aims to bridge these gaps. In terms of the evaluation of outdoor environmental health awareness programs, the concern of this paper aims to participate in evaluating awareness programs on different environmental health issues in Palestine, and the measurement of their impact on the level of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of children. The present study utilizes a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures by incorporating observations made regarding the participation of these children in program activities; we also conducted a focus group discussion with the children and used self-reported questionnaires to collect data. The design of the pre- and post-tests determines the changes in the levels of Environmental Health Knowledge Attitudes and Behaviors. This approach, which combines observation of learning processes with measurement of learning outcomes, lends itself to the investigation of the ways in which an informal learning program impacts on student learning student teaching (Ballantyne et al., 2005). The most important contribution of this research, which aims to develop theories in evaluating outdoor environmental awareness programs, is in identifying the implication and developing of the existing concepts, models, and findings in evaluating the effects of outdoor environmental awareness programs on the level of Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. The present research modified the approach of Griffin (1999) in observing the indicators of engagement in learning about children in program activities. It also conducted focus group interviews with the children in the experimental group. The focus group method operates on the assumption that children are capable of participating in research using this approach. The outcome of this paper can be considered as a baseline, through which the evaluation of an outdoor setting environmental awareness program can be better understood. The results can become important starting points that encourage professionals and researchers in Palestine who are conducting related program evaluations and assessments. 2. Literature review 2.1. Assessing the effectiveness of environmental education and awareness programs Environmental education (EE) aims to extend students’ knowledge about the environment, challenge the attitudes and behaviors that form the basis of environmental citizenship and develop skills to enable them to take pro-environmental action (Ballantyne et al., 2005). Many EE programs aim to promote students’ (including children and adults) stewardship, awareness, and action as a result of their educational experiences (Camargo & Shavelson, 2009). Different studies have investigated learning outcomes that result from environmental education program (Ballantyne et al., 2005). Many researchers have investigated the immediate effect of short-duration field experiences (Knapp & Barrie, 2001; Knapp & Poff, 2001; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000), but few have studied the long-term effects of such programs (Lindemann-Matthies, 2002). However, reviews of environmental education research (Leeming et al., 1993; Rickinson, 2001) indicate that a considerable number of studies have only examined changes in learners’ knowledge and attitudes after conducting environmental education programs whether they comprise formal or non-formal education. Other studies have examined learners’ knowledge and attitudes, and the relationships between cognitive, affective and behavioral variables (Hart & Nolan, 1999; Leeming et al., 1993; Rickinson, 2001). A majority of these studies have employed some form of quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design to measure the effects of educational programs on students’ environmental learning (Rickinson, 2001). These types of studies typically use a fixed-response questionnaire design comprising multiple choice and/or Lickert scale questions as the primary data collection instrument (Jaus, 1982; El Said, 1984; Smith et al., 1997, Connell et al., 1998; Bonnett & Williams, 1998; Culen & Volk, 2000; Mohsen, 2000; Knapp & Poff, 2001; Volk & Cheak, 2003; Smith-Sebasto & Semrau, 2004, Al-Marzouqi, 2006). Despite the increasing importance of, and interest

250 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 in, documenting the impact of environmental education programs on students’ learning for sustainability, few tools are currently available to measure young students’ environmental learning across all the dimensions of knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors (Ballantyne et al., 2005). A study conducted by Knapp and Poff, (2001) emphasized that, in reviewing 34 environmental education studies published since 1974, the quantitative method were used only to measure the environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Furthermore, the study clarified that none of the papers reported in this analysis used qualitative measures. The researchers added that, during a 5-year period between 1989 and 1994 only five research reports published in the Journal of Environmental Education involved qualitative methods of inquiry (Knapp & Poff, 2001). A study of Carleton-Hug and Hug (2010), reviewed the researches about environmental education evaluations published in the last 15 years in several environmental education journals. The researchers found that, between 2002 and 2007, out of the total, 30 articles have been published in the 3 journals over the past 15 years, six articles only were utilized evaluating qualitative research (Dark & Holsman, 2002; McDuff, 2002; Monroe, 2002; Powell et al., 2006; Reid & Gough, 2000). There were far fewer published reports on evaluations that involved a mixed-methods design. Two notable examples of the use of mixed-method evaluations included interviews, surveys and observations (Ernst, 2005; Powers, 2004). The researchers stressed that depth of quantitative analysis does not negate the need or importance of alternative paradigms utilizing qualitative methods (Knapp & Poff, 2001). This argument supported by different researchers who confirm that, despite quantitative data provide a solid foundation for assessment, qualitative supplements yield more comprehensive, holistic pictures of thoughts and ideas (Alerby, 2000). Although, using variety of quantitative measurement tools to assess the level of learner’s environmental knowledge after attending an environmental education program, the qualitative approach recognizes the process through which the learner progressively constructs meanings out of past and present experiences (Mallen et al., 2009). Thus a more qualitative approach to knowledge assessment in this field might include the interpretation of learners’ reports (Farmer et al., 2007; Schneller, 2008). However, a gap exists between the potential for evaluation of Environmental Education programs and the actual practice as the majority of Environmental Education programs has failed to incorporate high quality, systematic evaluation into their programming (O’Neill, 2007). Generally, the program evaluation methods used to measure changes of attitudes, behavior and increase in environmental literacy, in general, have focused on pre- and post-intervention self-reports, where students reveal their knowledge, attitudes, and report their environmental behavior (Camargo & Shavelson, 2009). For example, many published articles on evaluations of Environmental Education impacts have relied on pre- and post-intervention surveys to address changes in their knowledge attitudes, and behaviors towards environment (Carleton-Hug and Hug, 2010). Other studies using Likert scales show there are no significant changes in children’s attitudes after an outdoor environmental education program (Smith-Sebasto & Semrau, 2004). Some of these evaluations add other methods of evaluating besides self-reporting, including interviews with students and teachers (Powell et al., 2006). 2.2. Assessing effects of informal and outdoor environmental education and awareness programs on the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of children The goal of many outdoor or informal environmental education programs is to promote environmental sustainability; accordingly, many researchers have developed a measurement tool that addresses the effect of these programs on the level of students' environmental knowledge, attitude and behavior (Samaan, 1988; Gayford, 1996; Mohsen, 2003). Many of the measures used in program evaluations are based on self-report Likert-type scales, but others utilized a multi-method approach comprising a grounded survey, with quantitative and qualitative strategies applying a self-administered questionnaire, oral interviews, written surveys, meetings, workshops and observation sheets (Vadala, 2004; Evans et al., 2007). Palmberg and Kuru (2000) argue that different environmental education programs (field trips, hiking, camps, adventure activities) aim to develop pupils' affective relationship to the natural environment, their environmental sensitivity, and outdoor behavior, as well as their social relationships, through personal experiences. Their study discusses the results of experiences from outdoor activities involving 11- and 12-year-old pupils in Rovaniemi and Vaasa, Finland. Their qualitative research methods comprised case studies involving questionnaires, individual interviews, drawings, photographs of landscapes, and participant observations during camps. Comparisons of pupils who were experienced in outdoor activities, with pupils who were not, showed that the former seemed to have a strong and clearly definable empathic relationship with nature. They also exhibited better social behavior and higher moral judgments. The empirical study of Bonger (2002) found support for the hypothesis that participation in a special residential education program enhanced facets of pupils' environmental perception. A 4-day extra-curricular educational unit with a cognitive outdoors focus established in a nature centre in France was surveyed by using a two-stage sampling design in a pre-post-treatment evaluation; the post-test was delayed for a one-month period after participation. All of the selected participating pupils (n = 151) responded twice to the same perception questionnaire. The matched-pair pre-past-test survey showed significant differences in two of the five primary factors; both of them covered utilitarian preferences and scored in a way which indicated an increase in sensitivity to the environment. A pre-post-tested control group (n = 78) revealed no significant difference. In her study in the United States, Vadala (2004) measured whether an after-school environmental education program, positively impacted on third graders’ environmental knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions. The researcher developed eight environmental lessons plan, and then delivered to third graders for a total of eight weeks. The lessons included different environmental issues, such as water, air, land, recycling, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. A pre-post-test retrospective questionnaire was applied to measure the changes in the participants’ knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions as a result of participating in the program. The study results emphasize positive shifts in knowledge and changes in environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Fisman (2005) examined the effects of an urban environmental education program on children’s awareness of their local biophysical environment. She examined changes in environmental awareness among 3rd- and 5th-grade participants in the Open Spaces as Learning Places program in New Haven, Connecticut. Results showed a significant positive effect of the program on students’ awareness of the local environment and on their knowledge of environmental concepts. Improvements in environmental knowledge were uncorrelated with the children’s socioeconomic status, whereas improvements in local environmental awareness appeared only among students living in high socioeconomic neighborhoods. Larson (2008) in his study used a mixed-method, quasi-experimental approach to investigate the impact of a one-week EE summer camp program on the environmental attitudes and awareness of children from different ethnic groups. A survey instrument designed to measure children’s views of nature was created, refined, and validated through two pilot tests. The survey instrument revealed three primary components of attitudes and awareness: eco-affinity, eco-awareness, and content knowledge. A pre-test, post-test approach was used to assess program effects. Baseline data showed declining eco-affinity in older children and low levels of eco-awareness and content knowledge in African-Americans. The EE treatment produced a significant increase in eco-affinity for all children, particularly those in the older age group (10 to 13 year-olds). The treatment also led to higher content knowledge scores for all children, with the greatest increase evident in African-Americans. The summer EE program had little effect on eco-awareness. Results suggest that the EE influences different aspects of environmental attitudes to different degrees; also, the EE programs may be especially beneficial for children that are older and/or African-American. This study may help to generate future support for education and outreach programs for under-served populations. In a survey of Canadian university students (N = 205), the relationship between majoring in an outdoor recreation university program and environmental concern, cooperation, and behavior were examined. Stepwise linear regression indicated that enrollment in outdoor recreation was predictive of environmental behavior and ecological cooperation; and these results held independently of age and gender.

