Coastal conservation and blue carbon: Willingness to pay for changes to nearshore management in Oregon

This paper reports results from a discrete choice experiment conducted with Oregon residents regarding possible policy changes in spatial management of nearshore habitat. We evaluate public preferences across several policy scenarios, each characterized by varying levels of marine reserve size (bounded areas where extractive activities are prohibited), coastal jobs generated or lost, and carbon sequestration by seagrass beds, tidal marshes and kelp forests(blue carbon habitat expansion), with models estimated in both utility and willingness to pay (WTP) space. Each of these attributes across all models displays positive, monotonic marginal WTP. Scenario analysis reveals that an “optimistic” policy package (+50 % reserve size, +200 jobs, +100 % blue carbon) commands a mean WTP of $465–704 per year, whereas equivalent contractions generate larger welfare losses, indicating “loss aversion” among citizens. Preference varies by recreational coastal use: non-fishing recreationists exhibit the highest WTP for attribute improvements, while recreational fishers exhibit lower WTP and would otherwise require greater compensation to accept the status quo. These findings indicate broad public support for policies that support and potentially expand blue carbon habitat, and suggest that tiered financing or carbon-credit mechanisms may be viable strategies to secure stable funding while maintaining stakeholder acceptance.