Free Access
Volume 55, Number 3, Juillet - Septembre 2020
Page(s) 225 - 235
Published online 25 August 2020
  • Ando R. 2016a. Measuring, discussing, and living together: lessons from 4 years in Suetsugi. London: SAGE Publications. Ann. ICRP 45(1S): 75–83. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ando R. 2016b. Reclaiming our lives in the wake of a nuclear plant accident. Clin. Oncol. 28: 275–276. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ando R. 2018. Trust − what connects science to daily life. Health Phys. 115: 581–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Arima M. 2016. Lifting of evacuation orders and subsequent efforts in Japan. Proceedings of the International workshop on the Fukushima Dialogue. Ann. ICRP 45(2S): 41–47. [Google Scholar]
  • Ban N. 2016. Japanese experience in stakeholder involvement: ICRP dialogue meetings. Radioprotection 51(HS1): S51–S53. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bataille C, Crouail P, Lochard J. 2008. Rehabilitation of living conditions in the post-Chernobyl context: implementation of an inclusive radiation monitoring system in the Bragin District in Belarus. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on “Radioecology and Environmental Radioactivity” (part 2), Bergen, Norway, 15–20 June 2008, pp. 129–132. [Google Scholar]
  • Bodin Ö. 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357: 659. [Google Scholar]
  • Chiyoda Technol. 2018. Specifications of D-shuttle. Available from [Google Scholar]
  • Ethos in Fukushima. 2018. Video: ‘Regaining confidence after the Fukushima accident: the story of the Suetsugi community’. Available from (also available in Japanese and French. [Google Scholar]
  • Earle T, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. 2007. Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Trust in cooperative risk management (M. Siegrist, T. Earle, H. Gutsher, Eds). London: Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
  • Eikelmann I, Hériard-Dubreuil G. 2016. Local populations facing long-term consequences of nuclear accidents: lessons learnt from Fukushima and Chernobyl. Available from [Google Scholar]
  • Hayano R. 2015. Engaging with local stakeholders: some lessons from Fukushima for recovery. Ann. ICRP 44(Suppl.): 144–152. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hériard-Dubreuil G, et al. 1999. Chernobyl post-accident management: the Ethos project. Health Phys. 77: 361–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J. 2013. Stakeholder engagement in regaining decent living conditions after Chernobyl. In: Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management (D. Oughton, S.O. Hansson, Eds.), pp. 311–331. Radioactivity in the Environment, Vol. 9. Elsevier. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J. 2016. The genesis of the ICRP Dialogue meetings. Proceedings of the International workshop on the Fukushima Dialogue. Ann. ICRP 45(2S): 7–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lochard J, Schneider T, Ando R, Niwa O, Clement C, Lecomte JF, Tada JI. 2019. An overview of the dialogue meetings initiated by ICRP in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection 54(2): 87–101. Available from [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Miyazaki M. 2017. Using and explaining individual dosimetry data: case studies of four municipalities in Fukushima. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 29(2S): 110S–119S. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mizuno Y, Ando R. 2012. “Fukushima-method” for local dissemination of information to recover living conditions after nuclear accident. J. Socio Inf. 5: 81–89. [Google Scholar]
  • Murakami M, et al. 2017. Communicating with residents about risks following the Fukushima nuclear accident. Asia Pac. J. Public Health. 29(2S): 74S–89S. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Renn O. 2008. Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider T, et al. 2019. The role of radiological protection experts in stakeholder involvement in the recovery phase of post-nuclear accident situations: some lessons from the Fukushima-Daïchi NPP accident. Radioprotection 54(4): 259–270. [Google Scholar]
  • Takamura N, Orita M, Taira Y, Fukushima Y, Yamashita S. 2018. Recovery from nuclear disaster in Fukushima: collaboration model. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 182(1): 49–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Trafimchick Z. 2005. The CORE programme in Belarus: a new approach to the rehabilitation of living conditions in contaminated areas. Vienna: Chernobyl Forum. Available from [Google Scholar]
  • UNDP/UNICEF. 2002. The human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident: a strategy for recovery. New York: United National Development Programme. [Google Scholar]
  • Yasutaka T, Yumiko Kanaia Y, Momo Kuriharaa M, Kobayashib T, Kondohc A, Takahashib T, Kurodad Y. 2020. Dialogue, radiation measurements and other collaborative practices by experts and residents in the former evacuation areas of Fukushima: a case study in Yamakiya District, Kawamata Town. Radioprotection (in press). [Google Scholar]
  • Zoelzer F, Zoelzer N. 2020. Empathy as an ethical principle for environmental health. Sci. Total Environ. 705: 18 p. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.