252 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The researchers then examined the possibility that environmental concern may mediate these relationships. Inclusion of eco-centrism as a mediating variable indicated that environmental concern partially accounted for the relation between outdoor recreation and self-reported environmental behavior, and fully mediated (reduced to non-significance) the relationship between outdoor recreation and ecological cooperation. Results were discussed in the context of education, and more specifically experiential outdoor education as promoting environmental behavior through greater concern for the ecosystem (Arnocky & Mirella, 2011). The studies discussed above showed that the researchers applied different informal and outdoor environmental awareness programs on students in different countries, and then they conducted different measurement tools to assess the efficacy of these programs in improving the students' environmental awareness, attitude and behavior. The results emphasized variation in the range of these programs’ efficacy. This finding can be explained by considering that measuring learning outcomes in informal learning settings is notoriously difficult for a number of reasons (Ballantyne et al., 2005). In addition to the lack of formal curricula or assessment procedures in Environmental Education; learning involves affective as well as cognitive and behavioral outcomes; and the learning experience often varies widely from student to student. As a partial solution to this problem Griffin (1999) suggested that in informal settings, it may be appropriate to observe how students are learning (the learning process) as well as measuring what they have learned (the product). Also, in some of the previous studies self-reports come in many forms but are generally not accompanied by direct measures of behavior. Additionally, problems in design may lead to un-interpretable results. Some evaluations have found significant changes in student attitudes and knowledge (Kruse & Card, 2004; Stern et al., 2008). However, there are few reports of an equivalent control group where students also take the pre- and post-test (Camargo & Shavelson, 2009). 3. The study area The Gaza Strip has a narrow surface area of about 365 km2 and is located on the southeastern part of the Palestinian Territories, and represents about 1.33% of the total area of the Palestinian Territories. To the east and north, it is bordered by Israel, to the south by Egypt, and on the west is the Mediterranean Sea. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas on the earth, and has a rapid population growth of approximately 3.2% per annum based on the estimates of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2010). According to the 2010 census, the population has reached approximately 1.6 million people, with a population density of about 4,206 people per km2. The Gaza Strip comprises five Governorates, namely North Gaza, Gaza City, Deir el-Balah in the middle area, Khan Yunis and Rafah in the south. The present study was applied in two areas only because of some restrictions and limitations, which will be discussed in the section below on limitations. The current study was applied in Gaza City, which represents the principal urban area, and North Gaza, which represents the agricultural area. The map in Figure 1shows the sample distribution based on the Gaza Strip Governorates.

Figure 1. The study area 3.1. Research method 3.1.1. Sampling process A stratified sample was applied to select the study target group from the fourth, fifth and sixth grades of primary school, including both males and females, in Gaza City, representing an urban area, and North Gaza, representing an agricultural area. This selection was implemented by sending formal letters stating the objective of the current study and the target groups to different national and international organizations in the Gaza Strip working in different fields that target children. Approval was sought from the organizations in order to apply the current study on children who attend their activities. Accordingly, the present study was applied to four organizations in Gaza strip, two in the North area, and two in the Gaza City. The study sample comprised 214 children, 103 children as the experimental group and 111 children as the control group. All children were enrolled in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes in primary schools in the Gaza Strip for the educational year 2011 to 2012. A qualitative and quantitative quasi-experimental study was applied to evaluate outdoor awareness programs, during the Semester break in summer 2011. It covered six lesson plans for teaching environmental health concepts and issues to school-children in an outdoor school setting. Sessions were held three times a week. The awareness program lasted three weeks, starting with the pre-test and ending with the post-test. The researchers utilized a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures by incorporating the observations of children’s engagement in program activities as well as conducting a focus group discussion with the children after participating in the awareness program. Also, a self-reported questionnaire was applied to collect data for the assessment of the effectiveness of a short-term environmental health awareness program implemented in an after-school setting in Gaza City. The questionnaire was developed using a pre- post-test format. Subjects were first asked to answer the questionnaire before starting the awareness program, which reflected their knowledge, attitude and behavior before participation in the program, and then they were asked to complete the post-test questionnaire on the last day of the awareness program, which indicated their knowledge, attitude and behavior after their participation in the program. Data from all collected questionnaires were processed, and all statistical procedures were conducted using SPSS version 16 for Windows software. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey responses. The alpha level was set at 0.05 to determine statistical significance, and a number of inferential tests were used including Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

254 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

3.1.2. The study environmental health awareness program In the present study, the researchers developed a program with six lesson plans for teaching environmental concepts and issues to primary school-children in an outdoor school setting. Before determining which topics to cover, the researchers reviewed different project materials implemented by different organizations working in the field of environmental awareness and health promotion among children in Palestine. The researchers interviewed various key informants. After collecting the data, the researchers selected standardized activities that could be included in the outdoor awareness program curriculum. Other content was then added to the curriculum based on the past experiences of the researchers. The program comprised six sessions, which were divided into four theoretical and two practical sessions. Each theoretical session (lecture and discussion) lasted for three hours. The practical session (on solid waste recycling and on using hygiene kits) lasted for four hours for each activity. Pedagogical approaches were used in the delivery of the program, including hands-on activities, storytelling, playing with puppets, painting and performance presentations. Activities ranged from physically active to quiet thinking and reflective activities. During each activity, the children worked in friendship groups incorporating both boys and girls, and were then asked to deliver the environmental health messages they learned from their peers and families (peer-to-peer approach). Sessions were held three times a week. The awareness program lasted three weeks, starting with the pre-test and ending with the post-test. The environmental health awareness program (EHAP) attempted to cover all topics included in the measurement tools, especially the questionnaire. The children benefited from the present study by participating in the EHAP, which seemed to be particularly effective in reaching children during their formative stage. The chances that these children will grow up to be environmentally sensitive adults are increased. 3.1.3. Study instrument The researchers conducted two different administration methods to collect quantitative and qualitative data from the children. After each trial, the success and challenges inherent in the procedure were considered to refine and improve the effectiveness of the tool in achieving its aims and to assess environmental learning and identify program effectiveness across a specific range of year levels and programs (Ballantyne et al., 2005). For the quantitative method, a combination between orally and self-administered pre- and post-test questionnaires was used for the target group, some of whom needed help in reading and comprehending the questions. These questionnaires were applied to investigate the children’s knowledge, attitude, and behavior both before and after attending the EHAP. For the qualitative method, a focus group interview with children from the experimental group was first conducted to collect qualitative information. Second, an observation sheet was used to support the study’s findings both from the self-report and the focus group answers. Pre- and post-test self-report questionnaires in Arabic were designed to investigate the children’s knowledge, attitude, and behavior before and after attending the EHAP. The questionnaires were also designed to study the three variables with respect to their relationship with gender, area of residence, student scores, and achievement in school. In addition to reviewing the primary environmental health issues that should be discussed in the awareness program, the questionnaires were also designed based on previous research on outdoor awareness programs. A reference table was designed to guide the researchers in designing the questionnaire. The researchers concentrated on the variety of questions regarding different environmental health issues discussed in the EHAP, drawing on comparisons with questionnaires used elsewhere in similar investigations. Suitable questions were then adopted and included in the present study’s questionnaire. The questions were designed to be used in the focus group. Direct measures of observable behavior were also incorporated in the present study as an additional evaluation tool to support the obtained data. 3.2. Results analysis 3.2.1. Knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards environmental health among children who participated in the awareness program in the gaza strip (pre- & post-test) This section identifies the impact of the environmental health awareness program on the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of school children in the Gaza Strip. However, based on the results which are presented in Table 2, it can clearly be seen from the analysis that there were statistically significant differences between the level of knowledge of environmental health, attitudes and behaviors among the children before and after their attendance at the awareness program. Table (1) shows that the level of positive behavior of the children towards environmental health issues before attending the awareness program was lower than after attending the program.

