Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Do procedural fairness and conflict perception affect the acceptance of the

temporary nuclear spent fuel storage facility? Evidence from South Korea
Daeyoun Lee a, b, Woo J. Kim c, Young Rok Choi c, *
a
Graduate School of Technology and Innovation Management, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Ulju-gun, Ulsan, Republic of
Korea
b
Electicity Policy Research Team, Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), 405-11 Jongga-ro, Jung-gu, Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea
c
Graduate School of Technology and Innovation Management, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Ulju-gun, Ulsan, 44919,
Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study uses data collected from the residents near South Korean nuclear power plants to explore the complex
Temporal nuclear spent fuel storage facility psychological factors that may influence the local acceptance of the expansion of temporary nuclear spent fuel
Public acceptance (NSF) storage facilities in South Korea. Employing structural equation modeling, we examine the roles of
perceived procedural fairness
perceived procedural fairness and perceived local conflicts in the traditional model of trust, knowledge, and
perceived local conflicts
perceptions of risks and benefits. Our findings demonstrate that perceived procedural fairness significantly in­
Risk perception
Benefit perception fluences trust, which further mediates the relationship between perceived local conflicts and benefit and risk
perceptions, ultimately shaping local acceptance of temporary NSF storage facilities. Our findings underscore the
importance of perceived procedural fairness and trust in shaping local acceptance and highlight perceived local
conflicts’ role in amplifying the perceptions of benefits and risks. These findings inform new policy implications
for the local acceptance of expanding temporal NSF storage facilities.

1. Introduction miles of their residence, respectively. Similarly, Skarlatidou et al. (2012)

The world has set a new goal of achieving net-zero CO2 emissions by
2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). One
approach to realizing this objective is to increase the use of nuclear
energy, a low-carbon energy source (Hong et al., 2015); however, so­
cietal concerns regarding safety and environmental issues, such as
radioactive waste and reactor accidents, have constrained the con­
struction of nuclear power plants. While understanding public accep­
tance of nuclear energy is crucial for its broader deployment (Qi et al.,
2020; Wang et al., 2020), the issue of nuclear spent fuel (NSF) storage is
a separate concern that requires more immediate attention. Research
indicates that even among those who support nuclear power, significant
resistance exists concerning the siting of spent fuel facilities. For
example, a Morning Consult (2020) survey found that 64% and 58% of
pronuclear individuals opposed a spent fuel facility within 5 and 20
revealed that 20 nonexpert interviewees supported nuclear energy but
harbored negative attitudes toward nuclear waste facilities, suggesting
that the crux of deploying nuclear energy may ultimately be garnering
support for waste storage solutions. Therefore, understanding the spe­
cific concerns and motives driving local acceptance of spent fuel facil­
ities is vital.
South Korea urgently needs to expand the temporary storage facility
for NSF, distinct from the deep geological repositories1 (Ministry of
Trade, Industry, and Energy [MOTIE], 2021). While deep geological
repositories provide long-term containment of NSF, the current situation
in South Korea calls for immediate expansion of temporary storage fa­
cilities (MOTIE, 2021). Current temporary NSF storage facilities are
expected to reach capacity before the design life of their nuclear power
plants (MOTIE, 2023). Thus, the government and nuclear power plant
operator (Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power) are promoting expanding

* Corresponding author. School of Business Administration, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Ulju-gun, Ulsan, 44919,
Republic of Korea.
E-mail addresses: africanus@unist.ac.kr (D. Lee), kimw@unist.ac.kr (W.J. Kim), yrchoi@unist.ac.kr (Y.R. Choi).
1
The South Korean government plans to store NSFs in on-site storage facilities until a centralized interim storage facility is completed. Once it is completed, NSF
stored at the on-site facility will be moved to the centralized interim storage facility; however, it is uncertain when the interim storage facility will be completed
(MOTIE, 2021).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2024.105051
Received 9 June 2023; Received in revised form 14 December 2023; Accepted 1 January 2024
Available online 15 January 2024
0149-1970/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Lee et al.
the current temporal storage facilities; however, residents near nuclear
power plants and some environmental groups oppose the expansion of
temporary NSF storage facilities, making it challenging to proceed. For
example, in 2020, a series of briefings were scheduled in communities
near the Wolseong nuclear power plant in Gyeongju, South Korea, to
collect local feedback on the proposed expansion of the plant’s tempo­
rary NSF storage facility; however, several events had to be canceled
because local community groups physically occupied the venues,
delaying the process of expansion. The decision to proceed with the
expansion was made only 19 months before the temporary NSF storage
facilities were expected to reach maximum capacity—barely meeting
the minimum time required for expansion (Spent Fuel Management
Policy Review Committee, 2021). Therefore, research is needed to foster
the acceptance of these temporary NSF storage expansions.
Temporal NSF storage facilities are essential for sustainable nuclear
power generation in South Korea; however, our understanding of how
residents accept such facilities is still understudied. This research in­
vestigates influencing the acceptance of temporal NSF storage facilities,
highlighting the complex interplay of factors such as perceived proce­
dural fairness, perceived benefits and risks, trust in relevant authorities,
perceived local conflict, and knowledge. We utilize a multidimensional
approach grounded in interrelated theories, proposing a comprehensive
research model (Fig. 1) that offers a holistic view of how various psy­
chological and social factors collectively influence the acceptance of
temporal NSF storage facilities.
The paper is structured as follows: Upcoming sections will outline the
hypotheses under investigation, describe the methodology used for
empirical testing, and demonstrate an analysis of the results. The final
section presents the limitations and directions for future studies,
including the need for broader cross-cultural samples to validate the
model’s applicability, the exploration of inverse relationships among
variables, and the necessity of employing more conservative guidelines
for model fit assessment. This research contributes to academic litera­
ture and provides policymakers and relevant stakeholders valuable in­
sights for improving public dialogue and acceptance.
2. Hypothesis development
Prior research indicates that individual assessments of risks and
benefits are significant in determining individuals’ acceptance of haz­
ards, including NSF storage facilities (Kunreuther and Easterling, 1990).
