# data[].attributes.body
Don't check them until you have written your own!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 2 Geography SAC One Study Sheet_DC_290618

# data[].attributes.body
Given the exam is still being finalised, use this study sheet from our first SAC as a starting point for your exam study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 2 Geography SAC One Study Sheet_DC_290618

# data[].attributes.headline
Make a copy of the following Google doc to continue

# data[].attributes.subject
Make a copy of the following Google doc to continue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
YEAR 11 GEOGRAPHY - Fieldwork Report template

# data[].attributes.headline
Friday 19/10     Anglesea Fieldwork Report Template

# data[].attributes.subject
Friday 19/10     Anglesea Fieldwork Report Template

# data[].attributes.body
This template is to be used in completing your SAC. Upon completion of the Sac please submit this document to the assessment tab

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 15/10                               SAC Planning Document

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 15/10                               SAC Planning Document

# data[].attributes.body
Year 11s, use this document to complete your planning for the SAC. Copy and paste the document on to Google Docs and share the document with me at "dcoates.mackillop.vic.edu.au" straight away.
If the Internet isn't working, instead use MS Word and you MUST send the document to me via the assessment tab at the end of the lesson.

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 13/10                                    Anglesea Seasonal Tourism Fieldwork Report SAC - Instructions and Rubric

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 13/10                                    Anglesea Seasonal Tourism Fieldwork Report SAC - Instructions and Rubric

# data[].attributes.body
Year 11s, attached you will find the the instructions and rubric for the SAC, which you absolutely must read over before beginning. The rubric is where all marks come from.

# data[].attributes.body
Dwellinsg info found here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 2016 Census, there were 2,545 people in Anglesea (State Suburbs). Of these 49.9% were male and 50.1% were female. Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people made up 0.4% of the population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The proposed residential developments would require relocating a bike park, spurring residents into a fierce lobby campaign to save it.

Anglesea Bike Park committee of management chairman Mike Bodsworth said the bike park attracted many riders, from young children to grandparents.

"The bike park perfectly fits Anglesea's outdoor character," he said.

A petition to save the bike park has garnered more than 5,000 signatures.
Photo: Eddie Jim

Mr Bodsworth has led a petition to save the bike park, which he said has gathered more than 5000 signatures and will be presented to the state government, Surf Coast Shire and Alcoa.

He said residents were increasingly concerned that tourism and residential development may substantially alter Anglesea's unique character.

The Surf Coast Shire has committed to retaining a bike park in Anglesea and has undertaken a study to look at possible locations.

Alcoa owns about 143 hectares within the massive site, which previously contained a mine and power station.

Since the closure the company has "surrendered" more than 6500 hectares of lease land to the Victorian government even though it was entitled to retain it until 2061.

Alcoa has been conducting consultation with the community about the future of the land since 2016 - one year after the power station and mining operations ended.

Surf Coast Shire has committed to retaining a bike park in Anglesea.
Photo: Eddie Jim

The company confirmed that three parcels of land would need to be rezoned to allow the proposed future uses to proceed.

Anglesea resident Emma Fenty said she was surprised by the level of residential and tourism development outlined in the master plan.

She said inappropriate developments should not be allowed to threaten Anglesea's unique natural environment.

"People come to Anglesea for that reason," she said.

Alcoa Anglesea site asset manager Warren Sharp said the draft proposed "sustainable" residential and tourism accommodation on about 11 hectares in one area within the site.

"The number of dwellings that could be accommodated would ultimately depend on the nature of the development," he said. "This consultation will allow us to understand what the community thinks is appropriate."

Further tourism developments are proposed in other sections of the land.

Mr Sharp said the proposed residential housing and tourism accommodation would "complement the area's natural assets and unique character" and develier sustainable economic development.

Further along the Great Ocean Road at Apollo Bay plans to build a $70 million resort have sparked a backlash from many members of the community.

In late November the Colac Otway Shire Council announced it would ask the Victorian government to "call in" the application for the resort so it can be assessed by an independent panel.

The shire council said calling in the proposal would allow the panel to hear from objectors, developers and community groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Residents fear over-development in new Anglesea masterplan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The proposed residential developments would require relocating a bike park, spurring residents into a fierce lobby campaign to save it. Anglesea Bike Park committee of management chairman Mike Bodsworth said the bike park attracted many riders, from young children to grandparents. "The bike park perfectly fits Anglesea's outdoor character," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With coverage of 98% of the Australian property market and more than 4 billion decision points in our database, we're absolutely passionate about data accuracy which allows us to deliver on our promise of the most reliable and powerful property insights and analytics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Population forecasts | Surf Coast Shire | forecast.id

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Surf Coast Shire population forecast for 2018 is 31,937, and is forecast to grow to 45,717 by 2036. Access in-depth demographics for Surf Coast Shire from the population experts, id.

# data[].attributes.body
Population make-up information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
age sex gender surf coast shire population pyramid demographic transition shift column reverse fertility male female males females dependency ratio stationary expansive constrictive census 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Age-sex pyramid | Surf Coast Shire | Community profile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The age-sex pyramid is a demographic tool which shows patterns of change in the age structure and sex ratio of an area over time. Its name comes from the traditional pyramid shape of an area which indicates a lot of children in large families, with a lower life expectancy and relatively few elderly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anglesea - a brief history - Intown Geelong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Originally built on a timber industry, Anglesea today is one of the premier townships on the Surf Coast and Great Ocean Road and only about 30 minutes from the centre of Geelong

# data[].attributes.headline
Thursday 13/9                                 Anglesea Pre-fieldwork questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Thursday 13/9                                 Anglesea Pre-fieldwork questions

# data[].attributes.body
Attached you will find the first of your pre-fieldwork questions that are a pre-requisite for completing your SAC. The intention of pre-fieldwork is to gain an intimate insight in to the area you will study.

You will find resources across Padlet to assist you in answering the questions

Complete the questions on a Google Doc to be shared with me, as not to lose any work completed

# data[].attributes.body
Use the attached template to complete your SAC

# data[].attributes.body
GIS self made maps
Author. “Map title” [format]. Scale. Edition. Place of production: Producer, Date of copyright or production. Using: Computer software title [format]. Edition. Place of production: Producer, Date of copyright or production.

Dempsey, Caitlin. Cartogram map of the distribution of billionaires based on citizenship [map]. Scale Not Given. “Geography of Billionaires: Mapping Nationalities and Residency.” March 2012. https://gislounge.com/geography-of-billionaires-mapping-nationalities-and-residency/. (September 24, 2012).  Using: ArcGIS [GIS software]. Version 10.0. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2010.

GIS maps made by others
Author. “Map title” [format]. Scale. “Title of the complete document or site”. Information date. URL – this should include the full path of the document address, not just the home page of the web site. (The date viewed)

Dempsey, Caitlin. Cartogram map of the distribution of billionaires based on citizenship [map]. Scale Not Given. “Geography of Billionaires: Mapping Nationalities and Residency.” March 2012. https://gislounge.com/geography-of-billionaires-mapping-nationalities-and-residency/. (September 24, 2012).

# data[].attributes.body
You may wish to use this planning document to structure your planning during preparation les

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AirDNA: Data & Analytics for Vacation Rental Hosts and Airbnb Investors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We turn short-term vacation rental data into actionable analytics by forecasting the revenue potential of 10MM Airbnb and Homeaway vacation rental properties globally. Optimize your listings, find lucrative investment properties, and outperform the competition. AirDNA: Data to set you apart. Insights to keep you ahead.

# data[].attributes.body
Details of SAC - outcome 2 Use the rubric to check your work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The short-term rental market has ballooned in recent years. According to the Residential Landlords Association, Airbnb listings in ten UK cities increased by almost 200% between 2015 and 2017. And while attention has mainly focused on the problems this is causing in big cities such as London, or tourist hotspots such as Barcelona and Berlin, communities in England's regional cities are also feeling the effects.

The growth of short-term rentals is closely tied to the broader financialisation of housing - that is, changes in the housing and financial markets, which turn housing into a commodity. These changes have opened the door for new investors to buy and develop more and more units, which in turn increases the scarcity of housing, prompts landlords to raise rent, threatens community bonds and stretches neighbourhood services.

The short-term rental sector is made up of two different business models. Serviced apartments are typically run by a single business, which offer a hotel experience for visitors in many city centres. Landlords can also rent out rooms or entire properties through sharing economy platforms such as Airbnb. By providing this service, Airbnb has given people a new means to earn money on their homes - sometimes without having to follow all the laws that apply to renting.

Growing trends

In 2016, the Association of Serviced Apartment Providers found that 86% of serviced apartment units in Manchester were occupied throughout the year. Alongside other regional cities such as Liverpool and Bristol, Manchester is a key target for serviced apartment operators.

To find out exactly how short-term rentals are affecting regional cities such as Manchester, I undertook research to collect data on 22 serviced apartment schemes, containing 1,198 units across central Manchester and neighbouring Salford during 2017. The average starting price for a night in a serviced apartment was £99, and owners made an average monthly income of £2,563 per unit. The financial rewards of investing in serviced apartments clearly outweigh the returns on long-term rentals for residents, which yield around £850 per month.

Kylaborg/Flickr., CC BY

To find out about Airbnb, I used a 2016 survey by sector analysts AirDNA, which showed a total of 310 units advertised on Airbnb within central Manchester, and more than 1,500 across the city region. They noted a 70% annual growth in the sector from the previous year. The average price per night for an entire property is £143, with the highest being £1,251.

Across the city, my research identified 357 properties, which had been taken out of the long-term rental market up to 2016, with many more expected over coming years. Indeed, real estate company Colliers recently reported that in 2017 there were more than 4,000 units being used for short-term rentals, in a city struggling to build affordable housing.

The 2016 data from AirDNA revealed 177 hosts operating Airbnb properties in central Manchester: 59 owned multiple properties and accounted for 62% of all listed units. It is likely that many of these hosts are people who own multiple properties, or who set up small enterprise to use housing in central Manchester as a business.

And there are concerns that those properties taken out of the long-term rental market may not be operating with any licensing or planning permissions. A report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tourism, Leisure and the Hospitality Industry - a group of MPs from Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, who meet to discuss issues in the industry - raised concerns that sharing economy platforms do not check if hosts comply with gas and fire safety regulations before they let out their properties.

Neighbourhoods on the frontline

Jonathan Silver.

Short-term rentals are clustering at certain locations across Manchester, especially the popular Northern Quarter, which has more than 150 Airbnb units alongside over 500 serviced apartments. This rapid growth is putting strain on local services, small businesses and potentially residents, and there's a real risk that the people who made the neighbourhood a popular destination for visitors will be pushed out, as the area becomes a magnet for "party lets", with antisocial behaviour and littering.

With more than 650 potential homes in a relatively small neighbourhood used for the short-term rental market, it's hardly surprising that the character of the neighbourhood is rapidly changing, while fears grow that it is losing its soul.

Some cities have already weathered the first wave of negative impacts from short-term rentals - and are beginning to fight back. New laws have been put in place, to limit long-term damage to communities. In Paris and London, authorities introduced a cap for short-term rentals to 90 days per year. This helped to ensure that housing built for residents is not taken out of long-term rental markets and used solely as a business asset by owners.

mrci_/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Barcelona has introduced a range of measures, including fines for companies that advertise unlicensed units. Across the world, relatively small "tourist taxes" of £1 per night now include serviced apartments. Proceeds are invested back into cities, to support local services and address the disruptive impacts on neighbourhood life.

So far, English regional cities have been pretty slow to act. Manchester City Council does not yet have a policy to address the sector. Liverpool City Council has been more proactive, pushing for national regulations to force landlords to register short-term rental properties. It has also lobbied central government for the ability to limit rentals to 90 days - a planning tool currently only available in London.

Unless coordinated action is taken at local and national levels, the short-term rental market will make the housing crisis, which is gaining pace in England's regional cities, even worse. Local communities and politicians need to come together quickly, and learn from cities that have already developed effective policies - before some neighbourhoods change irrevocably.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Airbnb and the short-term rental revolution - how English cities are suffering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The short-term rental market has ballooned in recent years. According to the Residential Landlords Association, Airbnb listings in ten UK cities increased by almost 200% between 2015 and 2017. And while attention has mainly focused on the problems this is causing in big cities such as London, or tourist hotspots such as Barcelona and Berlin, communities in England's regional cities are also feeling the effects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Airbnb and the NAACP announced a partnership today to promote the rental service's platform in communities of color. The move is a way to both boost the sharing economy as an income stream for black Americans and help increase the diversity of hosts to curb discrimination. Airbnb has grappled for years now with racism on its platform, with hosts discriminating against people of color and other minorities both in the US and abroad when deciding who they permit to rent their homes or apartments.

Airbnb is trying to curb racism on its platform and promote diversity

In many cases, racist hosts will deny rental applications from black users or claim the property is booked on the selected dates, only to turn around and rent the property to a white user or leave the dates unbooked. In response to an increasing number of cases documented on social media, Airbnb user Quirtina Crittenden coined the hashtag #airbnbwhileblack last year. It quickly went viral, prompting an outpouring of personal accounts that quickly turned into an public relations nightmare for Airbnb.

This new measure, along with the added assistance of the NAACP, is a signal that Airbnb is continuing to take its fight against racism seriously. "Our fastest-growing communities across major US cities are in communities of color and we've seen how home sharing is an economic lifeline for families," Belinda Johnson, Airbnb's chief business affairs officer, said in a statement. "This partnership will build on this incredible progress. The NAACP is unrivaled in its tireless work to expand economic opportunities for minority communities and we look forward to collaborating with their talented team."

As part of the partnership, the NAACP will help Airbnb target communities that could benefit greatly for home-sharing services and the tourism and additional income they provide. Airbnb will also gift 20 percent of its earnings from rentals in these communities to the NAACP, which will return the favor by aiding the company in its workplace diversity efforts. "For too long, black people and other communities of color have faced barriers to access new technology and innovations," Derrick Johnson, the interim president and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement. "This groundbreaking partnership with Airbnb will help bring new jobs and economic opportunities to our communities."

For Airbnb, the existence of racism on its platform is both a PR disaster and a severe economic risk. Last year, the company narrowly avoided a potentially damaging racial discrimination case brought by Greg Selden. Selden, a black man, duped a racist host into accepting an application from a fake account with a white person's photo after denying his original application, and he sued Airbnb claiming it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For Airbnb, racism is a huge moral and economic threat to its business

Thanks to a specific clause in its Terms of Service agreement, Airbnb was able to move that case to individual arbitration and avoid a class action suit. Nonetheless, the company released a new non-discrimination policy it calls " The Airbnb Community Commitment " back in October of last year that it makes hosts agree to, and it's also ramped up efforts to weed out racist hosts and build better protections for users.

Despite those efforts, instances of flagrant racism continue to flare up on Airbnb and make international headlines. Earlier this month, a 26-year-old law clerk named Dyne Suh documented, in a video posted to YouTube, her interactions with host Tami Barker of Big Bear, California. Barker, upon learning that Suh was Asian-American, sent a series of racism-fueled texts saying she was canceling Suh's reservation because of her ethnicity.

Airbnb promptly banned Barker, refunded Suh, and covered the cost of replacement accommodations, while the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) stepped in to fine Barker $5,000 and order that she take an Asian-American studies class. The DFEH now has the ability to investigate Airbnb hosts in California with more than three listings for racial discrimination following a landmark agreement with Airbnb in April.

Still, Airbnb can't possibly regulate the behavior of every one of its hosts every hour of the day. A better solution, it appears, is to simply cater to communities where this discrimination doesn't occur, and to increase the diversity of hosts to ensure more minorities feel comfortable using Airbnb when they travel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Airbnb teams up with the NAACP to fight racism on its platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Airbnb and the NAACP announced a partnership today to promote the rental service's platform in communities of color. The move is a way to both boost the sharing economy as an income stream for black Americans and help increase the diversity of hosts to curb discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
Economic impact of airbnb in Victoria

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yesterday, June 30, Airbnb presented a report on the company's economic impact in Madrid ( pdf, 14MB, in Spanish). Based on occupation figures, surveys of hosts and guests, data from the Spanish Statistics Institute, and even environmental information, it follows a similar report on Barcelona (in Spanish), and shows that its activities in the Spanish capital generate some €323 million euros and 5,130 jobs, matched respectively in Barcelona by €128 million and 4,310 positions.

Leaving the numbers to one side, the two reports illustrate that Airbnb has reduced the costs of putting people looking for somewhere to stay with people looking to rent accommodations.

In short, it is now infinitely easier to find somewhere to stay in Madrid than it was before Airbnb existed. What's more, there is a much wider choice of accommodations. Aside from traditional hotels, it is possible to pay a few bucks to share a room in a cheap neighborhood in the outskirts of the city, or to splurge on a luxury apartment in the very center of the city. The map of Madrid is bristling with places to stay, as we have previously seen with Paris in this amazing visualization using CartoDB.

As well as having galvanized the market, Airbnb has prompted many people to let their property out who wouldn't previously have considered doing so, further widening the choice available to visitors.

Of course all this raises questions, albeit of a secondary nature. Do the owners of properties let out through Airbnb pay their taxes? Some will, and some won't, as happens in the wider economy. But there is little incentive to cheat the taxman, given that all the information regarding rentals can easily be accessed by the fiscal authorities.

In the old days, backpackers arriving at train stations throughout Europe would be met by people with nearby rooms to rent, a deal would be struck, payment made in cash, and nobody was any the wiser. Now guests pay via an app, and it is much easier to control what is going on. Let's be clear here: using the internet makes things more transparent and easier for the authorities to monitor.

But what about Airbnb itself: does it pay taxes? As I have pointed out in many articles about online platforms, Airbnb will pay what it is obliged to do so by the law and where it is to its advantage to pay taxes. I repeat: where the law permits. The law. And if we don't like the arrangements, then we can change the law, but we can't criticize companies for taking advantage of existing legal arrangements. As long as crossed-selling is legal, there is no point in criticizing companies for transferring their profits out of the country where they operate and paying tax somewhere else. I don't like the practice, and I believe that you should pay taxes in the country where you make your money, but as said, to change that, we need to change the law, and in the meantime, companies will exploit the opportunity to create the maximum value for their shareholders.

And what about the people living next door to an apartment that is suddenly filled with holidaymakers coming and going at all hours? Well, Airbnb does try to control the use of properties let out through the site, along with insurance, and rankings of how guests have behaved, making it unlikely that people who are rowdy will be able to rent out other properties.

Obviously, most of us would rather live next door to an empty property, but if it is going to be let out, then it is better done through Airbnb. The company is at pains to point out to letters who want to hold on to the value of their property that establishing a relationship with guests, paying attention to small details like leaving cold drinks in the fridge, providing information about where to go, what to do, eat, etc, or work toward reducing anti-social behavior. There are of course some " horror stories " out there about Airbnb, but things also go badly wrong when people rent properties by other means - albeit with less publicity, maybe.

Airbnb's survey provides one perspective, a partial one, admittedly, of the impact of the sharing economy on a major city. The important thing here is not the isolate case of Airbnb: what really matters is that technology offers possibilities that once invented, quite simply cannot be "uninvented".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Airbnb: like it or not, it's creating jobs and moving money, at least in Spain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yesterday, June 30, Airbnb presented a report on the company's economic impact in Madrid ( pdf, 14MB, in Spanish). Based on occupation figures, surveys of hosts and guests, data from the Spanish Statistics Institute, and even environmental information, it follows a similar report on Barcelona (in Spanish), and shows that its activities in the Spanish capital generate some €323 million euros and 5,130 jobs, matched respectively in Barcelona by €128 million and 4,310 positions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AP Photo/Frank Franklin II

A preliminary analysis of 100 U.S. metro areas suggests Airbnb bears at least some responsibility for soaring housing costs.

Regulators wary that Airbnb is eroding affordable housing availability have a new piece of evidence in their arsenal: A new study finds that spikes in Airbnb listings were strongly linked to rent increases in some of the largest US metro areas.

The new independent study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, is the first to analyze the impact of Airbnb listings by ZIP code in 100 of the largest metro areas. Using rental and home price data from Zillow, the researchers found that for every 10 percent growth in Airbnb listings, a ZIP code's average rent increased by 0.4 percent.

Authors Kyle Barron, a research assistant in economics at MIT; Edward Kung, an assistant professor of economics at UCLA; and Davide Proserpio, an assistant professor of business at USC, analyzed data from 2012 and 2016 to consider a causal relationship between Airbnb growth and housing prices. They caution that the study's findings are still preliminary.

Previous research in cities with tight rental markets has found a link between Airbnb growth and increased housing costs. A study released last yearby Keren Horn and Mark Merante found that Airbnb had a direct impact on increased housing prices in Boston.

Horn, who is an assistant professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, said hers and this new study are two of the first to find a causal relationship between Airbnb listings and housing prices, rather than just a correlation between the two.

"The problem with identifying the impact of Airbnb on rents is that cities are becoming more expensive and at the same time more tourists are coming to visit them," Horn said. "If you just look at these correlations you'd think they're moving in the same direction. But is it really Airbnb that's having a direct effect on rents?"

In the new study, the researchers scraped the ZIP codes with the greatest number of listings on Airbnb and Zillow. Using data on rental rates and house prices from Zillow, they were able to compare a given ZIP code's annual Airbnb growth to its annual increase in rental rates and house prices. (Note that because the study uses data from Zillow, this averages all types of properties for sale, from one bedroom houses to single family homes, which can vary by ZIP code.)

These small percentageincreaseshave a noticeable dollar impact-especially on neighborhoods popular with tourists. There's a reason you may have heard more French and German on the sidewalks of Bushwick and Bed-Stuy: the number of Airbnb listings in those central Brooklyn neighborhoods grew by a whopping 41 percent, on average, every year from 2012 to 2016.

During that same period, rents in these neighborhoods grew about 7.7 percent a year from a baseline average of $1,712 per month in 2012-that's an estimated average increase of $131 every year.

But not all of that growth is attributable to Airbnb. Controlling for other factors that influence housing costs-such as population growth, income, and employment rates-the findings would suggest that Airbnb was responsible for an estimated $27 of this increase.

How might Airbnb increase rents? Primarily by taking units off the market. In 2015, seekers of long-term housing in ZIP codes with average growth in Airbnb listings-think of suburban communities like Pleasant Valley, in the Austin, Texas metro-would have found one Airbnb unit for every 13 houses that were vacant-for-rent in their neighborhood. In the ZIP codes that saw the highest relative growth rate of Airbnbs-such as vacation hotspots like Sunset Beach in St. Petersberg, Florida-as much as 50 percent of potentially available homes were placed on Airbnb instead of the long-term rental market.

The study, however, finds that two different sorts of Airbnb listings have different impacts.