Table 1. The level of knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards environmental health among the experimental group of children in the Gaza Strip (Pre- & Post-Test) Knowledge Attitude Behavior Item Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Number of children 103 103 103 103 103 103 Mean 18.36 20.12 72.95 78.85 58.18 60.69 Standard deviation 4.408 3.864 8.840 7.986 7.216 5.053 Percentage (%) 76.5% 83.8% 81% 87.6% 88.15% 92% T-test 4.352 6.402 4.393 Df 102 102 102 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.2.2. Level of knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards environmental health among the control group of children in the Gaza Strip (Pre- & Post-Test) This focused on measuring the difference level of EHKABs in pre- and post-tests among the children who did not have awareness program (Control Group) (Table 2).

Table 2. Level of EHKABs among children in the control group in the Gaza Strip Knowledge Attitude Behavior Item Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Number of children 111 111 111 111 111 111 Mean 17.62 16.70 73.24 72.86 55.80 57.32 Standard deviation 4.890 4.932 9.658 10.056 7.643 7.195 Percentage % 73.42% 69.6% 81.4% 81% 84.6% 86.9% T-Test 2.247 0.491 2.280 Df 110 110 110 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.2.3. The experimental group versus the control group Wilcoxon tests were performed to statistically examine significant differences between the levels of EHKAB’s among the children in the Experimental Group versus those in the Control Group. The results reveal that there were statistically significant differences in the level of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors post-test among the children who attended the awareness program (experimental group) versus the children who did not attend the awareness program (control group) at P-value = 0.005 in favour of the experimental group (see Table 3). Table 3 shows the level of environmental health KABs among the control group in the post-test was less than that among the experimental group (see Tables 1 and 2).

256 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Table 3. Wilcoxon test, to show differences, between the levels of EHKAB’s among the Children Experimental Group (EG) and the Control Group (CG) Knowledge Pre Knowledge Attitude Pre Attitude Post Behavior Pre Behavior Type of Test CG Post Test CG Test CG Test CG Test CG Post Test Test Knowledge Pre Knowledge Attitude Pre Attitude Post Behavior Pre CG Behavior Test EG Post Test EG Test EG Test EG Test EG Post test EG Mean Negative 49.22 52.22 49.39 53.54 51.37 55.12 Ranks Mean Positive 46.39 33.56 53.97 43.73 47.61 39.39 Ranks Z -1.406a -5.037a -.301a -4.023a -2.658a -3.713a Asymp. Sig. (2- 0.160 0.000 0.764 0.000 0.008 0.000 tailed) a. Based on positive ranks It is clear from Figure 2 that there were differences between the level of Environmental health Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors in the post-test among the experimental group who attended the awareness program versus the level of Environmental health Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors in the post- test among the children who didn’t attend the awareness program (Control Group).

Figure 2. Pre-Post EHKABs: Experimental Group versus Control Group

3.3. Level of KABs among the Experimental Group re-different Environmental Health program Items (Pre- & Post-Test)

3.3.1. Knowledge about Different Environmental Health Items Results indicated that the mean level of knowledge was significantly higher after the post-program than the pre-program for different subject areas: Water & Wastewater Problems & solutions (Rank = 1), followed by Solid Waste Problems & Solutions (Rank = 2), and then Health Problem Causes (Rank = 3). Maintaining Public Health (Rank = 4), Suggested solutions for the Environmental Problems (Rank = 5), Environmental Problems and causes (Rank = 6), General Environmental Health Concepts (Rank = 7) and Identify the Environmental & Health impacts of environmental problems (Rank = 8) increased from the pre- program to post- program, though the increases were not statistically significant (Table 4).

Table 4. Comparison of environmental health knowledge pre- and post-test means for program items (experimental group) Pre Post Total Mean Environmental Health Items N t Sig. Rank Mean Mean Score General EH Concepts 2.90 3.30 4 103 3.302 0.027 7 Environmental Problems and 3.01 3.34 4 103 3.079 0.007 6 it's causes Suggestion solutions for the 3.22 3.36 4 103 1.251 0.000 5 Environmental Problems Identify the E&H impacts of 2.64 3.18 4 103 4.159 0.001 8 environmental problem Health Problems Causes 3.17 3.40 4 103 2.177 0.000 3 Maintaining Public Health 2.94 3.38 4 103 3.821 0.000 4 Water & Wastewater Problems 2.25 2.51 3 103 3.005 0.000 1 & solutions Solid Waste Problems & 3.38 3.46 4 103 0.776 0.220 2 Solutions 3.3.2. Attitudes towards different environmental health items The change of attitudes towards different environmental health issues among the experimental group before and after attending the awareness program was studied. Table (5) shows that there was a change in the children’s attitudes between the pre-test and post-test favoring the post-test, but the mean differences were not significant for most of program for different subject areas, except for the public health and personal hygiene, which have the second rank among the other items, while their attitudes towards the Environmental problems and its causes got the third rank, attitudes towards water & wastewater, problems & solutions rank was 4), attitudes towards solid waste problems & solutions ranked 5, their attitudes regarding solutions to preserve the environment got rank 6, and finally their attitudes towards environmental issues & problem got the last ran.

Table 5. Comparison of environmental health attitudes pre- and post-test means for program items (experimental group) Total Pre Post EH Items Mean N t Sig. Rank Mean Mean Score Environmental Issues and 12.24 12.56 15 103 1.248 .274 7 Problems Public Health and Personal 16.07 18.31 21 103 5.387 .000 2 Hygiene Environmental Problems 13.70 15.53 18 103 5.130 .205 3 Causes Solutions to preserve the 14.33 15.10 18 103 2.874 .578 6 Environment Maintaining public health and 16.61 17.38 18 103 3.156 .069 1 disease prevention Attitude Towards Water & 9.20 10.31 12 103 4.679 .433 4 Waste Water Attitude towards Solid Waste 9.50 10.16 12 103 3.551 .997 5 Problems and solutions

3.3.2. Behaviors towards different environmental health items

258 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

The research examined if there is any change in the behavior of the experimental group towards different environmental health issues before and after attending the awareness program. The results emphasize that there was significant positive change in the children’s behavior towards environmental health issues after attending the awareness program in compare to the children behaviors in pre-program towards the most of program different subject areas, except in their behaviors towards water & wastewater Problems & solutions item even it have the first rank among the other subjects areas, but the change wasn’t significantly, that (t = 2.992, p = 0.205; Rank = 1), while the other three items shows significantly differences in the children behavior before and after attending the program, that Preservation of Public Health and Personal Hygiene (t = 4.377, p = 0.000, Rank =2). Also, for Behavior towards Environmental Preservation (t = 3.494, p = 0.000, Rank= 1), and final rank was for Solid Waste Problems & Solutions item (t = 2.543, p =0.000; Rank = 4) (Table 6).

Table 6. Comparison of EH Behaviors Pre- and Post-Test Means for Program Items (Experimental Group) Post Total Mean EH Items Pre Mean N t Sig. Rank Mean Score Behavior towards Environmental 28.17 29.50 33 103 3.494 0.000 3 Preservation Preservation of Public Health and 30.01 31.18 33 103 4.377 0.000 2 Personal Hygiene Behavior towards Water & waste 5.30 5.68 6 103 2.992 0.205 1 water Behavior towards Solid Waste 12.80 13.36 15 103 2.543 0.000 4 Problems & solutions 3.3.3. Level of children’s satisfaction about the awareness program Table 7 shows that the level of the children’s satisfaction about the awareness program was 90.5%, which indicates a high degree of satisfaction with the program.

