Local residents often oppose some types of facilities because of their negative side effects, even though they are claimed to be necessary for the public good. These facilities are known as locally unwanted-land-uses, and local opposition to them is often referred to as not-in-my-backyard, usually with a pejorative connotation. However, some studies have challenged this conventional view of local opposition. Given these conflicting views, the present article explores how local mobilisation should be evaluated, focusing particularly on distributive justice. First, the study illuminates how different interpretations of distributive justice lead to difference in views on local opposition. Then, by comparing three waste disposal facility cases in Japan, a distinction between cost sharing and cost overlapping cases is illuminated. The study further develops discussions by pointing out the limits of using this distinction to evaluate local opposition movements and provides insights that can contribute to a fuller understanding of siting conflicts.