ZIP codes where the majority of landlords are owner-occupiers-those who rent out an extra room or rent for short periods while they are away-experienced minimal increases in housing costs. But ZIP codes with more absentee landlords-those who do not live in the homes they rent out-wereespecially influenced by increased Airbnb listings.

Huntington Beach, California, for example, has a high owner-occupancy rate of 51 percent. Between 2012 and 2016, Huntington Beach experienced 48 percent growth in Airbnb listings, but rent prices grew only 2.7 percent a year.

Hollywood, on the other hand, has a notably low owner-occupancy rate of only 5 percent. In turn, the number of Airbnb listings grew by an average of 50 percent per year, and rent prices grew about 6.4 percent.

"It has been argued that Airbnb income allows some hosts to stay in their homes in rapidly appreciating housing markets," said Edward Kung, one of the study's authors. But to assess this and other potential economic benefits of Airbnb to communities, he says, there needs to be more research on the home-sharing service, including on the extra income hosts can generate through Airbnb, and how it affects their lives.

Airbnb has been the world's largest home-sharing platform for nearly a decade. Since its founding in 2008, the company has faced harsh criticism for skirting traditional rental regulations and draining housing supplies in cities where rent prices already soar. The company has taken many of its critics head on: most recently, it started paying hotel tax-as of May 15, they had paid nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in hotel and tourist taxes globally. This helps the home-sharing service to alleviate some of its impacts, like raised housing costs.

The company has also adopted a "one host, one home" policy in San Francisco and New York-limiting hosts from listing rentals at more than one address-to account for the uniquely constrained supply of housing in these cities.

Some city officials are exploring additional regulation in anticipation of impacts like the one found by this study. Barron, Kung, and Proserpio's close-up examination of ZIP code-level trends may offer guidance for legislators. Their research suggests that while Airbnb growth is a factor, it is not primarily to blame for shutout rental prices. But how regulators and policymakers attempt to mitigate its effect may differ between neighborhoods.

"They [Airbnb] have the advantage of working in lots of cities," Horn said. "They could be a data steward and also a policy proposal steward."

Horn suggested data-sharing agreements between Airbnb and cities might be key as leaders seek reliable data on where listings are spreading-and where apartments, in turn, might disappear.

"A lot of cities aren't responding well to Airbnb," she added, "that's definitely not good for them, and maybe it's not good for the city, either."

Recommended
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story mischaracterized the neighborhoods with the highest relative growth rates of Airbnbs. In those ZIP codes, as much as 50 percent of available homes were placed on Airbnb rather than the long-term rental market.

About the Author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A preliminary analysis of 100 U.S. metro areas suggests Airbnb bears at least some responsibility for soaring housing costs. Regulators wary that Airbnb is eroding affordable housing availability have a new piece of evidence in their arsenal: A new study finds that spikes in Airbnb listings were strongly linked to rent increases in some of the largest US metro areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters

The city will formally allow vacation rentals again, but there's a strict new set of rules-and even tougher penalties.

Berlin's "Airbnb ban" is over.

The city's assembly decided Thursday to overturn a law introduced in April 2016 that barred almost all landlords from letting their apartments to short-term visitors, enforced by a maximum €100,000 ($123,000) fine. Thursday's ruling means that, starting May 1, owner-occupiers will, under certain conditions, be allowed once more to rent out their own home as much as they want, and to rent out second homes for up to 90 days a year. For a city that's become well-known for its extremely tough laws governing vacation rentals, the new ruling might seem like a major compromise.

It nonetheless imposes some pretty firm conditions on vacation rentals and makes the penalties for ignoring them far more stringent. All landlords seeking to rent out their home will only be allowed to do so if they get a general permit from their borough, even if they intend only to rent their property out for occasional short stays. While landlords applying for a permit at their primary residency will likely be approved, second home owners may face a more rigorous process. Landlords who leave an apartment untenanted, meanwhile, will need a special permit from the borough to do so after three months of vacancy without having a permanent tenant registered, cutting the current vacancy grace period in half. Most strikingly, the maximum penalty for breaking the rules has been multiplied by five, to a potential fine of €500,000 ($617,000).

That fine is likely intended as a menacing message to anyone tempted to reserve an apartment as a full-time vacation let, rather than a levy authorities will impose regularly. But it's clear the city means business: Under the new rules, if a landlord needs to sell their property to pay a fine, the property's management would be handed over to a trustee. Overall, the ruling is still a relaxation of the current situation, and it's likely to induce a sigh of relief for Airbnb and other hosting services.

For some time now, the Berlin boroughs that attempted to clamp down on vacation rentals have only been able to pursue proceedings against a small portion of the very large number of people offering accommodation. Frequently these cases have been bogged down in appeals from owner-occupiers, making the process long-winded and expensive. There's also a good reason to put quotation marks around the term "Airbnb ban."Any quick scan of Airbnb in recent years would have revealed a significant number of apartments in Berlin during the time they were supposedly banned. Clearly Airbnb landlords-both owner-occupiers and tenants subletting on the sly-felt a degree of safety in numbers, well aware that chasing every single case would be long-winded and expensive for the authorities.

But while few owner-occupiers may have been caught in the crossfire, the real targets of the ban were professional landlords, who rented out apartments full time as businesses, thus draining the available housing supply in a city where apartments are hard to come by. The overall feeling from advocates of anti-Airbnb legislation such as Stephan Von Dassel, mayor of the central borough of Mitte, was that it didn't matter if the push to curb professional Airbnb landlords affected some owner-occupiers. They're a relatively small group in a city where most people rent, and the anti-Airbnb crowd would accept some of them as collateral damage if it meant improving the ability for people on low incomes to secure housing of their own. The inverse of this logic: It doesn't really matter if owner-occupiers are allowed to become Airbnb landlords if professional vacation rentals have been slashed.

Those strict laws do indeed seem to have reduced the number of professional Airbnb landlords. In 2016 alone, 2,500 apartments in Berlin were put back on the rental market following the ban. The law may also have helped to induce a shell-shocked Airbnb to negotiate as cooperatively as possible. If the tough stance seems to be succeeding in its mission to scare professional hosts off the market, it seems fair to allow others a little more leeway. What Berlin will need to look out for now is how slickly its permit system works-and whether it's able to genuinely pursue people who flout it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Berlin Ends Its Airbnb Ban, But the New Rules Are No Joke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The city will formally allow vacation rentals again, but there's a strict new set of rules-and even tougher penalties. Berlin's "Airbnb ban" is over. The city's assembly decided Thursday to overturn a law introduced in April 2016 that barred almost all landlords from letting their apartments to short-term visitors, enforced by a maximum €100,000 ($123,000) fine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anyone planning a weekend getaway to Berlin may have received a nasty shock, when the city announced that it has banned residents from renting out their flats to tourists through Airbnb. The move comes as a result of acute housing shortages, unprecedented population growth and marked changes in Europe's housing system.

Berlin has long been a go-to city for creatives. Even when it was partitioned into East and West, the city attracted an alternative crowd. And when Berlin's population shrank - particularly between 2000 and 2012 - the resulting surplus of cheap accommodation drew young artists, musicians and hipsters who were being priced out of London, Amsterdam or Paris, due to prohibitive house price inflation and ever-increasing rental costs.

Berlin has remained affordable because of a law pithily known as Zweckentfremdungsverbotsverordnung, which prevents owners from changing the use of properties. This makes it difficult to convert residential buildings into commercial property, and has protected much of the city's housing stock from development since the second world war. Similar by-laws also exist in other large German cities, such as Hamburg and Munich.

Housing squeeze

Two years ago, Berlin's parliament altered this law to include short-term leases on "guest-flats". This made the short-term leasing of entire flats illegal, with breaches punishable by a €100,000 (£78,000) fine. After a two-year notice period, the ban came into effect in May. Under the new law, it's still legal to rent out rooms in one's own flat - but they can take up no more than 50% of the floor space.

German research has revealed that buying and renting flats to tourists - via online agencies such as Airbnb and Wimdu - has become highly profitable, with some businesses managing hundreds of properties. Partly as a result of this, Berlin - which once had a surplus of accommodation - now finds itself with a severe and growing shortage.

Julienaksoy/Flickr, CC BY-NC

The city is expected to grow by about 45,000 inhabitants each year - and that's before accounting for the 30,000 and 60,000 refugees who have arrived in the last two years respectively.

To address these pressures, the city plans to build an additional 220,000 dwellings over the next decade. According to Berlin resident and director of the UrbanPlus planning consultancy Thomas Knorr-Siedow, the planning department intends to bring on 20,000 dwellings annually, of which some 6,000 are to be built by municipal housing companies.

Planning bodies will help ensure that a third of all new housing is affordable, in line with Berlin's rent control arrangements. And it is thought that Berlin has about 20,000 "guest-flats", which - if made available for normal letting - could supply one year's demand.

Making a racket

Housing is not the only factor feeding into this change. Besides the loss of permanent rented flats, short-term letting to tourists is seen as a nuisance by locals, who complain that stag and hen parties, mass pub-crawls and noisy all-night partying seriously denigrate the quality of life in Berlin's central neighbourhoods.

Other cities are sitting up and taking note of this approach: for example, Amsterdam is currently engaged in trying to limit Airbnb rentals, too. Here, entire flats can now only be let out at the times when the owners would be on holiday, and have a vacant flat anyway. City authorities enforce a rule which limits short-term holiday rentals, using automated computer systems to monitor online advertising.

Richard Ronald, Professor of Urban Studies at the University of Amsterdam observes that:

The city of Amsterdam has struggled with the rise of Airbnb, and while it initially sought to regulate growth, it has increasingly been forced to crack down on the sector. In the context of Amsterdam's large, but very tight rental housing supply, there have been concerns over landlords switching properties from regular contracts to short-term tourist lets. At the same time, tax avoidance and illegal subletting, especially among social tenants, has also been a concern.

What's more, Amsterdam is a relatively small city, which is also a highly popular tourist destination, so it has long sought to maximise its tourist tax income, which is levied via hotels and hostels. Unregulated tourist lets impact on that income.

As Ronald's animation (above) articulates, the real story here is the transformation of Europe's housing system. Since the financial crisis of 2008, there has been a rapid expansion of private renting across Europe, resulting, in part, from the demise of home ownership. Young people often find themselves unable to secure a mortgage, or to rent from social landlords whose housing stocks have been depleted through subsidised or open market sales, so they have to rent privately.

In tourist hot-spots such as London, Barcelona, Berlin, Edinburgh and Amsterdam, a battle for the rental market has broken out, with housing and planning authorities coming under ever-increasing pressure to act on behalf of residents. Berlin, with its long tradition of rent control, has responded with this novel regulation. This move is likely to push housing back up the agenda right across Europe - especially in cities trying to balance a growing demand for rented accommodation, with a vibrant tourist sector.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Berlin has banned homeowners from renting out flats on Airbnb - here's why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anyone planning a weekend getaway to Berlin may have received a nasty shock, when the city announced that it has banned residents from renting out their flats to tourists through Airbnb. The move comes as a result of acute housing shortages, unprecedented population growth and marked changes in Europe's housing system.

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Airbnb effect is reshaping our cities

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Airbnb effect is reshaping our cities

# data[].attributes.body
Summarise the main points of the above article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Infrastructure in our cities - let's call it the hardware - remains much the same as ever, but the software - the way we use it - is transforming rapidly. One piece of that software, Airbnb, is dramatically reshaping the world's cities.

The digital platform allows citizens to find and rent short-term accommodation from other citizens. Airbnb has the potential to rupture the traditional spatial relationship between tourist and local, making our cities more vibrant and diverse places to live in and to visit.

The question is: what opportunities and dangers does the platform present? What are the implications of repurposing existing residential infrastructure for short-term accommodation? What happens when the global "sharing economy" meets a city's suburbs?

Lessons from an early adopter

Melbourne was an early adopter of Airbnb. It is also one of the top 10 cities for global travellers on Airbnb. What insights can be gathered from its experience?

According to Airbnb, three-quarters of listings worldwide are outside major hotel districts. Airbnb has three types of property listings: entire homes, private rooms and shared rooms.

Entire homes make up over half the total number of Melbourne's metropolitan listings. Data collected in January 2016 reveals that their distribution is relatively consistent with that of hotels and licensed accommodation, which exist in large concentrations in the CBD and inner city.

Many hosts who list entire homes lease or sublet when they go away. In Australia, tenants require permission from their landlord to sublet, so there is little risk for the landlord if they follow due process. But analysis by website Inside Airbnb indicates that about 75% of entire-house listings in Melbourne are available for over 90 days per year.

Hosts with multiple properties manage about a third of all the entire-house listings in Melbourne. These operators hold an average of three properties, but some have dozens. Through Airbnb, these brokers are turning existing housing infrastructure into informal, distributed hotels while saving on capital costs, overheads and wages.

Globally, the Airbnb phenomenon has been blamed for driving up rents, accelerating gentrification and displacing local residents by reducing available housing stock.

In Melbourne, the boom in high-density development in the CBD has resulted in an excess of homogeneous apartment dwellings. Bedrooms without natural light, as well as insufficient floor area, outdoor space and storage space, characterise many of these developments, rendering them effectively unlivable for long-term residents. But these properties are attractive to itinerant tenants seeking affordable inner city accommodation.

Shared rooms in Melbourne constitute only about 2% of all listings, but they are almost exclusively confined to the CBD. Box Hill (14 kilometres east of Melbourne), and Maidstone/ Braybrook (eight kilometres west of Melbourne) are secondary outlying hotspots. The majority of CBD listings are around new apartment towers near Southern Cross Station (at the western end of the CBD) and RMIT University.

A number of already small two-bedroom apartments in the Neo200, Upper West Side and QV1 towers are operating as gendered dormitories. These often sleep eight, with four to a room. Overloading these apartments creates potential fire-safety and hygiene-compliance issues.

Short-term letting via sites like Airbnb allows investors to earn up to three times the amount they'd receive in rent (the average cost to rent an entire home is AU$189 per night). Travellers benefit from competitive accommodation rates, cooking facilities, convenient locations and access to private pools and gymnasiums intended for residents.

Airbnb acknowledges that professional hosts with multiple listings are exploiting the so-called sharing economy, but has not yet taken steps to regulate this. Governments would do well to implement the long-awaited and much-needed minimum design standards for apartments to curb the construction of developments in the city that fail to cater for residents or which are purpose-built for the Airbnb market (a few local examples are already emerging).

Beyond the obvious need to protect the amenity of citizens, protection of the liveliness and heterogeneity of the city is essential to maintain the kind of "authentic" experience that appeals to Airbnb users in the first place. Melbourne is beginning to follow the trajectory of international cities like London where the investor market, fuelled by capital gains tax exemptions, has pushed residents further and further out. Dispersing the concentration of entire-house and private-room rental is vital.

More promising is the dispersed pattern of private rooms in Melbourne. These represent around 45% of listings across the city. While private rooms are still concentrated in and around the CBD, diffuse listings across Melbourne's middle-ring suburbs realise Airbnb's ambition to enable access to the everyday spaces of cities.

This pattern makes sense given the mismatch between Australian house sizes, which remain the largest in the world, and changing household structures - most significantly, the decline of the nuclear family. An increase in housing diversity in the middle-ring suburbs is likely to facilitate more entire-house listings in these areas in the future.

We are also seeing evidence of Airbnb driving housing diversity. Annexed and granny-flat configurations are commonly listed in suburbs close to the Melbourne CBD like Brunswick and Caulfield. Loose-fit arrangements like these provide more flexibility to cater to both residents and visitors, and the by-product is slow but genuine "bottom-up" densification.

Government incentives for this kind of small-scale development would help to make this a viable (and, for many, welcome) alternative to densification through high-rise apartment development.

In 2015, Tourism Victoria entered into an agreement with Airbnb Melbourne to promote buzzing inner-city suburbs Fitzroy and St Kilda as "sharing economy" hotspots. But the cost of renting in these suburbs is already exorbitant. Fitzroy was named the second-most-expensive suburb in Melbourne for apartment rental in 2015.

Instead, policymakers could encourage disruption in the suburbs that would benefit both sides.

What can be done to capture local benefits?

Airbnb claims that tourists who use the platform "stay longer and spend more". Through taxation and additional revenue from the sharing economy, governments could fund more extensive and efficient transport networks to service both locals and visitors. Extending transport infrastructure would support the intensification of distributed neighbourhoods and maximise intermingling between tourists and locals.

Bottom-up densification could also be a way forward for Perth. The distribution of Airbnb accommodation towards Perth's coastal suburbs highlights potential in this space: here, tourism-specific and local infrastructure can converge. This is an exciting prospect for a state that positions itself as a unique travel destination.

Airbnb emerges from the same cultural tendency as the pop-up shop and interim-use place activation. Built environment professionals must recognise it as an urban issue and lead with a framework for targeted, productive disruption.

Airbnb can increase the density of people within existing building stock, while dispersing the positive effects of the tourist economy. This requires more imagination from planners and designers, who first and foremost must consider the interests of individual citizens, whether they are renters or home owners.

Can Airbnb be a part of the solution of increasing urban infill without compromising a minimum standard of living?
The Conversation is co-publishing articles with Future West (Australian Urbanism), produced by the University of Western Australia's Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts. These articles look towards the future of urbanism, taking Perth and Western Australia as its reference point. You can read other articles here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Infrastructure in our cities - let's call it the hardware - remains much the same as ever, but the software - the way we use it - is transforming rapidly. One piece of that software, Airbnb, is dramatically reshaping the world's cities. The digital platform allows citizens to find and rent short-term accommodation from other citizens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Airbnb: who’s in, who’s out, and what this tells us about rental impacts in Sydney and Melbourne

# data[].attributes.subject
Airbnb: who’s in, who’s out, and what this tells us about rental impacts in Sydney and Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rapid growth of the giant online accommodation-sharing platform, aka Airbnb, is creating serious concerns about equity and the impacts on our cities and neighbourhoods as we know them. Our recent research shows that the patterns of Airbnb listings in Australia's biggest cities are highly uneven. The findings suggest impacts on rental housing are likely to be biggest in high-end areas that appeal to tourists. Low-income areas are less affected.

Our research - focusing on the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan regions - looked into three important questions:

Where are the listings?

Who is hosting Airbnb?

What are the impacts on rental markets?

Read more: Australian governments are treading lightly around Airbnb

Where are Airbnb listings located?

The maps below show the distribution of Airbnb offerings in the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan regions. These also show the composition of listings: entire (house/apartment, shown in red) versus partial (room only or shared room, in blue).

In Sydney (shown above), Airbnb offerings are mostly concentrated in popular tourist areas. Interestingly, partial house/apartment listings spread out more to the middle and fringe suburbs. Entire house/apartment listings are more concentrated around the city centre and eastern beaches.

We see a similar pattern in Melbourne (above). Airbnb listings aggregate around the city centre but also extend beyond the inner core to the residential outskirts. However, the composition of listings (entire versus partial) has less effect on their distribution in Melbourne than in Sydney.

Interestingly, the cities have very different Airbnb market sizes. The populations of the two regions are almost on a par, but Sydney has almost twice as many Airbnb listings as Melbourne. The difference in entire house/apartment listings is even greater.

Who is hosting Airbnb?

To understand who is participating on the Airbnb platform as host and who is not, we analysed Airbnb listings data against the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census-based SEIFA, the most widely used nationwide measure of socioeconomic status.

SEIFA is a suite of four summary measures created from Census information. For each index, every geographic area is given a SEIFA score. This shows how that area compares with others in Australia.

All areas are ordered from lowest to highest SEIFA score. This ranges from the lowest 10% of areas, which are given a score of 1, up to the highest 10%, with a score of 10.

Our analysis showed the sheer scale of inequity of Airbnb listings distribution. Over 95% of all entire house/apartment listings and about 87% of partial house/apartment listings (room only or shared room) in Sydney are in the socio-economically best-off areas (SEIFA deciles 9 and 10).

Airbnb offerings in Melbourne follow a similar pattern. Over 80% of entire house/apartment listings and about 70% of partial house/apartment listings are found in the best-off areas.

Our data analysis establishes that Airbnb hosting mainly occurs in the most affluent pockets of both regions.

Read more: Airbnb and empty houses: who's responsible for managing the impacts on our cities?

What are the impacts on the rental market?

We also looked at the ratio of the size of the rental market to the size of Airbnb listings with specific attention to the socioeconomic status (using SEIFA) of each local government area in Melbourne and Sydney. This produced a few interesting observations, which help illustrate how local long term rental housing stock is, or could be, lost by conversion to Airbnb short-term listings.

East pop/Shutterstock

In Sydney, there are no low socio-economic areas (SEIFA scores of 1-5) with high numbers of rental dwellings that also have high numbers of entire house/apartment Airbnb listings. This means that, to date, Airbnb is not displacing the rental stock in the most disadvantaged pockets of the Sydney metropolitan region.

Nevertheless, in a small number of high socio-economic areas (SEIFA scores of 8-10), the Airbnb market (entire listing only) represents sizeable proportions of the rental market. For the beachside location of Waverley (decile 10), for example, the number of Airbnb entire listings is almost equivalent to a quarter of the number of rental dwellings. Similarly, in Manly and Pittwater (both 10), Airbnb entire home listings are about 20% of the rental market size.

In other words, considering the very small size of Airbnb in comparison to the total rental market in Sydney - less than 3.5% - the overall impact can be expected to be minimal. However, the impact is not equally distributed, either geographically or socio-economically.

Indeed, the impact of Airbnb on the rental market is of concern in a limited number of areas in Sydney, mainly strategic tourism locations such as beachside areas. Although these are at the highest end of socio-economic spectrum, there is a danger of some local residents being pushed out of the most sought-after areas so tourists can move in.

The pattern in Melbourne is slightly different or, in a sense, less intense than in Sydney. Again, the general trend of high Airbnb listings in high socio-economic areas is observed.

The Melbourne CBD, which has a SEIFA score of 8, has the most Airbnb entire house/apartment listings. These listings represent the highest proportion, about 8%, when compared to the size of the local rental market. The pressure on the rental market, then, is far less than what we see in popular Airbnb spots in Sydney, such as Waverley, Manly and Pittwater.

We also see in Melbourne that popular rental areas in lower SEIFA areas have low numbers of entire house/apartment Airbnb listings. This confirms the Sydney hypothesis that the loss of rental supply is not yet a major concern at the lower end of the rental market.

The patterns we observed suggest that the pressure Airbnb puts on the rental market - at least at this point of time - is limited to a small number of high-end areas, mainly locations that are attractive to tourists. This represents a concern in terms of rental supply in these areas, where some local residents in the long-term rental market might be losing out to the short-term tourism market.

