Taiwan’s nuclear energy debate has intensified amid rising electricity demand, recurring blackout incidents, and growing decarbonization pressures, yet public acceptance remains polarized following the 2021 referendum rejecting nuclear plant reactivation. This study examined the determinants of public acceptance using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework integrating Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). Thirty Taiwanese citizens completed a DEMATEL-based pairwise comparison questionnaire covering four dimensions and sixteen criteria related to perceived risk, perceived benefit, trust and governance, and knowledge and communication. DEMATEL results showed that perceived benefit and perceived risk were the main causal drivers, while trust and governance and knowledge and communication were dependent dimensions. Key causal criteria included environmental contamination, low-carbon electricity, and complementarity with renewable energy. ANP weighting analysis indicated that trust and governance was the most influential dimension, with safety oversight, environmental contamination, public education, emergency preparedness, and regulatory competence ranked as the top criteria. The findings reveal a governance paradox: although benefit framing may increase openness to reactivation, public acceptance ultimately depends on credible regulatory competence, transparent safety assurance, and participatory communication. Finally, the DANP framework offers a robust, generalizable, and decision-oriented tool for systematically evaluating nuclear energy acceptance within complex and contested energy transition landscapes. • A DEMATEL–ANP framework was applied to evaluate nuclear reactivation acceptance. • Perceived risks and benefits were identified as primary causal drivers of acceptance. • Trust and governance were determined as the most influential evaluative dimension. • Safety oversight and environmental contamination were ranked as top-priority criteria. • Climate-benefit framing was shown effective only when credible regulation was ensured.
Adiutomo et al. (Sun,) studied this question.