The expected utility under uncertainty implies that individuals weigh
the potential gain (e.g., benefit) and loss (e.g., risk) of accepting a
hazardous facility, considering the probability and magnitude of each
benefit and risk. For instance, individuals may weigh the benefits of
approving an NSF storage facility in their community and the potential
risks the facility may pose. In empirical studies, scholars posed different
predictions on the specific influences of perceived benefits and risks.
Kunreuther and Easterling (1990) note that perceived benefits have a
positive function in gaining acceptance for the siting of a nuclear waste
storage facility, particularly when the risks are perceived as minimal;
however, a substantial body of research demonstrates that risk and
Fig. 1. Research model of acceptance of temporary spent fuel storage facility.
2
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
benefit perceptions contribute to accepting hazards such as NSF storage
facilities (Kim et al., 2014; Qi et al., 2020; Seidl et al., 2022; Wang et al.,
2020). Specifically, Siegrist (1999, 2000) proposes a model of risks and
benefits perceptions in the context of gene technology, indicating that
higher perceived benefits lead to greater acceptance, whereas higher
perceived risks result in reduced acceptance. Similar studies by Qi et al.
(2020) and Wang et al. (2020) demonstrate that a positive perception of
the benefits positively correlates with the acceptance of nuclear energy,
whereas a negative perception of the risks correlates inversely. Tem­
poral NSF storage facilities are similar to nuclear power plants in that
they pose potential radiation risks (Chen et al., 2010), and the govern­
ment provides support measures to the area hosting the facilities
(MOTIE, 2020); hence, we propose the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1a. As individuals perceive more benefits associated with
spent fuel storage facilities, acceptance of these facilities increases.
Hypothesis 1b. As individuals perceive more risks associated with
spent fuel storage facilities, acceptance of these facilities decreases.
The expected utility theory has merit as a normative approach for
understanding individuals’ acceptance of temporal NSF storage facil­
ities; however, it is limited in its ability to fully account for the com­
plexities associated with people’s acceptance assessment. This limitation
arises because the benefit and risk analysis presumes that humans are
rational but often bound to quantifying their benefits and risks (Simon,
1997; Starmer, 2000). Furthermore, various antecedents would influ­
ence the perception of the benefits and risks of temporal NSF storage
facilities.
People often base their judgments on heuristics known as cognitive
shortcuts that facilitate effortless mental processing (Tversky and Kah­
neman, 1974), which include affect (Finucane et al., 2000) and trust
(Lewicki and Brinsfield, 2011). Trust, in particular, leads to positive
expectations of a trustee’s intentions and behaviors regardless of asso­
ciated risk or uncertainty (Luhmann, 1988; Rousseau et al., 1998). For
instance, even if the objective risk is high, a person’s perception can be
lower if they trust the relevant authority (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2005).
Furthermore, in situations where individuals lack sufficient information,
they are likely to defer to the expertise of trusted authorities (Bronfman
and López-Vázquez, 2011; Siegrist, 2021; Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000;
Siegrist et al., 2000). The general public largely lacks sufficient and
accurate knowledge of NSF storage facilities. For example, a study found
that 19 of 20 nonexpert interviewees had limited or no understanding of
NSF (Skarlatidou et al., 2012). Individuals with a thorough under­
standing or knowledge of NSF can evaluate the risks and benefits of
approving temporal NSF storage facilities based on their knowledge,
whereas others may rely on trusted sources for their assessment. Hence,
we propose the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 2a. The more individuals trust relevant authorities, the
more likely they are to see benefits in temporal NSF storage facilities.
Hypothesis 2b. The more individuals trust relevant authorities, the
less likely they are to see risks in temporal NSF storage facilities.
D. Lee et al.
Hypothesis 3a. The more knowledgeable individuals are about tem­
poral NSF storage facilities, the more likely they are to see benefits in
these facilities.
Hypothesis 3b. The more knowledgeable individuals are about tem­
poral NSF storage facilities, the less likely they are to see risks in these
facilities.
In addition to trust and knowledge—which the extant literature has
thoroughly investigated—we focus on the fact that nuclear power plants
and related facilities often tend to cause local conflicts, representing a
social dilemma often instigated by the siting of such facilities. We claim
that the extent of local conflicts may affect individuals’ perceptions of
risks and benefits. Risks are grounded in the social amplification of risk
framework; they are not just a product of objective hazards but are so­
cially constructed through circulating risk-related information, or “risk
signals,” among social networks. The perceived local conflict caused by
nuclear power plants and related facilities can act as a risk signal that
amplifies perceptions of the associated risks with a particular issue, such
as expanding a temporal NSF storage facility. Furthermore, according to
the affect heuristic framework, negative emotions can influence risk
judgments, increasing sensitivity to potential downsides and decreasing
receptiveness to potential benefits (Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic et al.,
2007). Perceived local conflicts may induce negative emotions like fear,
anxiety, and anger, which can bias cognitive processes toward identi­
fying greater risks and minimizing perceived benefits. Hence, we pro­
pose the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 4a. The more individuals perceive local conflicts, the less
likely they are to see benefits in temporal NSF storage facilities.
Hypothesis 4b. The more individuals perceive local conflicts, the
more likely they are to see risks in temporal NSF storage facilities.
Furthermore, as trust is said to influence the perceptions of nuclear
energy, it is pertinent to explore how trust might affect perceived local
conflicts. Trust in relevant authorities shapes how individuals assess
risks and benefits (Siegrist, 2000) and may impact their perception of
local conflict, defined as the subjective assessment of discord,
disagreement, or tension within the community. High levels of trust can
serve as a psychological buffer that mitigates the perceived severity or
prevalence of such conflicts (Deutsch, 1958; Rousseau et al., 1998).
Specifically, when individuals have high trust in relevant authorities,
they may be less likely to perceive tension as contentious or
conflict-ridden because they believe that competent authorities oversee
the process. High trust can temper the lens through which residents view
their tension, decreasing the likelihood of disagreements or differences
of opinion being categorized as conflicts. Therefore, we propose.
Hypothesis 5. The more individuals trust relevant authorities, the less
likely they are to perceive local conflicts.