Read more: How Airbnb is reshaping our cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Airbnb: who's in, who's out, and what this tells us about rental impacts in Sydney and Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rapid growth of the giant online accommodation-sharing platform, aka Airbnb, is creating serious concerns about equity and the impacts on our cities and neighbourhoods as we know them. Our recent research shows that the patterns of Airbnb listings in Australia's biggest cities are highly uneven.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New study shows women hosts are the driving force behind Airbnb

Maria Grazia has been living in Rome for many years. In 2013 she became a host for social and financial reasons. Her salary was not enough to make ends meet and she needed extra income to support the launch of her own business. Thanks to Airbnb, and the support of her family, the gamble of starting out on her own has been a great success. In Italy there are 83,622 women hosts, representing 54% of the entire Airbnb host community. Maria Grazia plays a key role as a leader in the Airbnb community in Rome.
Women hosts are leaders in the home sharing community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As one of the world's foremost travel destinations, Rome features home sharing with the unique flair of Italian hospitality. With guest figures growing year on year, bringing much-needed tourism to the city and spreading benefits to businesses, local communities and the economy, the home sharing community in Rome is building a grassroots movement to engage [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sito Veracruz lives in the centre of Amsterdam. Some years ago, he enthusiastically rented out a room on Airbnb. "At first I thought it was a great idea," he recalls. "But I now realise there are side-effects that we didn't foresee. Airbnb can be a threat for cities."

Veracruz, an urban planner, witnesses daily how the large number of apartments rented out on Airbnb and other short-stay rental websites are bringing more and more tourists to the central areas of Amsterdam. He says this has a negative effect on life in these neighbourhoods - and he's not only talking about the nuisance that noisy, partying tourists can create for the local residents.

"I think it's obvious that Airbnb contributes to gentrification," Veracruz says. "It drives up real estate prices that are already searing in Amsterdam. Neighbourhood business that create ties between residents are replaced by businesses that only focus on tourists. Bike rental companies replace local grocery shops. And apartments that are continuously rented out to tourists are lost to people who want to actually live here."

Such is Veracruz's concern that he is trying to create an alternative service: Fairbnb. What he proposes is a short-stay rental platform that is beneficial to the city - with hosts who are registered with the council, and neighbours who are involved in the management of the platform.

"I am talking about a platform that really complies with the principles of a fair, non-extractive and collaborative economy," Veracruz says. "We would like to encourage visitors to stay in areas where they are not a disturbance, but could add something to the neighbourhood."

The issues triggered by the global rise of Airbnb are a subject of ongoing debate in Amsterdam. It has become extremely popular, and lucrative, to rent out a flat or room here on one of the short-stay rental platforms, of which Airbnb is by far the biggest. An estimated 22,000 rooms and flats in the Dutch capital are now offered for rent this way at least once a year. In the most popular neighbourhoods, as many as one in six homeowners rent out a room or flat on Airbnb.

Earlier this year, the Dutch bank ING stated in a report that Airbnb drives up real estate prices, because people are prepared to pay more for a flat when they can make extra money by renting it out. The bank found the effect to be "considerable", although not everybody agrees on this conclusion. "The studies that have been done are not very well founded," says Janine Harbers, a spokeswoman for Amsterdam's city council. "But some effect seems likely."

According to Peter Boelhouwer, professor of housing systems at the University of Technology in Delft: "When so many flats are rented out to visitors, it has an effect on the availability of real estate. There is a great shortage in the housing market in Amsterdam and this doesn't do it any good - but one shouldn't exaggerate it."

Boelhouwer says the "Airbnb effect" is by no means a primary factor in the city's gentrification, which "has been going on for a long time in the central areas of Amsterdam".

"The council welcomed it at first because it meant an upgrading of the city," he adds. "But now that it continues, you see the rise of very unilateral neighbourhoods. Families with children are leaving this city because they can't afford to live in the good areas."

In fact, Amsterdam has taken some steps to address the impact of Airbnb on its housing markets. Back in 2014, it was the first city to sign an agreement with the multinational, which saw Airbnb agree to levy and hand over tourist taxes to the city, remove addresses where the council has intervened because of complaints, and inform users of its rules (typically, that apartments should be rented out for no longer than 60 days per year, to not more than four guests at a time).

What the city has been unable to do, however, is make Airbnb disclose the identity of those hosts who do not stick to its rules. The company still refuses to do so on privacy grounds.

This means that enforcement of these rules is difficult. According to the independent website Inside Airbnb, around half of the Amsterdam flats on Airbnb are rented out more than 60 days a year. A quarter of the hosts were found to have multiple listings - with some identified as "more likely to be running a commercial business and to violate the rules".

Harbers from the city council, however, says the problem is less serious than Inside Airbnb suggests. "According to our statistics, a majority 81% of the hosts respect the rules - and we are working on [those who do not]. We have established a hotline for complaints as well as researching online, and we have raised the fine for people who break the rules to €20,000."

Bernard D'heygere, a spokesman for Airbnb, describes its relationship with Amsterdam as " our longest and strongest partnership with any city in the world".

"Airbnb puts money in the pockets of regular Amsterdammers," he adds. "The typical host earns €3,800 a year by sharing their space for a total of 28 nights [each year]. And we will continue to work with policymakers to make the city's communities stronger."

Fairbnb creator Veracruz recently held his first "meet-up", with about 20 like-minded people who were keen to collaborate on his new rental platform. "With Fairbnb," he says, "we hope we can reduce some of the pressure on Amsterdam's popular neighbourhoods."

Meanwhile, the city council has opened new negotiations with Airbnb. Whether this will address the problem of identifying those hosts and guests who don't respect the rules, remains to be seen.
Are you experiencing or resisting gentrification in your city? Share your stories in the comments below, through our dedicated callout, or on Twitter using #GlobalGentrification Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 'Airbnb effect': is it real, and what is it doing to a city like Amsterdam?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sito Veracruz lives in the centre of Amsterdam. Some years ago, he enthusiastically rented out a room on Airbnb. "At first I thought it was a great idea," he recalls. "But I now realise there are side-effects that we didn't foresee. Airbnb can be a threat for cities."

# data[].attributes.headline
Airbnb the Pros and Cons from investors point of view

# data[].attributes.subject
Airbnb the Pros and Cons from investors point of view

# data[].attributes.body
Summarise each of the sections of the following articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Airbnb is an online community marketplace that connects people looking to rent their homes with people who are looking for accommodations. Airbnb users include hosts and travelers: hosts list and rent out their unused spaces, and travelers search for and book accommodations in 192 countries worldwide. A diminution of "air mattress B&B," Airbnb has grown from appealing to couch-surfing budget-conscious tourists to business travelers seeking a more memorable experience that allows for a different level of collaboration amongst colleagues. Last year Airbnb raised $1.5 billion in funds that brought the value of the company to about $25.5 billion. This made it worth more than the Chicago, Ill.-based Hyatt Hotels Corp (NYSE: H) and the Parsippany-Troy Hills, N.J.-based Wyndham Worldwide Corp (NYSE: WYN), respectively.

For more on companies that are shaking up their respective industries, check out How do ride sharing companies like Uber make money?

While questions about the substantial valuation have dominated Airbnb-related news in the past, many people are asking whether or not Airbnb is something that could work for them. Here, we look at Airbnb - what it is, how it works, and the pros and cons of using this online rental marketplace.

What is Airbnb?

According to Airbnb, they provide "a trusted community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book unique accommodations around the world ...." Airbnb hosts list their properties - which can be single rooms, a suite of rooms, apartments, moored yachts, houseboats, entire houses or even a castle - on the Airbnb website. It's free to create a listing, and hosts decide how much to charge per night, per week or per month. Each listing allows hosts to promote properties through titles, descriptions, photographs with captions and a user profile where potential guests can get to know a bit about the hosts.

Travelers (or "guests") search the available database of properties by entering details about when and where they'd like to travel. Travelers can further refine searches by making selections for:

Room type - entire place, private room or shared room

Price - range from minimum to maximum

Size - number of bedrooms, bathrooms and/or beds

Amenities - wireless Internet, TV, kitchen, pool, pets, etc.

Property type - standard properties such as apartments, houses and bed & breakfasts, as well as non-standard accommodations such as castles, caves, igloos and tipis

Host language - English, Spanish, French, etc., including sign language

Keywords - if the traveler is looking for something specific, such as "oceanfront" or "close to Le Louvre"

How it Works

Travelers can search the database of properties at any time, but need to create an Airbnb profile to book any reservations. Travelers can contact hosts using an online form that appears on each listing page, and can submit a reservation request by clicking the "Book It" button and entering payment details via a secure payment system. Travelers pay a guest service fee of 6-12% on top of the reservation to cover services such as customer support and the Host Guarantee. Airbnb supports several payment methods, including major credit cards (Visa, MasterCard, AMEX, Discover, and JCB), PayPal, Google Wallet (on the Airbnb Android App for the U.S. only) and some debit cards that can be processed as credit. Travelers are not charged until the host confirms the reservation.

Once a traveler pays and the host confirms the reservation, Airbnb holds the payment for 24 hours after check-in before releasing the funds to the host. Available payout methods and currencies differ by country, but hosts are paid via automated clearing house (ACH)/Direct Deposit, bank transfer/international wire, PayPal, Western Union, paper checks (in the U.S. and Canada only), and Payoneer. Airbnb takes a 3% service fee from the host for each reservation to cover the cost of processing the transaction. This fee is in addition to the 6-12% paid for guest service fees.

Another fee you might come across is a value-added tax (VAT) (applicable to hosts and guests from the European Union, Switzerland, and Norway). Also, if you pay for a booking in a currency different than the one the host has chosen in the listing, you'll be subject to varying Airbnb's exchange rates.

Pros and Cons

Airbnb can benefit both hosts and travelers. Hosts get to meet people from around the world while making a little extra money, and travelers can often stay for less than the cost of a hotel room. In addition, many travelers enjoy accommodations that offer a different experience from standard hotels. Many users find the personalized service, both from hosts and from Airbnb's customer service, makes for a good experience. Airbnb-user Julie Richards, a college advisor with Swain County Schools in North Carolina says, "Airbnb has fantastic listings, fair prices and their staff are very eager to help and easy to reach by phone or email." Richard adds, "We have booked three different places through Airbnb, and so far I've been happy with their service and ease of [using the] website."

While Airbnb has primarily served budget-minded tourists, it has been attracting a larger share of business travelers. This is due in part to cost - companies can save money on conferences, meetings and retreats. But the attractiveness of staying in someone else's home goes beyond the travel expense report. These properties allow travelers to trade in the cookie-cutter hotel experience for one that offers colleagues a unique and comfortable space in which to connect and collaborate.

Despite the benefits, there are concerns for both hosts and guests. Perhaps the biggest risk for hosts is that their property will get damaged. While most transactions occur without incident, there are stories of entire houses being trashed by dozens of party-goers when the Airbnb hosts thought they were renting to a quiet suburban family, or an instance when a host came home to find his property had been damaged, items had been stolen and the place was littered with meth pipes.

While Airbnb states on its website that "you're unlikely to experience any issues with property damage," their Host Guarantee program "provides protection for up to $1,000,000 in damages to covered property in the rare event of guest damage, in eligible countries." The Host Guarantee program does give peace of mind to Airbnb hosts, but it's important to read the terms and conditions to fully understand what's covered, what's not covered (things such as cash, rare artwork, jewelry and pets aren't covered) and the steps a host must take to seek payment under the Host Guarantee. In addition, hosts should understand their homeowner's, renter's, and/or umbrella insurance coverage, and speak with a qualified insurance agent about any questions or concerns.

The biggest concerns for guests may be that the property does not match the description, or that the host is unresponsive to guest needs. In one case, a man had rented an apartment in a European city through Airbnb, and the apartment's real owner showed up wondering who was in his apartment. Both hosts and guests can help limit risks by using Airbnb features including Verified IDs, profiles, reviews, messaging, secure payment platform and the Host Guarantee.

Hosts Should Know State and Local Laws

Of special concern to hosts are state and local laws that may limit or prohibit the renting of property. In New York, for example, it's illegal to sublet a single-family home, apartment or room for fewer than 30 days if you aren't living there. Other cities and states have similar restrictions that could result in hefty fines, and Airbnb includes this warning on its website:

"Some cities have laws that restrict your ability to host paying guests for short periods. These laws are often part of a city's zoning or administrative codes. In many cities, you must register, get a permit, or obtain a license before you list your property or accept guests. Certain types of short-term bookings may be prohibited altogether. Local governments vary greatly in how they enforce these laws. Penalties may include fines or other enforcement.

These rules can be confusing. Often, even city administrators find it tough to explain their local laws. We are working with governments around the world to clarify these rules so that everyone has a clear understanding of what the laws are. In the meantime, please review your local laws before listing your space on Airbnb. By accepting our Terms of Service and activating a listing, you certify that you will follow your local laws and regulations."

Taxes

In addition to complying with state and local laws, hosts should be aware that they might be subject to rental income taxes. To assist with U.S. tax compliance, Airbnb collects taxpayer information from hosts so they can provide an account of their earnings each year via 1099 and 1042 forms.

The Bottom Line

Airbnb provides an online marketplace that connects people with rooms to share with people who need a place to stay. In the past, these types of services have been used largely by thrifty tourists looking for the cheapest place they can find in a particular city. Now, however, more and more business travelers and professionals are looking to Airbnb for a unique and memorable experience. Although there are certain risks associated with using a share economy system such as Airbnb, users can take steps to help mitigate any potential problems.
Disclosure: At the time of this writing, the author did not own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Using Airbnb | Investopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Airbnb is an online community marketplace that connects people looking to rent their homes with people who are looking for accommodations. Airbnb users include hosts and travelers: hosts list and rent out their unused spaces, and travelers search for and book accommodations in 192 countries worldwide.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Use TripAdvisor to fin the top 11 attractions in Rome.

2. Use Google "my maps" to map these locations and label these locations from 1 to 10. (use place markers rather than shapes to label the locations)

3. Draw a shape around the pattern you see  on the map and answer the following questions on top of the shape.Comment on the distribution of these top attractions. Is there any reason for the distribution of these attractions?

4. Find a map showing the Airbnb density in Rome. To what extent is there spatial association between the distribution of top tourist locations and the distribution of Airbnb listings in Rome in Rome.

5. Do the listings appear to be more rooms for let or entire homes?What social impact do you think this may have on Rome?

(Share the final map with me)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside Airbnb: Rome. Adding data to the debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inside Airbnb is a set of independent tools and open data that allows you to explore how Airbnb is REALLY being used in cities around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the article about?
2. What did you learn about the geography of Italy in the article?
3. What conclusions does the article make?
4. How does the article support these conclusions?

# data[].attributes.headline
Wednesday 22/8 The Impacts of Tourism on Rome

# data[].attributes.subject
Wednesday 22/8 The Impacts of Tourism on Rome

# data[].attributes.body
Read pages-102-105
-Answer questions: 1, 2, 3ab and 4 in your books
-5 and 6 to be discussed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first the smoke on the horizon "didn't look like anything major," says Joe Mercieca of that day in 2013. But then the wind picked up.

His house in the Blue Mountains, an hour and a half out of Sydney, was soon surrounded by the blaze. "I told my wife it was too late, let's retreat," he says. Mercieca, Merylese and their dog took shelter in the concrete fire bunker they had built beneath their house. "We sat in there and listened to everything explode."

Overall, more than 200 houses were lost in the fire. The Merciecas lost four vehicles and their home office, destroyed when a flaming truck crashed into it. In the five years since, Mercieca has used his construction business to educate people about the importance of fire preparedness in their homes.

In the past, bushfire season - the period of heightened risk declared by state-specific authorities, often accompanied by fire bans - has typically begun in New South Wales in October and run until March. But an unusual period of months of exceptionally warm and extremely dry weather this year has prompted authorities to start the season early. Not only is Australia's increasingly hotter, drier weather a cause for concern, but the country's rapid urbanisation means more people are at risk than ever before.

For large areas in the north and west, bushfire season has been brought forward a whole two months to August - well into winter, which officially began 1 June. The rest of the state, including Sydney, will follow suit from 1 September, closer to spring but still four weeks earlier than usual.

The decision has already been justified. On the first weekend of August, a fire broke out at Doyalson on the NSW Central Coast, just north of Sydney, that crews had to fight to control. Two days later there were 11 uncontained fires in the state.

Rob Rogers, deputy commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, notes that last season fire crews were battling blazes as late as April. "That's not really bushfire season, and yet we had a big fire on the outskirts of Sydney," he says.

If you look at Spain, everyone has white houses. It's ridiculous that here it's a trend to have a black roof

Stephen Bali, Blacktown city council

According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (Bom), the January to July period 2018 was the warmest in NSW since 1910. Rogers linked these "unseasonably warm temperatures" with the deadly heatwaves in Greece and North America. "It's fair to say that the climate is changing and longer fire seasons are something we're starting to experience."

Bushfires mostly threaten the bushland and national parks surrounding Australian cities, but as their limits edge ever-outwards - the country has one of the highest rates of sprawl in the world - urban areas are increasingly under threat. One of the late-season fires in NSW in April was in Holsworthy, a suburb 30km south-west of inner-city Sydney, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people and sleepless nights for many more.

Even when not threatened by fire, western Sydney is known to be one of the hottest parts of the entire state of NSW. The area consistently reaches far higher temperatures than the eastern Sydney suburbs because of its unique geography and lack of sea breeze, which combine to create an urban heat island within an urban heat island.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Sydney pictured shrouded in smoke during the 2013 bushfires. Photograph: Brendon Thorne/Getty Images

In January this year Penrith - a major metropolitan area 50km west of the city centre - was the hottest place on Earth, reaching 47.3C while Sydney itself was 44C. Annually there are 14 heat-related deaths per 100,000 people in western Sydney, compared with five by the coast. The number of days above 35C a year is projected to increase by five to ten by 2030, while a recent study has predicted that summer heatwaves in major Australian cities are likely to reach highs of 50C by 2040.

Linden Ashcroft, a climate researcher at Bom, says the temperature difference between coastal and western Sydney can be massive and deadly. "The hot days are really dramatic and potentially really dangerous, but it's the nights that are the real concern.

"If you think of an elderly person or vulnerable member of the community, they struggle through the day generally but then the nights should bring relief. If you're getting that [urban heat island] effect, you don't."

Eight agencies in the western Sydney region have been working together to bring down temperatures through measures including tree-planting, installing air conditioning in public facilities, such as libraries and increasing opening hours for swimming pools in summer.

Stephen Bali, the mayor of Blacktown city council and president of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, says there is a wider problem with the way Australian homes are built - typically with dark colours that absorb heat and without features that reduce the need for heating and cooling, such as double-glazed windows and double brick facades.

New homes being built in bushfire-prone areas must meet stringent building requirements, such as stronger glass with some ability to withstand heat and non-combustible features. But Bali says councils need the backing of state governments to mandate materials that are better suited to the Australian climate more broadly.

We may run into a situation where we exhaust our capacity to fight major fires and we have to rethink the way we live

Ross Bradstock, University of Wollongong

"We need to look at building codes. If you look at Spain, everyone has white houses. It's ridiculous that here it's a trend to have a black roof."

Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at the University of NSW, agrees. "We design almost all our developments perfectly wrong for keeping cities cool," he says. "Have you ever been to the Mediterranean? Build our houses like that."

"They are well insulated. They have brightly coloured roofs to reflect sunlight. They don't need a lot of cooling in summer, and they don't need a lot of heating in winter."

Australia's rapid population growth, focused on its major cities, poses another challenge. Western Sydney is projected to absorb two-thirds of the 1.7m extra people expected in the city by 2036.

Not only will greater population density exacerbate the urban heat island effect, the state's Office of Environment and Heritage has predicted that the conversion of areas in the north-west and south-west of Sydney from forest and grasslands to new urban development may double the projected temperature increases from climate change in the near future.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

A heavy lift helicopter drops water on a bushfire threatening homes in the northern suburbs of Sydney. Photograph: EPA

As urban areas from Darwin to Melbourne sprawl outwards in hotter, drier summers, the scene is set for a potentially catastrophic combination. "People cause fires," says Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong. "When you've got high densities of populations you can get lots of ignitions, either from people lighting fires directly or from things like power lines for transport." There are strong indications that conditions conducive to major fires will increase with the changing climate, Bradstock adds.

Earlier starts and later finishes to bushfire season also mean authorities have less time in which to try to reduce the risk through controlled burns. "Sydney is surrounded by bush and a lot of it goes into the suburbs themselves," says Rogers. "We've been trying to do burn-offs and reduce the fuel ahead of summer but in Sydney that's challenging because people get concerned about the amount of smoke- we haven't done as much as we'd like."

Bradstock and his team have been using technology including satellite data and forecasting to pinpoint critically dry areas around Australian cities on a day-to-day basis, and predict that more than half a million houses are now directly exposed to bushfire risk.

Heatwaves are already the country's deadliest natural disaster, with climatologists warning that they will only increase in frequency, severity and duration. Even Australian cities - better acclimatised to heat than many in the world - must adapt to the changing climate. Bradstock says that could include evaluating how close homes are built to bushland. If major fires become more frequent, as looks likely, "we may run into a situation where we exhaust our capacity to fight them and we have to rethink the way we live".
Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, and explore our archive here Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sydney's bushfire season starts in winter: 'We may have to rethink how we live'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first the smoke on the horizon "didn't look like anything major," says Joe Mercieca of that day in 2013. But then the wind picked up. His house in the Blue Mountains, an hour and a half out of Sydney, was soon surrounded by the blaze.

# data[].attributes.body
Smart tourism-what is it? How can it be done?

# data[].attributes.body
Tourism's potential benefit to locals and managing impacts

# data[].attributes.body
What's popular in Italy? Where and why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twenty Shades of Italy An Analysis of its Cultural Natural and Dual Tourist Attractions with Implications for Global Tourism Marketing

# data[].attributes.body
Is tourism more important to Italy or Australia? Provide data in your response

# data[].attributes.headline
Tourism's Importance Compared: Italy and Australia 

# data[].attributes.subject
Tourism's Importance Compared: Italy and Australia 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Make a comparison between Italy and Australia in a a table over the following statistics:

-GDP total contribution (%) (page 5)
-Employment total contribution % (page 5)
-International arrivals (page 9)

# data[].attributes.headline
Australia Tourism Economic Impact Report

# data[].attributes.subject
Australia Tourism Economic Impact Report

# data[].attributes.headline
Tourism's Importance Compared: Italy and Australia (cont.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tourism's Importance Compared: Italy and Australia (cont.)

# data[].attributes.body
2. Tourism provides a similar amount of jobs and makes up a similar amount of the economy in both Italy and Australia. What does this tell us about the size of Italy's economy compared to Australia's?