Table 7. Level of the children’s satisfaction about the awareness program Standard Item N Mean Total Score % deviation Program Satisfaction 103 24.42 27 1.707 90.45%

3.3.4. Relationship between children who are satisfied with the program and their knowledge level Person's correlation coefficient was calculated to determine if the satisfaction levels of the experimental study children (independent variable) had an impact on their knowledge about the environmental health issues (dependent variable). There was a positive correlation between the environmental health knowledge of the experimental group after attending the awareness program (Post–test) and the children’s satisfaction with the program: 0.342 (n = 103, p = 0.000). The correlation level between environmental health knowledge of the children after attending the awareness program (Post–test) and the children’s satisfaction with the program is statistically significant (See Table 8).

Table 8. Relationship between children who are satisfied with the program and their knowledge level

Knowledge Post Test – and Program Satisfaction Pearson Correlation 0.342** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 103 Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). (P< 0.001) 3.4.5. Level of children’s satisfaction re- items about the environmental health awareness program There were differences among the children in the level of their satisfaction about the program according to the satisfaction items (Table 9). The first rank of their satisfaction was about their attending all the program activities and enjoying participating in the program, as out of 103 children who participated in the awareness program 100 children agreed on these two items. This was followed by their satisfaction about repeating such program, which was ranked second. On the other hand, 96 children agreed that they had learned a lot since they joined the program (ranked fourth). The fifth rank was for the children’s satisfaction about telling friends about the program and encouraging them to participate. The lowest rank was about the variety of program activities.

Table 9. level of children’s satisfaction re- items about the environmental health awareness program

Satisfaction Items Classroom Frequency Percentage Rank

Agree 96 93.2 Learned a lot since I joined the Not sure 7 6.8 4 program Disagree - - Total No. 103 100 Agree 94 91.3 Not sure 8 7.8 Variety of program activities 6 Disagree 1 0.9 Total No. 103 100 Agree 100 97.0 Enjoyed participating in the Not sure - 0 1 program Disagree 3 3 Total No. 103 100 Agree 99 96.1 Not sure 3 2.9 Repeat this program again 2 Disagree 1 1.0 Total No. 103 100 Agree 95 92.2 Telling friends about the Not sure 3 2.9 program and encouraging them 5 to participate Disagree 5 4.9 Total No. 103 100 Disagree 93 90.3 Did you learn of such activities Not sure 6 5.8 7 in the school? Agree 4 3.9 Total No. 103 100 Agree 100 97 Not sure - 0 Attending all program activities 1 Disagree 3 3 Total No. 103 100 Agree 97 94.2 Not sure 0 0 Re-use things at home 3 Disagree 7 5.8 Total No. 103 100 Agree 96 93.2 Telling family and friends about Not sure 0 0 the importance of maintaining 4 health and the environment Disagree 7 6.8 Total No. 103 100

260 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

3.4. Results of observation 3.4.1. Level of children’s participation in the program activities The developed Observation Record Sheet was designed to record the children’s behavior that is indicative of engagement during various components of the awareness program activities. Observation notes have also been registered. A total of 13 indicators in the observation sheet reflected the level of participation of the children in the awareness program. As pointed out in Table (10), the general participation of the study children in all program activities days was varied. For instance, in spite of the children have rank 1 in their actively participation in the program, but the second rank were given to their interruption during the activity. From the other hands, different actively participation by the study children got third rank, as children shown their self confidence during the program; also they were initiative and show responsibility (e.g., knowing what they want to look for, making choices, deciding where and when to move, and initiating engagement in learning), the ability to analyze the problem; and ability to affect on the others also got rank 3. The fourth rank for their making links and transferring ideas and skills; and sharing learning with peers and experts, while the fifth rank was for their creative thinking. Even though sometimes they were disengagement in the program activities, and this item got rank 6, while the last was rank for their participation was for their creating new ideas; and putting alternative solutions. Table 10. Level of children’s participation in the program activities Standard ITEM N Mean % Rank Deviation Actively Participation in the Program 9 3.13 0.354 78.25 1 Show self confidence 9 2.50 0.535 62.50 3 Initiative and show responsibility 9 2.50 0.535 62.50 3 Responding to new information or evidence 9 2.87 0.354 78.25 1 Making links and transferring ideas and skills 9 2.38 0.518 59.50 4 Interruption during the activity 9 3.00 0.000 75.00 2 Sharing learning with peers and experts 9 2.38 0.518 59.50 4 Disengagement 9 1.75 0.463 43.75 6 Creative thinking 9 2.13 0.354 53.00 5 Creating new ideas 9 1.62 0.744 40.50 7 putting alternative solutions 9 1.62 0.744 40.50 7 Ability to analyze the problem 9 2.50 0.535 62.50 3 Ability to affect on the others 9 2.50 0.535 62.50 3 3.4.2. Relationship between children’s participation in different program activities The relationship between the children’s level of participation in different program activities were examined, and the general participation in all program activities days were ranked by their percentage. Table (11) shows that the first rank was the day of General Environmental Health Practices, followed by the day of Personal Hygiene, indicating that the children were interesting on hands-on activities and learning new skills about protecting their health and personal hygiene. The lowest participation was in the first day of introductory lectures.

Table 11. Cross tabulation between the children’s total participation and each program activity

Level of Study Children Total Participation Program Activities % Rank Participation Score Introductory Lecture 30.75 52 59 6

Water & Waste water issues 31.5 52 61 5 Solid waste problems and 35.75 52 68.75 3 solutions Reduction and Reuse Practical 35.50 52 68.26 4 day Personal Hygiene 36.75 52 71 2 General EH Practices 37.75 52 73 1

3.5. Focus group results A focus group was conducted with 24 children distributed among the study areas in the Gaza Strip, after the children had finished the awareness program. It probed environmental learning in-depth by questioning the children about each learning event along a number of different dimensions. The results indicated that mostly there were no variations between the children’s answers according to study area (Gaza City or North Gaza). All children had never participated in anything like the environmental health awareness program they attended during this study. Most of them preferred the solid waste and recycling activities day, in addition to the day they received the hygiene kits and the practical day during which they learnt how to protect themselves from disease and microbes. All children stated that they enjoyed participating in the days of personal hygiene and general health practice, and that they started using the hygiene kits at home. All of them agreed that they were interested in all the program activities and there was no activity they disliked except for the two days in which they completed the questionnaires in the pre- and post-test. Most children said that they loved their environment more and felt a responsibility to protect it, that they learnt about the importance of cleaning the surrounding environment, and cleaning themselves. They said that before attending the program they were not concerned about removing garbage from the ground, but now they threw it into the trash bin. They also used more water during washing their hands, or taking their bath, but after the program they started to minimize the amount used in order to save water. Also, all of them had started to use tooth brushes and brushed their teeth every day, and took care of their personal hygiene, especially washing their hands before and after eating, and after using the toilet. Most of the children said that they had started to reuse different things at home, and told their families and friends about the program’s importance and how they enjoyed its different activities. They encouraged their friends to participate in such a program. Most of the children said that the program was short; and they wished to participate in a longer term program like this one. 4. Discussion 4.1. Impact of the environmental health awareness program on the KAB’s of the experimental group of children in the Gaza Strip The results emphasized positive shifts with statistically significant differences between the level of EHKAB’s among the experimental children before and after they attended the awareness program. Favorable results were generally obtained after the program (post-test) (refer to Table 2), proving that the experimental group retained long-term environmental and health content, and exhibited a potential increase in pro- environmental health attitudes and behavior (Cetin & Nisanci, 2010). Compared with previous studies, the present study offered results in support of and consistent with previous literature on residential Environmental Education programs, which commonly found that participation produces short-term positive results across a range of cognitive and affective outcomes (e.g., Basile, 2000; Dettman-Easler & Pease, 1996, 1999; Evans et al., 2007; Farmer et al., 2007; Fisman, 2005; Larson, 2008; Jordan et al., 1986; Knapp and Benton, 2006; Salmi, and Mekhlafy 2003; Mohsen, 2000; Lindemann-Matthies, 2002; Palmberg and Kuru, 2000; Prokop et al., 2007; Smith-Sebasto & Cavern, 2006; Stern et al., 2008; Vadala, 2004). Although the above mentioned results are similar to those of the present research’s findings, several studies reported different results. Samaan (1988) revealed partial improvements in the level of the students’ environmental awareness, which

