Oil Spill Response Risk Judgments, Decisions, and Mental Models: Findings from Surveying U.S. Stakeholders and Coastal Residents

ABSTRACT:This study applies a mental models survey approach to assess public thinking about oil spills and oil spill response. Based on prior interdisciplinary oil spill response research, the study first applies qualitative interview results and a response risk decision model to the design of a survey instrument. The decision model considers controlled burning, public health and seafood safety. Surveying U.S. coastal residents (36,978 pairs of responses) through Google Insights identifies beliefs and gaps in understanding as well as related values and preferences about oil spills, and oil spill responses. A majority of respondents are concerned about economic impacts of major oil spills, and tend to see ocean ecosystems as fragile. They tend to see information about chemical dispersants as more important than ecological baseline information, and dispersants as toxic, persistent, and less effective than other response options. Although respondents regard laboratory studies as predictive of the effects of oil and of controlled burning, they are less confident that scientists agree on the toxicity and effectiveness of dispersants. The results illustrate opportunities to reframe discussions of oil spill response in terms of tradeoffs between response options, and new possibilities for assessing public opinions and beliefs during events.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2014.947865
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1125323.v1
URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10807039.2014.947865
URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10807039.2014.947865
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2049004583
URL https://core.ac.uk/display/150447163
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1125323.v1
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10807039.2014.947865
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2014.947865
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Restricted
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Bostrom, Ann
Author Walker, Ann Hayward
Author Scott, Tyler
Author Pavia, Robert
Author Leschine, Thomas M.
Author Starbird, Kate
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From Datacite; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph
Hosted By figshare; Human and Ecological Risk Assessment An International Journal
Journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21, null
Publication Date 2014-11-18
Publisher Informa UK Limited
Additional Info
Field Value
Language Undetermined
Resource Type Other literature type; Article
keyword FOS: Biological sciences
keyword keywords.Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::50d0c68848cde5fd2b502f8e0ceaeda6
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 25 December 2020, 07:39 (CET)
Created 25 December 2020, 07:39 (CET)