Albrecht, and Bourke 1998). Especially, siting a NIMBY facility concentrates the risk 27 and cost on siting areas while diffusing the benefits outside of the siting areas. Thus, even 28 if they agree that a repository to dispose of harmful waste is necessary, they refuse to 29 build one in their hometown, that is, their backyard. In particular, NIMBY facilities often 30 induce a conflict between siting and non-siting areas. While residents in siting areas suffer 31 damage to their private interests, such as a devaluation of property, those in non-siting 32 areas are able to experience public interests, such as safety, without their private interests 33 being damaged. Consequently, residents in siting areas experience repulsion to inequity 34 and are likely to oppose the facility strongly. 35 Social psychology discusses the multidimensional aspect of the judgment of 36 fairness to accept technology or risky facilities. Besley (2010, 2012) suggested that 37 distributive, procedural, and interpersonal fairness play a role in perceptions of decision-38 making of public acceptance. First, distributive fairness is concerned with the fairness of 39 outcomes, such as risk-benefit evaluation. Research on justice has revealed that a 40 desirable, i.e., equitable, result plays an important role in the acceptance of a decision 41 (Deutsch 1975). Second, procedural fairness involves fairness in a decision-making 42 procedure, such as the opportunity of voice. Research on justice has shown that 43 procedural fairness is more important than distributive fairness (Lind and Tyler 1988; 44 Törnblom and Vermunt 1999). Third, interpersonal fairness occurs when people 45 recognize that risk communicators are trustworthy and respectful of people's views and/or 46 values. According to Bies (2005), interactional fairness represents a third component of 47 fairness along with distributive and procedural justice. Previous studies have 48 demonstrated internalized moral values as related to the judgment of fairness (Skitka 49 2002;Skitka and Mullen 2002). In issues related to energy technology, protected value, 50 which is not tradable against other values, has consistent effects on the acceptance of