In our model depicted in Fig. 1, trust plays a central role, influencing
the perception of local conflicts and the perceptions of the benefits and
risks of temporal NSF storage facilities; therefore, for policymakers,
understanding the mechanisms that engender trust is essential to pro­
moting acceptance. Given the social dilemma inherent to expanding
temporal NSF storage facilities, fairness heuristic theory offers an
important lens for understanding how individuals form trust judgments.
According to this theory, people use perceived procedural fairness as a
heuristic to quickly gauge the trustworthiness of authorities, especially
when they fear exploitation or mistreatment (Lind, 2001). Authorities
employing procedures perceived as fair are considered trustworthy,
leading to trust-based positive outcomes, such as favorable emotions
toward those in power (De Cremer, 2004). Conversely, unfair proced­
ures signal a lack of trustworthiness, reducing the level of trust accorded
to the authorities (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Therefore, we propose the
following.
Hypothesis 6. The more individuals perceive procedures as fair, the
3
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
more likely they are to trust the relevant authorities.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Research context and interviews with local residents
The Korean government established a local executive body
comprised of representatives of residents and local government
personnel in Gyeongju. Their goal was to collect residents’ opinions
regarding the expansion of the temporal NSF storage facility located in
the Wolseong nuclear power plant, which was expected to reach ca­
pacity. The local executive body selected 165 Gyeongju residents and
gave them pertinent information through an orientation and in-depth
three-week discussions. Through this process, the opinion to support
the expansion of the temporary NSF storage facility increased from
58.6% to 81.4%. Based on this result, the government expanded the
temporary NSF storage facility at the Wolseong nuclear power plant in
July 2020; however, severe conflicts arose between those in favor and
those opposed.
We interviewed the residents in Gyeongju to understand how they
perceived the situation, employing a semi-structured interview format,
allowing for flexible, in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives.
Interviewers had the discretion to pose new or follow-up questions based
on each interviewee’s responses (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006;
Kallio et al., 2016). The interviews were conducted with seven Gyeongju
residents from November 2020 to April 2021. To recruit interviewees,
we utilized the snowball sampling method. The first interviewee was a
member of the local executive body; they recommended the next
interviewee, and so on. Our respondents included one individual from
the local executive body with pro-expansion, two individuals from an
environmental group who were both anti-expansion, one representative
from the local community with no clear position, and three residents
with varied opinions (one pro-expansion, one anti-expansion, and one
neutral). Each interview was conducted face-to-face by a trained inter­
viewer for approximately 2 h while a trained assistant took notes. The
interviewer posed follow-up questions based on each respondent’s an­
swers. At the end of each interview, the respondent was asked to
recommend potential respondents and provide their contact informa­
tion. The interviewee was then monetarily compensated.2
The findings from the in-depth interviews were broadly consistent
with the hypotheses proposed in this study. The lack of procedural
fairness led to a decline in trust in the government and fueled opposition
activity. For example, a representative of an environmental group
stated:
We have already received information from the government through
the information network of environmental groups across the country
that there was about the order to expand the nuclear waste re­
positories if there is more support from the residents. Gyeongju city
organized the members of the local executive body in favor of it.
However, there are suspicions over fairness in the voting process.
This unfair procedure has fueled more fierce opposition from the
opposing groups. (Respondent 2)
Conflicts between residents in the region intensified as the issue of
expanding the temporal NSF storage facility emerged as a significant
issue in the community. A representative of local communities said:
I think that the government’s action has intensified conflicts between
residents. There is a difference between support and opposition to
2
The interviews aimed to capture a range of opinions on facility expansion
rather than examine opinion shifts. No interviewees altered their initial views
during the process, providing a snapshot of current attitudes rather than
capturing their dynamic nature. The study did not explore how these opinions
could evolve, leaving that aspect open for future research.
D. Lee et al.
government policy, and each side has different claims. Residents who
are in favor of Maxtor’s3 expansion say that the shutdown of nuclear
power plants will have a negative impact on the local economy, so
the expansion is inevitable and will bring a lot of benefits. On the
other hand, residents who oppose it are concerned that nuclear waste
remains in the community when an additional Maxtor is built and
insist on increasing the amount of compensation they can receive
from the government. (Respondent 3: a representative of the local
community)
Residents tended to be divided between support and opposition
based on perceived risks and benefits. A resident opposed to the nuclear
power plant mentioned almost no benefits from the location of the nu­
clear power plant, which only increased potential risks. In contrast, a
resident generally favoring the nuclear power plant mentioned that it
brought more jobs and good facilities to Gyeongju. The interviewees’
opinions also suggested that the perceptions of procedural fairness
increased conflict in the region affect the acceptance of expanding the
temporal NSF storage facility; thus, we sought to verify the impact of
these two factors through a quantitative study.
3.2. Data collection
3.2.1. Respondents
We conducted an online survey to test our research model, depicted
in Fig. 1. The survey was administered by Hankook Research (htt
ps://www.hrc.co.kr), a firm specializing in public opinion polls in
South Korea. The respondents resided in one of four regions near a nu­
clear power plant: Gijang-gun in Busan Metropolitan city; Yeonggwang-
gun in Jeollanam-do; Gyeongju city and Uljin-gun in Gyeongsangbuk-
do. We used a proportional quota sampling technique to allocate sam­
ples by age and gender based on the demographic distribution in these
four regions. Initially, a total of 206 respondents completed the ques­
tionnaire. After eliminating 29 careless responses that provided the
same response to all questions, including items with reversed wording,
177 responses were analyzed. The demographics of the analyzed sample
were as follows: Mage = 47.7 and SDage = 13.48; 53.1% male and 46.9%
female; 20.3% high school diploma or less, and 79.7% college education
or higher; 52.5% politically moderate, 26% liberal, and 21.5%
conservative.
3.2.2. Procedure and measurement
The agency invited respondents to participate in an online survey via
email. Those who agreed to participate completed the questionnaire
using a computer or a mobile device. After confirming their residency in
the targeted regions, respondents were asked to provide basic de­
mographic information, as listed in Section 3.2.1 above. They then
completed the following variables in order and were compensated
monetarily.