3 a. Use the following site to find Italy's top 5 exports and then Australia's (include the dollar figures for each export type).http://www.worldstopexports.com/
b. In general what does the Australian economy rely upon? What does Italy's economy rely upon?

# data[].attributes.body
Learning intention:
-To understand why Italy is such a popular tourist destination
-To understand the importance of tourism to Italy on a national scale

-Read pages 98 to 101
Answer questions: 1, 2, 3 and 4 a b c

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 14th August       Planning for a sustainable tourism industry in Victoria

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 14th August       Planning for a sustainable tourism industry in Victoria

# data[].attributes.body
Read page 76-77
-Answer questions:
1 as a paragraph and an example
2 with a paragraph and an example
3
5 a, b, and d (watch linked video and respond to quetsions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOrBWsIQfc0)
5 c extension: https://rainbowserpent.net/2018-waste-report/

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 14th August       What are the impacts of technology on urban and regional tourism in Australia?

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 14th August       What are the impacts of technology on urban and regional tourism in Australia?

# data[].attributes.body
Read page 78
-Answer questions 1-6

Question 5 in particular is close to what our SAC will look at

# data[].attributes.headline
Wednesday 8th August   Seasonal Tourism in Regional Victoria

# data[].attributes.subject
Wednesday 8th August   Seasonal Tourism in Regional Victoria

# data[].attributes.body
Read pages 68 to 69
-Answer questions 1, 2a, b, d, e, g, h, 3, 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.body
Download the document below and follow the instructions to create your own choropleth maps using the data you have collected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Victorian Tourism Choropleth Map Tracing

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July Victorian Tourism Forecast

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July Victorian Tourism Forecast

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July                                   Tourism Industry Resources Victoria Data website

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July                                   Tourism Industry Resources Victoria Data website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the latest data for Victoria's 12 tourism regions, and profile of visitors to Victoria from different states.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July                           Victoria Tourism Region Map

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July                           Victoria Tourism Region Map

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July                                    Victoria Tourism Summary

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July                                    Victoria Tourism Summary

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July                             Regional Victoria Tourism Summary 

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July                             Regional Victoria Tourism Summary 

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July                             Victorian Tourism WebQuest

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July                             Victorian Tourism WebQuest

# data[].attributes.body
Download the WebQuest and use the documents that follow to answer the questions within.

The exercise is intended to familiarise you with Victoria's regions and tourism's impact of these regions

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 31st July                          Chapter 4: Tourism in Victoria's Cities and Towns

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 31st July                          Chapter 4: Tourism in Victoria's Cities and Towns

# data[].attributes.body
Read pages 60-62

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 23rd July Impacts of Tourism Research Task

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 23rd July Impacts of Tourism Research Task

# data[].attributes.body
Research the impacts of tourism (both positive and negative) on one city around the world. See all required information within the document. You must come to a conclusion about whether tourism has a negative or positive impact on the city

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 23rd July Inside airbnb: city data and info

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 23rd July Inside airbnb: city data and info

# data[].attributes.body
Information specifically on Airbnb. Look for your specific city

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Support is essential to help Inside Airbnb add data to the debate. Donations fund the collection and hosting of data, development of analytic and activist tools, and help sustain the project.

Airbnb claims to be part of the "sharing economy" and disrupting the hotel industry. However, data shows that the majority of Airbnb listings in most cities are entire homes, many of which are rented all year round - disrupting housing and communities.

Browse the data for your city below, and see for yourself.

Explore the Data

Inside Airbnb has collected data on dozens of cities and countries around the world (more coming soon!).

or browse all cities

Selected Cities

Get the Data

The data behind the Inside Airbnb site is sourced from publicly available information from the Airbnb site. The data has been analyzed, cleansed and aggregated to faciliate public discussion.
NEW! We now have regional archive files for research on entire countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Download the data for your own analysis, make a data request for archived or new data, read our data policies and community guidelines, join our data community, or view the data dictionary.

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 23rd July Statista: tourism statistics website

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 23rd July Statista: tourism statistics website

# data[].attributes.body
Statistics website: browse those that you need

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find statistics, consumer survey results and industry studies from over 22,500 sources on over 60,000 topics on the internet's leading statistics database

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
E arly last year, around 150,000 people in Barcelona marched to demand that the Spanish government allow more refugees into the country. Shortly afterwards, “Tourists go home, refugees welcome” started appearing on the city’s walls; soon the city was inundated with protestors marching behind the slogans “Barcelona is not for sale” and “We will not be driven out”.

What the Spanish media dubbed turismofobia overtook several European cities last summer, with protests held and measures taken in Venice, Rome, Amsterdam, Florence, Berlin, Lisbon, Palma de Mallorca and elsewhere in Europe against the invasion of visitors. But in contrast to many, as fiercely as Barcelona has pushed back against tourists, it has campaigned to welcome more refugees. When news broke two weeks ago that a rescue ship carrying 629 migrants was adrift in the Mediterranean, mayor Ada Colau was among the first to offer those aboard safe haven.

Is it really the case that Barcelona would prefer to receive thousands of penniless immigrants rather than the millions of tourists who last year spent around €30bn in the city? The short answer, it appears, is yes. Increasingly it is tourism, not immigration, that people see as a threat to the city’s very identity – though numbers of both have risen exponentially in recent decades.

In 2000 foreigners accounted for less than 2% of the population; a mere five years later, the figure was 15% (266,000). In 2018, it is now officially 18% although, according to Lola López, the city’s integration and immigration commissioner, the true figure is closer to 30%.

The influx of new residents has radically changed the face of the city, but Barcelona has not seen a single anti-immigrant protest of any substance – nor is immigration an issue at local elections.

A security staff member controls access to ‘La Boqueria’, Barcelona’s most popular market. Large tourist groups are now banned. Photograph: David Ramos/Getty Images

According to research by Paolo Giaccaria, a social scientist at the University of Turin, the case of Barcelona “establishes a connection between two types of mobility that are at odds with each other: northern tourism and southern migration. It subverts the common feeling about which kind of mobility is desirable which is not.”

Immigration has changed the city, but tourism is destabilising it – and even people in the industry agree that it can’t go on like this. In 1990 the city received 1.7 million tourists; last year the figure was 32 million – roughly 20 times the resident population. The sheer volume of visitors is driving up rents, pushing residents out of neighbourhoods, and overwhelming the public space.

“We see immigration as having a positive impact – people have integrated well,” says Natalia Martínez, a councillor in Ciutat Vella, the old part of Barcelona which has been at the forefront of both immigration and tourism. “It’s brought more than it’s taken away in terms of identity.”

Her colleague Santi Ibarra argues that the diversity that comes with immigration enhances the city – but tourism contributes nothing positive. “Tourism takes something out of neighbourhoods,” he says. “It makes them more banal – the same as everywhere else.”

Like London, the number of native Barcelonans is quite small, especially in working class neighbourhoods, which is where most of the latest wave of immigrants have made their homes. The three largest groups of immigrants are Europeans, Latin Americans and North Africans, mainly from Morocco, as well as significant Chinese and Pakistani populations – though López says that Barcelona has its own identity, distinct from that of Catalonia or Spain. “We’ve found that children born here of immigrant or mixed couples tend to identify themselves as being from Barcelona, rather than anywhere else.”

The main obstacle to integration is language, especially as schooling is in Catalan, which none of the immigrants speak. Magda Martí is a headteacher in a primary school in Ciutat Vella, where more than half the children are foreigners and says that, along with language barrier, food can also be an issue. The city council requires the school to provide a halal meal option if only one family requests it; Martí says this is tricky, not only logistically but ideologically for a non-religious school.

La Rambla in central Barcelona. Last year there were roughly 20 times more tourists than residents in the city. Photograph: JLImages/Alamy

However, she adds: “To me it’s all the same where a child is from, the important thing is to make them and their families welcome. The really positive change is in the new teachers, who don’t see immigration as a problem. They see diversity as something positive, which is how I see it, too.”

The neighbourhood where immigration is most visible is El Raval (from the Arabic, meaning suburb), which lies on the opposite side of La Rambla from Ciutat Vella, and has long been synonymous with drugs and prostitution. Until quite recently it was known as Barri Xinès (Chinatown), though there were no Chinese people there – a reflection of its perceived otherness. These days it’s nicknamed Ravalstan for its sizeable Pakistani population.

Oscar Esteban, director of the Fundació Tot Raval, an umbrella group that coordinates a wide range of voluntary and statutory organisations in the area, compares el Raval to the east London borough of Tower Hamlets: both historically port neighbourhoods, and for centuries the point of entry to the city. (Similarly, life expectancy in El Raval is five to six years less than in the city’s more salubrious areas.)

“El Raval has its own identity and its own way of dealing with things,” says Esteban. “Everything starts here, many social phenomena appear here first and then spread; we’re a social laboratory. There’s a massive level of immigration here but on a day-to-day level there’s no conflict, not even after the terror attack last summer.”

Thirteen people died and over 130 were injured in the van attack on La Rambla in August last year. Mohammed Halhoul, the foundation’s president and a member of the Catalan Islamic Council, says that afterwards people were “shocked and indignant, but everyone came together to condemn it”.

Halhoul – who came to Barcelona from Morocco in 1990 – attributes the lack of a backlash against the Muslim community to broad political consensus on immigration, and the city’s strong network of community associations. “There are isolated cases but when it comes to racism or Islamophobia, we don’t see it as a problem,” he says. “It’s not something we lose any sleep over.”

A banner greeting migrants aboard the rescue ship Aquarius. Barcelona has pledged to take in 100 of the 629 refugees on board. Photograph: Pau Barrena/AFP/Getty Images

Of course racism exists in Barcelona inasmuch as it does in any other city – but it has not been allowed to fester. Since 2010 the council has pursued a intercultural policy (as opposed to assimilation) to recognise and respect cultural and religious differences that has enjoyed widespread support, and immigrants have not been scapegoated despite years of economic hardship.

But if they have succeeded in escaping a backlash, tourists have not – even though tourism accounts for around 12% of Barcelona’s GDP, and many residents’ jobs depend on it.

“There’s no question that a lot of people here live off tourism, but it can’t be a case of anything goes – there have to be limits,” says Esteban. “We’re losing much of the identity of the centre of the city, the port, the very traditions that attract visitors.After 20 years of city authorities flogging Barcelona to visitors from overseas, the council elected in 2015 has moved to put the needs of citizens above those of visitors. It imposed a moratorium on new hotels, made efforts to contain the spread of tourist apartments and devised an urban plan for Ciutat Vella that prioritises local commerce over businesses aimed at tourists.

Albert Recio, a spokesman for the Barcelona Federation of Residents Associations representing around 100 bodies, says the dizzying rise of city breaks has had a significant impact on housing, with landlords choosing to make easy money renting to tourists, rather than residents and driving up rents in the process.

Public services are also feeling the strain. “People who live near the popular tourist spot of Park Güell can’t get on the bus because it’s full of tourists,” Recio says. “And many traditional businesses that have existed for over 100 years have been driven out.”

Barcelona is not alone in its battle to protect its identity, with many European cities being overwhelmed by skyrocketing tourism fuelled by cheap flights and platforms such as Airbnb. According to the Association of British Travel Agents, 53% of British holidays in 2017 were city breaks compared to 41% beach holidays.

Antipathy has reached especial heights in Venice, which last month erected barriers in an attempt to control crowds. “In Venice people hate tourists, especially the cruiseships – the worst kind of tourism,” says Patrizia Riganti, who teaches at the school of architecture at Nottingham Trent University and has researched the impact of immigration and tourism in Amsterdam and Venice. “They pollute the city, and consume it as though they were eating a sandwich, what in Italian we call ‘mordi e fuggi tourism’: literally, take a bite and run.

“As in Barcelona, the presence of tourists in Venice and the competition for services far outweigh any perceived problems about immigrants who, thanks partly to tourism, can’t afford to live there anyway,” says Riganti.

Last month Venice erected barriers in an attempt to control the tourist crowds. Photograph: Manuel Silvestri/Reuters

In Lisbon, too, they are feeling the negative impact of mass tourism. Fátima Bernardo, assistant professor of social sciences at the University of Évora in Portugal, fears that the Alfama district in Lisbon may face a similar fate to Ciutat Vella, as another neighbourhood with a strong community and sense of identity.

“What tourists like about Alfama is its authenticity, but now it’s too expensive and young people can’t afford to live there, only older people with secure tenancies, so Alfama is dying,” Bernardo says. “The neighbourhood’s social dynamic has changed.

“People in Lisbon are very worried about the possibility that our city and our identity might become like Barcelona – a parody and a theme park.”

The real issue is the pressure on public space which is not designed to cope with the volume of visitors. Tourists occupy bars and restaurants that were once popular among locals, they saturate public transport and clog pavements, and use far more resources such as water than locals.

Residents say the sensation is of being under occupation. It’s this that gives Barcelonans the sense of displacement, that their city and its identity are being stolen from them, making them little more than extras on the set of their own city – a sensation that not even large-scale immigration has provoked.

In Barcelona especially, immigrants are seen as part of the fabric – working, building communities, and generally making a contribution to the city while tourists simply use it.

“The image of the city that the people themselves have projected is of a place of welcome,” says López of the ease with which new immigrants integrate in Barcelona. But – at least for the foreseeable future – tourists can expect a different reception.

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, and explore our archive here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Tourists go home, refugees welcome’: why Barcelona chose migrants over visitors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Increasingly it is tourism, not immigration, that Barcelonans see as a threat to their city’s identity, though numbers of both have skyrocketed in recent years

# data[].attributes.headline
Wednesday 25th of July Residents in tourism hotspots have had enough. So what's the answer?

# data[].attributes.subject
Wednesday 25th of July Residents in tourism hotspots have had enough. So what's the answer?

# data[].attributes.body
Under the title Solutions to "Overtourism" summarise the solutions the article gives in your own words and give an example for each "subtitle".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Residents in tourism hotspots have had enough. So what's the answer?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tourism brings money and jobs to cities - but can also damage residents' day-to-day lives, culture and heritage. Here are some solutions

# data[].attributes.headline
Friday 29th June                            Unit 2 SAC 1 Study Sheet

# data[].attributes.subject
Friday 29th June                            Unit 2 SAC 1 Study Sheet

# data[].attributes.body
See the skills and knowledge for your first SAC attached here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 2 Geography SAC One Study Sheet_DC_290618.docx

# data[].attributes.headline
Wednesday 27th June    Impacts of tourism examples

# data[].attributes.subject
Wednesday 27th June    Impacts of tourism examples

# data[].attributes.body
Download the table below and click each link to read about the diverse locations and the impact of tourism at each place. Fill in the table after having read about each place.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wednesday 27th June     Impacts of tourism

# data[].attributes.subject
Wednesday 27th June     Impacts of tourism

# data[].attributes.body
Learning intention:
-to understand the different types of impacts of tourism, both positive and negative
-to be able to analyse and categorise different impacts of tourism
-to be able to explain each stage of Butler's model and apply the model to different tourist locations

Success criteria:
-Ability to categorise and analyse types of impacts of tourism.
-Ability to give examples of destinations at different stages of Butler's model
-Completion impacts of tourism table (this becomes homework)

Tasks:
-Read pages 32-36 of your textbook
-Create notes on your reading using attached notes guide

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 25th June           Factors Influencing Tourism Reading:

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 25th June           Factors Influencing Tourism Reading:

# data[].attributes.body
Learning intention: to know and understand the factors that influence and affect tourism

Success criteria: ability to think of examples of each type of factor, ability to categorise and justify categorisation of given factors, ability to explain how factors can influence/impact tourism

*Read pages 29-31
*Answer questions 1-6

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday 25th June              Factors Influencing/Affecting Tourism SAC style questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday 25th June              Factors Influencing/Affecting Tourism SAC style questions

# data[].attributes.body
Complete the questions attached

# data[].attributes.body
Click it and type in the code

# data[].attributes.body
Use the following subtitles and directions as a guide to your note taking

Pages 16-28 as homework

# data[].attributes.headline
19/6/2018                                                            Unit 2 Tourism     Chapter 2 - Tourism: an overview

# data[].attributes.subject
19/6/2018                                                            Unit 2 Tourism     Chapter 2 - Tourism: an overview

# data[].attributes.body
A digital copy of chapter 2 of our textbook
Notes:
-Who are tourists?
-The scale of Tourism
Where do Tourists go?
(characteristics and examples of each type within these)
-Natural, environments
-Built facilities
-Cultural tourism
-Dark tourism

# data[].attributes.headline
15/6/2018                VCE Geography Concepts and Tourism Task

# data[].attributes.subject
15/6/2018                VCE Geography Concepts and Tourism Task

# data[].attributes.body
Download the document and complete the activities sin your workbook

# data[].attributes.headline
Tuesday 11/9  Distribution and Spatial Association Practice  notes and questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Tuesday 11/9  Distribution and Spatial Association Practice  notes and questions

# data[].attributes.body
Given the split of students still completing their SACs or who have finished their SACs today you will revise distribution and spatial association.

Copy down notes on how these questions are addressed and then complete the questions that follow in your books

# data[].attributes.headline
Unit 1 Exam Checklist + key instructional language

# data[].attributes.subject
Unit 1 Exam Checklist + key instructional language

# data[].attributes.body
All assessable content can be found in the checklist as well as instructional language definitions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Year 11 Geography Unit One Exam Study Checklist.docx

# data[].attributes.body
7. The responses to the disaster (Place where there is space on the map and choose appropriate icons) o   Describe a local response and whether it has been effective (3)
-Include an image (1)
o   Describe a national response and whether it has been effective (3)
-Include an image (1)
o   Describe a global response and whether it has been effective (3)

-Include an image (1)
(12 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
4. The population within 75km of nuclear plants (see Padlet kmz) (1)
o With reference to the distribution of (i) tectonic plates, (ii) Japan’s nuclear plants and (iii) population density discuss why Japan is at risk of disasters such as Fukushima. (Write this on Fukushima power plant on this layer) (10)
(11 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
The epicentre of the earthquake  (1)
o  Label and change the icon to “epicentre” (1)
o  Outline the process that caused the earthquake and subsequent tsunami (3)

o Describe the impact that the earthquake and subsequent tsunami had on humans and built environments (4)
(9 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
1.  The location of Fukushima Daiichi plant (see padlet) (1)
o  Label and change the icon to a “radioactive” icon (1)
o  Include an image of the plant following the disaster (1)

o  Explain the causes of the disaster (4)
(7 marks)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transition of evacuation designated zones - 福島県ホームページ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Difficult-to-Return zones have beeen recognized in the Plans for Reconstruction and Revitalization for Special Zones. Accordingly, reconstruction and revitalization even in the Difficult-to-Return zones are already showing steady progress with remediation and construction underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Around the same time last year, Aizu-Wakamatsu in Fukushima was the highlight of my Japan trip so I thought that for my trip this year, I should return again to Fukushima. The Real Fukushima website popped up during my travel research and the next thing I know is that I scored myself a private tour [...]

# data[].attributes.body
6. The current exclusion zone (see Padlet kmz) (1)
o Label this layer (1)

o Explain the reasoning behind/purpose of this zone in the description after reading the Encyclopedia Britannica excerpt https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident (3)
(5 marks)

# data[].attributes.body
A 20km radius around Fukushima Daiichi (see radius generator on Padlet) (2)
o Label this layer (1)
o From the below Encylopedia Brittanica article, identify this zone’s original purpose https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident (1)
(4 marks)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You can use this tool to find the radius around a point on the map. First type in the radius required in kilometers or miles and then click on the map at the center of where you wish the circle to appear. You can then create as many radii as you wish.

Options

Instructions

Type in a radius required in the text box above.

[Zoom and Pan to find the required area on the map then click on the map to draw a circle] OR [Type a location into the text box and click Draw Radius] OR [Input the latitude and longitude of the location in decimal format].

Click as many times as necessary to draw multiple circles.

You can use the [Clear Map] button to erase all markers and radii and start again.

Use the "URL to last radius" text box to find a URL that will show the most recent radius on this page when opened in a web browser. This URL can be sent to anyone if you wish to forward it on.

Google Earth KML Output

You can now export all the drawn radii on the map to Google Earth for improved display and printing. You must have Google Earth installed (or another application capable of importing KML files). You need to have a radius displayed on the map before the output will work. Please report any bugs.

The procedure to Export to KML is as follows:

Draw one or more radii on the map as you see fit

Once ready, click the [Generate KML] button. You will probably need to scroll down the page to find this!

After a short delay, the KML file with download

You can then open the KML file in application such as Google Earth

Currently, the KML will include:

The same radius size and shape

Transparency of 50%

It will not include:

Shading colour (blue only, but you can change this once it is loaded into Google Earth)

Line colour (you can change this once it is loaded into Google Earth)

Line thickness (you can change this once it is loaded into Google Earth)

These features may be added later depending on feedback.

CSV Upload

The CSV option allows you to upload bulk points to the map. To do this you must format your points using the convention of latitude,longitude,radius per line where latitude and longitude are in decimal format and radius in km. Make sure to strip out any whitespace. You can upload as many lines as you wish, however more lines will take more time and every web browser will have its limits on the maximum number of lines (hence circles drawn) before things slow to a halt.

For Example...

51.538611,-0.016389,10
51.538611,-0.016389,15

..should add two radii around the Olympic stadium in London for 10km and 15km

Future Ideas

Ability to input nautical miles

URL link includes settings to show/hide the radius centre marker and resize grip

URL link to include the data for multiple radius

Version History

18th February 2018 - User settings are stored between settings. Radius, map type, fill color, line color and line thickness

11th October 2017 - KML output now includes the label (if defined) for each radius

2nd March 2017 - KML output now includes fill and line colours for each radius

2nd November 2016 - New CSV Output panel displays parameters of all radius drawn

31st October 2016 - New button to draw radius at current location

19th August 2016 - Bug fix : URL for multiple radius didn't appear when only drawing radius by place name

21st July 2016 - URL is now available for all radius drawn

25th February 2016 - URL now contains information about the map type so you can load the radius with different map types

4th May 2015 - Update to allow a resize after using method 2 or 3 to recalculate the Radius Distance

7th May 2013 - 2 new options added : URL loads full screen? AND URL loads unclickable map?

13th January 2013 - Label on marker now displays radius. You can now annotate markers.

