S.P. Tuler, T. Webler, and R. Kay

27 August, 2008

Funding provided by the Coastal Response Research Center. NOAA Grant Number: NA04NOS4190063.  Project Number: 05-983.

This report describes the results of a study about the relative importance of spill response objectives to stakeholders, from varied organizations and government agencies. In this study the population of interest includes spill planners, managers, and responders. We did not attempt to ascertain the viewpoints salient among community members in the four regions (i.e., general public). We investigated the views of people involved in response planning and in spill responses 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, Q method. Then, the results from the four regions are discussed separately. In Buzzards Bay, Delaware Bay, and San Francisco Bay three perspectives were identified in each case. In Washington State two perspectives were identified. We then turn to a discussion of four archetype perspectives that underlay the set of case-specific perspectives These four perspectives are compared on several themes, including the emphasis they place on mitigating economic impacts, protecting health and safety, mitigating ecological impacts, implementing a coordinated and timely response, addressing needs and concerns of the affected public/communities, gaining public support for the response, mitigating cultural impacts, and mitigating social nuisance impacts. We draw four conclusions from these findings that are important for guiding future oil spill response planning:

• a small set of archetype perspectives describe how a response effort should be implemented,
• spill planners, managers, and responders may emphasize different components of contingency plans,
• while there are differences among spill planners, managers, and responders about which objectives to emphasis, many of these differences are not of a fundamental nature rooted in deeply held differences about what should be done in the initial stages of a response, and
• before stakeholders can fruitfully discuss performance metrics to guide planning for future responses or evaluate past spill responses there needs to be some agreement about which objectives are important to measure.
  
  

1.0 Introduction
This report describes the results of a study about the relative importance of spill response objectives to stakeholders in four regions for which marine oil spill response is a critical issue. Out study focuses on better understanding the viewpoints of spill planners, managers, and responders (as opposed to the general public). This study has been performed as part of a larger research project whose goal was to better understand the role of performance metrics in oil spill response planning and to propose a process by which oil spill response planning can integrate views about response objectives and performance metrics from multiple stakeholders (see Tuler et al. 2008).

As part of the empirical component of our research project we addressed a series of questions:
1) what do people think ought to be the objectives that guide marine oil spill response?
2) what are the relative priorities given to those objectives by different people?
3) what performance metrics do people think should be used to evaluate oil spill response?

A report describing our findings about the first and third questions has been prepared and is available (Tuler et al. 2006a, 2006b). Our findings regarding the second question in two initial cases, Buzzards Bay and San Francisco Bay regions, are presented in an earlier report (Tuler and Kay 2007).

In this report we present findings about the relative priorities given to spill response objectives in four case studies: Buzzards Bay, Delaware Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Washington State. We begin this paper with a discussion of the research method used in the study, Q method. Then, the results from the four regions are discussed separately. The results from the four case studies are then pooled for a cross-case analysis: four archetype perspectives are identified that underlay the eleven case-specific perspectives. The findings from this analysis are presented, including a comparison of the four archetype perspectives on several themes, including the emphasis they place on mitigating economic impacts, protecting health and safety, mitigating ecological impacts, implementing a coordinated and timely response, addressing needs and concerns of the affected public/communities, gaining public support for the response, mitigating cultural impacts, and mitigating social nuisance impacts.

Finally, we draw four conclusions from these findings that are important for guiding future oil spill response planning:

• a small set of archetype perspectives describe how a response effort should be implemented,
• spill planners, managers, and responders may emphasize different components of contingency plans,
• while there are differences among spill planners, managers, and responders about which objectives to emphasis, many of these differences are not of a fundamental nature rooted in deeply held differences about what should be done in the initial stages of a response, and
• before stakeholders can fruitfully discuss performance metrics to guide planning for future responses or evaluate past spill responses there needs to be some agreement about which objectives are important to measure.

These conclusions point to a need for spill response managers to give close attention to building agreement about objectives for spill response and evaluation, to clarifying points of agreement and disagreement among responders, and to identifying meaningful ways of assessing performance. We have proposed a framework by which defensible performance metrics for oil spill response can be developed with input from a broad range of stakeholders and that is informed by the best available scientific knowledge (Tuler et al. 2008). The framework takes as a starting point the existing “business as usual” approach to response planning and proposes specific activities that can be undertaken to integrate selection of performance metrics into contingency planning efforts. The integration of performance metrics into oil spill response planning will help ensure plans better reflect public concerns and values, promote learning, and improve spill managers’ communications with the public.

2. Research Methods
The purpose of this study was to identify perspectives among diverse stakeholders (including federal officials) about the objectives that should drive oil spill response. Toward this end we used Q method, which has been used to investigate a variety of environmental and hazard management issues (Brown 1986, 1996, McKeown and Thomas 1988, Kalof 1998, Niemeyer et al. 2005, Tuler et al. 2005, Tuler and Webler 2006, Webler and Tuler 2008). This is a type of discourse analysis that integrates quantitative and qualitative analyses to understand, in depth, the points of view on a subject. By inquiring of people with unique points of view, Q researchers reveal patterns in how elements of perspectives are related, and from these they build holistic descriptions of contenting viewpoints. In this section we describe our choice of the four cases and our application of Q method.

2.1 Selection of case studies
In an earlier phase of our project, we conducted two case studies of oil spill response on the Atlantic coast. We conducted interviews with people concerned about oil spill responses associated with two recent spills: Chalk Point, MD and Bouchard-120, Buzzards Bay, MA. Findings from these case studies are documented in an interim report (Tuler et al. 2006a, 2006b).

For this Q study we returned to Buzzards Bay and met with many of the same people that were interviewed initially. We chose this case because the Bouchard-120 spill was relatively recent, there was quite a bit of diversity among research subjects’ views about the quality of the spill response, and the research subjects were willing to give us more of their time to participate in our Q study. In addition, we were able to identify and include additional research subjects in large part because of the work of Rebecca Kay, our graduate student, on her master’s thesis. Data for this case were gathered during July September 2006.

We sought additional cases to test the robustness of the findings from Buzzards Bay. We approached selection of the new cases in two ways. First, we identified regions where ecological risk assessments had been recently completed within the past few years. Second, we asked CRRC and NOAA ¹ staff to identify a point of contact that could help us identify research participants efficiently. Ultimately, this led us to three regions:
• San Francisco Bay. An ERA was completed for this region in 2000. Data for this case were gathered during November 2006.
• Delaware Bay region. An ERA was conducted in 2006 (Aurand and Coelho 2006a). Data were gathered for this case study during July 2007.
• Washington state. The Cape Flattery ERA was conducted in 2005 (Aurand and Coelho 2006b). We call this the Washington state case study because we asked people about their preferences more broadly, not just in the Cape Flattery region. The data for this case study were gathered during September and October 2007.

( 1 We are also assisting staff from the Emergency Response Division to develop an evaluation of ERAs.  We wanted to investigate how past participants in ERAs think that future ones should be organized.  Because we wanted input representing a diversity of experiences we selected two ERAs for which there had been very different feedback.  We also investigated preferences for objectives in these two cases. )


2.2 Selection of research subjects
In all of the cases, we selected individuals to participate in our research who:
• have been actively involved in spill response planning and implementation;
• represented different institutional affiliations; and
• were likely to have different views about spill response objectives.

In the Buzzards Bay case we were familiar with government officials and regional and local stakeholders from our earlier work and the masters thesis work of our graduate student research assistant.

In the case of San Francisco Bay we discussed our needs with Jordan Stout, NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC) for the region. He helped us by providing background information about the region and spill response planning and by identifying a diverse group of people to include in our Q study. Only two of the research participants had been involved in the San Francisco ERA.

In the Delaware Bay and Washington State cases we selected individuals to participate in our research who had participated in recent ERA efforts. We began with the list of people who attended each ERA. Next we spoke with NOAA and Coast Guard spill managers in each area to gain further insight into who might be appropriate participants. Finally, as we made initial contact with people and after describing the purpose of our study we asked for further suggestions about whom to invite to participate.

The identified individuals were approached via telephone or email and introduced to the project and told how they were selected. We described our data collection procedures and what we wanted them to do. We told people we would visit them at a time and place convenient to them and that the entire process would take about one and one-half hours. Our response rates in Massachusetts, Delaware, and San Francisco were very high. In Washington State we had several people refuse to participate, even after we made a case for the importance of the research. In the end we successfully recruited a diverse group of people to participate in our research, but it took more effort (including extra travel) in Washington. The types of people we interviewed in each case are described in the case-specific sections that follow below.

2.3 Q Method
In Q method, researchers gain access to various perspectives on a subject by having a small number of people with different, but well-formed opinions sort a group of statements according to their personal opinions. Participants in our case study were handed a set of small cards (about the size of a normal business card). Each card had a statement printed upon it that described a single objective that might be important to a spill response. The full list of “Q statements” is given in Table 1.

We gathered a large set of possible Q statements from interviews with informed individuals at Buzzards Bay and Chalk Point and selected statements from reviewing the literature about spill response planning (e.g., Baker 1999, Kuchin and Hereth 1999, Ornitz and Champ 2002, Ott 2005, Pond et al. 2000, USCG 2005). As a means to insure that we included in the Q sample all the relevant ideas, we sorted the statements into categories associated with the following possible goals of the planning process:
• address the needs and concerns of the affected public/communities;
• establish a coordinated and effective response framework;
• gain public support for the response;
• implement an effective and timely response;
• meet legal and regulatory requirements;
• mitigate economic impacts;
• mitigate social nuisance impacts;
• protect cultural resources;
• protect environment and mitigate environmental impacts; and
• protect worker and public health and safety.

These categories were developed as part of our case studies about the Bouchard-120 and Chalk Point spills. We identified objectives that research subjects cared about in those spill responses (see Tuler et al. 2006a, 2006b for more details).

