The Fukushima disaster of March 2011 reduced individuals' well-being and public satisfaction. This article emphasises the importance of focusing on efforts to improve the well-being of affected people and their satisfaction with decision-making processes after a nuclear disaster. This is supported by research and practical examples from the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. First, interviews with risk communicators following the Fukushima disaster revealed that the top goal of risk communication practices is to restore daily life, including improving well-being. Second, various risks and benefits after the Fukushima disaster can be compared using well-being indicators as outcomes, providing implications for the justification and optimisation of radiological protection. Third, the regulations after the Fukushima disaster were based on the assurance of reasonable safety regarding the radiation exposure level and stakeholder involvement towards the improvement of public satisfaction and acceptance. Fourth, fairness was one of the most important factors in the public acceptance of the final disposal sites for decontaminated soils generated after the disaster. These examples highlight that well-being indicators can be used as powerful tools that incorporate the concepts of radiological protection to achieve solution-oriented risk governance practices.
M. Murakami (Mon,) studied this question.