3.2.2.1. Knowledge of NSF storage facilities. We assessed this variable
using three questions the local executive body used to recruit partici­
pants (e.g., “Do you know that a temporary spent fuel storage facility is
being operated in a nuclear power plant?”). Respondents rated each
question using a 3-point scale: “I do not know it” (1), “I have heard of it
but do not know it well” (2), and “I know it very well” (3). The three
questions focus on multiple aspects of NSF storage facilities: temporary
NSF storage facilities within the nuclear power plants, the approaching
saturation of these storage facilities, and a “Maxtor” facility that stores
NSF in dry conditions.
3
Maxtor (Modular Air-Cooled Storage) is the name of nuclear spent fuel dry
storage facility that uses the modular air-cooled storage technology, which has
been installed at the Wolseong nuclear power plant site.
4
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
3.2.2.2. Trust in authorities. In South Korea, the authorities responsible
for nuclear power policy include the South Korean Ministry of Trade,
Industry, and Energy (the government agency for operating nuclear
power), Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, and local governments in the
region where nuclear power plants are located. Respondents were asked
to what extent they trusted each authority using a 5-point scale from (1)
“not at all trust” to (5) “completely trust.”
3.2.2.3. Perceived procedural fairness. We used three items to assess the
extent to which respondents perceive that authorities take adequate
actions (e.g., “The authorities that can exert power on siting nuclear
waste storages have fairly been implementing nuclear policy”) on a 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. We modified the items used
by Visschers and Siegrist (2012) to fit the context of our study based on
the content of in-depth interviews. The three questions focus on different
dimensions of perceived procedural fairness, including the belief that
the government’s policies are conducted in a procedurally fair manner,
the notion that both pro and anti-nuclear viewpoints are equally
considered in policy-making, and the perception that the government’s
nuclear policy is implemented transparently.
3.2.2.4. Perceived local conflict. Perceived local conflict refers to the
degree to which respondents perceive conflicts within a region due to
nuclear power plants. Based on the interviews, we created three ques­
tions (e.g., “The nuclear power plant has increased the conflict between
proponents and opponents in the region”), which respondents rated on a
7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
three questions explore several facets of perceived local conflict stem­
ming from the presence of a nuclear power plant, including the increase
in local polarization due to the power plant, the counter-narrative sug­
gesting that the plant has not exacerbated local conflicts, and the belief
that the community cohesion would improve in the absence of the power
plant.
3.2.2.5. Risk perception. We used five items to measure how dangerous
an NSF storage facility is perceived to be (e.g., “The NSF storage facility
to be built within the site of a nuclear power plant will be dangerous”
(Chung et al., 2008; Slovic, 1987). Respondents rated these items on a
7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
five questions focused on multiple dimensions, including the perceived
danger of the facility, fear of potential accidents, self-assessed knowl­
edge about the facility’s risks, the likelihood of an accident occurring at
the facility, and the projected severity of an accident if it were to
happen.
3.2.2.6. Benefit perception. Benefit perception assesses how respondents
perceive the benefits of locating an NSF storage facility in their region.
Respondents evaluated six statements using a Likert scale, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For example, one of the state­
ments read, “If an NSF storage facility is built within the site of a nuclear
power plant, the area where I live is likely to benefit economically”
(Chung et al., 2008). The six questions encompassed several dimensions,
including economic benefits in the region, personal financial gain,
projected changes in real estate values, availability of job opportunities,
enhancements to cultural and educational facilities, and regional image.
3.2.2.7. Local acceptance. This variable was measured using a single
item employed by the local executive body to solicit opinions from
residents regarding the expansion of the temporal NSF storage facility (i.
e., “What do you think of the additional construction of a temporary NSF
storage facility on the site of a nuclear power plant?”) (Spent Fuel
Management Policy Review Committee, 2020). The scale ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
D. Lee et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051

4. Results Table 1
Pattern coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha.
4.1. Factor analyses Item Factors

RP (α = PF (α = BP (α = K (α = T (α = LC (α =
We first reverse-scored appropriate items and checked for multi­ 0.88) 0.90) 0.80) 0.83) 0.80) 0.74)
variate outliers using Mahalanobis distance. We removed 5 cases
RP1 0.82 0.07 0.02 0.03 − 0.06 0.01
exceeding a Mahalanobis distance of 47.76 (p < 0.001) (Tabachnick and RP2 0.98 0.00 0.11 − 0.04 − 0.07 − 0.10
Fidell, 2007), leaving 172 responses for subsequent analyses. RP4 0.63 0.06 − 0.10 − 0.08 − 0.14 0.11
We conducted two preliminary tests before conducting an explor­ RP5 0.74 − 0.19 − 0.01 0.08 0.19 0.07
atory factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was applied to confirm PF1 0.01 0.74 − 0.02 0.01 0.22 − 0.03
PF2 − 0.02 0.79 0.13 − 0.00 0.03 − 0.00
that the matrix was not generated randomly, and the Kai­
PF3 − 0.08 0.90 − 0.01 − 0.01 0.06 0.02
ser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was used to BP1 − 0.04 0.21 0.59 − 0.01 − 0.17 − 0.05
evaluate the suitability of our data for factor analysis. A KMO value BP2 0.19 0.04 0.81 − 0.02 0.02 − 0.01
above a threshold of 0.50 indicated that the matrix could be considered BP5 − 0.02 − 0.23 0.72 0.02 0.15 0.11
factorable (Watkins, 2018). Upon confirmation, we conducted an BP6 − 0.17 0.11 0.66 0.01 − 0.02 0.01
K1 0.04 0.03 − 0.07 0.86 − 0.01 − 0.05
exploratory factor analysis. We opted for common factor analysis using K2 − 0.01 − 0.06 − 0.08 0.89 0.05 0.04
the maximum likelihood extraction method to uncover the underlying K3 − 0.02 0.04 0.25 0.61 − 0.09 − 0.02
latent structure of the variables. We used eigenvalues greater than one to T1 0.20 0.27 − 0.17 0.03 0.72 − 0.06
determine the number of factors to retain, the visual scree test, and T2 − 0.01 0.08 0.18 − 0.06 0.65 − 0.03
T3 − 0.16 0.10 − 0.05 0.00 0.65 0.10
theoretical coherence. A Promax rotation was applied due to the antic­
LC1 0.02 − 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.84
ipated correlations among factors (Watkins, 2018). We established LC2 − 0.00 − 0.06 − 0.09 − 0.05 0.05 0.69
criteria to assess the adequacy of the factors as well. Given the sample LC3 0.07 0.37 − 0.08 0.07 − 0.17 0.41
size of 172, pattern coefficients equal to or greater than 0.40 were
Note 1. Significant pattern coefficients ≥0.40 in boldface. Given that we ex­
deemed statistically and practically significant (Norman and Streiner, pected to see factor correlations, pattern coefficients were reported.