Once this large set of Q statements were sorted, we selected the best statements from each category. Ultimately, we ended up with 42 statements. It was essential that these statements capture the full range of objectives that might be important in any spill response. In other words, we were seeking a set of statements that could be used to study perspectives about spill response objectives in any region. ²

A sorting instruction specified the context under which the participant was to interpret and react to the Q statements. In all cases the sorting instruction was:

When you think about past oil spills, what do you think should be the objectives that guide responses to future oil spills in this area? Sort the statements to indicate what you would be most unlikely to emphasize (-4) to most likely to emphasize (+4) in a future response.

This sorting instruction was designed to focus participants’ thinking on the emergency phases of spill response (as opposed to latter response efforts, including restoration and damage assessment.) We also told them that many of the statements refer to “considerations” rather than to clearly articulated “objectives.” We wanted to draw on each participants’ experiences to-date and at the same time get their ideas of what would be the most important objectives to guide a response in the future. We did not ask people to evaluate, for example, the Bouchard-120 spill response, although we expected, of course, that their experiences would inform their ideas about a future effort.

This is how the Q sort happened. We asked each participant to read all the statements through once. Then we asked them to sort the statements into three piles, the left-hand pile being the statements they would least likely emphasize and the right-most pile being those they would most likely emphasize, and the middle pile being somewhere in between. The Q sort was further constrained by forcing participants to sort the cards into a normal distribution. This pattern is shown in Figure 1.³ Three cards could be placed in the two left-most columns, five in the third column, and so on. The scale was ordinal with the two endpoints subjectively anchored, as with the Likert scale customarily used in surveys. In other words, a certain participant may have felt that all the statements were important, but he or she still had to differentiate between those that he or she would be most unlikely and most likely to emphasize.

Participants reported the Q sort was innovative, fun, and that it stimulated their thinking. During the Q sort the researcher asked the participant to talk about the sorting and how he or she interpreted the statements. These comments were recorded and used to help interpret the results.

(2 It is important to note that in a Q study the sample is not the people who sort the statements; rather, the sample in a Q study is the set of Q statements, the population is the “concourse” of utterances that have been made on the topic, and the completed Q sorts are the variables.  This is just the opposite of standard survey techniques.)

(3 A question has arisen among researchers using Q method about whether the pattern into which people are required to sort the Q statements, such as the normal distribution shown in Figure 1, matters to the results that are obtained.  The conclusion among researchers of Q is that the use of a normal distribution makes little or no difference to the results of a study.  We elected to use the normal distribution because we find it helps people sort the cards and because it enables us to use software that we prefer.)

(4 This freeware program is available through http://www.qmethod.org.  Readers interested in learning more about Q method will find this website informative.)

Factor analysis lies at the heart of Q method. MQMethod is basically a factor analysis program. A factor analysis is a way of identifying a handful of underlying variables that account for changes among a much larger group of measured variables. In our cases, the factor analysis reduced the complexity to two or three perspectives. As stated above, the analysis produces perspectives that are represented as a specific Q sort. These represent “ideal types” because they are not necessarily held by any individual, but are generated by studying the commonalities and differences among the sorts. Typically, the analysis reveals that each individual contributes significantly to shaping one perspective and has minor influence over other perspectives. Occasionally, an individual may significantly shape two perspectives. The degree to which an individual’s beliefs share features with a perspective is represented by a score derived as part of the factor analysis. These are called “factor loading scores” and a +1.00 indicates that a participant’s sort exactly matched the factor, a 0 would mean there were no similarities at all, and a –1.00 would indicate that a participant’s sort was the exact opposite of the factor.

We found that our interviewees did have different objectives for the response to these two oil spills. We also found that these opinions were not shared uniformly among research subjects in all of the cases. In the following sections we describe the results for each case separately. Then, we discuss general findings and observations that emerged from the four cases.

3. Spill response objectives in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
In Buzzards Bay, sixteen people did Q sorts. Twelve we had interviewed earlier as part of our initial case study effort. These sixteen represented a diverse group involved in the spill response, including federal, state, and local government officials, NGO representatives, and local community members. Specific organizational affiliations included:
• US Coast Guard
• NOAA
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program
• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
• Town fire departments
• Town Harbor Masters
• Town Environmental Affairs Coordinators
• Contractor for the responsible party and
• Environmental NGOs.

The analysis produced three distinct and coherent factors. Each represents a perspective on what are the most appropriate objectives for guiding responses to future oil spills in the Buzzards Bay region.

Table 2 presents the factor loading scores of each participant and gives the total variance explained by each of the three factors. In all our results we have removed people’s actual names in order to respect their privacy. We listed subjects according to the factor on which they load most highly. Table 3 presents the inter-factor correlations among the three factors, which shows that they are largely independent of each other. Table 4 presents the rankings of each statement in each of the three factors.

What is particularly important is that every person loaded significantly on at least one factor. This confirms that all the participants had relevant and coherent perspectives on the topic. In addition, Subject 7 loaded significantly on two factors and Subject 12 loaded on all three factors. These individuals expressed points of view that are complex combinations of the fundamental perspectives we identified. To see if their viewpoints would inform better factor solutions, we investigated other solutions (using additional judgmental hand rotation and extraction of additional factors), but we discovered all the new solutions had more participants confounded on more than one factor, higher inter-factor correlations, and/or less variance explained. Thus, these alternative solutions were not as informative about the differences in preferences among the participants in our study.

Table 2. Factor loadings for Buzzards Bay Q sort participants.

Loadings significant at 95% confidence level when >= .3981.  Bold font indicates significant loading on a factor.

Table 3.  Inter-factor correlations for Buzzards Bay Q study.

	Factor A	Factor B	Factor C
Factor A	1.00	0.46	0.34
Factor B		1.00	0.14
Factor C			1.00

Table 4. Factor array for Buzzards Bay Q study.

(5 When we validated a draft of this narrative with an individual who loaded highly on Factor C we were told that, “Managing public expectations is one of the more critical elements of an effective spill response.  In general, the public has inflated expectations of the efficacy of current spill response technologies.  No response, no matter how well conducted, will pick up every oiled bird or return every oiled marsh and beach to its pre-spill condition (at least not in the near term).  It is important that the public hear that message early and often.”  Nevertheless, in this Factor statement #38 was ranked very low (z-score equal to -1.161).


Discussion of Buzzards Bay results

Each of the three perspectives represents a distinct view about the relative importance of objectives that should guide oil spill response in Buzzards Bay. Of course, they share some features, while having important differences.

Perspective A highlights the need for a well-organized response system. It should ensure good coordination, integrate local responders, have a clear chain of command, get clean-up crews on-site rapidly, and initiate efforts rapidly. On the other hand, objectives related to economic costs, aesthetic concerns, and inconveniencing local residents were ranked low. Objectives related to public health and ecological impacts were important, but not as important as objectives related to response organization. Nor did they receive the same relative emphasis as they did in Perspectives B or C.

Objectives that are articulated in policy (e.g., National Response Plan) rated high in Perspective B. These are the statements regarding protection of public and worker health and protecting species that are especially critical for the impacted ecosystem. This perspective placed a high priority on implementing the contingency plan. In contrast, Perspective A emphasizes more strongly the need for responsible authorities to assign people who can be flexible, to achieve coordination, and to integrate local responders. Perspective B also shares with perspective A the concern that there be a clear chain of command, as much oil as possible be recovered off-shore, and to ramp up response quickly. Perspective B does not place a high premium on science to guide the response effort (relative to Perspectives A or C).

Perspective C emphasizes monitoring of activities, providing accurate and consistent information to the public, and integrating restoration planning with clean-up activities more strongly than the other perspectives. Perspective C shares with Perspective A the objective to have good local responder integration into the effort; this may be a result of conflicts that arose among federal, state, and local responders about the notification and integration of local first responders immediately after the spill occurred (see Tuler et al. 2006a). Concerns about impacts are mostly focused on ecological impacts, less on threats to public health, aesthetic concerns, inconveniences to local residents, or costs to local towns.


4. Spill response objectives in San Francisco Bay, California
In San Francisco, thirteen people completed Q sorts. Those who completed Q sorts represent a diverse group involved in the spill response, including federal, state, and local government officials, NGO representatives, and local fishermen. Specific organizational affiliations included:
• US Coast Guard
• NOAA
• Bureau of Land Management
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• National Marine Sanctuaries
• California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
• California Coastal Commission
• Petrochemical Industry
• Contractor for the responsible party.

Three distinct and coherent factors emerged. Each represents a perspective on what are the most appropriate objectives for guiding responses to future oil spills in the San Francisco Bay region. In this case we elected to “rotate” the factors to more clearly distinguish them.

Table 5 presents the factor loading scores of each participant and gives the total variance explained by each of the three factors. In all our results we have removed people’s actual names in order to respect their privacy. In the Table we listed subjects according to the factor on which they load most highly. Table 6 presents the inter-factor correlations. It shows that they are largely independent of each other. Table 7 presents the rankings of each statement in each of the three factors.

What is particularly important is that every person loaded significantly on at least one factor. Subject 8 loaded significantly on two factors. One person’s loading was negative, however, suggesting substantial disagreement with the second factor (E). In addition, Factors E and F are each defined by a single individual.

Table 5.  Factor loadings for San Francisco Bay Q sort participants.
Loadings significant at 95% confidence level when >= .3981.  Bold font indicates significant loading on a factor.

Table 6. Inter-factor correlations for San Francisco Bay Q study.

Table 7. Factor array for San Francisco Bay Q study.

In the following sections we present the three perspectives that are represented by Factors D, E, and F via narratives that describe the kinds of objectives that should guide spill response in the San Francisco Bay region. As above, references to important Q statements are included in the descriptions.

