Abstract
Energy development projects can bring both opportunities and challenges to local host communities. Legal agreements between developers and communities – often referred to as Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) – can facilitate social acceptance, address distributive justice, and mitigate local impacts. While prior studies highlight the risks of poor CBA design and the importance of distributive and procedural fairness, we know little about public preferences regarding CBA design. This study addresses this gap in understanding public preferences for CBAs related to ocean-based renewable energy development. Using a choice-based conjoint survey experiment with West Coast respondents (California, Oregon, and Washington; n = 2999), we evaluate preferences across three key CBA attributes: benefit size, primary recipient, and fund management. Preferences are analyzed using both average marginal component effects and marginal means. Results indicate that, while larger benefits are generally preferred, younger respondents, lower-income groups, and conservatives often prioritize specific recipient sectors, such as housing, over benefit size. Overall, respondents favored directing funds toward housing and community services rather than environmental restoration or individual payments to those in affected industries. For fund management, established and newly created non-profits were preferred over local government. Preferences varied across demographic, ideological, and geographic lines. Tailoring CBAs to reflect the needs and priorities of different communities is essential to support a transparent, inclusive, and context-specific process in the development of CBAs and associated energy infrastructure.