2014). Factors were deemed adequate if they had at least three signifi­ Note 2. RP = Risk perception; PF = Perceived procedural fairness; BP = Benefit
cant pattern coefficients, exhibited an internal consistency reliability of perception; K = Knowledge; T = Trust; LC = Perceived local conflict.
0.70 or above, and were theoretically meaningful (Watkins, 2018).
The results showed that the dataset proved suitable for factor anal­ 2007).
ysis (KMO = 0.83, χ2(253) = 2118.70, p < 0.05); however, two ques­ Next, we used composite reliability to assess the internal consistency
tions related to benefit perception loaded onto the same factor as those of each scale. Table 2 shows that all the constructs’ composite reliability
related to risk perception. Furthermore, one question associated with values were greater than 0.76, indicating high internal consistency of
risk perception and the questions of knowledge loaded onto the same measurement items for each construct (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore,
factor; we reviewed the questionnaires and concluded that those ques­ we examined the convergent validity of each construct using average
tions may not have appropriately measured the intended construct. The variance extracted (AVE) and factor loading. The AVE values exceeded
two reverse-worded items of benefit perception (“If an NSF storage fa­ 0.51, larger than the threshold of 0.50. The standardized factor loadings
cility is built within the site of a nuclear power plant, a bad image of the of all items also exceeded the threshold of 0.50, confirming convergent
region may occur, resulting in regional losses”; “If an NSF storage facility validity (Hair et al., 2010). Finally, we assessed discriminant validity
is built on the site of a nuclear power plant, the price of nearby real between constructs by comparing the AVE values for any two constructs
estate will drop”) might indicate a lack of benefit rather than losses. with the square of the correlation between these two constructs. Table 2
Moreover, one of the risk perception questions (“I am well aware of the and 3 show that each construct’s AVE index exceeded the squared cor­
risks of the NSF storage facility to be built within the site of a nuclear relation estimates between the given construct and all other constructs
power plant”) may have assessed respondents’ knowledge rather than (Hair et al., 2010). Each squared correlation coefficient between pairs of
their risk perception; therefore, we eliminated these items and reran the
analysis.
Using the remaining 20 items, we confirmed the suitability of the Table 2
dataset for factor analysis (KMO = 0.80, χ2(190) = 1819.31, p < 0.05). Measurement model.
After the extraction, eigenvalues greater than one indicated that 6 fac­ Latent variable Item Standardized factor CR AVE
tors accounted for 74.78% of the variance. The scree plot further sub­ loading
stantiated the selection of a 6-factor solution. Following the rotation, we Perceived procedural fairness PF1 0.87 0.90 0.75
examined the loadings of the items on each factor. Table 1 suggests that (PF) PF2 0.84
each factor had significant loadings without cross-loadings, aligning PF3 0.89
Knowledge (K) K1 0.83 0.84 0.64
with our expectations. Internal consistency of each factor (i.e., alpha
K2 0.90
values) exceeded the cutoff of 0.70. Given these results, the 6-factor K3 0.67
solution was accepted and used for further analyses. Trust (T) T1 0.79 0.79 0.57
We also conducted confirmatory factor analysis, evaluating the fit of T2 0.81
the conceptual model to our data using the following indices: relative T3 0.66
Perceived local conflict (LC) LC1 0.80 0.76 0.51
chi-square with a threshold of 3 (χ2/df < 3); two absolute fit indices with LC2 0.76
the cutoff of 0.08 (i.e., RMSEA <0.08, SRMR <0.08; Hair et al., 2010); LC3 0.57
and two incremental fit indices with a threshold of 0.90 (i.e., CFI >0.90, Benefit perception (BP) BP1 0.59 0.81 0.51
TLI >0.90; Bentler, 1990). The results showed the following fit statistics: BP2 0.69
BP5 0.74
χ2/df = 2.02, RMSEA = 0.077, SRMR = 0.078, CFI = 0.908, TLI = 0.887.
BP6 0.82
Even though the TLI value was slightly lower than the cutoff, the other Risk perception (RP) RP1 0.85 0.88 0.65
indices showed acceptable fit values. All other indices indicated a good RP2 0.90
fit and that the TLI value was only marginally below the threshold; thus, RP4 0.79
the slightly lower TLI can be seen as an acceptable tradeoff in light of the RP5 0.67

model’s complexity and sample size limitations (Tabachnick and Fidell, Note. CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Explained.

5
D. Lee et al.
Table 3
Correlations matrix of constructs.
Latent Variable PF K T
Perceived procedural fairness (PF) 1
Knowledge (K) − 0.03 (0.00) 1
Trust (T) 0.58*** (0.34) − 0.04 (0.00)
Perceived local conflict (LC) 0.02 (0.00) − 0.00 (0.00)
Benefit perception (BP) 0.24** (0.06) 0.24** (0.06)
Risk perception (RP) 0.05 (0.00) − 0.23** (0.05)
Mean 3.4 2.1
SD 1.36 0.60
Note. Values in parentheses indicate squared correlation coefficients. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.
constructs (i.e., values in parentheses in Table 3) was smaller than the
AVE value of each factor, demonstrating adequate discriminant validity.
4.2. Structural model
Next, we tested our initial research model (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
The model fit indices indicated a generally adequate fit to the data we
collected: χ2 = 356.78, df = 178, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.00, RMSEA =
0.077, SRMR = 0.094, CFI = 0.904, and TLI = 0.887. However, the
SRMR value exceeded the cutoff of 0.08, and the TLI value fell slightly
short of the 0.90 threshold. To address this, we added a covariance
between the residual terms of benefit perception and risk perception,
given the nature of the inverse relationship between these constructs.