San Francisco Bay Perspective D

This perspective emphasizes the need to rapidly establish an effective organization to implement response actions.  Response actions should be guided, initially, by the contingency plan (24).  A quick response, however, should in no way put people at risk (14).

This overall goal is facilitated through the achievement of several objectives.  Establishing a well-organized unified command with a clear chain of command (22) was among the most strongly emphasized statements. Clarity about roles and responsibilities is critical. In addition, objectives for getting clean-up contractors on-scene quickly (16), implementing the contingency plan (24), ensuring coordination among multiple responsible government agencies and organizations (20), and integrating local responders and leaders into response efforts (19) were all strongly emphasized.  Of course, contingency plans should not be followed blindly.   Responsible authorities should assign flexible and experienced decision-makers who can implement contingency plans right away and then step back and ask, “what do we need?” (39).

In addition to the paramount objective of not putting people at risk during the response (14), a well-organized response system should be oriented toward protecting critical ecological systems. There should be rapid efforts to protect areas that have been pre-identified as sensitive (3) and attention should be focused on protecting species that are especially critical for the functioning of an impacted ecosystem (7).  The ability to protect ecological systems is enhanced by on-water recovery and removal of oil (27). In any case, the response should remove enough oil so that impacted species, habitats, and local communities can return to the way they were before the spill in a reasonable amount of time (9).  This concern is not extended to non-native species (4).

This perspective does not emphasize objectives related to the concerns or needs of impacted human communities.  For example, objectives related to mitigating aesthetic, social, or economic impacts to local communities (17, 12, 11, 1, 13, 40, 25) were ranked low.  Furthermore, it is not a high priority to involve local communities in response efforts (21, 42) or to inform them about the response efforts (30). Minimizing costs to the responsible party resulting from the response (15) was not important.


San Francisco Bay Perspective E

This perspective emphasizes mitigation of long-term impacts to coupled human and environment systems. The emphasis should be on mitigating impacts to “foundational” components of the human-environment system, including fisheries and markets.

Protection of ecological systems is very important to this perspective.  The most highly ranked statement is that attention should be focused on protecting species that are especially critical for the functioning of an impacted ecosystem (7).  In this context, that can mean, for example, plankton, which are important because they are critical in the food web.  It may also mean that a response effort should protect the adults of a species at risk because the adults can come back next year and reproduce (5).

It is very important that critical components of regional human systems be protected.  This means that economic impacts to local commercial fishermen should be reduced (13), enough oil be removed so that communities and can recover (9), and consumption of contaminated seafood is prevented (2).  At the same time, it is not very important that the response be driven by a concern for subsistence or recreational fishing and shell-fishing (41, 11) or inconveniences to tourists (12), because these are not significant elements of the regional economy or culture.

Efforts to protect coupled human and environment systems are enhanced when objectives related to the organization of the response effort and basis for decisions are attended to.  It is critically important for there to be a well-coordinated response (23, 22, 19) that utilizes good information (23, 18, 19) has clear decision criteria (29), and is flexible (24).  In other words, response managers should not just do what is specified in the contingency plan.

This means that the response effort should not be driven by public concerns or perceptions (17, 23, 33), and that Unified Command has the responsibility to manage expectations about the cleanup so that they are reasonable (38). Consequently, it should not be a priority of managers to achieve as much on-water recovery and removal of oil as possible (27), because that could require the use of dispersants which might harm plankton and diatoms that are important to the health of fisheries.  It would be better to see oil on rocks and lose a few birds than use dispersants that could affect entire fisheries.  Similarly, the elimination of residual or buried oil (25) may cause more problems than are solved.  The focus should be on higher order objectives of ecosystem functioning and not be driven by aesthetics (17).  In addition, avoiding all situations that threaten human health whatsoever during the response (14) is not emphasized.  Oil spill response is inherently risky and this objective would be a “show stopper.”

6 When validating a draft narrative for this perspective one person commented that “the relegation of local community involvement to "low priority" is 1) an artifact of the exercise (i.e., only a certain number of cards could be allocated to each rank), 2) local community involvement had been already been included via area contingency planning, and 3) some of us did put at least one card involving public/media/community outreach by the unified command (and there were several cards that touched on this) in the first five ranks.”  While all of these reasons may have some validity for specific individuals loading on Factor B, as an “ideal” Q sort representing the largest group of respondents, the relative emphasis given to these statements is low.

San Francisco Bay Perspective F

This factor is very focused on mitigating impacts to ecological resources.  The entire response should be guided by this overall goal, including organizational and management objectives.

Protection of ecological systems is paramount.  The response should focus on protecting species that are especially critical for the functioning of an impacted ecosystem (7), but not on species that are not native to the area (4). The response should try to remove enough oil so that impacted species, habitats, and local communities can return to the way they were before the spill in a reasonable amount of time (9).  Mitigation of impacts to important regional economic activities, such as recreation (11, 10) and sale of seafood (2, 13, 41), are also important objectives, but secondary to protection of the ecological resources.

Mitigation of impacts and promotion of long-term recovery are enhanced when no residual oil or buried oil is going to show up later, which may exacerbate impacts (25).  It is also better to recover as much oil as possible while it is off shore (27). However, there is little credence given to the idea that oil can be purposefully directed to “sacrificial” areas as an impact mitigation strategy (36).  Usually the people that must make such a decision in the field lack ecological expertise.   In other words, response actions can cause more harm than good.

It is also important to ensure that response efforts are actually working, so that new strategies can be developed if necessary.  This means response activities should be monitored (28) and responders should be guided by, but not get locked into contingency plans (24). Moreover, it is important to allow response managers to focus on critical tasks.  They should not be sidetracked by managing volunteers (21) or public opinion (38), resolving conflicts about preferences and points of views of all parties (37, 42), or addressing aesthetic concerns (17). Similarly, because it is difficult to coordinate response activities with restoration planning (26), it is not emphasized as an important objective. 

Finally, oil spills and their responses involve risks. It is not possible to respond in a way that puts no responders at risk (14).  Nor is it reasonable to expect that managing a spill could avoid disrupting the integrity and culture of local communities (40).  Responses are by their very nature disruptive.  As with both previous perspectives, it is not an important objective to minimize costs to the responsible party (15).

Discussion of San Francisco Bay results

Each of the three perspectives represents a distinct view about the relative importance of objectives that should guide oil spill response in San Francisco Bay.  They share some features, while still having important differences.

Perspective D emphasizes very strongly (relative to the other two perspectives) the need for a well-organized response system.  It should ensure good coordination, integrate local responders, have a clear chain of command, get clean-up crews on-site rapidly, and initiate efforts rapidly.  On the other hand, objectives related to mitigating impacts to human systems were ranked low. Objectives related to ensuring public and worker health and safety and to mitigating ecological impacts were ranked as important in this perspective.  Most emphasis is given to protecting key species and sensitive areas that have been identified during pre-spill planning.

Perspectives E and F both have the same primary concern – to mitigate ecological impacts.  They agree that critical species must be protected and enough oil must be removed to allow the ecosystem to return to normal.  However, Perspective E believes that mitigation of impacts is a function of the amount of oil that is removed and a function of how the oil is removed. It expresses concern with long-term impacts that may result from “hidden” changes such as impacts to lower levels in the food chain.  That is why Perspective E does not emphasize that there should be as much on-water recovery as possible, as this may mean the use of dispersants that harm plankton.  Thus, for example, it might be better to avoid using dispersants or in situ burning. Perspective F might support using dispersants if it reduces the amount of oil that fouls the shore.  Furthermore, Perspective F argues for ensuring that there is no residual oil remaining, while Perspective E saw this as impossible.  Perspective F places more emphasis on avoiding potential impacts to recreation and subsistence fishing.

Finally, the way that decisions about response actions are made is another area of significant disagreement between Perspectives D and E.  Perspective D believes that the response should closely follow the contingency plan, and at the same time leadership should be flexible and experienced. Perspective E suggests that the contingency plan should not be implemented blindly.  Case specific contingencies need to be accounted for, and the best way to do this is with a well-coordinated expert scientific effort and clear definitions of what end-points are desired.  Such end-points may not be clearly spelled out in the contingency plan.  It is better to have responders who ask: “What do we need here, now?” 

These differences cannot be simply attributed to the affiliations of the individuals who load highly on the various factors.  Eleven out of thirteen of the individuals completing the Q sorts about San Francisco Bay loaded on Factor D.  Only one person defined Factor E (a local fisherman) and only one person defined factor F (a state NRDA specialist).

5. Delaware Bay spill response objectives
Twelve people completed Q sorts in the Delaware Bay region. Those who completed Q sorts represent a diverse group involved in the spill response, including federal, state, and local government officials, NGO representatives, and local fishermen. Specific organizational affiliations included:

• US Coast Guard
• NOAA
• Department of Interior
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Delaware Department of Natural Resources
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
• Bird Rescue organization
• Environmental NGO, and
• Contractors.

Table 8 presents the factor loading scores of each participant and gives the total variance explained by each of the three factors. In the Table we listed subjects according to the factor on which they load most highly.   Table 9 presents the inter-factor correlations among the three factors, which shows that they are largely independent of each other.  Table 10 presents the rankings of each statement in each of the three factors.

What is particularly important is that every person loaded significantly on at least one factor. Subjects 6 and 11 loaded significantly on two factors (names are not provided to maintain confidentiality), suggesting substantial agreement with aspects of two factors. In addition, Factor K is defined by a single individual (Subject 12). We investigated other factor solutions, through additional judgmental hand rotation of factors and inclusion of additional factors, but we discovered all the new solutions had more participants confounded on more than one factor, higher inter-factor correlations, and/or less variance explained.  Thus, these alternative solutions were not as informative about the differences in preferences among the participants in our study.