15th February 2012 - Updates to layout of options

8th January 2012 - Added search for location text box

7th January 2012 - Resolved issue where the specified fill colour was not used if the draw by address or latitude/longitude was used

22nd December 2011 - Added full screen option. Fixed issue when dragging the centre point of a smaller radius

15th September 2011 - Added option to upload CSV text for bulk upload of multiple points

13th June 2011 - Fixed issue with clear fill having the same colour as the previously selected colour

7th June 2011 - Option to hide the resize grip

3rd June 2011 - Radii can now be resized while onscreen

23rd May 2011 - Radii can now be clicked to be drawn inside an existing radius

10th May 2011 - Static map output now uses Google Static Maps API V2. No key required. Will not output an URL > 2048 characters

9th May 2011 - Fixed issue with clear fill having a grey shade

15th April 2011 - Allow the last radius to be deleted (not just all at once)

3rd February 2011 - Export to KML now copes with multiple radii

20th January 2011 - Circumference and area now also output in miles and acres

29th December 2010 - Click on a marker to delete it

29th December 2010 - Allow markers to be dragged

29th December 2010 - Converted to Google Maps API V3

2nd June 2010 - Moved the scale control to the top of map to stop conflict with Google Search bar

27th January 2010 - Added Google Earth KML Output

13th October 2009 - Overlapping radii now supported

29th September 2009 - Added Google Search Bar to map. Added radius display on marker when you hover over the marker

24th September 2009 - Added URL to last radius function

17th September 2009 - Added Google Maps Static API Image Output

3rd January 2009 - Added latitude and longitude input option

29th September 2008 - Added clear fill option

9th September 2008 - Added Place radius by location name option and reworked some other functions

21st January 2008 - Improved circle reliability and added fill colour

15th October 2007 - Added area and circumference output

25th September 2007 - Added different colour's, change thickness, show/hide center marker, change map height and print the page

13th September 2007 - Now works with IE

22nd July 2008 - Added option to use miles as radius input

30th June 2007 - Clear Map button added

29th June 2007 - Page created with basic functionality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You can use this tool to find the radius around a point on the map. First type in the radius required in kilometers or miles and then click on the map at the center of where you wish the circle to appear. You can then create as many radii as you wish.

# data[].attributes.headline
24/5/18                                                         Fukushima Mapping Case Study SAC 3

# data[].attributes.subject
24/5/18                                                         Fukushima Mapping Case Study SAC 3

# data[].attributes.body
Title your work: [NameSurname]_FukushimaMappingCaseStudy_SAC3

Share immediately with: dcoates@mackillop.vic.edu.au

Allowed sites/tools:

Padlet (links too)                     Unit 1 textbook                      Google images                       Google Maps

Task overview: In 100 minutes create a map using Google maps that includes the following layers and information regarding the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

See attached document or questions to see marking scheme

# data[].attributes.body
3. The location of the world’s tectonic plates (see Padlet kmz) (1)
(1 mark)

# data[].attributes.body
-Read pages 38-39 (unit 1 textbook)
-Complete questions 1-6 on page 39

# data[].attributes.body
-Read pages 34- 37 (unit 1 textbook)
-Create notes on the material read

Keep in mind: What is it? Why does it happen? What are its impacts?

# data[].attributes.body
Read pages 28-31 (unit 1 textbook)
-Complete questions 1 and 2 on page 33

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VCE Year 11 Geography Fukushima Response Evaluation.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Mainichi)

A subterranean ice wall surrounding the nuclear reactors at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant to block groundwater from flowing in and out of the plant buildings has approached completion.

This photo shows pipes to freeze soil for the ice wall next to the No. 4 reactor at TEPCO's Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, on June 1, 2016. (Mainichi)

Initially, the ice wall was lauded as a trump card in controlling radioactively contaminated water at the plant in Fukushima Prefecture, which was crippled by meltdowns in the wake of the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami. But while 34.5 billion yen from government coffers has already been invested in the wall, doubts remain about its effectiveness. Meanwhile, the issue of water contamination looms over decommissioning work.

In a news conference at the end of July, Naohiro Masuda, president and chief decommissioning officer of Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination & Decommissioning Engineering Co., stated, "We feel that the ice wall is becoming quite effective." However, he had no articulate answer when pressed for concrete details, stating, "I can't say how effective."

A worker makes checks with a hammer on an impermeable wall near TEPCO's No. 4 reactor in the town of Okuma in Fukushima Prefecture on Feb. 24, 2017. (Mainichi)

The ice wall is created by circulating a coolant with a temperature of minus 30 degrees Celsius through 1,568 pipes that extend to a depth of 30 meters below the surface around the plant's reactors. The soil around the pipes freezes to form a wall, which is supposed to stop groundwater from flowing into the reactor buildings where it becomes contaminated. A total of 260,000 people have worked on creating the wall. The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) began freezing soil in March last year, and as of Aug. 15, at least 99 percent of the wall had been completed, leaving just a 7-meter section to be frozen.

Soon after the outbreak of the nuclear disaster, about 400 tons of contaminated water was being produced each day. That figure has now dropped to roughly 130 tons. This is largely due to the introduction of a subdrain system in which water is drawn from about 40 wells around the reactor buildings. As for the ice wall, TEPCO has not provided any concrete information on its effectiveness. An official of the Secretariat of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) commented, "The subdrain performs the primary role, and the ice wall will probably be effective enough to supplement that." This indicates that officials have largely backtracked from their designation of the ice wall as an effective means of battling contaminated water, and suggests there is unlikely to be a dramatic decrease in the amount of decontaminated groundwater once the ice wall is fully operational.

TEPCO ordered construction of the ice wall in May 2013 as one of several plans proposed by major construction firms that was selected by the government's Committee on Countermeasures for Contaminated Water Treatment. In autumn of that year Tokyo was bidding to host the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the government sought to come to the fore and underscore its measures to deal with contaminated water on the global stage.

Using taxpayers' money to cover an incident at a private company raised the possibility of a public backlash. But one official connected with the Committee on Countermeasures for Contaminated Water Treatment commented, "It was accepted that public funds could be spent if those funds were for the ice wall, which was a challenging project that had not been undertaken before." Small-scale ice walls had been created in the past, but the scale of this one -- extending 1.5 kilometers and taking years to complete -- was unprecedented.

At first, the government and TEPCO explained that an ice wall could be created more quickly than a wall of clay and other barriers, and that if anything went wrong, the wall could be melted, returning the soil to its original state. However, fears emerged that if the level of groundwater around the reactor buildings drops as a result of the ice wall blocking the groundwater, then tainted water inside the reactor buildings could end up at a higher level, causing it to leak outside the building. Officials decided to freeze the soil in stages to measure the effects and effectiveness of the ice wall. As a result, full-scale operation of the wall -- originally slated for fiscal 2015 -- has been significantly delayed.

Furthermore, during screening by the NRA, which had approved the project, experts raised doubts about how effective the ice wall would be in blocking groundwater. The ironic reason for approving its full-scale operation, in the words of NRA acting head Toyoshi Fuketa, was that, "It has not been effective in blocking water, so we can go ahead with freezing with peace of mind" -- without worrying that the level of groundwater surrounding the reactor buildings will decrease, causing the contaminated water inside to flow out.

Maintaining the ice wall will cost over a billion yen a year, and the radiation exposure of workers involved in its maintenance is high. Meanwhile, there are no immediate prospects of being able to repair the basement damage in the reactor buildings at the crippled nuclear plant.

Nagoya University professor emeritus Akira Asaoka commented, "The way things stand, we'll have to keep maintaining an ice wall that isn't very effective. We should consider a different type of wall."

In the meantime, TEPCO continues to be plagued over what to do with treated water at the plant. Tainted water is treated using TEPCO's multi-nuclide removal equipment to remove 62 types of radioactive substances, but in principle, tritium cannot be removed during this process. Tritium is produced in nature through cosmic rays, and nuclear facilities around the world release it into the sea. The NRA takes the view that there is no problem with releasing treated water into the sea, but there is strong resistance to such a move, mainly from local fishing workers who are concerned about consumer fears that could damage their businesses. TEPCO has built tanks on the grounds of the Fukushima No. 1 plant to hold treated water, and the amount they hold is approaching 800,000 metric tons.

In mid-July, TEPCO Chairman Takashi Kawamura said in an interview with several news organizations that a decision to release the treated water into the sea had "already been made." A Kyodo News report on his comment stirred a backlash from members of the fishing industry. TEPCO responded with an explanation that the chairman was not stating a course of action, but was merely agreeing with the view of the NRA that there were no problems scientifically with releasing the treated water. However, the anger from his comment has not subsided.

Critical opinions emerged in a subsequent meeting that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry held in the Fukushima Prefecture city of Iwaki at the end of July regarding the decontamination of reactors and the handling of contaminated water. It was pointed out that prefectural residents had united to combat consumer fears and that they wanted officials to act with care. One participant asked whether the TEPCO chairman really knew about Fukushima.

The ministry has been considering ways to handle the treated water, setting up a committee in November last year that includes experts on risk evaluation and sociology. As of Aug. 15, five meetings had been held, but officials have yet to converge on a single opinion. "It's not that easy for us to say, 'Please let us release it.' It will probably take some time to reach a conclusion," a government official commented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High-priced Fukushima ice wall nears completion, but effectiveness doubtful - The Mainichi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A subterranean ice wall surrounding the nuclear reactors at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant to block groundwater from flowing in and out of the plant buildings has approached completion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than seven years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled No. 1 plant at a rate of around 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found.

The amount of leaking cesium 137 has decreased from some 30 billion becquerels in 2013, Michio Aoyama, a professor at the Institute of Environmental Radioactivity at Fukushima University, said in his study, which was presented Wednesday at an academic conference in Osaka.

The study said the concentration of radiation - 0.02 becquerel per liter of seawater found in samples collected near a coastal town 8 km south of the No. 1 plant - is at a level that does not affect the local fishing industry.

The radioactive water is generated in a process to cool melted nuclear fuel at three damaged reactors at the complex. The reactors experienced core meltdowns after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

"It can be assumed that there is a path from the complex to the ocean" through which contaminated water flows, Aoyama said.

The water accumulates in the basements of the buildings at the site after being used to cool the melted fuel.

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., the operator of the Fukushima complex, has been trying to prevent contaminated water from increasing within the facilities by building an underground ice wall in an effort to block ground water. It has also built a seawall aimed at preventing contaminated water from entering the ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds | The Japan Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than seven years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled No. 1 plant at a rate of around 2 billion becquerels a day, a study has found.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.

The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).

Four reactors were written off due to damage in the accident - 2719 MWe net.

After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid-December.

Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.

There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes to ensure this. Government nervousness delays the return of many.

Official figures show that there have been well over 1000 deaths from maintaining the evacuation, in contrast to little risk from radiation if early return had been allowed.

The Great East Japan Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 did considerable damage in the region, and the large tsunami it created caused very much more. The earthquake was centred 130 km offshore the city of Sendai in Miyagi prefecture on the eastern cost of Honshu Island (the main part of Japan), and was a rare and complex double quake giving a severe duration of about 3 minutes. An area of the seafloor extending 650 km north-south moved typically 10-20 metres horizontally. Japan moved a few metres east and the local coastline subsided half a metre. The tsunami inundated about 560 sq km and resulted in a human death toll of about 19,000 and much damage to coastal ports and towns, with over a million buildings destroyed or partly collapsed.

Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the quake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake. The operating units which shut down were Tokyo Electric Power Company's (Tepco) Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, 3, and Fukushima Daini 1, 2, 3, 4, Tohoku's Onagawa 1, 2, 3, and Japco's Tokai, total 9377 MWe net. Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5&6 were not operating at the time, but were affected. The main problem initially centred on Fukushima Daiichi units 1-3. Unit 4 became a problem on day five.

The reactors proved robust seismically, but vulnerable to the tsunami. Power, from grid or backup generators, was available to run the residual heat removal (RHR) system cooling pumps at eight of the eleven units, and despite some problems they achieved 'cold shutdown' within about four days. The other three, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power at 3.42 pm, almost an hour after the quake, when the entire site was flooded by the 15-metre tsunami. This disabled 12 of 13 back-up generators on site and also the heat exchangers for dumping reactor waste heat and decay heat to the sea. The three units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions. Electrical switchgear was also disabled. Thereafter, many weeks of focused work centred on restoring heat removal from the reactors and coping with overheated spent fuel ponds. This was undertaken by hundreds of Tepco employees as well as some contractors, supported by firefighting and military personnel. Some of the Tepco staff had lost homes, and even families, in the tsunami, and were initially living in temporary accommodation under great difficulties and privation, with some personal risk. A hardened emergency response centre on site was unable to be used in grappling with the situation, due to radioactive contamination.

Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami, but there have been no fatalities from the nuclear accident.

Among hundreds of aftershocks, an earthquake with magnitude 7.1, closer to Fukushima than the 11 March one, was experienced on 7 April, but without further damage to the plant. On 11 April a magnitude 7.1 earthquake and on 12 April a magnitude 6.3 earthquake, both with epicenter at Fukushima-Hamadori, caused no further problems.

The two Fukushima plants and their siting

The Daiichi (first) and Daini (second) Fukushima plants are sited about 11 km apart on the coast, Daini to the south.

The recorded seismic data for both plants - some 180 km from the epicentre - shows that 550 Gal (0.56 g) was the maximum ground acceleration for Daiichi, and 254 Gal was maximum for Daini. Daiichi units 2, 3 and 5 exceeded their maximum response acceleration design basis in E-W direction by about 20%. The recording was over 130-150 seconds. (All nuclear plants in Japan are built on rock - ground acceleration was around 2000 Gal a few kilometres north, on sediments).

The original design basis tsunami height was 3.1 m for Daiichi based on assessment of the 1960 Chile tsunami and so the plant had been built about 10 metres above sea level with the seawater pumps 4 m above sea level. The Daini plant was built 13 metres above sea level. In 2002 the design basis was revised to 5.7 metres above, and the seawater pumps were sealed. In the event, tsunami heights coming ashore were about 15 metres, and the Daiichi turbine halls were under some 5 metres of seawater until levels subsided. Daini was less affected. The maximum amplitude of this tsunami was 23 metres at point of origin, about 180 km from Fukushima.

In the last century there have been eight tsunamis in the region with maximum amplitudes at origin above 10 metres (some much more), these having arisen from earthquakes of magnitude 7.7 to 8.4, on average one every 12 years. Those in 1983 and in 1993 were the most recent affecting Japan, with maximum heights at origin of 14.5 metres and 31 metres respectively, both induced by magnitude 7.7 earthquakes. The June 1896 earthquake of estimated magnitude 8.3 produced a tsunami with run-up height of 38 metres in Tohoku region, killing more than 27,000 people.

The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed and sited in the 1960s were considered acceptable in relation to the scientific knowledge then, with low recorded run-up heights for that particular coastline. But some 18 years before the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge had emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami of some 15.7 metres at the Daiichi site. However, this had not yet led to any major action by either the plant operator, Tepco, or government regulators, notably the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Discussion was ongoing, but action minimal. The tsunami countermeasures could also have been reviewed in accordance with IAEA guidelines which required taking into account high tsunami levels, but NISA continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures such as moving the backup generators up the hill, sealing the lower part of the buildings, and having some back-up for seawater pumps, despite clear warnings.

A report from the Japanese government's Earthquake Research Committee on earthquakes and tsunamis off the Pacific coastline of northeastern Japan in February 2011 was due for release in April, and might finally have brought about changes. The document includes analysis of a magnitude 8.3 earthquake that is known to have struck the region more than 1140 years ago, triggering enormous tsunamis that flooded vast areas of Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. The report concludes that the region should be alerted of the risk of a similar disaster striking again. The 11 March earthquake measured magnitude 9.0 and involved substantial shifting of multiple sections of seabed over a source area of 200 x 400 km. Tsunami waves devastated wide areas of Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures.
(See also background on Earthquakes and Seismic Protection for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan)
Events at Fukushima Daiichi 1-3 & 4

It appears that no serious damage was done to the reactors by the earthquake, and the operating units 1-3 were automatically shut down in response to it, as designed. At the same time all six external power supply sources were lost due to earthquake damage, so the emergency diesel generators located in the basements of the turbine buildings started up. Initially cooling would have been maintained through the main steam circuit bypassing the turbine and going through the condensers.

Then 41 minutes later, at 3:42 pm, the first tsunami wave hit, followed by a second 8 minutes later. These submerged and damaged the seawater pumps for both the main condenser circuits and the auxiliary cooling circuits, notably the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) cooling system. They also drowned the diesel generators and inundated the electrical switchgear and batteries, all located in the basements of the turbine buildings (the one surviving air-cooled generator was serving units 5 & 6). So there was a station blackout, and the reactors were isolated from their ultimate heat sink. The tsunamis also damaged and obstructed roads, making outside access difficult.

All this put those reactors 1-3 in a dire situation and led the authorities to order, and subsequently extend, an evacuation while engineers worked to restore power and cooling. The 125-volt DC back-up batteries for units 1 & 2 were flooded and failed, leaving them without instrumentation, control or lighting. Unit 3 had battery power for about 30 hours.

At 7.03 pm Friday 11 March a Nuclear Emergency was declared, and at 8.50pm the Fukushima Prefecture issued an evacuation order for people within 2 km of the plant. At 9.23 pm the Prime Minister extended this to 3 km, and at 5.44 am on 12th he extended it to 10 km. He visited the plant soon after. On Saturday 12th he extended the evacuation zone to 20 km.

Inside the Fukushima Daiichi reactors

The Fukushima Daiichi reactors are GE boiling water reactors (BWR) of an early (1960s) design supplied by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi, with what is known as a Mark I containment. Reactors 1-3 came into commercial operation 1971-75. Reactor capacity is 460 MWe for unit 1, 784 MWe for units 2-5, and 1100 MWe for unit 6.

When the power failed at 3.42 pm, about one hour after shutdown of the fission reactions, the reactor cores would still be producing about 1.5% of their nominal thermal power, from fission product decay - about 22 MW in unit 1 and 33 MW in units 2&3. Without heat removal by circulation to an outside heat exchanger, this produced a lot of steam in the reactor pressure vessels housing the cores, and this was released into the dry primary containment (PCV) through safety valves. Later this was accompanied by hydrogen, produced by the interaction of the fuel's very hot zirconium cladding with steam after the water level dropped.

As pressure started to rise here, the steam was directed into the suppression chamber/ wetwell under the reactor, within the containment, but the internal temperature and pressure nevertheless rose quite rapidly. Water injection commenced, using the various systems provide for this and finally the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). These systems progressively failed over three days, so from early Saturday water injection to the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) was with fire pumps, but this required the internal pressures to be relieved initially by venting into the suppression chamber/ wetwell. Seawater injection into unit 1 began at 7pm on Saturday 12th, into unit 3 on 13th and unit 2 on 14th. Tepco management ignored an instruction from the prime minister to cease the seawater injection into unit 1, and this instruction was withdrawn shortly afterwards.

Inside unit 1, it is understood that the water level dropped to the top of the fuel about three hours after the scram (about 6 pm) and the bottom of the fuel 1.5 hours later (7.30 pm). The temperature of the exposed fuel rose to some 2800°C so that the central part started to melt after a few hours and by 16 hours after the scram (7 am Saturday) most of it had fallen into the water at the bottom of the RPV. After that, RPV temperatures decreased steadily.

As pressure rose, attempts were made to vent the containment, and when external power and compressed air sources were harnessed this was successful, by about 2.30 pm Saturday, though some manual venting was apparently achieved at about 10.17 am. The venting was designed to be through an external stack, but in the absence of power much of it apparently backflowed to the service floor at the top of the reactor building, representing a serious failure of this system (though another possibility is leakage from the drywell). The vented steam, noble gases and aerosols were accompanied by hydrogen. At 3.36 pm on Saturday 12th, there was a hydrogen explosion on the service floor of the building above unit 1 reactor containment, blowing off the roof and cladding on the top part of the building, after the hydrogen mixed with air and ignited. (Oxidation of the zirconium cladding at high temperatures in the presence of steam produces hydrogen exothermically, with this exacerbating the fuel decay heat problem.)

In unit 1 most of the core - as corium comprised of melted fuel and control rods - was assumed to be in the bottom of the RPV, but later it appeared that it had mostly gone through the bottom of the RPV and eroded about 65 cm into the drywell concrete below (which is 2.6 m thick). This reduced the intensity of the heat and enabled the mass to solidify.

Much of the fuel in units 2&3 also apparently melted to some degree, but to a lesser extent than in unit 1, and a day or two later. In mid-May 2011 the unit 1 core would still be producing 1.8 MW of heat, and units 2&3 would be producing about 3.0 MW each.

In mid-2013 the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) confirmed that the earthquake itself had caused no damage to unit 1.

In unit 2, water injection using the steam-driven back-up water injection system failed on Monday 14th, and it was about six hours before a fire pump started injecting seawater into the RPV. Before the fire pump could be used RPV pressure had to be relieved via the wetwell, which required power and nitrogen, hence the delay. Meanwhile the reactor water level dropped rapidly after back-up cooling was lost, so that core damage started about 8 pm, and it is now provisionally understood that much of the fuel then melted and probably fell into the water at the bottom of the RPV about 100 hours after the scram. Pressure was vented on 13th and again on 15th, and meanwhile the blowout panel near the top of the building was opened to avoid a repetition of unit 1 hydrogen explosion. Early on Tuesday 15th, the pressure suppression chamber under the actual reactor seemed to rupture, possibly due to a hydrogen explosion there, and the drywell containment pressure inside dropped. However, subsequent inspection of the suppression chamber did not support the rupture interpretation. Later analysis suggested that a leak of the primary containment developed on Tuesday 15th. Most of the radioactive releases from the site appeared to come from unit 2.

In Unit 3, the main back-up water injection system failed at about 11 am on Saturday 12 th and early on Sunday 13 th, water injection using the high pressure system failedalsoand water levels dropped dramatically. RPV pressure was reduced by venting steam into the wetwell, allowing injection of seawater using a fire pump from just before noon. Early on Sunday venting the suppression chamber and containment was successfully undertaken. It is now understood that core damage started about 5:30 am and much or all of the fuel melted on the morning of Sunday 13 th and fell into the bottom of the RPV, with some probably going through the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel and onto the concrete below.

Early on Monday 14 th PCV venting was repeated, and this evidently backflowed to the service floor of the building, so that at 11 am a very large hydrogen explosion here above unit 3 reactor containment blew off much of the roof and walls and demolished the top part of the building. This explosion created a lot of debris, and some of that on the ground near unit 3 was very radioactive.

In defuelled unit 4, at about 6 am on Tuesday 15 March, there was an explosion which destroyed the top of the building and damaged unit 3's superstructure further. This was apparently from hydrogen arising in unit 3 and reaching unit 4 by backflow in shared ducts when vented from unit 3.

