Evacuation Governance in Nuclear Emergencies: Institutional Comparison Between Japan and the United Kingdom

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan on March 11, 2011, had a major impact on subsequent international discussions and policymaking regarding nuclear safety. This accident highlighted the need to address complex issues, including the spread of radioactive materials, the evacuation of local residents, and the economic and psychological impacts on the region. This accident prompted countries to reassess their nuclear safety regulations and disaster preparedness measures. As a result, the development and effectiveness of evacuation plans for residents became recognized as urgent international issues. This study compares Japan’s Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness and Public Information, which promotes cutting-edge nuclear safety initiatives, with the UK’s Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations 2019 (REPPIR 2019), to elucidate the current status and challenges of the legal systems, organizational structures, and effectiveness of evacuation plans for residents in the event of a nuclear disaster in both countries. This study focuses on four aspects: (1) evacuation command organizational structure, (2) measures to prevent radiological contamination, (3) methods for designating evacuation zones, and (4) mental health support in affected areas. The comparative analysis in this study reveals that while Japan has made progress in practical measures such as designating evacuation zones using PAZ/UPZ and establishing off-site centers for emergency response and other central facilities, it also faces operational challenges, such as confusion over information in initial responses and weak coordination between local governments in the context of wide-area evacuations. While the UK has not experienced a large-scale nuclear disaster, it has established flexible zone designations based on risk assessments for each facility, obligations for residents to provide information, and emergency response systems led by local governments, resulting in excellent consistency and flexibility in its systems. However, preparations for dealing with psychological impacts and reputational damage are limited, and there is room for learning from Japan’s experience.