Table 8. Factor loadings for Delaware Bay objectives Q sort participants.
Loadings significant at 95% confidence level when >= .3981.  Bold font indicates significant loading on a factor.

Table 9.  Inter-factor correlations for Delaware Bay objectives Q study.

Table 10. Factor array for Delaware Bay objectives Q study.

Delaware Bay Perspective J

The perspective takes the view that the spill response needs to be directed by the contingency plan (24).  This does not mean that it should be followed to the letter.  As one person loading highly on this perspective noted “there must be some flexibility to allow for adaptive management on an as needed basis.  That is, a response is never "black and white" and will not follow a ‘script’ perfectly.”

Toward this over-arching goal, the most important thing to do is to establish a clear chain of command (22) that realizes effective coordination among the important parties such as governmental agencies and contractors (22).  Local responders also need to be quickly integrated into the response effort (19).

Once established, the response team should move quickly to protect areas that had been pre-identified as sensitive (3).  Another key first step is to establish proactive communication with the local communities (34). Although the response should be quickly organized, leadership needs to protect the health of responders above all else (14).  While it is important to get clean-up contractors on-scene quickly (16), their numbers should reflect the needs of the moment and not driven by a desire to be overly cautious.  Thus, it is important to monitor the effects of response activities (28) and provide good feedback to the unified command, which can adapt as needed (39).

The integration of new scientific information (23) is not as important during the initial phases as experience and pragmatism in unified command decision-making; moreover, the best available science relevant to the initial assessment of a spill should already have been incorporated into the contingency plan.  On the other hand, there is room for the gathering and integration of more detailed scientific information as the spill response progresses, such as about specific species or habitats at risk.

An important part of the response, according to this perspective, is proactive and timely communication with the public (34).  Unified command should provide accurate and consistent information to the public (35) while also managing expectations about the cleanup so that they are reasonable (38) and gaining public support for the response effort (33).

Delaware Bay Perspective K

This perspective emphasizes the need for protecting the area’s ecology by a quickly implemented response.

The four highest ranked statements in this perspective all involve the protection of the area’s ecology (3, 7, 6, 9).  The emphasis is on protecting sensitive resources, critical species, and getting the ecological systems back to normal functioning as quickly as possible.  Furthermore, the statement about directing oil to a sacrifice area (36) was strongly rejected in this perspective.  To ensure that the ecology is protected response should ramp-up quickly even if there is uncertainty about the magnitude of the spill (16).  Long-term mitigation of ecological impacts is further enhanced when there is tight integration between the response effort and restoration planning (26); no other factor ranked this statement as high as in this factor. Decisions should be based on good science rather than public concerns and perceptions (23).  Interestingly, this perspective does not show the faith in the contingency plan (24) that Perspective J does, nor did it support the statement about flexible and experienced decision makers implementing the contingency plan (39).  This suggests that the contingency plan is seen as inadequate in this perspective.

In spite of the privileging of science over public perceptions, it is important to this perspective that the community be informed and engaged during the response.  Trust should be developed with the community (33), efforts to communicate should be proactive and timely (34), information provided should be accurate and consistent (35), and meaningful ways should be found to involve volunteers in the clean-up effort (21).  The focus on community relations, however, does not mean that people should only be told what they want to know (30), that expectations should be managed so that they are reasonable (38), or that public support is needed about the response (32).

Delaware Bay Perspective L

This perspective emphasizes the need for a coordinated response supported by scientific expertise that focuses on the protection of health and safety and the long-term integrity of affected ecosystems. 

While there is recognition that zero risk is impossible, the most highly ranked statement is that there should be no situations that pose significant threats to human health during the response (14).  In addition, consumption of contaminated seafood should be prevented (2), health and ecological impacts from clean-up activities should be mitigated (8), and the response should remove enough oil so that impacted species, habitats, and local communities can return to the way they were before the spill in a reasonable amount of time (9).  Avoiding ecological impacts should focus on species particularly critical to the functioning of the ecosystem (7).  The best way to do this is by a concerted effort to achieve as much on-water recovery and removal of oil as possible (27).

With regard to the implementation of the response, this perspective emphasizes many of the same considerations as the perspective represented by Perspective J.  There should be a well-coordinated unified command with a clear chain of command (22) and flexible and experienced decision-makers who implement the contingency plan (39, 24). 

One place that these perspectives diverge is that this perspective strongly emphasizes the need for a clear definition of what level of cleanliness the cleanup is working toward (29).  Much more than Perspective J, this perspective wants Unified Command to reconcile disagreements about which impacts to avoid (37).

Another difference with Perspective J is that this perspective does not give as much attention to the public relations tasks of Unified Command (35, 34, 33).  Instead, the importance is placed on having the response being informed with information that is gathered scientifically.

Discussion of Delaware Bay results

Each of the three perspectives represents a distinct view about the relative importance of objectives that should guide oil spill response in the Delaware Bay.  Of course, they share some features, while still having some important differences.

There was consensus among the perspectives on the following endpoints:

• mitigation of economic impacts, nuisance, and aesthetic impacts is not emphasized (1, 11, 12, 15, 17, 40),
• not worrying about non-native species (4), and
• establishing a well-organized unified command with a clear chain of command (22)

Perspective J strongly emphasizes the need to set-up a well-coordinated response, one directed by the contingency plan in the early stages of a spill response (19, 20, 22, 24).  Those areas that have been pre-identified as sensitive should be the focus of initial response (3).  The focus is not about thinking ahead, to future needs such as those during restoration actions (26).  During the response it is important to adapt to changing conditions (28).  Unified command should attend to public communications during the response (34), but building trust, addressing concerns, and the like are not emphasized.

Perspective K places a very strong emphasis on protecting the ecological systems that may be impacted (3, 6, 7, 9, 36).  Like Perspective J there is a strong emphasis on getting on with response efforts early for areas that have been pre-identified as sensitive areas (3). Recovery of ecological systems (9) is foremost in the minds of those who are associated with this perspective.   For example, to ensure that the ecology is protected response should ramp-up quickly even if there is uncertainty about the magnitude of the spill (16).  Unlike Perspective J there is little emphasis on implementing the contingency plan (24).

Although Factors J and L are highly correlated (61%) we have chosen to make a distinction between the perspectives they represent.  This is primarily because of their different ways of emphasizing the use of the contingency plan vs. use of science and pre-defined end-points defining “clean” (23, 24, and 29) and the way that perspective J emphasizes public communications (particularly statement 34). A strong theme of Perspective L is the protection of public health and safety, which includes efforts to prevent consumption of contaminated seafood (2, 14, 27); there is little subsistence fishing in the area (41) so that is not a major health-related concern.  While both Perspectives K and L emphasize statement 9, Perspective L emphasizes recovery in terms of impacts to human communities; the importance of species and habitat recovery is more in terms of their role in local economies.

6.  Washington state spill response objectives
Thirteen people completed Q sorts in Washington State. Those who completed Q sorts represent a diverse group involved in the spill response, including federal, state, and local government officials, NGO representatives, and local fishermen. Specific organizational affiliations included:

• US Coast Guard
• NOAA
• Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary
• Olympic National Park
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Washington Department of Natural Resources
• Washington Department of Ecology
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
• Contractors.

In addition, we met with a representative from the Makah Tribe.

Two distinct and coherent factors emerged from the analysis. Each factor represents a social perspective. We call these Perspectives M and N.  Each represents a perspective on what are the most appropriate objectives for guiding responses to future oil spills in the Washington State region.  

Table 11 presents the factor loading scores of each participant and gives the total variance explained by each of the factors. In the Table we listed subjects according to the factor on which they load most highly.   Table 12 presents the inter-factor correlations between the factors, which shows that they are largely independent of each other.  Table 13 presents the rankings of each statement in each of the factors.

Every person loaded significantly on at least one factor. Subject 9 loaded significantly on both factors (names are not provided to maintain confidentiality), suggesting substantial agreement with aspects of both. We investigated other factor solutions, through additional judgmental hand rotation of factors and inclusion of additional factors, but we discovered all the new solutions had more participants confounded on more than one factor, higher inter-factor correlations, and/or less variance explained.  Thus, these alternative solutions were not as informative about the differences in preferences among the participants in our study.

Table 11. Factor loadings for Washington state objectives Q sort participants.
Loadings significant at 95% confidence level when >= .3981.  Bold font indicates significant loading on a factor.

Table 12.  Inter-factor correlations for Washington State objectives Q study.

Table 13. Factor array for Washington State objectives Q study.

Washington State Perspective M

Perspective M gives the highest importance to protecting human health (14) no matter what it takes.  Protecting sensitive ecological areas (3, 7) is the next most important goal.  Both of these ends are served by recovering as much oil as quickly as possible (27), which is the main objective of the response.

This objective is achieved by setting up a unified command (22), which implements the contingency plan (24) with flexible and experienced decision makers (39).  Attention is placed on getting contractors on site (16), getting a good estimate of the amount of oil spilled (18), and monitoring effectiveness of mitigative actions (28).

Decisions during the response need to be informed with scientifically gathered information, instead of public concerns and perceptions (23). 

Involving volunteers is not emphasized (21).  Two reasons were expressed for this.  First, there is a fear among some that volunteers may be injured during the clean up (14).  As one person loading highly on Factor M told us: “there are considerable safety and human health issues involved in oil spills, and without the proper training and equipment, these are compromised.”  A second reason is that involving volunteers may divert critical people and attention away from protecting natural resources; as another person loading highly on Factor M stated, “in a time critical situation, training, informing, and being a sounding board to uniformed and/or untrained personnel can cause undesirable resource damage.”

