I believe this manuscript can somewhat contribute to the field. However, I have some concerns before I recommend the editor to accept this manuscript to be published on Risk Analysis.

First, it seems that “anti-NPP attitude” is a very important variable of the hypothesized conceptual modal. However, in the literature review section, the author only reviewed the concept of “not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) conflict.” It confuses audiences that whether NIMBY is the only concept represented the anti-NPP attitude or there are any other attitudes were not mentioned. Thus, I suggest the authors should specify why NIMBY is the only attitude used to represent “anti-NPP attitude” in the literature review section or should just test the effect of “NIMBY” …show more content…
First and foremost, the PADM is a model explaining how people make their decision on taking a protective action between the periods they are aware a risk and they take the actions. This model is generally based on HELP theory from social psychology which indicates human behaviors in response to an emergency. On the other hand, I think the authors should specify the reasons why the PADM is also suitable to the anti-NPP issues. Particularly, an anti-NPP issue is usually understood not only as residents’ protective action against to a potential threat but also as political affairs and public issues. Hence, the authors should clarify whether the use of the PADM in this study would overlook the whole decision making process. In addition, PADM is a stepwise model—that is, the PADM hypothesizes complete mediation effects of risk assessments and risk perceptions between information seeking and decision;--whereas the hypothesized conceptual model looks like that the authors aimed to identify comprehensive relationships between perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. The authors should clarify whether the differences would affect the way the authors illustrate the model. Still, it is questionable why the authors hypothesized different effects on perceived knowledge and risk than on perceived benefits (e.g., why there are no hypothesized relationships between perceived benefits and