Units 1-3: Water has been injected into each of the three reactor units more or less continuously, and in the absence of normal heat removal via external heat exchanger this water was boiling off for some months. In the government report to IAEA in June it was estimated that to the end of May about 40% of the injected water boiled off, and 60% leaked out the bottom. In June 2011 this was adding to the contaminated water on site by about 500 m 3 per day. In January 2013 4.5 to 5.5 m 3/hr was being added to each RPV via core spray and feed water systems, hence 370 m3 per day, and temperatures at the bottom of RPVs were 19°C in unit 1 and 32°C in units 2&3, at little above atmospheric pressure.

There was a peak of radioactive release on 15th, apparently mostly from unit 2, but the precise source remains uncertain. Due to volatile and easily-airborne fission products being carried with the hydrogen and steam, the venting and hydrogen explosions discharged a lot of radioactive material into the atmosphere, notably iodine and caesium. NISA said in June that it estimated that 800-1000 kg of hydrogen had been produced in each of the units.

Nitrogen is being injected into the containment vessels (PCVs) of all three reactors to remove concerns about further hydrogen explosions, and in December this was started also for the pressure vessels. Gas control systems which extract and clean the gas from the PCV to avoid leakage of caesium have been commissioned for all three units.

Throughout 2011 injection into the RPVs of water circulated through the new water treatment plant achieved relatively effective cooling, and temperatures at the bottom of the RPVs were stable in the range 60-76°C at the end of October, and 27-54°C in mid-January 2012. RPV pressures ranged from atmospheric to slightly above (102-109 kPa) in January, due to water and nitrogen injection. However, since they are leaking, the normal definition of "cold shutdown" does not apply, and Tepco waited to bring radioactive releases under control before declaring "cold shutdown condition" in mid-December, with NISA's approval. This, with the prime minister's announcement of it, formally brought to a close the 'accident' phase of events.

The AC electricity supply from external source was connected to all units by 22 March. Power was restored to instrumentation in all units except unit 3 by 25 March. However, radiation levels inside the plant were so high that normal access was impossible until June.

Event sequence following earthquake (timing from it: 14:46, 11 March)

Tepco has written off the four reactors damaged by the accident, and is decommissioning them.

By March 2016 total decay heat in units 1-3 had dropped to 1 MW for all three, about 1% of the original level, meaning that cooling water injection - then 100 m 3/d - could be interrupted for up to two days.

Results of muon measurements in unit 2 in 2016 indicate that most of the fuel debris in unit 2 is in the bottom of the reactor vessel.

Summary: Major fuel melting occurred early on in all three units, though the fuel remains essentially contained except for some volatile fission products vented early on, or released from unit 2 in mid-March, and some soluble ones which were leaking with the water, especially from unit 2, where the containment is evidently breached. Cooling is provided from external sources, using treated recycled water, with a stable heat removal path from the actual reactors to external heat sinks. Temperatures at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessels have decreased to well below boiling point and are stable. Access has been gained to all three reactor buildings, but dose rates remain high inside. Nitrogen is being injected into all three containment vessels and pressure vessels. Tepco declared "cold shutdown condition" in mid-December 2011 when radioactive releases had reduced to minimal levels.

(See also background on nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi.)

Fuel ponds: developing problems

Used fuel needs to be cooled and shielded. This is initially by water, in ponds. After about three years under water, used fuel can be transferred to dry storage, with air ventilation simply by convection. Used fuel generates heat, so the water is circulated by electric pumps through external heat exchangers, so that the heat is dumped and a low temperature maintained. There are fuel ponds near the top of all six reactor buildings at the Daiichi plant, adjacent to the top of each reactor so that the fuel can be unloaded under water when the top is off the reactor pressure vessel and it is flooded. The ponds hold some fresh fuel and some used fuel, the latter pending its transfer to the central used/spent fuel storage on site. (There is some dry storage on site to extend the plant's capacity.)

At the time of the accident, in addition to a large number of used fuel assemblies, unit 4's pond also held a full core load of 548 fuel assemblies while the reactor was undergoing maintenance, these having been removed at the end of November, and were to be repplaced in the core.

A separate set of problems arose as the fuel ponds, holding fresh and used fuel in the upper part of the reactor structures, were found to be depleted in water. The primary cause of the low water levels was loss of cooling circulation to external heat exchangers, leading to elevated temperatures and probably boiling, especially in heavily-loaded unit 4. Here the fuel would have been uncovered in about 7 days due to water boiling off. However, the fact that unit 4 was unloaded meant that there was a large inventory of water at the top of the structure, and enough of this replenished the fuel pond to prevent the fuel becoming uncovered - the minimum level reached was about 1.2 m above the fuel on about 22 April.

After the hydrogen explosion in unit 4 early on Tuesday 15 March, Tepco was told to implement injection of water to unit 4 pond which had a particularly high heat load (3 MW) from 1331 used fuel assemblies in it, so it was the main focus of concern. It needed the addition of about 100 m 3/day to replenish it after circulation ceased.

From Tuesday 15 March attention was given to replenishing the water in the ponds of units 1, 2, 3 as well. Initially this was attempted with fire pumps but from 22 March a concrete pump with 58-metre boom enabled more precise targeting of water through the damaged walls of the service floors. There was some use of built-in plumbing for unit 2. Analysis of radionuclides in water from the used fuel ponds suggested that some of the fuel assemblies might be damaged, but the majority were intact.

There was concern about structural strength of unit 4 building, so support for the pond was reinforced by the end of July.

New cooling circuits with heat exchangers adjacent to the reactor buildings for all four ponds were commissioned after a few months, and each reduced the pool temperature from 70°C to normal in a few days. Each has a primary circuit within the reactor and waste treatment buildings and a secondary circuit dumping heat through a small dry cooling tower outside the building.

The next task was to remove the salt from those ponds which had seawater added, to reduce the potential for corrosion.

In July 2012 two of the 204 fresh fuel assemblies were removed from the unit 4 pool and transferred to the central spent fuel pool for detailed inspection to check damage, particularly corrosion. They were found to have no deformation or corrosion. Unloading the 1331 spent fuel assemblies in pond 4 and transferring them to the central spent fuel storage commenced in mid-November 2013 and was completed 13 months later. These comprised 783 spent fuel plus the full fuel load of 548.

The next focus of attention was the unit 3 pool. In 2015 the damaged fuel handling equipment and other wreckage was removed from the destroyed upper level of the reactor building. Toshiba has built a 74-tonne fuel handling machine for transferring the 566 fuel assemblies into casks and to remove debris in the pool, and a crane for lifting the fuel transfer casks. Installation of a cover over the fuel handling machine was completed in February 2018.

The onsite central spent fuel pool in 2011 held about 60% of the Daiichi used fuel, and is immediately west (inland) of unit 4. It lost circulation with the power outage, and temperature increased to 73°C by the time mains power and cooling were restored after two weeks. In late 2013 this pond, with capacity for 6840*, held 6375 fuel assemblies, the same as at the time of the accident. The older ones will be transferred to 65 casks in dry storage, with total capacity of at least 2930 assemblies - each dry cask holds 50 fuel assemblies. Eventually these will be shipped to JNFL's Rokkasho reprocessing plant or to Recyclable Fuel Storage Company's new Mutsu facility. The dry storage area held 408 fuel assemblies at the time of the accident, and 1004 have been transferred there since (to mid-2014).

Summary: The spent fuel storage pools survived the earthquake, tsunami and hydrogen explosions without significant damage to the fuel or significant radiological release, or threat to public safety. The new cooling circuits with external heat exchangers for the four ponds are working well. Temperatures are normal. Analysis of water has confirmed that most fuel rods are intact. All fuel assemblies have been removed from unit 4 pool. Those at unit 3 will be removed next.

(See also background on Fukushima Fuel Ponds and Decommissioning section below.)

Radioactive releases to air

Regarding releases to air and also water leakage from Fukushima Daiichi, the main radionuclide from among the many kinds of fission products in the fuel was volatile iodine-131, which has a half-life of 8 days. The other main radionuclide is caesium-137, which has a 30-year half-life, is easily carried in a plume, and when it lands it may contaminate land for some time. It is a strong gamma-emitter in its decay. Cs-134 is also produced and dispersed, it has a two-year half-life. Caesium is soluble and can be taken into the body, but does not concentrate in any particular organs, and has a biological half-life of about 70 days. In assessing the significance of atmospheric releases, the Cs-137 figure is multiplied by 40 and added to the I-131 number to give an "iodine-131 equivalent" figure.

As cooling failed on the first day, evacuations were progressively ordered, due to uncertainty about what was happening inside the reactors and the possible effects. By the evening of Saturday 12 March the evacuation zone had been extended to 20 km from the plant. From 20 to 30 km from the plant, the criterion of 20 mSv/yr dose rate was applied to determine evacuation, and is now the criterion for return being allowed. 20 mSv/yr was also the general limit set for children's dose rate related to outdoor activities, but there were calls to reduce this.In areas with 20-50 mSv/yr from April 2012 residency is restricted, with remediation action taken. See later section on Public health and return of evacuees.

A significant problem in tracking radioactive release was that 23 out of the 24 radiation monitoring stations on the plant site were disabled by the tsunami.

There is some uncertainty about the amount and exact sources of radioactive releases to air. (See also background on Radiation Exposure.)

Japan's regulator, the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), estimated in June 2011 that 770 PBq (iodine-131 equivalent) of radioactivity had been released, but the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC, a policy body) in August lowered this estimate to 570 PBq. The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent. Most of the release was by the end of March 2011.

Tepco sprayed a dust-suppressing polymer resin around the plant to ensure that fallout from mid-March was not mobilized by wind or rain. In addition it removed a lot of rubble with remote control front-end loaders, and this further reduced ambient radiation levels, halving them near unit 1. The highest radiation levels on site came from debris left on the ground after the explosions at units 3&4.

Reactor covers

In mid-May 2011 work started towards constructing a cover over unit 1 to reduce airborne radioactive releases from the site, to keep out the rain, and to enable measurement of radioactive releases within the structure through its ventilation system. The frame was assembled over the reactor, enclosing an area 42 x 47 m, and 54 m high. The sections of the steel frame fitted together remotely without the use of screws and bolts. All the wall panels had a flameproof coating, and the structure had a filtered ventilation system capable of handling 40,000 cubic metres of air per hour through six lines, including two backup lines. The cover structure was fitted with internal monitoring cameras, radiation and hydrogen detectors, thermometers and a pipe for water injection. The cover was completed with ventilation systems working by the end of October 2011. It was expected to be needed for two years. In May 2013 Tepco announced its more permanent replacement, to be built over four years. It started demolishing the 2011 cover in 2014 and finished in 2016. It then plans to remove concrete and other rubble on the top floor of the building. A crane and other equipment for fuel removal would then be installed in a new cover over the building, similar to that over unit 4.

More substantial covers were designed to fit around units 3&4 reactor buildings after the top floors were cleared up in 2012.

A cantilevered structure was built over unit 4 from April 2012 to July 2013 to enable recovery of the contents of the spent fuel pond. This is 69 x 31 m cover (53 m high) and it was fully equipped by the end of 2013 to enable unloading of used fuel from the storage pond into casks, each holding 22 fuel assemblies, and removal of the casks. This operation was accomplished under water, using the new fuel handling machine (replacing the one destroyed by the hydrogen explosion) so that the used fuel could be transferred to the central storage on site. Transfer was completed in December 2014. Animation video of the process here.

A different design of cover is being built over unit 3, and foundation work had begun in 2012. Large rubble removal took place from 2013 to 2015, including the damaged fuel handling machine. An arched cover has been prefabricated, 57 m long and 19 m wide, to be supported by the turbine building on one side and the ground on the other. A crane to remove the 566 fuel assemblies from the pool will be fitted, with its operation removing some remaining rubble. Toshiba's 74-tonne fuel handling machine for transferring the fuel assemblies into casks is expected be installed in 2017, and the fuel is to be removed from mid-2018. Fuel debris retrieval from within the reactor is scheduled from about 2021, after that from units 1&2 is started.

Spent fuel removal from units 1&2 pools is scheduled in 2018, and fuel debris retrieval from within the reactors from 2020.

Tests on radioactivity in rice have been made and caesium was found in a few of them. The highest levels were about one quarter of the allowable limit of 500 Bq/kg, so shipments to market are permitted.

Maps from MEXT aerial surveys carried out approximately one year apart show the reduction in contamination from late 2011 to late 2012. Areas with colour changes in 2012 showed approximately half the contamination as surveyed in 2011, the difference coming from decay of caesium-134 (two year half-life) and natural processes like wind and rain. In blue areas, ambient radiation is very similar to global background levels at <0.5uSv/h which is equal to <4.38 mSv/y.

Summary: Major releases of radionuclides, including long-lived caesium, occurred to air, mainly in mid-March. The population within a 20km radius had been evacuated three days earlier. Considerable work was done to reduce the amount of radioactive debris on site and to stabilise dust. The main source of radioactive releases was the apparent hydrogen explosion in the suppression chamber of unit 2 on 15 March. A cover building for unit 1 reactor was built and is now being dismantled, a more substantial one for unit 4 was built to enable fuel removal during 2014. Radioactive releases in mid-August 2011 had reduced to 5 GBq/hr, and dose rate from these at the plant boundary was 1.7 mSv/yr, less than natural background.

Sequence of evacuation orders based on the report by The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission:

11 March
14:46 JST The earthquake occurred.
15:42 TEPCO made the first emergency report to the government.
19:03 The government announced nuclear emergency.
20:50 The Fukushima Prefecture Office ordered 2km radius evacuation.
21:23 The government ordered 3km evacuation and to keep staying inside buildings in the area of 3-10km radius.

12 March
05:44 The government ordered 10km radius evacuation.
18:25 The government ordered 20km evacuation.

15 March
11:01 The government ordered to keep staying inside buildings in the area of 20-30km from the plant.

25 March The government requested voluntary evacuation in the area of 20-30km.

21 April The government set the 20km radius no-go area.

Radiation exposure on the plant site

By the end of 2011, Tepco had checked the radiation exposure of 19,594 people who had worked on the site since 11 March. For many of these both external dose and internal doses (measured with whole-body counters) were considered. It reported that 167 workers had received doses over 100 mSv. Of these 135 had received 100 to 150 mSv, 23 150-200 mSv, three more 200-250 mSv, and six had received over 250 mSv (309 to 678 mSv) apparently due to inhaling iodine-131 fume early on. The latter included the two unit 3-4 control room operators in the first two days who had not been wearing breathing apparatus. There were up to 200 workers on site each day. Recovery workers are wearing personal monitors, with breathing apparatus and protective clothing which protect against alpha and beta radiation. So far over 3500 of some 3700 workers at the damaged Daiichi plant have received internal check-ups for radiation exposure, giving whole body count estimates. The level of 250 mSv was the allowable maximum short-term dose for Fukushima Daiichi accident clean-up workers through to December 2011, 500 mSv is the international allowable short-term dose "for emergency workers taking life-saving actions". Since January 2012 the allowable maximum has reverted to 50 mSv/yr.

Tepco figures submitted to NRA for the period to end January 2014 showed 173 workers had received more than 100 mSv (six more than two years earlier) and 1578 had received 50 to 100 mSv. This was among a total of 32,024, 64% more than had worked there two years earlier. Since April 2013 none of the 13,154 who had worked on site had received more than 50 mSv, and 96% of these had less than 20 mSv dose. Early in 2014 there were about 4000 on site each weekday.

No radiation casualties (acute radiation syndrome) occurred, and few other injuries, though higher than normal doses were being accumulated by several hundred workers on site. High radiation levels in the three reactor buildings has hindered access there.

Monitoring of seawater, soil and atmosphere is at 25 locations on the plant site, 12 locations on the boundary, and others further afield. Government and IAEA monitoring of air and seawater is ongoing. Some high but not health-threatening levels of iodine-131 were found in March, but with an eight-day half-life, most I-131 had gone by the end of April 2011.

A radiation survey map of the site made in March 2013 revealed substantial progress: the highest dose rate anywhere on the site was 0.15 mSv/h near units 3 and 4. (Soon after the accident a similar survey put the highest dose rate at 300 mSv/h near rubble lying alongside unit 3.) The majority of the power plant area was at less than 0.01 mSv/h. These reduced levels are reflected in worker doses: during January 2013, the 5702 workers at the site received an average of 0.86 mSv, with 75% of workers recorded as receiving less than 1 mSv. In total, only about 2% of workers received over 5 mSv and the highest dose in January was 12.65 mSv for one worker.

Media reports have referred to "nuclear gypsies" - casual workers employed by subcontractors on a short-term basis, and allegedly prone to receiving higher and unsupervised radiation doses. This transient workforce has been part of the nuclear scene for at least four decades, and at Fukushima their doses are very rigorously monitored. If they reach certain levels, e.g. 30 mSv but varying according to circumstance, they are reassigned to lower-exposure areas.

Summary: Six workers received radiation doses apparently over the 250 mSv level set by NISA, but at levels below those which would cause radiation sickness.

Radiation exposure and fallout beyond the plant site

On 4 April 2011, radiation levels of 0.06 mSv/day were recorded in Fukushima city, 65 km northwest of the plant, about 60 times higher than normal but posing no health risk according to authorities. Monitoring beyond the 20 km evacuation radius to 13 April showed one location - around Iitate - with up to 0.266 mSv/day dose rate, but elsewhere no more than one-tenth of this. At the end of July the highest level measured within 30km radius was 0.84 mSv/day in Namie town, 24 km away. The safety limit set by the central government in mid-April for public recreation areas was 3.8 microsieverts per hour (0.09 mSv/day).

In June 2013, analysis from Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) showed that the most contaminated areas in the Fukushima evacuation zone had reduced in size by three-quarters over the previous two years. The area subject to high dose rates (over 166 mSv/yr) diminished from 27% of the 1117 km 2 zone to 6% over 15 months to March 2013, and in the 'no residence' portion (originally 83-166 mSv/yr) no areas remained at this level and 70% was below 33 mSv/yr. The least-contaminated area is now entirely below 33 mSv/yr.

In August 2011 The Act on Special Measures Concerning the Handling of Radioactive Pollution was enacted and it took full effect from January 2012 as the main legal instrument to deal with all remediation activities in the affected areas, as well as the management of materials removed as a result of those activities. It specified two categories of land:
- Special Decontamination Areas consisting of the "restricted areas" located within a 20 km radius from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and "deliberate evacuation areas" where the annual cumulative dose for individuals was anticipated to exceed 20 mSv. The national government promotes decontamination in these areas. These areas are subdivided into three: dose 1- 20 mSv/yr (green) dose 20-50 mSv/yr (yellow) and dose over 50 mSv/yr and over 20 mSv/yr average over 5 years (red).
- Intensive Contamination Survey Areas including the so-called Decontamination Implementation Areas, where an additional annual cumulative dose between 1mSv and 20mSv was estimated for individuals. Municipalities implement decontamination activities in these areas.

In May 2013, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reported, following a detailed study by 80 international experts. It concluded that "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers." The only exception are the 146 emergency workers that received radiation doses of over 100 mSv during the crisis. They will be monitored closely for "potential late radiation-related health effects at an individual level." UNSCEAR's follow-up white paper in October 2015 said that none of the new information appraised after the 2013 report "materially affected the main findings in, or challenged the major assumptions of, the 2013 Fukushima report."

By contrast, the public was exposed to 10-50 times less radiation. Most Japanese people were exposed to additional radiation amounting to less than the typical natural background level of 2.1 mSv per year.

People living in Fukushima prefecture are expected to be exposed to around 10 mSv over their entire lifetimes, while for those living further away the dose would be 0.2 mSv per year. The UNSCEAR conclusion reinforces the findings of several international reports to date, including one from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that considered the health risk to the most exposed people possible: a postulated girl under one year of age living in Iitate or Namie that did not evacuate and continued life as normal for four months after the accident. Such a child's theoretical risk of developing any cancer would be increased only marginally, according to WHO's analysis.

Eleven municipalities in the former restricted zone or planned evacuation area, within 20 km of the plant or where annual cumulative radiation dose is greater than 20 mSv, are designated Special Decontamination Areas, where decontamination work is being implemented by the government. A further 100 municipalities in eight prefectures, where dose rates are equivalent to over 1 mSv per year are classed as Intensive Decontamination Survey Areas, where decontamination is being implemented by each municipality with funding and technical support from the national government. In the Special Decontamination Areas, decontamination is proceeding and was complete to target levels in one municipality by June 2013.

In October 2013 a 16-member IAEA mission reported on remediation and decontamination in the Special Decontamination Areas. Its preliminary report said that decontamination efforts were commendable but driven by unrealistic targets. If annual radiation dose was below 20 mSv, such as generally in Intensive Decontamination Survey Areas, this level was "acceptable and in line with the international standards and with the recommendations from the relevant international organisations, e.g. ICRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR and WHO." The clear implication is that people in such areas should be allowed to return home. Furthermore the government should increase efforts to communicate this to the public, and should explain that its long-term goal of achieving an additional individual dose of 1 mSv/yr is unrealistic and unnecessary in the short term. Also, there is potential to produce more food safely in contaminated areas.

Radioactivity, primarily from caesium-137, in the evacuation zone and other areas beyond it has been reported in terms of kBq/kg (compared with kBq/m 2 around Chernobyl. A total of 3,000 km was contaminated above 180 kBq/m 2, compared with 29,400 km from Chernobyl). However the main measure has been presumed doses in mSv/yr. The government has adopted 20 mSv/yr as its goal for the evacuation zone and more contaminated areas outside it, and supports municipal government work to reduce levels below that. The total area under consideration for attention is 13,000 km 2. In 2016 the Ministry of Environment announced that material with less than 8 kBq/kg caesium would no longer be specified as waste, and subject to restrictions on disposal. It allowed use of contaminated soil for embankments, where the activity was less then 8 kBq/kg, and unrestricted use if less than 100 Bq/kg. Most of the stored wastes have decayed to below the 8 kBq/kg level.

Summary: There have been no harmful effects from radiation on local people, nor any doses approaching harmful levels. However, some 160,000 people were evacuated from their homes and only from 2012 were allowed limited return. In October 2013, 81,000 evacuees remained displaced due to government concern about radiological effects from the accident.

Public health and return of evacuees

Permanent return remains a high priority, and the evacuation zone is being decontaminated where required and possible, so that evacuees (81,000 from this accident according to METI) can return without undue delay. There are many cases of evacuation stress including transfer trauma among evacuees, and once the situation had stabilised at the plant these outweighed the radiological hazards of returning, with over 1000 deaths reported (see below). There were also 267,000 tsunami survivor refugees remaining displaced in February 2014.

In December 2011 the government said that where annual radiation dose would be below 20 mSv/yr, the government would help residents return home as soon as possible and assist local municipalities with decontamination and repair of infrastructure. In areas where radiation levels are over 20 mSv/yr evacuees will be asked to continue living elsewhere for "a few years" until the government completes decontamination and recovery work. The government said it would consider purchasing land and houses from residents of these areas if the evacuees wish to sell them.