Furthermore, due to the urgency involved, it is not possible to spend time listening to public concerns (31), gaining public support for the response (32), or involving stakeholders in determinations of how clean to make the site (42).  This perspective is not opposed to communicating with the community -- that must happen -- but it is not the first or even second priorities; responders need to make salvage, recovery of oil and minimization of impacts the highest priority.  Communicating with the public (34), establishing trust (33), and providing accurate information (35) are all ranked in the exact middle of the distribution, much lower than in Perspective B, suggesting that they are secondary objectives.

Washington State Perspective N

Perspective N places the most importance on establishing positive relations with the community during the response.  This entails good communication (34, 31), trust (33), bringing in local expertise quickly (19), and information sharing (35).  Establishing and maintaining the trust of the community (33) requires that responders distribute information about the spill and response (35) and take time to listen to publics’ concerns (31).  Although it was not strongly emphasized, this perspective did give much more weight to the importance of establishing meaningful ways for volunteers to become involved in the response (21) and gaining public support for the response (32).

It agrees with Perspective M on the importance of a strong unified command (22) that implements the contingency plan (24) and establishes coordination among agencies and contractors quickly (20).

While people who hold this perspective would argue that safety is important, they are sensitive to statements that imply zero risk can be achieved.  This is why they soundly rejected the statement that there should be no risk whatsoever to people involved in the response (14); this just is not achievable.  There will always be some risk, however small.  Likewise, this perspective rejected the statement about there being no residual oil that will show up anywhere (25).  Again, this is seen as being infeasible. 

Discussion of Washington State results

Each of the perspectives represents a distinct view about the relative importance of objectives that should guide oil spill response in the region.  Of course, they share some features, while still having some important differences.

These two perspectives share many beliefs about the response.  They both emphasize a speedy response -- getting the contractors on-scene quickly (16), rapidly establishing coordination among all parties (20), and getting on with the response efforts early in sensitive areas (3).  The response should be guided by the contingency plan (24).  Another critical element is monitoring the effectiveness of response activities (28).  It is also agreed that considering the costs to the responsible party are of lowest priority (15).  Protecting non-native species (4) was also ranked low.

Perspective N differs significantly from Perspective M in regard to the way that Unified Command interacts with the public.  Perspective N places a high degree of importance on establishing positive relations with the community and local officials during the response (19, 21, 31, 33, 34, 35). There is weak emphasis on mitigating ecological (e.g., 5, 7, 8, 9) compared to Perspective M.  This appears to be a reflection with the idea that implementing a well coordinated, rapid response guided by the contingency plan (16, 19, 20, 24) will ensure that these are also achieved.

Perspective M places more emphasis on achieving as much on-water recovery as possible (27), while being guided by the contingency plan (24) in a response effort that is well coordinated and rapid (similar to Perspective N).

Although statements 14 and 25 ended up at opposite ends of the two perspectives, they really do not speak to a significantly different belief.  Everyone wants to protect public health and clean up the oil to the best extent possible.  However, there is a stronger concern in Perspective M for protecting public health by taking actions to recover as much oil as possible and a stronger concern in Perspective N for communicating and working with the community during the response.

7. Overview of case-specific findings
We asked people in four regions to tell us which were the most important objectives or considerations during the emergency phase oil spill response to meet these overarching goals We specifically did not ask other phases, such as restoration, damage assessment, compensation.  Q method pushes people to express relative priorities.  In doing this, the participants in the research reveal that they attempt to realize the over-arching goals of spill response by emphasizing different objectives during the emergency phase.

Three perspectives were found in three of the case studies:  Buzzards Bay region, San Francisco Bay region, and Delaware Bay region.  Two distinct perspectives were found in the case study of Washington State.  Each of the perspectives reflect the over-arching goals of oil spill response as articulated in federal policy guidance, to:

1.  maintain safety of human life;
2.  stabilize the situation to preclude it from worsening, and
3.  minimize adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts.

These results indicate that people with experience with oil spills disagree about how responses should be implemented – even while they may agree with higher order goals as expressed in policy and statute.  In the San Francisco Bay region we found a high degree of agreement among those that participated in our research.  In the case eleven of thirteen research participants loaded on a single perspective (San Francisco Bay D).  In the Delaware Bay, Washington State, and Buzzards Bay case studies there was a broader range of perspectives among those who participated in our research.

In each case we identified a perspective taking the view that the spill response needs to be directed by the contingency plan. Toward this over-arching goal, the most important thing to do is to establish a clear chain of command that realizes effective coordination among the important parties such as governmental agencies and contractors.  However, within this set of perspectives there can be important differences.  For example, both perspectives found in Washington State emphasize the need to be guided by contingency plans – but Perspective N also highlights the importance of relations with the community, including public communications.

In each case we also found perspectives that strongly emphasized protecting coupled ecological and human systems.  The emphasis was often on the long-term recovery of the local environment; for example, mitigating impacts to “foundational” components of the human-environment system, including fisheries and markets.

In most cases, each of the 42 statements in the Q sample were ranked as important by someone. Moreover, lack of emphasis does not necessarily mean that an objective was rejected.  When a statement received a low ranking, it met one of two things: either the individual rejected the statement, or they felt it had weak relevance.  It was not always possible for us to discern this difference. 

Two statements were ranked low in nearly all perspectives.  These included: minimizing costs to the responsible party resulting from the response (15) and, the clean-up should address aesthetic concerns – like oil stains on rocks (17).  These were not ranked highly by any individual or in any of the perspectives in all four cases.

7.1.  Limitations of Q methods
There are several limitations to Q studies in general and to our studies in particular.  Q method cannot tell us:

• about other perspectives that may exist among interested and affected parties in the four regions; nor
• how widely held these perspectives are within a population.

These limitations arise in part, from the use of a small number of individuals to define social perspectives.  There is no guarantee that individuals with certain perspectives will be included in the group of people participating in the research effort.  In other words, participants may not represent the fill range of viewpoints within the population of interest.  In this study the population of interest includes spill planners, managers, and responders.  We did not attempt to ascertain the viewpoints salient among community members in the four regions (i.e., general public).  And, Q studies are not designed to gather data from a large enough set of people to make claims about frequencies.

The results from the San Francisco Bay region case study raise these issues.  We found a high degree of agreement among those who participated in our research.  Is this a pattern that would be maintained if more people were asked about their perspectives?  The high degree of agreement may be an artifact of the individuals who completed the Q sorts. We may not have chosen a very good sample to represent the diversity of perspectives about relative importance of objectives that should inform response in this region.  We may have missed one or more important perspectives.  On the other hand, the degree of consensus may in fact be real.  A high level of consensus about objectives in San Francisco Bay may have been a result of recent planning efforts in this region, such as the 2000 ecological risk assessment (Pond et al. 2000). However, this claim must be balanced against the information that only two of the participants in our research attended workshops for the ecological risk assessment (see Pond et al., 2000 Appendix A).  Both of these were high loaders on Factor D. In addition, at the time of our study there had been no recent large scale oil spill in this region that would raise questions about the contingency plan and general agreement about objectives.  Our data were gathered prior to the spill in 2007.

In the Delaware Bay region we also found a high degree of agreement.  Two of the perspectives are strongly correlated (J and L) and only one person loaded on perspective K.  The strong agreement about many of the objectives is apparent after a recent spill in 2004, the Athos 1, as well as after an ecological risk assessment consensus workshop.  Moreover, all of the participants in our study of Delaware Bay were participants in that ERA workshop. One could ask whether people who did not participate in the ERA would show as much agreement.

At the same time, we cannot discount the perspectives on which only one or two people load significantly as unimportant or marginal. Because we used Q method we do not know anything about the relative frequencies of the perspectives represented by the factors in the population. 

In addition, the results obtained via Q method depend heavily on the statements included in the Q sorts. If researchers do not include relevant and important statements about the topic of interest, people may not be able to express their specific points of view – which may result in important social perspectives remaining hidden from view.  Our four case studies provide some evidence that our 42 Q statements were adequate.  Here “adequate” means that the statements include the full range of objectives that interested and affected parties might believe are important for the emergency phases of oil spill response.  To ensure the adequacy of our Q statements, we asked individuals if there were any important objectives missing from the set of statements that they thought should have been included. In the Buzzards Bay case three gaps in the statements were suggested: 1) the importance of meeting policy and regulatory requirements, 2) addressing political aspect of response, and 3) getting an estimate or a number (during the response) of the amount of oil that hit the shoreline so that this could inform damage assessment later.  In no other case did any participant suggest additional objectives/considerations that should have been included in the set of statements.

To further investigate the similarities and differences among the perspectives we conducted a secondary analysis, which is described in the next section.

8. Comparison of the perspectives from the four cases
In this section we compare the results across the four case studies, investigating similarities and differences among the perspectives.  In each case study, our analysis yielded two or three factors/perspectives.  We treated each of these as a single Q sort and analyzed them as a group. In the jargon of Q method, this is called a second order composite analysis.  It is second order, because it takes as input the factors from the first order analysis.  It is composite because it uses all the project data. 

We entered the eleven factors from the four case studies into the Q analysis program.  Four second order composite factors emerged from our analysis.  These are listed in Table 14.  The results show that Factors W and Y were found in each one of the cases.  Factor X, however, was only found in the Buzzards Bay and Delaware Bay cases.  Factor Z was only found in San Francisco and Delaware Bay cases.

The factors represent “ideal types” or “archetype perspectives,” because they are not necessarily held by any individual.  They represent the salient ideas and preferences of different people in different cases that are held in common. This type of analysis allows us to investigate the commonalities and differences among the case-specific factors.  For example, statements that are ranked highly in case-specific factors – such as the need to implement the contingency plan (24) – will likely emerge as highly ranked statements in a cluster of factors that define a second-order factor.  Those case-specific factors that do not rank the statement highly may then cluster into a second group.

In the next two sections we first present each archetype perspective.  Then, we compare them on several themes.