The perceptions of benefits and risks are influenced by underlying psy­
chological and cognitive processes, such as affect heuristics, optimism
bias, or availability heuristics (Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic and Peters,
2006). This modification improves the model’s fit to the data and aligns
it more closely with established psychological theories; see Siegrist et al.
(2000) for a similar modification. The revised model (see Fig. 2) yielded
a significantly better-fitting model (χ2 = 335.56, df = 177, Δχ2 = 21.22,
Δdf = 1, pΔχ2 < 0.001), along with improved fit indices (χ2/df = 1.90,
RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.085, CFI = 0.915, TLI = 0.899). Although
the SRMR value was slightly above the 0.08 cutoff, Hu and Bentler
(1999) recommend a combination of CFI >0.90 and SRMR <0.09 when
the sample size is below 250. Given our small sample size of 172 and in
light of Hu and Bentler’s recommendations, we concluded that the
revised model demonstrated a reliable fit to the data.
As shown in Fig. 2, the results largely corroborated our hypotheses.
We first hypothesized that perceptions of benefits and risks would
positively and negatively affect local acceptance, respectively (Hy­
potheses 1a and 1b). Consistent with these expectations, benefit
perception positively impacted (β = 0.57, t = 5.61, p < 0.001), whereas
risk perception negatively affected local acceptance (β = − 0.33, t =
− 4.82, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that residents who perceive
greater benefits (fewer risks) are more (less) likely to accept the
expansion of a temporal NSF storage facility. Next, Hypotheses 2a and
2b posited that trust is positively related to the benefit perception but
negatively associated with risk perception. Trust showed a positive and
significant coefficient with the benefit perception (β = 0.36, t = 3.56, p
< 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2a; however, Hypothesis 2b was not
supported as trust showed a negative but insignificant coefficient with
the risk perception (β = − 0.06, t = − 0.67, p = 0.51). In line with Hy­
potheses 3a and 3b, knowledge is positively related to the benefit
perception (β = 0.26, t = 2.92, p = 0.004) and negatively related to the
risk perception (β = − 0.26, t = − 3.27, p = 0.001), supporting both
hypotheses. More knowledgeable residents about NSF storage facilities
appear to view the expansion of an NSF storage facility as carrying
greater benefits and fewer risks.
Additionally, we hypothesized that perceived local conflicts would
reduce the benefit perception (Hypothesis 4a) and increase the risk
perception (Hypothesis 4b). As expected, respondents who perceived
greater local conflicts had fewer benefits (β = − 0.18, t = − 1.93, p =
0.05) and more risks (β = 0.47, t = 4.97, p < 0.001), supporting
6
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
LC BP RP
1
− 0.23** (0.05) 1
0.32*** (0.10) − 0.02** (0.05) 1
− 0.17** (0.03) 0.43*** (0.18) − 0.41*** (0.17) 1
3.0 4.0 3.9 4.7
0.93 1.14 1.13 1.25
Hypotheses 4a and 4b. We anticipated an adverse effect of trust on the
perception of local conflicts for Hypothesis 5. This expectation was
confirmed by the negative and significant coefficient (β = − 0.25, t =
− 2.67, p = 0.01), indicating that higher trust in authorities led to lower
perceptions of local conflicts. Finally, we suggested the positive impact
of perceived procedural fairness on trust (Hypothesis 6). Supporting this
hypothesis, the perception of procedural fairness showed a positive and
significant coefficient with trust (β = 0.70, t = 8.09, p < 0.001), sug­
gesting that respondents who view procedures as fair are more likely to
trust the relevant authorities.
5. Discussion
The global adoption of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy source
has made constructing NSF storage facilities inevitable. This research
adds to the academic discourse and has practical implications for poli­
cymakers and community stakeholders, emphasizing the need for a
more sensitive approach to NSF storage facility siting. Specifically, this
study aims to advance our understanding of the psychological mecha­
nism of local acceptance regarding the expansion of temporary NSF
storage facilities in the context of South Korea. We investigated the ef­
fect of perceived procedural fairness on trust, which affected the local
acceptance of a temporary NSF storage facility via perceived local
conflicts, knowledge, and perceptions of benefits and risks. Data from
residents where the nuclear power plants are located supported the
overall research model of this study. The findings provide evidence for a
psychological mechanism that influences the local acceptance of a
temporal NSF storage facility through the interplay of perceived pro­
cedural fairness, trust, perceived local conflict, knowledge, and per­
ceptions of benefits and risks.
The effect of perceived procedural fairness on trust reaffirms the
extant literature that underlines the importance of fair procedures in
building or sustaining trust (De Cremer, 2004; Korsgaard et al., 1995;
Lind, 2001), and the current study extends this effect in contentious
contexts like NSF storage facility. Following the fairness heuristic theory
(Lind, 2001), residents apparently base their trust on their perception of
procedural fairness, having a downstream effect on local acceptance
through its impact on benefit perception but no effect on risk perception.
This relationship substantiates the existing literature on trust and benefit
perception (Qi et al., 2020; Siegrist, 1999; Visschers and Siegrist, 2013;
Wang et al., 2020). Furthermore, consistent with Siegrist’s model,
benefit and risk perceptions determined acceptance of expanding NSFs
(Siegrist, 1999, 2000).
One of the critical findings of the current research is the importance
of perceived local conflict in shaping acceptance of the expansion of an
NSF. Although conflict perception has been neglected in the risk liter­
ature, hazards almost always create a social dilemma that can lead to
conflicts and corrosive communities characterized by hostile debates
and apportioning of blame among local individuals (Freudenburg and
Jones, 1991; Shriver and Kennedy, 2005). The results indicate that
conflict perception can alter an individual’s perceptions of risks and
benefits, which advances the social amplification of risk framework
(Kasperson et al., 1988) by demonstrating that social factors like
D. Lee et al.
Fig. 2. Results of final model.
Note. †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.
perceived local conflict can amplify or attenuate individual perceptions
of risks and benefits. Furthermore, our study enriches the affect heuristic
framework (Finucane et al., 2000) by demonstrating how perceived
local conflicts, which may induce negative emotions, amplify risk and
benefit perceptions. Concurrently, we extend theories of trust as a psy­
chological buffer (Deutsch, 1958; Rousseau et al., 1998) by illustrating
that greater trust in relevant authorities can dampen these conflicts’
perceived severity and prevalence. Therefore, the current study calls for
theoretical models in perception and technology acceptance to integrate
cognitive evaluations with social dynamics and affective influences for a
more comprehensive understanding.