262 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 was attributed to the short period of these camps. Smith-Sebasto and Semrau (2004) also reported results different from those of the current study, where no significant change was found in children’s attitudes after an outdoor environmental education program. 4.2. The Level of EHKAB’s among children in the experimental group versus those of children in the control group Based on the pretest results, no significant difference was found between the levels of KAB’s among the experimental group with that of the control group. However, based on post-test results, the experimental group’s level of EHKAB’s significantly improved compared with that of the control group (P-value = 0.005). The experimental group exhibited slightly greater changes in EHKAB’s, whereas those who were in the control group failed to show more positive changes in the level of EHKAB’s. Hence, the awareness program was successful in improving the children’s level of KAB’s toward environmental health issues (Tables 2, 3, 4). The results of the present study reflects the level of efficiency of the awareness program on improving the level of KAB’s by comparing the experimental group’s pre-test and post-test results with those of the control group. The findings of the current study are consistent with those of previous studies which reported that, based on post-test results, the experimental group’s level of KAB’s significantly improved compared with that of the control group (Al-Marzouqi, 2006; Bonger, 2002; Carrier, 2009; Cetin & Nisanci, 2010; Jaus, 1982; Lindemann -Matthies, 2002; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Vadala, 2004). On the other hand, based on the recent results, a significant negative difference is evident in the mean scores of knowledge and attitudes among the control group, whereas a significant positive difference is observed in the group’s behavior mean scores (Vadala, 2004). 4.3. Level of children’s satisfaction with the awareness program Table 17 presents a high degree of children’s satisfaction with the awareness program (90%). Similar studies which also obtained high satisfaction rates are those of Bogner (2002), where pupil satisfaction with the residential program was high, and that of Vadala (2004), where all participants indicated satisfaction with the program, with 75% of the students giving 5.0 (on a scale of 5) for the three satisfaction questions. However, in the study by Vadala (2004), the correlation between the knowledge score (total number of items correct) and the program satisfaction score (mean satisfaction rating) was -0.045 (n = 20, p = 0.852), and was therefore statistically insignificant. In addition, Ballantyne et al. (2001b) stated that a student’s satisfaction with the program does not indicate an increase in their environmental awareness. Hence, the participants’ satisfaction with the program does not ensure that the impact of the program will extend to a deeper understanding of environmental issues or a commitment to responsible environmental behavior. 4.4. Cross tabulation and triangulation between the main findings of the quantitative and qualitative analyses Camargo and Shavelson (2009) argued that direct measures provide information about individuals’ observable actions and behaviors. Hence, evaluations of environmental education programs could benefit from incorporating direct measures of students’ performance in addition to other data gathered through indirect measures about knowledge and attitudes. The observational procedure was relatively successful in identifying the extent to which students were engaged in learning during various aspects of the programs (Ballantyne et al., 2005). Based on the combination between the responses of children in the selfreport and the method of in- depth probing of children’s reported learning from the awareness program, the method of asking children to mention what they learned specifically from the awareness program about environmental health will provide more information, such as the extent to which they enjoyed their participation in the program, the emotions they had during the program activities, their perceptions of how they learned, and the experiences that greatly affected their EHKAB’s. This method would improve the quality of the responses (Ballantyne et al., 2005). Several sample analyses are presented below as indicators of how such data might be used in research and evaluation. In the children’s responses regarding their satisfaction about the awareness program (Table 10), the item as to whether they enjoyed participating in the program, as well as that which indicated their attendance in all program activities, ranked first. However, the need for supplementary observational data and the opportunity to probe students’ responses through interviews were apparent (Ballantyne et al., 2005). Based on the daily monitoring and observation results of the total participation of children in the program activities (Table, 12), the day of general environmental health practices obtained the highest rating. Similarly, the self-report submitted by the children indicated that the topics on maintaining public health and disease prevention, and public health and personal hygiene ranked first and second, respectively. These results are supported by the children’s confirmation during the focus group discussion. All children stated that they enjoyed participating in the days when personal hygiene and general health practice were discussed. The children observed several changes in their EHKAB’s: (a) they used the contents of the hygiene kits at home; (b) previously, they did not care about picking up garbage from the ground, but after the awareness program, they picked up the trash and threw this in the trash bin; (c) before the program, they used to waste water when washing their hands or taking a bath, but after the program, they started to conserve water; and (d) all of them started to take care of their personal hygiene by brushing their teeth every day, and washing their hands before and after eating, and after using the toilet. Results of the focus group interviews with children in the experimental group also confirmed the self-report of the children’s satisfaction. During the focus group interviews, the children mentioned that they started to reuse things in the house. Most of these children preferred the day when solid waste and recycling activities were held, and they enjoyed the practices and hands-on activities. This result supported the results reflected in the self-report of the children’s satisfaction with the program, where the activity about starting to reuse things at home ranked third. Based on the cross-tabulation between this finding and that from the observation on the children’s participation level in the program activities, the days for the discussion of solid waste problems and solutions and for the reduction and reuse were ranked third and fourth, respectively. Only minor differences were observed between the children’s level of participation in these two days. Thus, the children’s satisfaction in these days, as well as their behavior and level of participation, supported the result of the focus group interviews and self-report. In addition, the results of the self-report indicated that the level of the children’s knowledge about solid waste problems and solutions ranked second among the program items. Results of the self-report also identified that among the subject areas, the topic concerning water and wastewater problems and solutions obtained the highest level of children’s knowledge and behaviors, and thus ranked first. Meanwhile, the children’s attitudes toward this item ranked fourth. Results of the observation about the level of children’s daily participation in each program activity reflected that their participation in the day for the discussion of water and wastewater issues generally obtained the lowest rank (fifth). However, on the sixth day of the program activities, they started to conserve water. This increase in children’s knowledge and the positive shift in their behavior might be attributed to the new information they heard concerning water issues and problems, as mentioned in the focus group interview. Finally, the children exhibited the lowest level of active participation during the day of the introductory lecture. This finding was confirmed by the results of the self- report, where the level of children’s knowledge about the general environmental health concepts ranked seventh among the eight items of the awareness program. However, during the focus group interview, the children mentioned that they did not dislike any of the program days, except for the days of pre-test and post- test administration. Only a few evaluations used direct measures of behavior instead of self-reports (Camargo & Shavelson, 2009). However, to compare the results with self-report questionnaires, several studies incorporated their observations with a structured interview. The previous studies support the present research’s method of combining observation with a self-report. For example, in the field of education, researchers have used performance-based assessments to determine the actual behaviors and knowledge of students (Camargo & Shavelson, 2009). The abilities of the students to use their knowledge and attitudes are tested by carrying out a controlled science investigation (Pine et al., 2006; Shavelson, 2007). Ballantyne et al. (2001a) used a variety of instruments to measure learning outcomes (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scales, and open response items) to assess the intergenerational outcomes of two Environmental Education programs in Brisbane, Australia. The authors concluded that both programs were effective in engaging students and encouraging discussions outside the classroom. Correspondingly, Ballantyne et al. (2005) claimed that the most effective strategy comprised a combination of field observations and a structured interview. Observations are useful in identifying experiences that produce high levels of engagement, and in interpreting connections between teaching/learning approaches and student learning outcomes. Observations can also assist in triangulating the data collected in the structured interviews, which involve in-depth probing of students’ reported learning. Furthermore observations were found to be effective in measuring individual student’s learning outcomes using an orally administered questionnaire and self-administered questionnaire according to student’s age group, and in identifying experiences associated with different types of outcomes. Vadala (2004) incorporated a pre-test/post-test retrospective questionnaire with interviews, which were conducted with students and teachers of the program and the control schools. Cetin and Nisanci (2010) examined the effects