Table 14.  Second order composite factor loading scores for the cross-case analysis.
Loadings significant at 95% confidence level when >= .3981.  Bold font indicates significant loading on a factor.

Perspective W:  Implement a rapid, coordinated response guided by the contingency plan and gain public trust
Perspective W prefers a response that is guided by the contingency plan and swiftly implements a highly coordinated response effort.  This requires that local responders/leaders be integrated quickly into the effort, coordination be established among key organizations and agencies, a well-organized unified command with a clear chain of command be established, and clean-up crews getting on-sight rapidly.  There is little emphasis given to mitigating socially disruptive impacts (e.g., economic, aesthetic), but those responsible for implementing the response should inform the local community about the response effort.  They should do this in a way that both enhances trust and manages expectations about what the response can actually accomplish.

Perspective X: Protect ecological resources and gain public trust
Perspective X strongly emphasizes the importance of mitigating adverse impacts to ecological resources that may be impacted from the spill.  Primary attention should be given to protecting those areas serving multiple purposes or values or which are especially critical for the functioning of an impacted ecosystem.  The response should be driven by long-term thinking, making sure that recovery and restoration of impacted resources will be promoted.  Given the goal of protecting ecological systems, it is vitally important to monitor response efforts to ensure they are getting the job done. Unlike Perspective W, following the contingency plan is not as important as having a response be driven by a well-coordinated expert scientific effort that gathers decision-relevant information. Like Perspective W, accurate and timely information should be provided to the public and trust should be developed with them, but there is little emphasis given to mitigating socially disruptive impacts (e.g., economic, aesthetic).

Perspective Y:  Protect human health and safety by implementing a rapid, coordinated response guided by the contingency plan
Perspective Y emphasizes many of the same features for a good response as Perspective W:  implement the contingency plan, set-up a clear chain of command, get clean-up crews on-site rapidly.  Like Perspective X it emphasizes the need to monitor the effectiveness of response actions and protect important ecological resources.  But these are important so as to ensure that health and safety of individuals are protected. Statements ranked more highly in here than in other perspectives include avoiding situations that could threaten health, lead to the consumption of contaminated seafood, cause additional harm from clean-up activities, or harm subsistence fishing.  Toward this end, the response should be focused on recovery and removal of oil offshore, before it has a chance to impact important local resources.

Perspective Z: Protect human communities using high quality information to support decision-making
Perspective Z emphasizes the protection of human communities and ecological resources.  Alone among all the perspectives, this view emphasizes that economic impacts to local commercial fishermen should be reduced, including impacts that might arise from people’s perceptions (for example, about shellfish tainting). In addition, consumption of contaminated seafood should be prevented, because this could significantly impact the local fishing sector.  The emphasis on community and the local economy is different than the focus on individuals’ health and safety, which receives rather weak attention in this perspective (e.g., protection of subsistence fishing areas). This view is distinguished from Perspective Y because following the contingency plan is not as important as having a response be driven by a well-coordinated expert scientific effort that gathers decision-relevant information.  Good decision-making requires good information (e.g., accurate estimate of amount of oil spilled) and clear definitions (e.g., about endpoints and what constitutes “clean”).

8.2.  Comparison of archetype perspectives
In this section we compare the four perspectives, which represent archetypical viewpoints, on several themes.  The themes are defined by objectives related to:

• mitigation of economic impacts;
• protection of environment and mitigate environmental impacts;
• protection of worker and public health and safety;
• implementation of a coordinated and timely response;
• addressing the needs and concerns of the affected public/communities;
• gaining public support for the response;
• protection of cultural resources; and
• mitigation of social nuisance impacts.

These themes were used to develop the set of Q statements (see section 2.3). For each theme we created an index, which is an aggregate of multiple statements.  For each category we summed z-scores of the statements included in the index and normalized the values by dividing by the number of statements comprising the index. Z-scores are a relative measure of the importance of a statement in a factor (these data are in Appendix A).  The indices reveal the relative importance of a particular category of objectives – or theme – across the four perspectives.

Mitigate economic impacts
This index comprises three statements that address costs of cleanup, losses for recreation sub-sector, and losses to commercial fishing, as shown in Table 20.  Statement #15 about costs to the responsible party was ranked consistently very low.  Because it was a consensus statement (there was no variation across the factors) this statement does not help distinguish the factors, and is not included in this index.

Table 20.  Economic Impacts Index Scores.

Economic costs were not a major theme in any of the factors, except for one.  Factor Z stands out for expressing the strongest, but still modest level of concern about economic impacts that may affect local businesses and communities.  Here the score is completely driven by statement 13, mitigating economic impacts to fishermen. 

Factor Z is only found in San Francisco and Delaware Bay.  In San Francisco it is associated with Perspective E, which emphasized mitigation of long-term impacts to coupled human and environment systems. Specifically, for Perspective E, the emphasis is on mitigating impacts to “foundational” components of the human-environment system, including fisheries and markets.
There is a remarkable parallel to the relevant perspective in Delaware Bay.  There, Factor Z is associated with Perspective L, which emphasizes the need for a coordinated response supported by scientific expertise that focuses on the protection of health and safety and the long-term integrity of affected ecosystems. 

Protect health and safety
As shown in Table 21, the index related to health and safety is based statements 2, 8, 14, and 41.  These include direct threats to people during the clean-up and indirect threats via consumption of contaminated seafood (e.g., subsistence fishing).  Factor Y placed the strongest emphasis on this theme.  It ranked every one of these statements stronger than did the other factors. 

Table 21.  Health and Safety Index Scores.

Perspectives that emphasized health and safety were found in Buzzards Bay (B), Delaware Bay (L) and Washington State (M), suggesting that this is a widely important, although not universal theme.  One tricky aspect of this theme is statement 14.  This statement asserts, unconditionally, that there should be no conditions that threaten human health.  In previous sections, we discussed how this statement sometimes was ranked low, not because people think safety is unimportant, but because they felt that zero risk is unobtainable.

Mitigate ecological impacts
The index for ecological impacts is based on six statements (Table 22).  These comprise several different ideas: setting priorities (5, 6, 7), mitigation (8), initiation of action (3), and removing oil (9). Three of the four factors gave this index strong emphasis.  It is not strongly emphasized in Factor W, which is defined by San Francisco D and Washington State M case-specific factors.  This is in keeping with the fact that ecological risk assessments drive oil spill contingency response planning efforts.  All three factors that ranked this significant pointed to protecting critical species (7) and removing oil so that ecosystem functions are restored (9).

Table 22. Ecological Impacts Index Scores.

Addressing ecological impacts is especially important to Factor X.   This gave high scores to setting priorities to protect ecological resources, mitigation, initiation of protective activities, and getting oil out of the water.  Statement #5 about focusing on saving adults of a species was somewhat controversial.  The low score given this by Factor X reflects a disagreement about the ecological justification for doing this.

Implement a coordinated and timely response
Objectives related to establishing and implementing a coordinated and timely response were emphasized in many of the case-specific factors.  For example, there was often strong emphasis given to establishing a well-organized unified command with a clear chain of command (22) and integrating local responders quickly (19). On the other hand, there were important differences among the factors within and across the cases on other objectives related to how responses were organized; for example, implementing the contingency plan (24) was a hotly contested objective.

We created two indices related to this theme.  The first index, shown in Table 23, consists of statements related to establishing a coordinated response.  Although the index scores are moderate, there is widespread agreement about the importance of establishing a coordinated response.  The scores, however, mask two very important differences among the four factors.  First, Factors W and Y strongly emphasize implementing the contingency plan (24) while Factors X and Z de-emphasize this objective.  Instead, Factors X and Z strongly emphasize establishing a well-coordinated expert scientific effort that drives the gathering of decision-relevant information (23).  Factors W and Y give slight emphasis to this objective.

Table 23. Coordinated Response Index Scores.

The second index consists of statements related to implementing a timely response (Table 24).  On this index, Factor W scores substantially higher than the others.  Factor Z ranks the objective of getting on with response efforts early for areas that have been pre-identified as sensitive areas (3) lowest among the four factors, which is consistent with its lack of support for implementing the contingency plan (24).

Table 24.  Implement timely response index scores.

The factors can be further distinguished by the way they rank three statements in particular.  As the next Table shows, there is an inverse relationship between the emphasis given to implementing the contingency plan (24) and:
18. Get a good estimate of the amount of oil spilled.
23. A well-coordinated expert scientific effort should drive the gathering of decision-relevant information, not public concerns and perceptions.

Table 25 presents the z-scores for these statements (see Appendix A for entire list of Q statements and z-scores).  The two darkly shaded cells in the first row point out that Factors W and Y emphasized implementing the contingency plan (24).  The shaded cells in the following rows point out that Factors X and Z emphasized getting a good estimate of the amount of oil spilled (18) and establishing a well-coordinated expert scientific effort that should drive the gathering of decision-relevant information (23).

Table 25.  Comparison of factors in relation to implementing the contingency plan vs. gathering information to inform response actions.

Address needs and concerns of the affected public/communities
Addressing public concerns was almost always ranked low. There were, however, some exceptions.  In Buzzards Bay, Factor C it was very important to ensure that consistent and accurate information be provided to the public (32) and in San Francisco Bay, Factor E it was important that Unified Command manage expectations about the cleanup so that they are reasonable (38).  Factor N from Washington State strongly emphasizes a number of objectives related to public communications.  In general, the relative lack of emphasis on objectives related to public opinion and public satisfaction stands in contrast to the emphasis that they were given in our case study interviews (Tuler et al. 2006a) and in the literature (e.g., Lindstedt-Siva 1999).