The absence of a direct effect of trust on risk perception in the current
study can be interpreted through multiple theoretical lenses. The psy­
chometric paradigm of risk perception emphasizes the role of inherent
characteristics of the risk itself, such as “dread,” in determining risk
perception (Slovic, 1987). Trust may play a critical role when risks are
high in dread, whereas risks with lower dread may not require external
validation through trust in authorities. Although our study did not
entirely capture the multi-faceted nature of dread (e.g., perceived lack of
control, catastrophic potential, and fatal consequences), additional
analysis using our data showed a strong negative correlation between
trust and risk perception when risk perception was high, above the
midpoint of 4 (r(124) = − 0.43, p < 0.001). No such relationship was
found when risk perception was low, below the midpoint of 4 (r(38) =
0.04, p = 0.84).4 Additionally, the affect heuristic framework offers
another perspective (Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic et al., 2007), sug­
gesting that people rely heavily on immediate emotional reactions to
judge risks and benefits. Additional analysis demonstrated that trust
indirectly affected risk perception via the perceived local conflict, albeit
marginally (β = − 0.12, p = 0.05, 95% CI = [–0.29, 0.00]). This result is
consistent with the affect heuristic perspective assuming that perceived
local conflict induces negative emotions; thus, the absence of a signifi­
cant relationship between trust and risk perception could be attributed
4 inversed. We hypothesized that the relationships with conflict
We appreciate this insight by a reviewer.
7
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
to a combination of factors, including but not limited to risk charac­
teristics and affective evaluations. These complex relationships warrant
further investigation.
The study’s practical implications are manifold, especially for poli­
cymakers and stakeholders involved in the expansion of NSF storage
facilities. First, the critical role of perceived procedural fairness in
building trust serves as a call to action for authorities to adopt trans­
parent, inclusive, and fair processes while making decisions on
expanding NSF storage facilities. Such measures could include involving
community representatives in decision-making processes or employing
participatory approaches that give the community a voice, thereby
improving the perception of procedural fairness and, by extension, trust.
Second, the model highlights the significance of trust as a mediator
between perceived procedural fairness and local acceptance, mediated
further by perceived local conflict and risk/benefit perceptions. This
finding suggests that authorities can employ targeted interventions at
each layer, ensuring procedural fairness to build trust, providing com­
plete and balanced information to shape risk and benefit perceptions,
and directly engaging with the community to boost local acceptance.
Essentially, each component of the model serves as a lever that au­
thorities can pull to impact the outcome. Lastly, the positive effect of
knowledge on benefit and risk perception underscores the importance of
educational campaigns or informational sessions. Such interventions
could elevate the community’s understanding of the technical aspects
and safety measures involved in a project, thereby shaping perceptions
of risks and benefits in a manner favorable to project acceptance.
While the current study offers valuable insights, several limitations
must be acknowledged. First, the limited generalizability of the results
should be considered. Respondents were residents near a South Korean
nuclear plant, and previous work suggests cross-cultural differences in
the relationships between trust, benefits, risks, knowledge, and public
acceptance of hazards (Bronfman and López Vázquez, 2011). Future
research should diversify the sample and context to validate the model’s
applicability. Second, although we identified associations between
perceived local conflicts and other variables, the directionality could be
D. Lee et al.
perception are based on several theoretical accounts, but inversed re­
lationships (e.g., high conflict perception as evidence to inform low
trustworthiness of relevant authorities) are intuitively likely; thus,
future research should employ experimental or longitudinal designs to
determine causality. Third, our study centered on attitudes toward
hazardous facilities and excluded measures of respondents’ knowledge
of relevant authorities, given the generally high awareness among adult
South Koreans. While this focus streamlined our investigation into
community acceptance and opposition, it did not explore how famil­
iarity with authorities could affect public trust and perceptions. This gap
suggests an avenue for future research. Finally, the cutoff criteria for
assessing model fit in our structural equation modeling may be consid­
ered conventional; however, other approaches could offer different in­
sights. Although the criteria we used are commonly cited in the
literature, different guidelines have been developed and provide more
conservative thresholds of model fit (Hooper et al., 2008). While less
conservative cutoffs could potentially lead to the acceptance of a poorly
fitting model, more conservative cutoffs could also cause the unnec­
essary rejection of a well-fitting model due to sample size, model
complexity, and other factors. We acknowledge these limitations and
recommend that future studies evaluate model fit thresholds more
carefully and consider sample size, model complexity, etc., to ensure
robust results.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Daeyoun Lee: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology. Woo
J. Kim: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Young Rok Choi:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge financial support from the Ministry of Ed­
ucation of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation
of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02093277) and KEEI (432097-04)
References
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107 (2),
238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Bronfman, N.C., López-Vázquez, E., 2011. A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit
versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Anal. 31 (12),
1919–1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01637.x.
Chen, K.C., Ting, K., Li, Y.C., Chen, Y.Y., Cheng, W.K., Chen, W.C., Liu, C.T., 2010.
A study of the probabilistic risk assessment to the dry storage system of spent nuclear
fuel. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 87 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpvp.2009.11.009.
Chung, J.B., Kim, H.K., Rho, S.K., 2008. Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive
waste disposal facility. Risk Anal. 28 (4), 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1539-6924.2008.01074.x.
De Cremer, D., 2004. The influence of accuracy as a function of leader’s bias: the role of
trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30
(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256969.
Deutsch, M., 1958. Trust and suspicion. J. Conflict Resolut. 2 (4), 265–279. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002200275800200401.
Dicicco-Bloom, B., Crabtree, B.F., 2006. The qualitative research interview. Med. Educ.
40 (4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x.
Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., Johnson, S.M., 2000. The affect heuristic in
judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13 (1), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S.
