Search

本研究は，NIMBYとしての高レベル放射性廃棄物地層処分地選定問題を取り上げ，合意形成プロセスにおける無知のヴェールの有効性を探索した．本研究は，誰もが当事者となり得るということと，自分の利害関係について不明であるという無知のヴェールの二つの要素を決め方に適用し，NIMBYの合意形成促進における有効性を検討した．ゲーム構造として，プレーヤー全員が立地地域住民となり得るとし，そのうえで利害関係を知らずに価値基準を議論する役割のプレーヤーを設けた，「高レベル放射性廃棄物処分地選定合意形成ゲーム」を開発・実施した．ゲームでは利害の代弁者である地域の首長と，利害関係を知らない無知のヴェールに覆われた住民代表のプレーヤーが順番に価値基準を議論して決定する．その結果，無知のヴェールを適用した決め方は，公正と評価されていたが必ずしも受容にはつながらなかった．合意形成プロセスに無知のヴェールを組み込むことは有効だが，立地地域を絞り込む際は別の方法を組み合わせる必要性が示唆された．, This study explored the effectiveness of the veil of ignorance in consensus building on NIMBY issues, focusing specifically on the selection of candidate geological disposal sites for high-level radioactive waste. Since NIMBY issues are notoriously difficult to reach consensus on, we examined the effectiveness of employing a ‘veil of ignorance’ during the site selection process. We refer to two elements of the veil of ignorance: the first is anyone can be a concerned party and the second is that individuals unaware of their interests discuss and make a decision. To establish this structure we designed a game, the “Consensus Building of High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Game,” in which anyone can be selected as representing a candidate site, and there are a type of player that discuss the value criteria for deciding a disposal site without knowing their interest. The game involves two types of players: “the local governors” who are aware of their regions’ interests, and “citizens” who are unaware of their residential regions. The game also includes a stepwise selection process: the local governors first engage in discussion, then the citizens decide on the relevant value criteria for site selection. Our results demonstrated that a selection process employing a veil of ignorance was evaluated as fair but did not necessarily lead to acceptance. This suggested that incorporating a ‘veil of ignorance’ into a consensus building process is effective, but that it is necessary to combine alternative methods to increase acceptance of the outcome of the site selection process.

本研究では，論争のある社会問題について当事者の選好を参照しながら意思決定を行うことを通じて政策決定とその評価の熟慮のプロセスについて学ぶゲーミング・シミュレーションを開発した．ドイツのノイス市における路面電車に関する問題について取り上げた．ノイス市では，中心地の狭い通りを走る路面電車の路線について，市民の利便性の点から存続させるか，安全性などの点から撤去するかの論争があった．開発したゲームの実践において，参加者は，最初に路面電車の問題の背景について講義を受けた後，2～5名からなるグループごとに，2009年にノイス市で実施された社会調査をもとに作成された市民のプロフィールカード3名分を参照しながら6つある論点について優先順位をつけ，3つの選択肢（存続，単線化，撤去）から1つを選んだ．特定の価値だけでなく，市民全体の価値の意見分布に関する熟考を促すために，個々のプレーヤーの優先順位づけした論点がグループで選んだ選択肢と合致するほど得点は高くなるようにした．ゲーム後のディブリーフィングでは，各グループの選択と得点結果を実際のノイス市での政策決定と比較しながら議論した．振り返りの結果から，各自の優先順位と市民プロフィールをもとに議論し，市民全体の意見分布も加味して多様な価値をバランスよく取り入れることで利害対立を避けることができていたプレーヤーほど得点は高くなっていた．最後に，実際の当事者の意見を参照しながら意思決定を行う本ゲーミングの応用可能性について議論した．, This study developed a gaming simulation to learn a deliberative process of policy decisions and their evaluation by referring to stakeholders’ preferences in relation to a controversial issue in their community so as to arrive at a consensus. The content of the game referred to a tram system in Neuss city in Germany. There was a controversial debate on whether the tramline located in a narrow street of Neuss city center should be kept for citizens’ convenience or removed for their safety. In the game, after being provided with the background of the tram system in Neuss, players prioritized which of the six issues were important by referring to three citizen’s profile cards that reflected the results of a social survey conducted in Neuss in 2009. Thereafter, the players of small groups consisted of 2 to 5 decided which of the three options (the tram should be remove/remain/single track) to choose. Each player got a score based on whether his/her priority matched the group’s decision to promote deliberation on the opinion distribution of values not only for specific benefits but for the whole citizens. After the game, the players had a debriefing session during which they discussed the results of the decisions of the small groups and compared them to the consequences of the policy decisions that had been taken in Neuss. The results revealed that the players’ scores were based on their ability to discuss citizen profiles and their own opinion and to adjust their interests according to accept various values and views of the whole citizens. Finally, the applicability of this gaming simulation in decision making with reference to actual stakeholder opinions was discussed.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of compensation framing on acceptance of a high level radioactive waste (HLW) geological repository. Monetary compensation is sometimes provided for local governments as a benefit for accepting certain risks. However, Fray et al. (1996) demonstrated that monetary compensation failed to procure acceptance of a nuclear waste disposal repository. In reality, offering to improve social welfare is also sometimes used as compensation for accepting a risky facility. From the above, we hypothesized that monetary compensations would be rejected by residents of proposed site. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a scenario experiment. We conducted a web-based survey and obtained 1200 valid Japanese responses. The results demonstrated that there were no main effects of condition, which suggested that the framing of compensation had no significant impact on acceptance of a HLW geological repository.

ISAGA/JASAG2015 the 46th ISAGA conference Japan Association of Simulation & Gaming hosts 17–21 July 2015 Kyoto, Japan, This study explores the processes required to achieve consensus on controversial issues that involve social dilemmas and developed the “Con-sensus Building of Wind Farm Game” (WinG). A social dilemma is a conflict between personal profit and public benefits wherein the results of individuals pursuing their own profit means that public benefits decline; thus, ultimately, individuals lose their profit. Shared recognition of a common goal is crucial in resolving social dilemmas; however, in actual practice, developing such a shared recognition is difficult due to conflicts among stakeholders. To help identify effective resolutions to this problem, we examined a case of planning for a wind farm, which often involves controversy, even though many people generally agree to the plan. WinG was developed to simulate the type of con-flicts among stakeholders when planning a wind farm. There are five types of players (stakeholders) in WinG and each has a different goal and is provided with different information. All the players are required to maximize their in-dividual goals within the time limit, however at the same time, from the view-point of public benefit, an optimal achievement point is hidden in the game that results in the second best outcome for all the players. Through negotia-tions, bargaining, and debate, the social dynamics of achieving (or failing to achieve) a consensus were observed in WinG. Analysis from 10 games showed that shared recognition of a common goal was related to consensus, while on-ly information sharing was not sufficient.