As shown in Table 26, Factor W most strongly emphasizes this theme, although weakly.  This theme is not emphasized strongly in any of the factors from the cross-case analysis.  In factor W, support is based on the importance it places on proactive and timely efforts to communicate with and engage with the community (34) and providing consistent and accurate information to the public (35).  There is weak support for telling members of the public about the things they want to know about (30) in all factors.  Factor X rejects the idea that Unified Command should manage expectations about the cleanup so that they are reasonable (38), while Factor Z supports it.

Table 26.  Addressing community needs index scores.

In summary, Factor W is most strongly associated with objectives that are related to public relations/communications. It can be argued that gaining public support is related to how well the publics needs and concerns are addressed, which helps to explain why both themes are emphasized by the same perspective/factor.  While others factors rank some objectives related to this theme highly, they do not give them the same overall emphasis.

Mitigate Cultural Impacts
Mitigating impacts to cultural resources was not very salient in any case, and it is not emphasized in any of the four factors associated with the cross-case analysis, as shown in Table 28.   Statement 41 received moderate support in Factor Y, and it is related to protecting both health and cultural activities.

Table 28.  Cultural impacts index scores.

	Factor W	Factor X	Factor Y	Factor Z
10. Damage to cultural artifacts (e.g., shipwrecks) from oil and its clean-up should be prevented.	-0.82	-1.28	0.13	-0.45
40. Response efforts need to avoid disrupting the integrity and culture of local communities.	-0.93	-0.51	-1.4	0
41. Subsistence fishing and shellfishing areas should be protected.	-0.20	0.00	0.79	-0.90
Cultural Impacts Index Score	-1.95	-1.79	-0.48	-1.35

Mitigate Social Nuisance Impacts
Two statements were related to objectives for reducing the social nuisance impacts of oil spills:
12.  Inconveniences to local residents and tourists should be mitigated.
17.  The cleanup should address aesthetic concerns, such as oil stains on rocks.
Neither of these statements received much support in the cross-case factors or in any of the case-specific factors.  These were not deemed important objectives during the initial phases of a spill response by those involved in our four case studies.

9.  Implications of findings for spill response and spill response managers
In order to achieve spill response goals, a number of participants are required to take part in a response. They may include federal, state, and local officials (i.e., USCG, EPA, state environmental protection agencies, fire chiefs, harbormasters); the Responsible Party (RP) and its contractors; non-local clean-up crews hired by private contractors; environmental and community advocates at the national, state, and local levels; and community residents who have a vested interest in the response (i.e., business- and homeowners, beach associations). However, because so many different and interested parties are affected, there is the potential for conflicting ideas about how clean-up goals should be achieved and how a response should be organized and implemented.

Differences of opinion may arise over the response goals, the objectives associated with each goal, and the relative importance of the objectives (e.g., Abordaif et al. 1995, Lindstedt-Siva 1999). The context and specifics of the spill also must come into play.  For example, response strategies are based on the characteristics of the oil released, the weather, the location and timing of the release, and the kinds of resources in harms way. Objectives may also vary depending because seasonal changes in tourism and local economies (e.g., shell-fishing) may affect the relative priority of preventing oiling of some areas because there would be time to clean oil off the area before tourists return.  The timing of a spill (and response) may also affect how important will be efforts to protect sensitive species – some of which may not be in the area (i.e., migration) or may be nesting.  Similarly, the type of oil spilled may affect the relative importance of some objectives, such as the need to protect cultural resources or sensitive areas. 

This research documents that multiple perspectives about objectives were salient among spill responders, managers and others involved in response planning even within a single case.  These perspectives reveal important similarities and differences in the ways that such people emphasize or define the goals associated with oil spill response. A closer look reveals that in every case we studied there are differences among key people involved in spill response planning and implementation. Abordaif et al. (1995) and Lindstedt-Siva (1999) also found this to be the case.  For example, there was varying degrees of emphasis on implementing the contingency plan, protecting ecological resources, protecting public health and safety, and interacting with the public.

We draw four conclusions from these findings can inform future oil spill response planning. 

First a small set of archetype perspectives describe how a response effort should be implemented. 
We found them in a Q study involving 54 people in four, diverse regions, who have experienced a range of spill events. These perspectives emerged via data gathered from how spill planners, managers, and responders (not the general public). Perspectives W and Y explain the most variance in the analysis.  Perspective W was found in each of the four cases.

At the same time, we cannot discount the perspectives on which only one or two people load significantly as unimportant or marginal. Q method does not yield insight into the relative frequencies of the perspectives represented by the factors in the population.  We only know that they exist.  Thus, while explaining less variance, Perspectives X and Z were important as well in specific cases.  These results suggest that these are perspectives that spill managers are likely to find in other regions and contexts as well.  Of course, just as we see in the four case studies, there can be context-specific differences in the ways that the archetypes are expressed. 

Moreover, as discussed above (section 7.1) the perspectives identified in this analysis may not be the full range of viewpoints.  There may be other archetypes we did not find because we did not gather data from the right people.  In particular, we did not gather systematically input from community members in the four regions.  We have confidence, however, in the robustness of these findings because we gathered data from a broad range of interested and engaged agency staff and other stakeholders.

Second, spill planners, managers, and responders may emphasize different components of contingency plans.
When people give different weight to objectives, this can lead to them emphasizing different aspects of a contingency plan. Our work provides additional empirical support for the claim made by others that “that the elements of a contingency plan are of very unequal importance” (Abordaif et al. 1995). Contingency plans are designed to achieve the over-arching goals of spill response:  protect people, stabilize the situation, protect the environment, and mitigate social disruptive effects.  Contingency plans address issues of:

• human health and safety,
• natural environment,
• economic impact,
• public communication,
• stakeholder service and support, and
• quality and effectiveness of the response organization. 

Each perspective gives attention to each of these elements.  But they do so with varying degrees of emphasis, as exemplified in the case-specific perspectives and in the cross-case analysis.  The kind of analysis we have done can help to suggest who emphasizes particular elements and help to clarify why.  For example, some people told us that they emphasized setting up an effective command system because that is a necessary condition for protecting people’s health and the environment.  Others believe that public trust and support built on timely, proactive, and clear communication is an essential condition for implementing an effective response. 

Third, there are differences among spill planners, managers, and responders about which objectives to emphasize, but they are not rooted in deeply held differences.
Instead many of the differences appear to be ones of emphasis (see Table 29). 

Table 29.  Summary of relative rankings distinguishing how each perspective ranks actions for the initial stages of the response.

• Each perspective gives attention to implementing a coordinated, rapid response, but they conceive of doing this differently.  Perspectives W and Z emphasize following the contingency plan, especially in the early stages of a response.  After all, considerable effort went into analyzing various scenarios, identifying sensitive areas, etc.  On the other hand, Perspectives X and Y de-emphasize following the contingency plan, but this is because they want to be very sensitive to the specific, contextual features of a particular spill and response.  Thus, they emphasize the need for Unified Command to be gathering decision-relevant information in a timely way.
• Much more than the other perspectives, Perspective W focuses on achieving a timely response.
• Perspectives W and X give the strongest emphasis to addressing community needs and building trust with the public. Those adhering to these viewpoints believe that a trustworthy relationship with the public may be necessary prerequisite to being able to implement a timely response plan.  Perspectives Y and Z react negatively to the notion that trust is important, because it suggests that managers can act without fully considering the viewpoints of minorities or critics in specific instances.  Instead, Perspective Z emphasizes that Unified Command leadership work to reconcile the preferences and points of views of all parties about what impacts are important to avoid.
• No perspective rejected the need to convey information to the public during a response, but they did disagree about how much importance this activity should get in the context of other pressing needs (e.g., deploying cleanup crews).  Perspective W focused the most emphasis on this outcome.
• Each perspective emphasizes the need to mitigate ecological impacts, but again, there are important differences.  For Perspective W, following the contingency plan is thought to protect sensitive areas.  Perspectives X, Y, and Z emphasize other ways of protecting sensitive species and habitats.  For example, Perspective Y protects the environment by protecting local resource-based economic activities.
• Protection of health and safety is important for all perspectives.  While perspectives X and Z de-emphasize the idea that “there should be no situations that threaten human health whatsoever during the response,” we learned during post-sort interviews that many do not believe that all risk can be avoided by spill responders.  By its very nature, a spill response forces people into situations that can threaten health.  The imperative for responders is to minimize the risks.

Fourth, before stakeholders can fruitfully discuss performance metrics to guide planning for future responses or evaluate past spill responses there needs to be some agreement about which objectives are important to measure. 
To assess plans for future responses or evaluate past spill responses, people must agree on the basis for the assessment or evaluation. For example, there are many criteria on which judgments about the success or failure of a response can be made (Tuler et al. 2008). Choices must also be made about which metrics are most relevant and meaningful.  However, relevance is not easily determined. Just because something can be measured does not mean it is relevant to the success of a spill response or important to many stakeholders.

A variety of models or frameworks for evaluating oil spill contingency plans and response efforts have been proposed (Haynes and Ott No date, Abordaif et al. 1995, Harrald and Mazzuchi 1993, Kuchin and Hereth 1999, Ornitz and Champ 2002), although Kuchin and Hereth (1999; see also Ornitz and Champ 2002, pgs. 58-61 and Appendix 3) “found no comprehensive system, agreed upon by the response community, that systematically evaluates the success of the response effort.” Moreover, it is not clear what is (or would be perceived as) a legitimate process for planning or evaluating.

However, a critical challenge for those wishing to assess plans and responses is that while there may be general agreement about the over-arching goals for spill response, the objectives that define these goals in specific incidents may vary and their relative priority may vary from spill to spill and among those with a stake in the spill response. Without agreement about objectives, it is not easy to know what to measure.