8
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
Freudenburg, W.R., Jones, T.R., 1991. Attitudes and stress in the presence of
technological risk: a test of the Supreme Court hypothesis. Soc. Forces 69 (4),
1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579306.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate data analysis,
seventh ed. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hong, S., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Brook, B.W., 2015. Global zero-carbon energy pathways
using viable mixes of nuclear and renewables. Appl. Energy 143 (1), 451–459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.006.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.R., 2008. Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 (1), 53–60.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: A Multidiscip. J. 6
(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5◦ C: an IPCC
Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5◦ C above pre-industrial levels
and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In: The Context of
Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable
Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Full_Report_LR.pdf.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.M., Johnson, M., Kangasniemi, M., 2016. Systematic methodological
review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide.
J. Adv. Nurs. 72 (12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X.,
Ratick, S., 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal.
8 (2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.
Kim, J., Yeo, S.K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Xenos, M.A., 2014. Disentangling the
influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for
nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Anal. 34 (5), 965–980. https://
doi.org/10.1111/risa.12141.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M., Sapienza, H.J., 1995. Building commitment,
attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural
justice. Acad. Manag. J. 38 (1), 60–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/256728.
Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., 1990. Are risk-benefit tradeoffs possible in siting
hazardous facilities? Am. Econ. Rev. 80 (2), 252–256.
Lewicki, R., Brinsfield, C., 2011. Trust as a heuristic. In: Donohue, W.A., Rogan, R.G.,
Kaufman, S. (Eds.), Framing matters: perspectives on negotiation research and
practice in communication. Peter Lang Publishingik, pp. 110–135.
Lind, E.A., 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations. In: Greenberg, J., Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in
organizational justice. Stanford University Press, pp. 56–88.
Luhmann, N., 1988. Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives. In:
Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations. Basil
Blackwell, pp. 94–107.
Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, 2020. Expansion of temporary storage facilities
for spent nuclear fuel at wolseong nuclear power plant and promotion of
complementary follow-up measures. August 20 [Press release]. https://www.motie.
go.kr/motie/ne/presse/press2/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_seq_n=163228&bbs_cd_n=81.
Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, 2021. 2nd basic plan for high-level radioactive
waste management. https://www.aec.go.kr/bbs/BoardDetail.do?nttId=177&bbsId
=BBSMSTR_000000000003&pageIndex=1.
Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, 2023. The saturation point of spent nuclear fuel
storage facilities is expected to be shortened by 1 to 2 years. February 10 [Press
release]. https://www.motie.go.kr/motie/ne/presse/press2/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs
_seq_n=166780&bbs_cd_n=81&currentPage=1&search_key_n=title_v&cate_n=&dep
t_v=&search_val_v=%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%ED%9B%84%ED%95%B5%EC%
97%B0%EB%A3%8C.
Morning Consult, 2020. National tracking poll#200164. https://morningconsult.com/
wp-content/uploads/2020/01/200164_crosstabs_CORONAVIRUS_Adults_v1.pdf.
Norman, G.R., Streiner, D.L., 2014. Biostatistics: the bare essentials, fourth ed. People’s
Medical Publishing.
Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N.F., 2005. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the
acceptability of GM food? Risk Anal. 25 (1), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.0272-4332.2005.00579.x.
Qi, W.H., Qi, M.L., Ji, Y.M., 2020. The effect path of public communication on public
acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Pol. 144, 111655 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2020.111655.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C., 1998. Not so different after all: a
cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (3), 393–404. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
Seidl, R., Drögemüller, C., Krütli, P., Walther, C., 2022. The role of trust and risk
perception in current German nuclear waste management. Risk Anal. 42 (12),
2704–2719. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13889.
Shriver, T.E., Kennedy, D.K., 2005. Contested environmental hazards and community
conflict over relocation. Rural Sociol. 70 (4), 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1526/
003601105775012679.
Siegrist, M., 1999. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene
technology. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29 (10), 2093–2106. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x.
Siegrist, M., 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the
acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20 (2), 195–203. https://doi.org/
10.1111/0272-4332.202020.
Siegrist, M., 2021. Trust and risk perception: a critical review of the literature. Risk Anal.
41 (3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., 2000. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and
knowledge. Risk Anal. 20 (5), 713–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-
4332.205064.
D. Lee et al.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., Roth, C., 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and
risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 20 (3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-
4332.203034.
Simon, H.A., 1997. Models of bounded rationality: empirically grounded economic
reason, vol. 3. MIT press.
Skarlatidou, A., Cheng, T., Haklay, M., 2012. What do lay people want to know about the
disposal of nuclear waste? A mental model approach to the design and development
of an online risk communication. Risk Anal. 32 (9), 1496–1511. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.x.
Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236 (4799), 280–285. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.3563507.
Slovic, P., Peters, E., 2006. Risk perception and affect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15 (6),
322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2007. The affect heuristic. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 177 (3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.
Spent Fuel Management Policy Review Committee, 2020. Disclosure of raw data as a
result of collecting opinions in the area where the wolseong nuclear power plant is
located. https://www.hlwpolicy.go.kr/hlwp/board/view.do?menu_idx=14&mana
ge_idx=102&board_idx=1315118&viewPage=1&search_type=title%2Bcontent.
Spent Fuel Management Policy Review Committee, 2021. Recommendations on spent
nuclear fuel management policy. https://www.hlwpolicy.go.kr/hlwp/board/view.
Progress in Nuclear Energy 169 (2024) 105051
do?menu_idx=14&manage_idx=102&board_idx=1315459&viewPage=1&search
_type=title%2Bcontent.
Starmer, C., 2000. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a
descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econ. Lit. 38 (2), 332–382. https://doi.
org/10.1257/jel.38.2.332.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using multivariate statistics, fifth ed. Allyn & Bacon.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
Science 185 (4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2012. Fair play in energy policy decisions: procedural
fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power
plants. Energy Pol. 46, 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062.
Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2013. How a nuclear power plant accident influences
acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the
Fukushima disaster. Risk Anal. 33 (2), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2012.01861.x.
Wang, F., Gu, J., Wu, J., 2020. Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public
acceptance of nuclear energy: evidence from China. Energy Pol. 145, 111716
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111716.
Watkins, M.W., 2018. Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. J. Black
Psychol. 44 (3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807.