Stakeholder Perspectives about Marine Oil Spill Response Objectives: A Comparative Q Study of Four Regions

Marine oil spills can cause major social, economic, and ecological disruptions. Spill response managers must weigh different options and objectives when deciding what to do. We investigated the ways in which preferences for spill response objectives vary among those who are responsible for oil spill contingency planning and response in Buzzards Bay, Delaware Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Washington State regions. We begin this paper with a discussion of the research method used in the study: the Q method. In Buzzards Bay, Delaware Bay, and San Francisco Bay three perspectives were identified in each case. In Washington State, two perspectives were identified. An analysis of the 11 case-specific perspectives reveals that they can be described by four ‘composite’ perspectives that describe how different stakeholders prioritize spill response objectives. These four perspectives are compared on several themes, including the emphasis they placed on mitigating economic impacts, protecting health and safety, mitigating ecological impacts, implementing a coordinated and timely response, addressing the needs and concerns of the affected public/communities, gaining public support for the response, mitigating cultural impacts, and mitigating social nuisance impacts. The implications for spill response planning and spill response evaluation are discussed.