264 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014 of the instructional methods in a new Biology curriculum on ninth-grade students’ environmental awareness by combining environmental awareness questionnaires with observation and interview forms. Conclusion The main objective of this paper is to measure whether or not an outdoor environmental health awareness program, which is based on developing environmental health awareness materials, can positively affect the environmental knowledge of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders as well as their attitudes and behaviors toward their environment in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. One of the most significant contributions of the present study is its integration of both quantitative and qualitative instruments. Specifically, data were collected via different methods, such as modified observation, focus group interviews, self-reported questionnaires, and pre- and post-tests. The collected data determined the changes in the levels of EHKAB’s. The present research modified the approach of Griffin in observing the indicators of engagement in learning about children in program activities (Griffin, 1999). Also, the researchers conducted focus group interviews with the children in the experimental group. The focus group method is highly feasible and operates on the assumption that children are capable of participating in research using this method. The results emphasize positive shifts with statistically significant differences between the level of environmental health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among the experimental children before and after their attendance in the awareness program (post- test). Finally, using an equivalent control group provides sufficient support for the principal theories. This is a necessary step to avoid confounding factors and confirm if the positive or negative impact of these programs on the level of KAB’s is due to the program itself and not due to other factors. Acknowledgement The authors wish to express their appreciation and gratitude to national and international organizations in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, which work in the field of environmental health and children, for their support and help to apply this study. Also, special thanks are extended to the children of the Gaza Strip for their valuable participation in this research. References [1] Alerby, E. 2000. A way of visualizing children’s and young people’s thoughts about the environment: A study of drawings. Environmental Education Research, 6, 205-222. [2] Al-Marzouqi, A. 2006. Effectiveness of a program for the class and non-class environmental activities in developing the environmental skills and values for the students of the second stage of basic education in the United Arab Emirates. PhD Thesis, Ain Shams University, Egypt. [3] Arnocky, S. and Mirella S. 2011. Variation in environmentalism among university students: Majoring in outdoor recreation, parks, and tourism predicts environmental concerns and behaviors. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(3), 137 -151. [4] Ballantyne, R., Fien, J. and Packer, J. 2001a. Program effectiveness in facilitating intergenerational influence in environmental education: Lessons from the field. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 8–15. [5] Ballantyne, R., Fien, J. and Packer, J. 2001b. School environmental education program impacts upon student and family learning: a case study analysis. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 23-37. [6] Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Michele, E. 2005. Measuring environmental education program impacts and learning in the field: Using action research cycle to develop a tool for use with young students. University of Queensland. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 23-37. [7] Basile, G. (000. Environmental education as a catalyst for transfer of learning in young children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 21-27. [8] Bogner, F.X. 2002. The influence of a residential outdoor education program to pupil's environmental perception. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 19-34. [9] Bonnett, M. and Williams, J. 1998. Environmental education and primary children’s attitudes towards nature and the environment. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(2), 159-174. [10] Camargo, C. and Shavelson, R. 2009. Direct Measures in Environmental Education Evaluation: Behavioral Intentions versus Observable Actions, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 8(3), 165 - 173. [11] Carleton-Hug, A. and Hug, J.W. 2010. Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Journal of Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 159-164. [12] Carrier, J. 2009. The Effects of Outdoor Science Lessons with Elementary School Students on Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 35-48. [13] Cetin, G. and Nisanci, S. 2010. Enhancing students’ environmental awareness. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1830–1834. [14] Connell, S., Fien, J., Sykes, H. and Yencken, D. 1998. Young people and the environment in Australia: Beliefs, knowledge, commitment and educational implications. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 39-48. [15] Culen, G. and Volk, T. 2000. Effects of an extended case study on environmental behavior and associated variables in seventh and eighth-grade students. Journal of Environmental Education, 3(2), 9– 15. [16] Dark, M. and Holsman, R. 2002. Development of an evaluation checklist for communicating about environmental education. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 1(3), 183-191. [17] Dettman-Easler, D. and Pease, J. 1996. Days of wonder: Benefits of residential environmental education programs. Science Teacher, 63(6), 41–44. [18] Dettmann.-Easler, D. and Pease, J. 1999. Evaluating the effectiveness of residential environmental education programs in fostering positive attitudes toward wildlife. The Journal of Environmental Education, 3(1), 33-39. [19] El Said, S. 1984. Building Program in environmental education for agriculture secondary school students. PhD Thesis, Ain shams University, Cairo, Egypt. [20] Ernst, J. (2005). A formative evaluation of the prairie science class. Journal of Interpretation Research, 10(1), 9-30. [21] Evans, G. W., Brauchle, G., Haq, A., Stecker, R., Wong, K. and Shapiro, E. 2007. Young children’s environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39(5), 635–658. [22] Farmer, J., Knapp, D. and Benton, G. 2007. An elementary school environmental education field trip: Long-term effects on ecological and environmental knowledge and attitude development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 33-42. [23] Fisman, L. 2005. The Effects of Local Learning on Environmental Awareness in Children: An Empirical Investigation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 39-50. [24] Gayford, C. 1996. Environmental education in schools: An alternative framework. Canadian Journal of Environmental education, 1, 104 -120. [25] Griffin, J. 1999. An exploration of learning in informal settings. (Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Boston, USA). [26] Goodwin, M., Greasley, S., John, P. and Richardson, L. 2009. Can we make environmental citizens? A randomized control trial of the effects of a school-based intervention on the attitudes and knowledge of young people. (Paper presented at the Political Studies Association Conference, Manchester, UK). [27] Jaus, H. 1982. The effect of environmental education instruction on children's attitudes toward the environment. Science Education, 66(5), 689-692. [28] Jordan, J., Hungerford, H. and Tomera, A. 1986. Effects of two residential environmental workshops on high school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(1), 15–22. [29] Knapp, D. and Barrie, E. 2001. Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 351-357. [30] Knapp, D. and Poff, R. 2001. A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmental interpretive program. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 55-65. [31] Kruse, C. and Card, J. 2004. Effects of a conservation education camp program on campers' self- reported knowledge, attitude, and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35 (4), 33-45.

266 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

[32] Larson, L. 2008. Environmental education and ethnicity: The impact of a summer education program on the environmental attitudes and awareness of minority children. Faculty of the University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia. [33] Leeming, F., Dwyer, W., Porter, B. and Cobern, M. 1993. Outcome research in environmental education, a critical review. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8–21. [34] Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2002. The influence of an educational program on children’s perception of biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Education, 33(2), 22-31. [35] McDuff, M. 2002. Needs assessment for participatory evaluation of environmental education programs. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 1 (1), 25-36. [36] Mohsen, M. 2000. The role of science curriculum in development of the environmental knowledge & attitudes, among Fifth & Sixth Grades, in Gaza Governorates, MSc Thesis, the University of al –Aqsa, Palestine. [37] Mohsen, M. 2003. Preparation program in environmental education for adults in Palestine and measure its effectiveness. PhD Thesis, Joint graduate Program between the Faculty of Education at the University of Ain Shams, Cairo, Egypt and the Faculty of Education at the University of al –Aqsa, Gaza – Palestine. [38] Monroe, M. 2002. Evaluation's friendly voice: The structured open-ended interview. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 1 (2), 101-106. [39] O’Neill, E. 2007. Conservation Audits: Auditing Process Lessons Learned, 2003-2007: Conservations Measures Partnership. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from http://conservationmeasures.org/ CMP/Site Docs/Conservation%20Audits%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2031%20July%202007.pdf [40] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 2010. Population in the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2010. Ramallah-Palestine. Retrieved September 3, 2012, from http://www.pcbs.gov.ps [41] Palmberg, I. and Kuru, J. 2000. Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32–37. [42] Powell, R., Stern, M. and Ardoin, N. 2006. A sustainable evaluation framework and its application. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 5(4), 231–241. [43] Powers, A. 2004. Evaluation of one- and two-day forestry field programs for elementary children. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 3(1), 39-46. [44] Prokop P., Lešková, A., Kubiatko M., and Diran C. 2007. Slovakian students' knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 895-907. [45] Reid, A. and Gough. S. 2000. Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6(1), 59-91. [46] Rickinson, M. 2001. Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207-320. [47] Salmi, H. and Mekhlafy, M. 2003. The level of environmental awareness among the middle school students in Oman Sultanate, and its relationship to their attitudes towards the Environment. Studies in Curriculum and Teaching Methods, 88, 16-40. [48] Samaan, A. 1988. The impact of the camps in the development of environmental awareness, Institute of Environmental Studies and Research, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. [49] Schneller, A. 2008. Environmental service learning: Outcomes of innovative pedagogy in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 291-307. [50] Shavelson, R. 2006. On the integration of formative assessment in teaching and learning: Implications for new pathways in teacher education. (In F. Oser, F. Achtenhagen, & U. Renold (Eds.), Competence- oriented teacher training: Old research demands and new pathways. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [51] Smith-Sebasto, J. and Cavern, L. 2006. Effects of pre- and post trip activities associated with a residential environmental education experience on students’ attitudes toward the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(4): 3-17. [52] Smith -Sebasto J., Rechenberg, C., Cruey, L., Magness, S. and Sandman, P. 1997. The impact of recycling education on the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of grade school children. Education, 118(2), 262-266. [53] Smith-Sebasto, J. and Semrau, H. J. 2004. Evaluation of the environmental education program at the New Jersey School of Conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 3–18. [54] Stern, M., Powell, R. and Ardoin, N. 2008. What Difference Does It Make? Assessing Outcomes from Participation in a Residential Environmental Education Program. Summer. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31–43. [55] Vadala, C. 2004. The impact of an environmental education program on third graders' knowledge, attitude and behavioral intentions. MSc Thesis, Texas A & M University. United States. [56] Volk, T. and Cheak, M. 2003. The effects of an environmental education program on students, parents, and community. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(4), 12–25.