Thus, response managers should use contingency planning and response evaluation as a means for learning. In work by others in the spill response community on contingency planning (Abordaif et al. 1995, Harrald and Conway 1981, Harrald and Mazzuchi 1993) there has been a recognition that the process matters as much as the outcome (that is, the plan):
“Contingency planning is a process, not a product.  The true and lasting value of the planning process is the understanding of the problem domain gained through the planning process and the relationships established in resolving interorganizational issues” (Abordaif et al. 1995). 

Of course, a benefit of contingency planning and response evaluation is to be better prepared for the next spill, to better achieve the goals of spill response.  But, because diverse stakeholders with differing perspectives and emphases must work together planning and evaluation can also help to:

• clarify agreements and disagreements about objectives that will further inform area contingency planning;
• establish expectations and help to align objectives and perspectives;
• establish procedures to gather relevant data, including baseline data and during a response that will inform both response-related decision making and post-response assessments and evaluations (e.g., natural resource damage assessment); and
• facilitate better communications among responders and between responders and interested and affected parties (e.g., local residents).
• In a companion report, which is part of the same CRRC-funded project, we outlined a three phase, six-step process design to facilitate the selection of metrics for assessing spill responses by a broad range of potentially affected and interested parties (Tuler et al. 2008).
• A core principle of this framework is that performance metrics for oil spill response must be tightly coupled to objectives for oil spill response. Our concern was with the process by which those who have a stake in spill response can collectively discuss a) the objectives that should guide spill response and b) the criteria or metrics that should be used to assess performance with respect to the objectives. The process promotes integration of analysis and deliberation, in a way that is iterative, adaptable, promotes learning, and incremental.  It rests on the principles of fairness and competence, to ensure that decisions are based on broad input of (and discussion among) stakeholders and are based on the best available science. The process is intended to result in a set of objectives and performance metrics that can be used to assess responses in a particular region. 

10.  Conclusion
We investigated how people involved with spill response from varied organizations and government agencies think about the objectives that should guide responses to future oil spills.   We used the same research instrument in four locales:  Buzzards Bay, San Francisco Bay, Delaware Bay, and Washington State.

We identified the perspectives associated with spill responders in each region, and then we assessed the relationships among all of the perspectives.  Generally speaking, both the eleven case-specific and four cross-case composite perspectives that emerged about oil spill response objectives reflect the over-arching goals of oil spill response as articulated in federal policy guidance:

1. maintain safety of human life;
2. stabilize the situation to preclude it from worsening (e.g., through a well-run and rapid response that seeks to remove oil before it reaches shore), and
3. minimize adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts by coordinating all containment and removal activities to carry out a timely, effective response.

For example, all four composite perspectives gave weight to objectives associated with implementing a timely response.  The most agreement across all cases was for getting contractors on-scene quickly and integrating local responders quickly.  Objectives associated with protecting ecological systems were also widely emphasized, although not as strongly as implementing a speedy response.  This may be an artifact of the way that people think about how a response is conducted.  They may think that response activities need to be implemented so that ecological systems will be protected.

Other areas where we found broad consensus was on protecting critical species and removing as much oil as possible from the water. 

This research also documents that there are important differences about spill response objectives. Multiple perspectives about objectives were identified in each case, and they reveal important differences in the ways that people emphasize or define the goals associated with oil spill response. A closer look reveals that, in every case we studied, there were differences among key people involved in spill response planning and implementation.  Abordaif et al. (1995) and Lindstedt-Siva (1999) also found this to be the case.

We draw four conclusions from these findings that are important for guiding future oil spill response planning:

• a small set of archetype perspectives describe how a response effort should be implemented,
• spill planners, managers, and responders may emphasize different components of contingency plans,
• while there are differences among spill planners, managers, and responders about which objectives to emphasis, many of these differences are not of a fundamental nature rooted in deeply held differences about what should be done in the initial stages of a response, and
• before stakeholders can fruitfully discuss performance metrics to guide planning for future responses or evaluate past spill responses there needs to be some agreement about which objectives are important to measure. 

These conclusions point to a need for spill response managers to give close attention to building agreement about objectives for spill response and evaluation, for clarifying points of agreement and disagreement among responders, and to identifying meaningful ways of assessing performance.  We have proposed a framework by which defensible performance metrics for oil spill response can be developed with input from a broad range of stakeholders and that is informed by the best available scientific knowledge (Tuler et al. 2008). This framework starts from the “business as usual” approach to response planning and proposes specific activities that can be undertaken to integrate selection of performance metrics into contingency planning efforts. The integration of performance metrics into oil spill response planning will help ensure plans better reflect public concerns and values, promote learning, and improve spill managers’ communications with the public.

References

Abordaif, F., Harrald, J., and Mazzuchi, T. 1995.  Evaluating oil spill contingency and prevention plans using measures of quality, not quantity. Proceedings of the 1995 International Oil Spill Conference. Washington, DC:  American Petroleum Institute.
Aurand, D. and G. Coelho (Compilers). 2006a. Ecological Risk Assessment: Consensus Workshop. Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With Oil Spill Response Technologies. Delaware Bay. A report to the US Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc., Lusby, MD. 20657. Technical Report 06-01, 56 pages.
Aurand, D. and G. Coelho (Compilers). 2006b. Ecological Risk Assessment Workshop: Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With Oil Spill Response Technologies. Cape Flattery, Washington. A report to Regional Response Team X. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc., Lusby, MD 20657. Technical Report 05-01, 32 pages.
Baker, J. 1999.  Ecological effectiveness of oil spill countermeasures:  How clean is clean?, Pure Applied Chemistry 71(1):135-151.
Brown, S.  1986.  Q Technique and method: Principles and procedures.  In W. D. Berry and M. S. Lewis-Black (eds.), New tools for social scientists, pg. 57-76.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, S.  1996.  Q Methodology and qualitative research.  Qualitative health research 6(4): 561-567.  http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/srbqhe.htm
Clarke, L. 1999.  Mission improbable:  Using fantasy documents to tame disaster.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.
Harrald, J. and Mazzuchi, T. 1993.  Planning for success:  A scenario-based approach to contingency planning using expert judgment, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 1(4):189-198.
Haynes, D. and Ott, G. No date.  Area contingency plan scorecard:  determining a plan’s ability to achieve critical success factors. Paper presented at the International Oil Spill Conference. Washington, DC:  American Petroleum Institute.
Haynes, D. and Ott, G. No date.  Area contingency plan scorecard:  determining a plan’s ability to achieve critical success factors. Paper presented at the International Oil Spill Conference. Washington, DC:  American Petroleum Institute.
Kalof, L.  1998.  Understanding the social construction of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review 4(2) 101-105.
Kuchin, J. and Hereth, L. 1999.  Measuring response:  A balanced response scorecard for evaluating success.  Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, WA, pg. 685-690. Washington, DC:  American Petroleum Institute.
Kuchin, J. and Hereth, L. 1999.  Measuring response:  A balanced response scorecard for evaluating success.  Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, WA, pg. 685-690. Washington, DC:  American Petroleum Institute.
Lindstedt-Siva, J. 1999.  Judging oil spill response performance:  The challenge of competing perspectives. Issue paper presented at the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, WA. Technical Report IOSC-008.  Washington, DC:  American Petroleum Institute.
McKeown, B. and Thomas, D.  1988.  Q Methodology.  Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-066 Beverly Hills, CA:  Sage.
Niemeyer, S., Petts, J., and Hobson, K. 2005.  Rapid climate change and society:  Assessing responses and thresholds, Risk Analysis 25(6):1443-1456.
Ornitz, B. and Champ, M. 2002.  Oil spill first principles:  Prevention and best response.  NY:  Elsevier.
Ornitz, B. and Champ, M. 2002.  Oil spill first principles:  Prevention and best response.  NY:  Elsevier.
Ott. G. 2005.  Personal communication regarding efforts at the Coast Guard Training Center to measure how well an Area Contingency Plan might help an organization achieve success.  Norfolk, VA:  Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA.
Pond, R., Aurand, D., and Kraly, J. 2000.  Ecological risk assessment principles applied to oil spill response planning in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Sacramento, CA:  California Office of Spill Prevention and Response.
Tuler, S. and Kay, R. 2007. Comparing stakeholders’ objectives for oil spill response:  A Q study of Buzzards Bay and San Francisco Bay. Technical report submitted to the Coastal Response Research Center, NOAA Grant # NA04NOS4190063.  Project Number: 05-983.  Greenfield, MA:  Social and Environmental Research Institute, Inc.
Tuler, S. and Webler, T. 2006.  Competing perspectives on a process for making remediation and stewardship decisions at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, volume 13.
Tuler, S., Kay, R., Seager, T., and Linkov, I. 2006a. Objectives and performance metrics in oil spill response:  The Bouchard-120 and Chalk Point spill responses.  Technical report submitted to the Coastal Response Research Center, NOAA Grant # NA04NOS4190063.  Project Number: 05-983.  Greenfield, MA:  Social and Environmental Research Institute, Inc.
Tuler, S., Seager, T., Kay, R., and Linkov, R. 2006b.  The Bouchard-120 and Chalk Point oil spill responses:  Objectives and performance metrics.  In I. Linkov, G. Kiker, and R. Wenning (eds.), Environmental security in harbors and coastal areas, pp. 209-228.  Netherlands:  Springer.
Tuler, S., Webler, T., and Finson, R. 2005.  Competing perspectives on public involvement: Planning for risk characterization and risk communication about radiological contamination from a national laboratory, Health, Risk, and Society 7(3):247-266.
USCG 2005. Long Island Sound Area Contingency Plan DRAFT. Available at www.uscg.mil/d1/units/seclis/acp/draft-acp.html
Webler, T. and Tuler, S. 2008.Organizing a deliberative planning process:  What does the science say?. In S. Odugbemi and T. Jacobson (eds.), Governance reform under real-world conditions:  Citizens, stakeholders, and voice (pp. 125-160).  Washington, DC:  World Bank.