We evaluate Oregon households’ welfare gains from chainging the state’s marine-reserve system (MRS) by integrating carbon sequestration and coastal employment objectives. A D-efficient discrete-choice experiment (N = 371) varied reserve size, net jobs, blue-carbon and annual cost. Random-Parameter Logit models with Error-Component estimated in WTP-space yield stable welfare metrics and out-perform Generalized Mixed Logit models and utility-space analogues. All three attributes display positive, monotonic marginal WTP with blue carbon being the most valued. Scenario analysis shows strong loss aversion with an “optimistic” package (+50 % size, +200 jobs, +100 % carbon) commanding $465–704 yr⁻¹ in mean WTP, whereas equivalent contractions generate larger welfare losses. When budgets bind, respondents prioritize blue-carbon gains over job creation or additional reserve area, underscoring climate-mitigation benefits as the decisive driver of support. Preference heterogeneity by coastal use is pronounced: non-fishing recreationists exhibit the highest WTP, while recreational fishers value improvements less but demand greater compensation to accept the status quo. These findings indicate broad public backing for MRS policies that center on blue-carbon outcomes and suggest that tiered financing or carbon-credit mechanisms could secure stable funding while retaining stakeholder acceptance.