268 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

ASERS Publishing is an advanced e-publisher struggling to bring further the worldwide learning, knowledge and research. This transformative mission is realized through our commitment to innovation and enterprise, placing us at the cutting-edge of electronic delivery in a world that increasingly considers the digital content and networked access not only to books and journals but to a whole range of other pedagogic services. In both books and journals, ASERS Publishing is a hallmark of the finest scholarly publishing and cutting-edge research, maintained through commitment to the rigorous peer-review process. Using pioneer developing technologies, ASERS Publishing keeps pace with the rapid changes in the e-publishing market. ASERS Publishing is committed to providing customers with the information they want, when they want and how they want it. To serve this purpose ASERS offerings digital higher Education from its journals, courses and scientific books, in a proven way in order to engage academic society from the entire world.

ASERS Publishing Publications:

. Journals… . Conferences Proceedings… . Books Collections….

Journals …

Journal of Advanced Research in Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation

Editor in Chief PhD Professor Domenico NICOLÒ Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Italy

The Journal of Advanced Research in Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation (JARE-NVC) seeks to promote further ideas and debates on the international, cross-cultural and comparative academic research about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Manuscripts that are suitable for publication in JARE-NVC cover domains such as, but are not limited to these: Entrepreneurship and growth; Entrepreneurship support and policy implications; New firms and regional context; Academic entrepreneurship and technology transfer; International entrepreneurship; Innovation activities in SME; Entrepreneurial personalities, human capital and teams; Technology entrepreneurship; Corporate entrepreneurship; Start-ups development (or growth) strategies; Start-ups competitive strategies; Risk factors for start-ups; Business planning models; Family business; Entrepreneurial values and business success; Smart cities policies and start-ups; Venture capital and Private Equity (or Private equity investors); Venture creation models (or patterns); Start-ups Ecosystems.

Journal of Advanced Research in Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation, starting with its first issue, will be indexed in RePEC, CEEOL, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases.

Web: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jare_nvc

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jare_nvc

270 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Journal of Advanced Research in Economics and International Business

Editor in Chief: PhD Mădălina CONSTANTINESCU Spiru Haret University, Romania And Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

Co-Editor: PhD Daniele SCHILIRÒ Messina University, Italy

Journal of Advanced Research in Economics and International Business provides a forum where academics and professionals can share the latest developments and advances in the knowledge and practice of Economics and International Business. It aims to foster the exchange of ideas on a range of important international subjects, to provide stimulus for research and the further development of international perspectives, and to publish empirical and applied research on issues relating to Economics and International Business.

Journal of Advanced Research in Economics and International Business, starting with its first issue, will be indexed in RePEC, CEEOL, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases.

Web: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jareib E-mail: [email protected] ISSN: 2344-3774 ISSN-L: 2344-3774 Biannually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jareib

Journal of Advanced Research in Management

Editor in Chief: PhD Andy Ştefănescu University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Romania Co-Editor: PhD Rajesh K. Pillania Management Development Institute, India

The Journal aims to serve researchers, scholars through prompt publications of significant advances in any branch of management science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning management science.

Journal of Advanced Research in Management is indexed in RePEC, ProQuest, CEEOL, CABELL'S Directories and EBSCO databases.

Web: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jarm Email: [email protected] ISSN 2068-7532 Biannually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jarm

272 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics

Editor in Chief:

PhD Mădălina CONSTANTINESCU Spiru Haret University, Romania and Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

Co-Editors:

PhD Russell PITTMAN International Technical Assistance Economic Analysis Group Antitrust Division, SUA

PhD Eric LANGLAIS EconomiX CNRS and Université Paris Ouest-Nanterre, France

Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics provides readers with high quality and empirical research in law and economics. The Journal publishes analytical studies on the impact of legal interventions into economic processes by legislators, courts and regulatory agencies. Finally, important developments and topics in the analysis of law and economics will be documented and examined in special issues dedicated to that subject. The Journal is edited for readability; lawyers and economists, scholars and specialized practitioners count among its readers. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics is currently indexed in SCOPUS, RePEC, EconLit, CEEOL, ProQuest, Cabell’s Directories and EBSCO databases.

Web: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jarle E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2068-696X Biannually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jarle

Journal of Advanced Research in Organizational Psychology

Editor in Chief: PhD Pompiliu CONSTANTINESCU Academy of Economic Studies, Romania and Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

Co-Editor: Andra Mihaela PALOȘ

Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

The aims and scope of the Journal of Advanced Research in Organizational Psychology is to provide its readers with up-to-date studies and current trends in the field of organizational psychology. The Journal will host articles dedicated to the study of inner-group psychology and the social dynamics existing in the organization today. The contents of the Journal can be useful to students and practitioners alike, as they will provide insight to new theories, thoughts and perspectives with regards to the field of organizational psychology.

Journal of Advanced Research in Organizational Psychology is indexed in RePEC, and CEEOL databases.

Website: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jarop E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2286-413X ISSN-L 2286-413X Annually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jarop

274 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance

Editor in Chief: PhD. Laura ŞTEFĂNESCU Spiru Haret University, Romania and Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

Co-Editor: PhD Rajmund MIRDALA Technical University of Kosice, Faculty of Economics, Slovak Republic

The Journal aims to publish empirical and theoretical articles which make significant contributions in all areas of finance, such as: asset pricing, corporate finance, banking and market microstructure, but also newly developing fields such as law and finance, behavioral finance, and experimental finance. The Journal serves as a focal point for communication and debates for its contributors for the better dissemination of information and knowledge on a global scale.

Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance is indexed in EconLit, RePEC, CEEOL, ProQuest, Cabell’s Directories and EBSCO databases.

Website: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jasf E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2068-8393 Biannually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jasf

Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism

Editor in Chief: PhD Ramona PÎRVU University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism will publish original research and seeks to cover a wide range of topics regarding environmental management and engineering, environmental management and health, environmental chemistry, environmental protection technologies (water, air, soil), at-source pollution reduction and waste minimization, energy and environment, modeling, simulation and optimization for environmental protection; environmental biotechnology, environmental education and sustainable development, environmental strategies and policies, etc.

Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism is indexed in SCOPUS, RePEC, CEEOL, ProQuest, EBSCO and Cabell’s Directories databases.

Web: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jemt E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2068-7729 Biannually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt

276 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Journal of Research in Educational Sciences

Editor in Chief: PhD Laura UNGUREANU Spiru Haret University, Romania and Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

Assistant Editor: Andra - Mihaela PALOŞ Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

The Journal is designed to promote scholarly thought in the field of education with the clearly mission to provide an interdisciplinary forum for discussions and debates about education’s most vital issues. We intend to publish papers that contribute to the expanding boundaries of knowledge in education and are focusing on research, theory, current issues and applied practice in this area.

Journal of Research in Educational Sciences is indexed in RePEC, CEEOL, ProQuest, Cabell’s Directories and EBSCO databases.

Website: http://www.asers.eu/journals/jres E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2068-8407 Annually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jres

Theoretical and Practical Research in Economic Fields

Editor in Chief: PhD Laura UNGUREANU Spiru Haret University, Romania and Association for Sustainable Education, Research and Science

Co-Editor:

PhD Ivan KITOV Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Theoretical and Practical Research in Economic Fields publishes original articles in all branches of economics - theoretical and empirical, abstract and applied, providing wide-ranging coverage across the subject area. The Journal promotes research that aims to unify the theoretical-quantitative and the empirical-quantitative approach to the economic problems that can be solved through constructive and rigorous thinking.

Theoretical and Practical Research in Economic Fields is indexed in SCOPUS, RePEC, EconLit, CEEOL, ProQuest, Cabell’s Directories and EBSCO databases.