In November 2013 the NRA decided to change the way radiation exposure was estimated. Instead of airborne surveys being the basis, personal dosimeters would be used, giving very much more accurate figures, often much less than airborne estimates. The same criteria would be used, as above, with 20 mSv/yr being the threshold of concern to authorities.

In February 2014 the results of a study were published showing that 458 residents of two study areas 20 to 30 km from the plant and a third one 50 km northwest received radiation doses from the contaminated ground similar to the country's natural background levels. Measurement was by personal dosimeters over August-September 2012.

By October 2012, over 1000 disaster-related deaths that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami had been identified by the Reconstruction Agency < http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/english/>, based on data for areas evacuated for no other reason than the nuclear accident. About 90% of deaths were for persons above 66 years of age. Of these, about 70% occurred within the first three months of the evacuations. (A similar number of deaths occurred among evacuees from tsunami- and earthquake-affected prefectures. These figures are additional to the 19,000 that died in the actual tsunami.)

The premature deaths reported in 2012 were mainly related to the following: (1) somatic effects and spiritual fatigue brought on by having to reside in shelters; (2) Transfer trauma - the mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes for fragile individuals; and (3) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami. However, the radiation levels in most of the evacuated areas were not greater than the natural radiation levels in high background areas elsewhere in the world where no adverse health effect is evident, so maintaining the evacuation beyond a precautionary few days was evidently the main disaster in relation to human fatalities.
http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/20121102_sinsaikanrensi.pdf
http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/240821_higashinihondaishinsainiokerushinsaikanrenshinikansuruhoukoku.pdf

Fukushima prefecture provided a further report early in 2014 which said that the 'indirect' deaths in the prefecture were greater than the number (1607) killed in the quake and tsunami. It put the figure at 1656 as determined by municipal panels that examine links between the disaster's aftermath and death. The figure is greater than for Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, with 434 and 879 respectively, though they had much higher loss of life in the quake and tsunami - about 14,200. The disparity is attributed to the older age group involved among Fukushima's evacuated quake/tsunami survivors, about 90% of indirect deaths being of people over 66. Causes of indirect deaths include physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster, and suicides. The high rate of these deaths continues three years later as the evacuation is maintained for about 135,000 people - apparently some 75,000 from the nuclear accident and 60,000 from the natural disaster itself. Evaluation of 'indirect deaths' is according to a model developed by Niigata prefecture after the 2004 earthquake there. ( Japan Times 20/2/14)

Evacuees receive JPY 100,000 ($1,030) per month in psychological suffering compensation. The money is tax-exempt and paid unconditionally. In October 2013, about 84,000 evacuees received the payments. Statistics indicate that an average family of four has received 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 Shimbun 26/10/13)

The Fukushima prefecture has 17,000 government-financed temporary housing units for some 29,500 evacuees from the accident. The prefectural government said residents could continue to use these until March 2015. The number compares with very few built in Miyagi, Iwate and Aomori prefectures for the 222,700 tsunami survivor refugees there. (Japan Times 17/11/13) Another reported contrast from the Reconstruction Agency is that some $30 billion had been paid to 84,000 nuclear accident refugees but only some $20 billion to 300,000 tsunami survivors in the Tohoku region.

Evacuation orders have been progressively lifted, apart from some 300 km designated areas with annual dose levels above 20 mSv with continuous occupation.

According to a survey released by the prefectural government in April 2017, the majority of people who voluntarily evacuated their homes after the accident and who are now living outside of Fukushima prefecture do not intend to return. A Mainichi report said that 78.2% of respondents to the survey preferred to continue living in the area to which they had moved, while only 18.3% intended to move back to the prefecture. Of the voluntary evacuees still living in Fukushima prefecture, 23.6% planned to stay where they were, while 66.6% hoped to return to their original homes.

An August 2012 Reconstruction Agency report also considered workers at Fukushima power plant. Of almost 1500 surveyed, many were stressed, due to evacuating their homes (70%), believing they had come close to death (53%), the loss of homes in the tsunami (32%), deaths of colleagues (20%) and of family members (6%) mostly in the tsunami. The death toll directly due to the nuclear accident or radiation exposure remained zero, but stress and disruption due to the continuing evacuation remains high.

Tokyo's Board of Audit reported in October 2013 that 23% of recovery funding - about JPY 1.45 trillion ($14.5 billion) - had been misappropriated. Some 326 out of about 1400 projects funded had no direct relevance to the natural disaster or Fukushima Daiichi accident. (Mainichi 1/11/13)

Summary: Many evacuated people remain unable to fully return home due to government-mandated restrictions based on conservative radiation exposure criteria. However, over 1000 premature deaths have been caused by maintaining the evacuation beyond a prudent week or so. Decontamination work is proceeding while radiation levels decline naturally. The October 2013 IAEA report makes it clear that many evacuees should be allowed to return home.

A journalist article is in line with the World Nuclear Association's understanding of the situation in 2015.

Managing contaminated water

Removing contaminated water from the reactor and turbine buildings had become the main challenge in week 3, along with contaminated water in trenches carrying cabling and pipework. This was both from the tsunami inundation and leakage from reactors. Run-off from the site into the sea was also carrying radionuclides well in excess of allowable levels. By the end of March all storages around the four units - basically the main condenser units and condensate tanks - were largely full of contaminated water pumped from the buildings. Some 1000 storage tanks were set up progressively, including initially 350 steel tanks with rubber seams, each holding 1200 m 3. A few of these developed leaks in 2013.

Accordingly, with government approval, Tepco over 4-10 April released to the sea about 10,400 cubic metres of slightly contaminated water (0.15 TBq total) in order to free up storage for more highly-contaminated water from unit 2 reactor and turbine buildings which needed to be removed to make safe working conditions. Unit 2 is the main source of contaminated water, though some of it comes from drainage pits. NISA confirmed that there was no significant change in radioactivity levels in the sea as a result of the 0.15 TBq discharge.

Tepco built a new wastewater treatment facility to treat contaminated water. The company used both US proprietary adsorbtion and French conventional technologies in the new 1200 m 3/day treatment plant. A supplementary and simpler SARRY plant to remove caesium using Japanese technology and made by Toshiba and Shaw Group was installed and commissioned in August 2011. These plants reduce caesium from about 55 MBq/L to 5.5 kBq/L - about ten times better than designed. Desalination is necessary on account of the seawater earlier used for cooling, and the 1200 m 3/day desalination plant produces 480 m 3 of clean water while 720 m 3 goes to storage. A steady increase in volume of the stored water (about 400 m 3/d net) is due to groundwater finding its way into parts of the plant and needing removal and treatment.

Early in 2013 Tepco started to test and commission this Advanced Liquid Processing System ( ALPS), developed by EnergySolutions and Toshiba. Each of six trains is capable of processing 250 m 3/day to remove 62 remaining radioisotopes. By the end of 2014, an Advanced ALPS of 500 m 3/d had been added, making total capacity 2000 m 3/d. NRA approved the extra capacity in August 2014.

The ALPS is a chemical system which will remove radionuclides to below legal limits for release. However, because tritium is contained in water molecules, ALPS cannot remove it, which gives rise to questions about the discharge of treated water to the sea. Tritium is a weak beta-emitter which does not bio-accumulate (half-life 12 years), and its concentration has levelled off at about 1 MBq/L in the stored water, with dilution from groundwater balancing further release from the fuel debris.

The clean tritiated water was the focus of attention in 2014. A September 2013 report from the Atomic Energy Society of Japan recommended diluting the ALPS-treated water with seawater and releasing it to the sea at the legal discharge concentration of 0.06 MBq/L, with monitoring to ensure that normal background tritium levels of 10 Bq/L are not exceeded. (WHO drinking water guideline is 0.01 MBq/L tritium) The IAEA is reported to support release of tritiated water to the ocean, as does Dr Dale Klein, chairman of Tepco's nuclear reform monitoring committee (NRMC) and former chairman of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The government had an expert Task Force considering the options.

In 2016 Kurion (now owned by Veolia) completed a demonstration project for tritium removal at low concentrations, with its new Modular Detritiation System (MDS),* in response to a JPY 1 billion commission from METI.
* In this, an electrolyser produces hydrogen and oxygen, with the tritium reporting in the hydrogen. This is fed through a catalytic exchange column with a little water which preferentially takes up the tritium. The concentrated tritiated water is fed through a 'getter bed' of dry metal hydrate, where the tritium replaces hydrogen, and the material is stored, being stable up to 500°C. It can be incorporated into concrete and disposed as low-level waste. The tritium is concentrated 1000 to 20,000 times. The MDS is the first system to be able economically to treat large volumes of water with low tritium concentrations, and builds on existing heavy water tritium removal systems. Each module treats up to 7200 litres per day.
In 2014 a new Kurion (now owned by Veolia) strontium removal system was commissioned. This is mobile and can be moved around the tank groups to further clean up water which has been treated by ALPS.

In June 2015, 108 m 3/day of clean water was being circulated through each reactor (1-3). Collected water from them, with high radioactivity levels, was being treated for caesium removal and re-used. Apart from this recirculating loop, the cumulative treated volume was then 1.232 million cubic metres. In storage onsite was 459,000 m 3 of fully treated water (by ALPS), and 190,000 m 3 of partially-treated water (strontium removed), which was being added to at 400 m 3/day due to groundwater inflow. Almost 600 m 3 of sludge from the water treatment was stored in shielded containers.

In October 2018 Tepco announced that some 80% of its 900,000 m 3 of stored water from reactor buildings remained above legal limits for discharge to the sea. Treatment using ALPS is ongoing at about 210 m 3/day.

By the end of June 2011, Tepco had installed 109 concrete panels to seal the water intakes of units 1-4, preventing contaminated water leaking to the harbour. From mid-June some treatment with zeolite of seawater at 30 m 3/hr was being undertaken near the water intakes for units 2&3, inside submerged barriers installed in April. From October, a steel water shield wall was built on the sea frontage of units 1-4. It extends about one kilometre, and down to an impermeable layer beneath two permeable strata which potentially leak contaminated groundwater to the sea. The inner harbour area which has some contamination is about 30 ha in area. The government in September 2013 said that "At present, statistically-significant increase of radioactive concentration in the sea outside the port of the TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi NPS has not been detected." And also that "The results of monitoring of sea water in Japan are constantly below the standard of 10 Bq/L" (the WHO standard for Cs-137 in drinking water). In 2012 the Japanese standard for caesium in food supply was dropped from 500 to 100 Bq/kg. In July-August 2014 only 0.6% of fish caught offshore from the plant exceeded this lower level, compared with 53% in the months immediately following the accident.

Apart from the above-ground water treatment activity, there is now a groundwater bypass to reduce the groundwater level above the reactors by about 1.5 metres, pumping from 12 wells and from May 2014, discharging the uncontaminated water into the sea. This prevents some of it flowing into the reactor basements and becoming contaminated. In addition, an impermeable wall is being constructed on the sea-side of the reactors, and inside this a frozen soil wall will further block water flow into the reactor buildings.

In October 2013 guidelines for rainwater release from the site allowed Tepco to release water to the sea without specific NRA approval as long as it conformed to activity limits. Tepco has been working to 25 Bq/L caesium and 10 Bq/L strontium-90.

Summary: A large amount of contaminated water has accumulated on site and has been treated to remove all but traces of tritium, which limits the potential to release treated water to the sea. Some radioactivity has been released to the sea, but this has mostly been low-level and it has not had any significant impact beyond the immediate plant structures. Concentrations outside these structures have been below regulatory levels since April 2011.

IRID and NDF involvement

The International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning ( IRID) was set up in August 2013 Japan by JAEA, Japanese utilities and reactor vendors, with a focus on Fukushima 1-4.

In September 2013 IRID called for submissions on the management of contaminated water at Fukushima. In particular, proposals were sought for dealing with: the accumulation of contaminated water (in storage tanks, etc); the treatment of contaminated water including tritium removal; the removal of radioactive materials from the seawater in the plant's 30 ha harbour; the management of contaminated water inside the buildings; measures to block groundwater from flowing into the site; and, understanding the flow of groundwater. Responses were submitted to the government in November.

In December 2013 IRID called for innovative proposals for removing fuel debris from units 1-3 about 2020.

In August 2014 the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation (NDF) was set up by government as a planning body with management support for R&D projects, taking over IRID's planning role. It will work closely with IRID, whose focus now is on developing mid- and long-term decommissioning technologies. NDF will also work closely with Tepco Fukushima Daiichi D&D Engineering Co. which has responsibility for operating the actual decommissioning work there. The NDF will be the main body interacting with government (METI) to implement policy.

Fukushima Daiichi 5&6

Units 5&6, in a separate building, also lost power on 11 March due to the tsunami. They were in 'cold shutdown' at the time, but still requiring pumped cooling. One air-cooled diesel generator at Daiichi 6 was located higher and so survived the tsunami and enabled repairs on Saturday 19th, allowing full restoration of cooling for units 5 and 6. While the power was off their core temperature had risen to over 100°C (128°C in unit 5) under pressure, and they had been cooled with normal water injection. They were restored to cold shutdown by the normal recirculating system on 20th, and mains power was restored on 21-22nd.

In September 2013 Tepco commenced work to remove the fuel from unit 6. Prime Minister Abe then called for Tepco to decommission both units. Tepco announced in December 2013 that it would decommission both units from the end of january 2014. Unit 5 is a 760 MWe BWR the same as units 2-4, and unit 6 is larger - 1067 MWe. They entered commercial operation in 1978 and 1979 respectively. It is proposed that they will be used for training.

Meanwhile Tepco and Mitsubishi plan to build and operate two new 500 MWe coal-burning power plants near Fukushima Daiichi at Hirono Town and Iwaki City. This will partly compensate for the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi units. The investment is expected to be JPY 300 billion ($3 billion). The plants will be state-of-the-art integrated combined gasification cycle with less atmospheric pollution than the coal plants now operating in Japan. The companies planned to apply for a government subsidy to help defray costs. (Mainichi 23/11/13)

Remediation on site and decommissioning units 1-4

Tepco published a six- to nine-month plan in April 2011 for dealing with the disabled Fukushima reactors, and updated this several times subsequently. Remediation over the next couple of years proceeded approximately as planned. in August 2011 Tepco announced its general plan for proceeding with removing fuel from the four units, initially from the spent fuel ponds and then from the actual reactors. At the end of 2013 Tepco announced the establishment of an internal entity to focus on measures for decommissioning units 1-6 and dealing with contaminated water. The name of the new company is Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination & Decommissioning Engineering Company, and it commenced operations in April 2014.

In June 2015 the government revised the decommissioning plan or roadmap for the second time, though without major change. It clarified milestones to accomplish preventive and multilayered measures, involving the three principles of removing the source of the contamination, isolating groundwater from the contamination source, and preventing leakage of the contaminated water. It included a new goal of cutting the amount of groundwater flowing into the buildings to less than 100 m 3 per day by April 2016. The schedule for fuel removal from the pond at unit 1 was postponed from late FY17 to FY20, while that for unit 2 was delayed from early FY20 to later the same fiscal year, and that at unit 3 from early FY15 to FY17. Fuel debris removal was to begin in 2021, as before. Tepco affirmed the revised plan.

In September 2017 the government updated the June 2015 decommissioning roadmap, with no changes to the framework, and confirming first removal of fuel debris from unit 1 in 2021. Treatment of all contaminated water accumulated in the reactor buildings is to be completed by 2020.

Tepco has a website giving updates on decommissioning work and environmental monitoring.

Storage ponds: First, debris has been removed from the upper parts of the reactor buildings using large cranes and heavy machinery. Covers will be built as required, and overhead cranes and fuel handling machines necessary to remove the spent fuel assemblies will be reinstalled, as already at unit 4. The fuel handling machine for unit 3 was built by Toshiba in January 2016 and delivered to the port at the plant. It is being fitted in 2017, with a cover, for the 566 fuel assemblies to be removed by mid-2018. Casks to transfer the removed fuel to the central spent fuel facility have been designed and manufactured using existing cask technology.

In July 2012 two unused fuel assemblies were removed from unit 4 pond, and were found to be in good shape, with no deformation or corrosion. Tepco started removal of both fresh and used fuel from the pond in November 2013, 22 assemblies at a time in each cask, with 1331 used and 202 new ones to be moved. This was uneventful, and the task continued through 2014. By 22 December 2014, all 1331 used as well as all 202 new fuel assemblies had been moved in 71 cask shuttles without incident, with weekly updates having been published. All of the radioactive used fuel was removed by early November, eliminating a significant radiological hazard on the site. The used fuel went to the central storage pond, from which older assemblies were transferred to dry cask storage - 1004 moved since the accident by mid 2014 to make way for new inputs from unit 4. The fresh fuel assemblies are stored in the pool of the undamaged unit 6.

From 2018 Tepco expects to move 514 used fuel assemblies from unit 3 to the central pool, as well as 52 new ones and then 292 used fuel assemblies and 100 new ones from unit 1. Finally unit 2 will have its 587 used assemblies and 28 fresh ones moved. The NRA has expressed concern about the unit 1 used fuel.

Reactors 1-3: First it is necessary to identify the locations of leaks from the primary containment vessels (PCVs) and reactor buildings using manual and remotely controlled dosimeters, cameras, etc., and indirectly analyse conditions inside the PCVs from the outside via measurements of gamma rays, echo soundings, etc. Any leakage points will be repaired and both reactor vessels (RPVs) and PCVs filled with water sufficient to achieve shielding. Then the vessel heads will be removed. The location of melted fuel and corium will then be established. In particular, the distribution of damaged fuel believed to have flowed out from the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) into PCVs will be ascertained, and it will be sampled and analysed. After examination of the inside of the reactors, states of the damaged fuel rods and reactor core internals, sampling will be done and the damaged core material will be removed from the RPVs as well as from the PCVs. The whole process will be complex and slow, since safety remains paramount. In December Tepco estimates that the fuel will be removed from the reactors within 25 years - in line with US experience at Three Mile Island, though other estimates suggest ten years. Updated plans are on the IRID website.

The four reactors will be completely demolished in 30-40 years - much the same timeframe as for any nuclear plant. As noted above units 5-6 were decommissioned in 2014 and will be used for training.

Earlier, consortia led by both Hitachi-GE and Toshiba submitted proposals to Tepco for decommissioning units 1-4. This would generally involve removing the fuel and then sealing them for a further decade or two while the activation products in the steel of the reactor pressure vessels decay. They can then be demolished. As noted above, removal of the very degraded fuel will be a long process in units 1-3, but will draw on experience at Three Mile Island in USA. In January 2012 it was reported that an industry consortium (Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba) would determine how to locate fuel debris inside units 1-3 and how to fill the pressure vessels with water.

Tepco has allocated ¥207 billion ($2.53 billion) in its accounts for decommissioning units 1-4. The government has allocated ¥1150 billion ($15 billion) for decontamination in the region, with the promise of more if needed.

The new International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning (IRID) has a focus on Fukushima 1-4. See section above. Its schedule for units 1-4 is:
FY 20XX ends the following March
The Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (ANRE) has calculated that as of January 2017 Tepco needs an estimated ¥22,000 billion ($191 billion), double the original estimate, to implement fuel debris removal, cleanup and for compensation to firms and individuals in Fukushima prefecture. Of this amount, Tepco will pay ¥16,000 billion. Other Japanese nuclear operators will pay ¥4,000 billion through the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corp (NDF), and the Japanese government will pay ¥2,000 billion for cleanup in Fukushima prefecture.

A 12-member international expert team assembled by the IAEA at the request of the Japanese government has reported on remediation strategies for contaminated land. The mission focused on the remediation of the affected areas outside of the 20 km restricted area. The team said that it agreed with the prioritization and the general strategy being implemented, but advised the government to focus on actual dose reduction. They should "avoid over-conservatism" which "could not effectively contribute to the reduction of exposure doses" to people. It warned the government against being preoccupied with "contamination concentrations rather than dose levels," since this "does not automatically lead to reduction of doses for the public." The team's report calls on the Japanese authorities to "maintain their focus on remediation activities that bring best results in reducing the doses to the public."

Fukushima Daini plant

Units 1-4 were shut down automatically due to the earthquake. The tsunami - here only 9 m high - affected the generators and there was major interruption to cooling due to damaged heat exchangers, so the reactors were almost completely isolated from their ultimate heat sink. Damage to the diesel generators was limited and also the earthquake left one of the external power lines intact, avoiding a station blackout as at Daiichi 1-4. Staff laid and energised 8.8km of heavy-duty electric cables in 30 hours to supplement power.

In units 1, 2 & 4 there were cooling problems still evident on Tuesday 15th. Unit 3 was undamaged and continued to 'cold shutdown' status on 12th, but the other units suffered flooding to pump rooms where the equipment transfers heat from the reactor heat removal circuit to the sea. Pump motors were replaced in less than 30 hours. All units achieved 'cold shutdown' by16 March, meaning core temperature less than 100°C at atmospheric pressure (101 kPa), but still requiring some water circulation. The almost complete loss of ultimate heat sink for a day proved a significant challenge, but the cores were kept fully covered.

Radiation monitoring figures remained at low levels, little above background.

There is no technical reason for the Fukushima Daini plant not to restart. restart. However, Tepco in October 2012 said it planned to transfer the fuel from the four reactors to used fuel ponds, and this was done. In February 2015 the prime minister said that restarting the four units was essentially a matter for Tepco to decide. Local government is in favour of decommissioning. Tepco has not announced any decision about whether to retire or move towards restarting the four units.

International Nuclear Event Scale assessment

Japan's Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency originally declared the Fukushima Daiichi 1-3 accident as Level 5 on the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) - an accident with wider consequences, the same level as Three Mile Island in 1979. The sequence of events relating to the fuel pond at unit 4 was rated INES Level 3 - a serious incident.

However, a month after the tsunami the NSC raised the rating to 7 for units 1-3 together, 'a major accident', saying that a re-evaluation of early radioactive releases suggested that some 630 PBq of I-131 equivalent had been discharged, mostly in the first week. This then matched the criterion for level 7. In early June NISA increased its estimate of releases to 770 PBq, from about half that, though in August the NSC lowered this estimate to 570 PBq

For Fukushima Daini, NISA declared INES Level 3 for units 1, 2, 4 - each a serious incident.

Accident liability and compensation

Beyond whatever insurance Tepco might carry for its reactors is the question of third party liability for the accident. Japan was not party to any international liability convention but its law generally conforms to them, notably strict and exclusive liability for the operator. Early in 2015 Japan ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). Two laws governing liability are revised about every ten years: the Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage. Plant operator liability is exclusive and absolute (regardless of fault), and power plant operators must provide a financial security amount of JPY 120 billion (US$ 1.46 billion) - it was half that to 2010. 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), and in any case total liability is unlimited.