Website: http://www.asers.eu/journals/tpref E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2068-7710 Biannually Journal Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/tpref

278 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Conferences Proceedings …

Proceedings of the ASERS First on-line Conference on Global Trends in Finance

Coordinator: PhD. Rajmund MIRDALA

Format: 17cm x 24cm ISBN: 978-606-92386-8-4

Proceedings of the ASERS First on-line Conference on World’s Economies in and after Crisis: Challenges, Threats and Opportunities

Coordinator: PhD. Laura ŞTEFĂNESCU

Format: 17cm x 24cm ISBN: 978-606-92386-0-8

Proceedings of the ASERS First on-line Conference on Competitiveness and Economic Development: Challenges, Goals and Means in a Knowledge based Society

Coordinator: PhD. Andy ŞTEFĂNESCU

Format: 17cm x 24cm ISBN: 978-606-92386-4-6

Books Collections …

Financial Aspects of Recent Trends in the Global Economy, Volume I Editor(s): Rajmund Mirdala Author(s): Asongu, Simplice Anutechia; Spišaková, Emília; Jamilov, Rustam et al. Publisher: ASERS Publishing ISBN-L: 978-606-93129-5-7 Print ISBN: 978-606-93129-6-4 Online ISBN: 978-606-93129-9-5 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.006/2013FINART.00 Year: 2013 Pages: 302 Format: 17 x 24

Financial Aspects of Recent Trends in the Global Economy, Volume II Editor(s): Rajmund Mirdala Author(s): / Itir Ozer-Imer; Ibrahim Ozkan; Alexis Derviz et al. Publisher: ASERS Publishing ISBN-L: 978-606-93129-5-7 Print ISBN: 978-606-93129-7-1 Online ISBN: 978-606-93129-8-8 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.006/2013FINART.01 Year: 2013 Pages: 262 Format: 17 x 24

Intelligent Decision Support Systems for Managerial Decision Making Editor: Laura Ștefănescu Authors: Hunka, F.; Ştefănescu, L.; Popîrlan, C. I.; Suchánek, P.; Vymětal, D.; Bucki, R.; Ward D.; Trucco, P.; Wolf, P et al. Publisher: ASERS Publishing Print ISBN: 978-606-92386-5-3 Online ISBN: 978-606-92386-1-5 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.006/2011IDSS Year: 2011 Pages: 200 Format: 17 x 24

280 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Management and Environmental Protection Editor: Cristina Barbu Authors: Brikend Aziri, Hrabrin Bachev, Cristina Barbu et al. Publisher: ASERS Publishing Online ISBN: 978-606-93129-3-3 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.006/2012MEP Year: 2012 Pages: 218 Format: 17 x 24

Mathematical Models in Economics Editor: Laura Ungureanu Authors: Alexiadis Stilianos, Aloui Chaker, Carfi David et al. Publisher: ASERS Publishing Print ISBN: 978-606-93129-0-2 Online ISBN: 978-606-92386-6-0 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.006/2012MME Year: 2012 Pages: 197 Format: 17 x 24

Design a Pattern of Sustainable Growth. Innovation, Education, Energy and Environment Editor: Daniele Schilirò Authors: Lou Marinoff, Fernando Almeida, José Santos et al. Publisher: ASERS Publishing ISBN-L: 978-606-93490-4-5 Print ISBN: 978-606-93129-6-4 Online ISBN: 978-606-93490-6-9 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/despag.2014 Year: 2014 Pages: 260 Format: 17 x 24

Forthcoming books …

Economic Development and the Environment

Editor: George Halkos

The high pace of economic development reflects both economic growth and population. The rapid growth depends on increases in capital stock, technological progress, and supplies of energy, natural resources and the absorption capacity of environment concerning waste byproducts. There are two though, adverse theoretical cases concerning the effect of economic development on the environment. For the optimists, economic growth can be beneficial for the environment; but there is the opposite environmental case represented by the pessimists, supporting that increased economic development exerts an even greater demand on natural resources that leads to environmental degradation. Furthermore, mismanagement of natural resources and increased pollutants and wastes will therefore result in the degradation of environmental quality and a decline in human welfare. The relationship between economic growth and the environment always remains a controversial issue owing to conflicting results as the improvement in well-being and the serious environmental conditions that have to be encountered with the appropriate sustainability policies and measures. The concept of sustainable development attempts to combine economic and environmental goals. Sustainable development may be defined as continuous improvement in the socio- economic standards, fulfilled by increasing its stocks of physical and human capital and improving technology and environment. In order to guarantee the sustainable development of the economy, environmental degradation should not increase with time but be reduced or at least remain constant.

The main objective of this book is to offer answers to crucial questions concerning the relationship between economic development and environment. . How feasible is to sustain economic growth indefinitely without having to deal with the environmental degradation? . What is the relationship between increases in incomes and environmental quality? . Are there trade - offs between the goals of achieving high and sustainable rates of economic growth and attaining high standards of environmental quality? . The main goal of the book is to cover all aspects of the environmental impacts of socioeconomic development; to investigate interactions between economic development and environment and their implications for sustainable development; to seek ways and means for achieving sustainability; and to explore the development and application of indicators as well as the implementation of policies for sustainable development. . The target audience for this book is academics, researchers and practitioners that are occupied in the field of environmental economics and in issues like sustainability, economic growth and environmental quality, etc.

282 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Designing and Deploying Logistic Systems

Editor: Petr Suchánek

Globalisation, and integration of trade markets, quick development and penetration of information and communication technologies (ICT), geographically dislocated manufacturing, development of automated systems production, growing demands of customers and a big number of farther factors lead to increasing demands concerning the quality of logistics as well as general logistic systems. It is generally known that logistics deals with organising, planning and controlling streams of ready products, services, materials, raw materials, and semi-products used during manufacturing processes while taking into account the need to satisfy all requirements of the market. At the same time investment and capital costs are to be minimised. Today´s turbulent enterprising environment requires constant search for new methods on the basis of which it is possible to effectively propose, implement, control and optimise logistic systems dedicated for special usage purposes (trade, transport, manufacturing, etc.). The main goal is always to create complex integrated systems satisfying all current needs of the environment in which it is implemented at a minimal level. This kind of system should enable its users to optimise it even more by means of managerial approaches. Moreover, optimisation must be understood in a complex way on condition that optimisation of the whole logistic system almost always means optimising its separate parts (subsystems). The main objective of this book is to present current trends in designing, deploying, management and optimisation of logistic systems designed to support business, production, transport, tourism and many other areas. A reader is expected to find answers to the main questions which are included in the book: . How can a logistic system be proposed for separate areas of usage (business, transport, manufacturing, etc.)? . How can be a logistic system introduced? . How should a logistic system be controlled? . How to optimise a logistic system? . How to use ICT properly and effectively in logistic systems? The book makes the effort clearly in a structured form to present modern approaches, methods, technologies, algorithms and other tools (e.g. software) as well as developing trends in a certain area. It is assumed that the book is dedicated to the wide scientific and professional society and students who are keen on improvement in this field and want to gather necessary data for their current and future research activities.

Challenges to Financial Stability – Perspective, Models and Policies, Volume I, and II

Editor: Renata Karkowska

During the global financial crisis exchange stock markets fell by more than 40% in Europe, USA or Japan. Real economy stopped, which was seen in international trade, direct investments and industry. These declines illustrate the scale and impact of systemic risk and its local and global consequences. In response, international supervisory and regulators have identified causes of the global financial crisis and take some necessary steps to create stability of financial system, discipline in risk-taking, leverage and management of systemic risk. At the present, the global economy is facing some critical factors - supervisory improvement to minimize the risk and its impact of economy and simultaneously market participants examine the multi-faceted nature of regulation. The question is how to make sure that regulation are suitable for potential risk exposure and appropriate to financial institutions capitalization. The other topic is measures of systemic risk factors associated funding, profitability and bank liquidity through stress testing and economic analysis. Meet to this crucial problems regulators discuss aspects of macro-prudential frameworks, including Basel III capital buffer and monitoring of financial systems in order to detect vulnerability signs. Last years, policy makers, regulators and academics have been exploring questions related to financial stability, systemic risk and regulation. This special book addresses answers of these difficult questions. I expect that this special book will shed light on some of the challenges to stability of global financial system. Thus, the goal of this book is to encourage the exchange of new ideas about challenges in global trends in finance in the view of wide aspects of current critical perspective of financial system evolution. The target audience for this publication is academics, researchers and policy makers engaged in various disciplines such as evolution of the financial system, empirical financial analysis, macro and micro economic, including banking, currency and capital market, financial market liberalization and regulation, risk measurement and management etc.

284 Volume V, Issue 2(10), Winter 2014

Start-ups and Start-up Ecosystems. Theories, Models and Successful Cases in the Mediterranean Area

Editor: Domenico Nicolò

The practice applies to startups theories, models and tools developed by the doctrine with regard to the companies which are created to operate in sectors and markets that already exist. This is one of the main causes of the high mortality rate of startups which, by definition, base their business model on innovation sectors and markets (or market segments). It is therefore necessary to develop new theories, models and tools consistent with the characteristics of these firms and the geographical area in which they operate. The objective is to investigate the operational and structural characteristics of startups and startup ecosystems in the Mediterranean. The two sections include: consistent with the characteristics of companies operating in the Mediterranean Area (section 1). editerranean Area (section 2). In so far as possible, the analysis should also include the legal and institutional dimension, and possibly result into legal policy proposals.

ASERS

Web: www.asers.eu URL: http://www.asers.eu/asers-publishing E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 2068 – 7729 Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt

286