In mid-April 2011, the first meeting was held of a panel to address compensation for nuclear-related damage. The panel established guidelines for determining the scope of compensation for damage caused by the accident, and to act as an intermediary. It was established within the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), and was led by Law Professor Yoshihisa Nomi of Gakushuin, University in Tokyo.

On 11 May 2011, Tepco accepted terms established by the Japanese government for state support to compensate those affected by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The scheme includes a new state-backed institution to expedite payments to those affected by the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The body receives financial contributions from electric power companies with nuclear power plants in Japan, and from the government through special bonds that can be cashed whenever necessary. The government bonds total JPY 5 trillion ($62 billion). Tepco accepted the conditions imposed on the company as part of the package. That included not setting an upper limit on compensation payments to those affected, making maximum efforts to reduce costs, and an agreement to cooperate with an independent panel set up to investigate its management.

This Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation, established by government and nuclear plant operators, includes representatives from other nuclear generators and will also operate as an insurer for the industry, being responsible to have plans in place for any future nuclear accidents. The provision for contributions from other nuclear operators is similar to that in the USA. The government estimates that Tepco will be able to complete its repayments in 10 to 13 years, after which it will revert to a fully private company with no government involvement. Meanwhile it will pay an annual fee for the government support, maintain adequate power supplies and ensure plant safety. Tepco estimated its extra costs for fossil fuels in 2011-12 (April-March) would be about JPY 830 billion ($10.7 billion).

On 14 June 2011, Japan's cabinet passed the Nuclear Disaster Compensation Bill, and a related budget to fund post-tsunami reconstruction was also passed subsequently.

In September 2011 the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation started by working with Tepco to compile a business plan for the next decade. This was approved by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) so that some JPY 900 billion ($11.5 billion) could be released to the company through bonds issued to the Nuclear Damage Facilitation Fund to cover compensation payments to March 2012. The plan also involved Tepco reducing its own costs by JPY 2545 billion ($32.6 billion) over the next ten years, including shedding 7400 jobs. This special business plan was superseded by a more comprehensive business plan in March 2012, involving compensation payments of JPY 910 billion ($11.6 billion) annually. Tepco wanted to include an electricity rate increase of 17% in the plan, to cover the additional annual fuel costs for thermal power generation to make up for lost capacity at idled nuclear power plants.

In February 2012 METI approved a further JPY 690 billion ($8.9 billion) in compensation support from the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund, subject to Tepco's business plan giving the government voting rights. In June 2012 shareholders voted to sell the Japanese government 50.11% of Tepco's voting shares and an additional 25.73% with no voting rights, for JPY 1 trillion (about $12.5 billion), paid through the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund. This was effected at the end of July, so that Tepco then became government-controlled, at least temporarily. Tepco said it appreciated the chance to 'transform to New Tepco'.

The government and 12 utilities are contributing funds into the new institution to pay compensation to individuals and businesses claiming damages caused by the accident. It received JPY 7 billion ($91 million) in public funds as well as a total of JPY 7 billion from 12 nuclear plant operators, the Tepco share of JPY 2379 million ($30 million) being largest. The percentage of utility contributions was fixed in proportion to the power output of their plants, so Kansai Electric Power Co. provided JPY 1229 million, followed by JPY 660 million by Kyushu Electric Power Co. and JPY 622 million by Chubu Electric Power Co. Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., which owns a used nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Aomori Prefecture, provided JPY 117 million to the entity. The utility companies also pay annual contributions to the body. Tepco is required to make extra contributions, with the specific amount to be decided later.

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 requested by Tepco to JPY 3.79 trillion ($38 billion). The company said that more than half of the latest request - some JPY 370 billion ($3.7 billion) - resulted from the re-evaluation of the evacuation zone around the damaged plant and a re-examination 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 to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries, as well as the food processing and distribution industries. This, it said, also resulted from "harmful rumours" about the possible health effects of consuming food products from the region near the damaged power plant. As restrictions on the transport of foodstuffs from the Fukushima area seemed set to continue, an additional JPY 240 billion ($2.4 billion) was included to cover for the further compensation claims resulting from this.

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 NDLF Fund. Some $16 billion of this was distributed evenly among 85,000 evacuees - $188,200 each person including children, as directed early in 2011.

In July 2015 the government approved Tepco's recovery plan, including compensation payments of JPY 7075 billion ($57.2 billion), enabling it to receive JPY 950 billion more than the JPY 6125 billion estimated in April, according to METI.

In December 2013 the government raised the upper limit of its financial assistance to Tepco from JPY 5 trillion to JPY 9 trillion ($86 billion). Early in 2014 the government estimated it would take JPY11 trillion and 40 years to clean up the Fukushima site. The 2013 Japan trade deficit was JPY 11.5 trillion.

Inquiries and reports: the accident itself and decommissioning

In October 2014 the NRA published its Analysis of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS Accident, Interim Report. A provisional translation in English was published in February 2015. This focuses on a number of questions which remained unexplained in the 2012 National Diet Investigation Commission report.

In May 2011 a team of 18 experts from 12 countries spent a week at the plant on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and that mission's final report was presented to the IAEA Ministerial Conference in Vienna in June. At the IAEA General Conference in 2012 the Director General promised a comprehensive report which would be "an authoritative, factual and balanced assessment, addressing the causes and consequences of the accident as well as the lessons learned." The IAEA published this report in September 2015, accompanied by five technical volumes.

In February 2015 the IAEA completed its third review mission (as follow-up to that of late 2013, and involving some 180 experts from 42 IAEA member states and other organizations over two years) and reported on decommissioning to METI. In May 2015 its final report was delivered to member states, and was published in September. It is broadly positive regarding progress since 2013, but said that some challenging issues remain. It contains advisory points on topics such as long-term radioactive waste management, measures concerning contaminated water, and issues related to the removal of used fuel and fuel debris.

The Foreword to the Director General's report in 2015 states: "A major factor that contributed to the accident was the widespread assumption in Japan that its nuclear power plants were so safe that an accident of this magnitude was simply unthinkable. This assumption was accepted by nuclear power plant operators and was not challenged by regulators or by the government. As a result, Japan was not sufficiently prepared for a severe nuclear accident in March 2011." The accident exposed "certain weaknesses" in Japan's regulatory framework, with responsibilities divided among a number of bodies. It also said there were certain weaknesses "in plant design, in emergency preparedness and response arrangement and in planning for the management of a severe accident".

The Director General said: "I am confident that the legacy of the Fukushima Daiichi accident will be a sharper focus on nuclear safety everywhere. I have seen improvements in safety measures and procedures in every nuclear power plant that I have visited. There is widespread recognition that everything humanly possible must be done to ensure that no such accident ever happens again." He added: "This is all the more essential as global use of nuclear power is likely to continue to grow in coming decades." Furthermore, "there can be no grounds for complacency about nuclear safety in any country. Some of the factors that contributed to the Fukushima Daiichi accident were not unique to Japan. Continuous questioning and openness to learning from experience are key to safety culture and are essential for everyone involved in nuclear power."

The Executive Summary includes recommendations, but the following paragraphs indicate some salient points from the actual investigation.

Before the accident, there was a basic assumption in Japan that the design of nuclear power plants and the safety measures that had been put in place were sufficiently robust to withstand external events of low probability and high consequences. Because of the basic assumption that nuclear power plants in Japan were safe, there was a tendency for organizations and their staff not to challenge the level of safety. The reinforced basic assumption among the stakeholders about the robustness of the technical design of nuclear power plants resulted in a situation where safety improvements were not introduced promptly.

Before the accident, the operator had conducted some reassessments of extreme tsunami flood levels, using a consensus based methodology developed in Japan in 2002, which had resulted in values higher than the original design basis estimates. Based on the results, some compensatory measures were taken, but they proved to be insufficient at the time of the accident.

There were no indications that the main safety features of the plant were affected by the vibratory ground motions generated by the earthquake on 11 March 2011. This was due to the conservative approach to earthquake design and construction of nuclear power plants in Japan, resulting in a plant that was provided with sufficient safety margins. However, the original design considerations did not provide comparable safety margins for extreme external flooding events, such as tsunamis.

Despite the efforts of the operators at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to maintain control, the reactor cores in units 1-3 overheated, the nuclear fuel melted and the three containment vessels were breached. Hydrogen was released from the reactor pressure vessels, leading to explosions inside the reactor buildings in units 1, 3 and 4 that damaged structures and equipment and injured personnel. Radionuclides were released from the plant to the atmosphere and were deposited on land and on the ocean. There were also direct releases into the sea.

Venting of the containment was necessary to relieve pressure and prevent its failure. The operators were able to vent units 1 and 3 to reduce the pressure in the primary containment vessels. However, this resulted in radioactive releases to the environment. Even though the containment vents for units 1 and 3 were opened, the primary containment vessels for units 1 and 3 eventually failed. Containment venting for unit 2 was not successful, and the containment failed, resulting in radioactive releases.

People within a radius of 20 km of the site and in other designated areas were evacuated, and those within a radius of 20-30 km were instructed to shelter before later being advised to voluntarily evacuate. Restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of food and the consumption of drinking water. At the time of writing, many people were still living outside the areas from which they were evacuated.

No early radiation induced health effects were observed among workers or members of the public that could be attributed to the accident.

Earlier reports 2011-2012

Early in June 2011 the independent Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations ( ICANPS), a panel of ten experts, mostly academics and appointed by the Japanese cabinet, began meeting. It has two technological advisers. An initial report was published in December 2011 and a final report in July 2012. The panel set up four teams to undertake investigations on the causes of the accident and ensuing damage and on measures to prevent the further spread of damage caused by the accident, but not to pursue the question of responsibility for the accident.

The national Diet later set up a legally-constituted Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission ( NAIIC, or National Diet Investigation Commission) of ten members which started its work in December 2011. One of the purposes of NAIIC is to provide suggestions including the "re-examination of an optimal administrative organization" for nuclear safety regulation based on its investigation of the accident. NAIIC reported in July 2012, harshly criticizing the government, the plant operator and the country's national culture. After conducting 900 hours of public hearings and interviews with more than 1,100 people and visiting several nuclear power plants, the commission's report concluded that the accident was a "manmade disaster," the result of "collusion between the government, the regulators and Tokyo Electric Power Co." It said the "root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions." The NAIIC criticized the regulator for insufficiently maintaining independence from the industry in developing and enforcing safety regulations, the government for inadequate emergency preparedness and management, and Tepco for its poor governance and lack of safety culture. The report called for fundamental changes across the industry, including the government and regulators, to increase openness, trustworthiness and focus on protecting public health and safety.

The NAIIC Chairman wrote: "What must be admitted - very painfully - is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan.' Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the program'; our groupism; and our insularity." The mindset of government and industry led the country to avoid learning the lessons of the previous major nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. "The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us (every Japanese citizen) should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society."

NAIIC reported that Tepco had been aware since 2006 that Fukushuima Daiichi could face a station blackout if flooded, as well as the potential loss of ultimate heat sink in the event of a major tsunami. However, the regulator, NISA, gave no instruction to the company to prepare for severe flooding, and even told all nuclear operators that it was not necessary to plan for station blackout. During the initial response to the tsunami, this lack of readiness for station blackout was compounded by a lack of planning and training for severe accident mitigation. Plans and procedures for venting and manual operation of emergency cooling were incomplete and their implementation in emergency circumstances proved very difficult as a result. NISA was also criticised for its "negligence and failure over the years" to prepare for a nuclear accident in terms of public information and evacuation, with previous governments equally culpable. Then Tepco's difficulty in mitigation was compounded by government interference which undermined NISA.

On 7 June 2011 the government submitted a 750-page report to IAEA compiled by the nuclear emergency taskforce, acknowledging reactor design inadequacies and systemic shortcomings. It said that "In light of the lessons learned from the accident, Japan has recognized that a fundamental revision of its nuclear safety preparedness and response is inevitable."

On 11 September 2011 a second report was issued by the government and submitted to the IAEA, summarising both on-site work and progress and off-site responses. It contained further analysis of the earthquake and tsunami, the initial responses to manage and cool the reactors, the state of spent fuel ponds and the state of reactor pressure vessels. It also summarised radioactive releases and their effects.

Meanwhile a July 2011 report from MIT's Centre for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems provided a useful series of observations, questions raised, and suggestions. Its Appendix has some constructive comment on radiation exposure and balancing the costs of dose avoidance in circumstances of environmental contamination.

In November 2011 the US Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO) released its Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, with timeline. This 97-page report gives a valuable and detailed account of events.

Also in November 2011 the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute published a 280-page report on the accident, with proposals to be addressed in the future.

On 2 December 2011 Tepco released its interim investigation report on the accident (in Japanese).

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is undertaking a 12-month study on the magnitude of radioactive releases to the atmosphere and ocean, and the range of radiation doses received by the public and workers.

An analysis by the Carnegie Endowment in March 2012 said that if best practices from other countries had been adopted by Tepco and NISA at Fukushima, the serious accident would not have happened, underlining the need for greater international regulatory collaboration.

In April 2012 the US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published Fukushima Daiichi Accident - Technical Causal Factor Analysis, which identified the root cause beyond the flooding and its effects as a failure to consider the possibility of the rupture of combinations of geological fault segments in the vicinity of the plant.

Inquiries and reports: radiation effects

A preliminary report from the World Health Organisation (WHO) in May 2012 estimated the radiation doses that residents of Japan outside the evacuated areas received in the year following the accident. The report's headline conclusion is that most people in Fukushima prefecture would have received a radiation dose of between 1 and 10 mSv during the first year after the accident. This compares with levels of about 2.4 mSv they would have received from unavoidable natural sources. In two places the doses were higher - between 10 and 50 mSv, still below any harmful level. Almost all were "below the internationally-agreed reference level for the public exposure due to radon in dwellings" (about 10 mSv/yr).

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in May 2012 reported that despite skin contamination of several workers, no clinically-observable effects have been reported and there is no evidence of acute radiation injury in any of the 20,115 workers who participated in Tepco's efforts to mitigate the accident at the plant. Eighteen UNSCEAR member states provided 72 experts for the assessment. UNSCEAR also surveyed Fukushima prefecture tol compare its data with Japanese measurements of exposures of some 2 million people living there at the time of the accident.

The results of UNSCEAR's 12-month study on the magnitude of radioactive releases to the atmosphere and ocean, and the range of radiation doses received by the public and workers were announced in May 2013 are reported above in the subsection on Radiation Exposure.

UNSCEAR's final report of radiation effects was released in April 2014. This concluded that the rates of cancer or hereditary diseases were unlikely to show any discernible rise in affected areas because the radiation doses people received were too low. People were promptly evacuated from the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, and later from a neighbouring area where radionuclides had accumulated. This action reduced their radiation exposure by a factor of ten, to levels that were "low or very low." Overall, people in Fukushima are expected on average to receive less than 10 mSv due to the accident over their whole lifetime, compared with the 170 mSv lifetime dose from natural background radiation that people in Japan typically receive. "The most important health effect is on mental and social well-being, related to the enormous impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk of exposure to radiation." UNSCEAR's follow-up white paper in October 2015 said that none of the new information appraised after the 2013 report "materially affected the main findings in, or challenged the major assumptions of, the 2013 Fukushima report."

In October 2013 a 16-member IAEA mission visited at government request and reported on remediation and decontamination in particular. Its preliminary report said that decontamination efforts were commendable but driven by unrealistic targets.

'Stress tests' on Japanese reactors and new regulatory authority

The government ordered nuclear risk and safety reassessments - so-called 'stress tests' - based on those in the EU for all Japan's nuclear reactors except Fukushima's before they restart following any shutdown, including for routine checks. These were in two stages, and are described in the Japan Nuclear Power paper.

The government then created a separate Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) under the authority of the Environment Ministry and combining the roles of NISA and NSC, commissioned in September 2012. A new Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) replaced the NSC and will review the effectiveness of the NRA and be responsible for the investigation of nuclear accidents.

Notes & references

General sources

Tepco
NISA
IAEA
METI
JAIF
NSC
Acton J.M. & Hibbs M, Why Fukushima was preventable, March 2012 Carnegie Paper.
INPO 11-005 Addendum, Aug 2012, Lessons learned from the Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
Government's Decision on Addressing the Contaminated Water Issue at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi NPS, 3 Sept 2013, on Ministry of Foreign Affairs website
K. Tateiwa, Jan 2014, Decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi NPS
UNSCEAR webpage on The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident
IAEA Report by the Director General on The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, STI/PUB/1710 (ISBN:978-92-0-107015-9), September 2015
A. Komori, Current status and the future of Fukushima Daiichi NP station, World Nuclear Association 2015 Symposium presentation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days. The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Workers at Fukushima in January 2018. Behrouz Mehri/AFP

On March 11, 2011, a nuclear disaster struck Japan. The 9.0 magnitude Tohoku earthquake triggered a 15-meter tidal wave, which hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant approximately 45 minutes later. The plant's power was knocked out and the backup generators crippled. After the emergency batteries were exhausted, three of the plant's six reactors soon overheated, and at least two of the cores melted down, releasing immense amounts of radiation. While the reactors are now in theory stabilised, the work to understand and contain the damage continues.

In the seven years that have elapsed since the disaster, much has been written and said about its causes. Yet expert reports have paid little attention to the extensive testimony of Masao Yoshida, who was plant manager at the time and passed away in 2013.

One can only wonder about the decisions Yoshida had to make between March 11 and 15, 2011, to avoid the worst. And his gripping account calls into question some of the keystone principles of nuclear safety.

A 'made in Japan' disaster?

The international community and the Japanese themselves quickly characterized the disaster as one that was "made in Japan", meaning it was enabled by two circumstances specific to Japan: the country's exposure to environmental hazards (earthquakes and tsunamis) and its cultural acceptance of collusion - real or imaginary - between corporations and government.

Management of the accident, both by its operator, the Tepco Group, and the Japanese government, has been condemned as ineffectual. Serious failings were attributed to Tepco, which was unable to prevent a nuclear meltdown and subsequent explosions. A rare bright point was the heroism of those working on the ground, who risked their own lives to avert an even greater disaster.

Calling Fukushima a "made in Japan" disaster focuses attention on the failures of a socio-technical system apparently disconnected from industry good practices and the norms of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Moreover, its extraordinary scale allows it to be filed in the same historic category as another "aberrant" accident, Chernobyl. The latter was attributed to gross Soviet negligence, implicitly reinforcing a utopian vision of a safe and reliable nuclear industry. But do the nature of the Fukushima disaster and the specificity of its causes really make it an exception?

There have been a wide range of official inquiries. In Japan, reports were issued by both a governmental investigation and a parliamentary commission. Investigations were also conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD.

These analyses chiefly focused on the impact of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami on the nuclear power plant, the way the crisis was managed by the operator and the authorities, and on the cooperation between those onsite (emergency services) and offsite (Tepco staff). Hundreds of thousands of pages of reports have been published as a result. Ultimately, authorities unanimously concluded that upholding IAEA norms alone guarantees nuclear safety.

But the majority of the thousand-plus hearings given by the people involved have remained confidential. This is troubling: Why would a democratic society allow hearings given to a parliamentary commission to remain secret?

During the Japanese government's investigation, Fukushima Daiichi plant manager Masao Yoshida was interviewed for more than 28 hours, over 13 sessions. His testimony was only made public in September 2014 after critical reporting by Japanese media. Printed in Japanese on A4 paper, it filled more than 400 pages.

Shedding new light on the story

Jiji Pres/AFP

The Risk and Crisis Research Centre of the Mines ParisTech engineering school translated Yoshida's testimony into French, the first complete version in a language other than Japanese. (A partial English translation exists, made available by the Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun, but it proved to be inaccurate on several crucial points, and is highly controversial.)

Given that France generates 76% of its electricity with nuclear power, the task of a complete translation should have been undertaken by a nuclear-sector operator. None volunteered, however, no doubt asserting that all had already been said and settled. The Fukushima investigators all followed a pre-set formula, apparently designed solely to confirm hypotheses that would put events down to purely technical causes. Yet Yoshida responded to the investigators' questions from an entirely different point of view, attributing his decisions and actions to the brutal struggle between men (himself and his staff) and technology or, more precisely, the machines (the reactors) that had suddenly gone out of control.

The brutal reality of the situation in March 2011 was that it was no longer a question of managing a crisis, applying established procedures or rolling out plan A or plan B. Day after agonising day, the Fukushima Daiichi power plant was an island, plunged into darkness, without electricity or emergency diesel generators, and almost completely devoid of resources.

Largely left to their own devices, Yoshida and the plant's staff risked their lives at every moment. Wearing stiflingly hot protective wear and buffeted by aftershocks, they searched for slightest sound or visual clue in the absence of measurement data. Groping around the labyrinth of the ruined plant, they sought, more or less with success, to protect themselves from radioactive contamination in order to continue their work.

During the hearings, Yoshida confided his fears, doubts and beliefs. He lauded the commitment of his colleagues inside the plant, even as he deplored the absence or incompetence of those outside - Tepco headquarters, the government, the regulatory authority, and so on.

IAEA/Flickr, CC BY

The emotional intensity of his account is both striking and moving. It shatters the all-too-bureaucratic certitudes that underestimate the complexities of situations, to the point of ignoring our humanity: the workers were facing the possibility of their own deaths and, above all, the deaths of their colleagues, their families and everything dear to them.

Almost miraculously, after four days of desperate efforts, the worst - the explosion of the Daiichi reactors, which could have threatened those at the close-by Daini and Onagawa plants as well - was narrowly avoided. Yet we have learnt almost nothing from this catastrophe, and the much larger one that was averted.

Beyond safety margins

Of course, re-examining safety standards is important, as are "hard core" safety systems (a kind of fortified line of defence against external onslaughts) and the costly installation of diverse backup power generators. Such measures certainly increase safety margins, but what about the bigger picture?

The creation of "special nuclear forces", such as France's nuclear rapid action force (FARN), is a perfect example of such a mind-set. They are on-call to restore installations in accordance with regulations on radiation exposure. But what will such teams do if levels of radioactivity are above those set out in the legislation? Could we count on their commitment, as Japan did for that of Masao Yoshida and his staff, at once heroes and victims, sacrificed willingly or under orders, in order to prevent a nuclear apocalypse?

Translated from the French by Alice Heathwood for Fast for Word and Leighton Walter Kille.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fukushima seven years later: case closed?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 11, 2011, a nuclear disaster struck Japan. The 9.0 magnitude Tohoku earthquake triggered a 15-meter tidal wave, which hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant approximately 45 minutes later. The plant's power was knocked out and the backup generators crippled.