All of the cleanup methods available for responding to a marine oil spill in Alaska have operational limitations. In Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet, non-mechanical response methods such as the use of chemical dispersants or in situ burning can be requested as secondary cleanup options. This study identifies citizens’ concern and determines the preference of response methods and perceived effectiveness of each method. Environmental risks, values, and the level of trust residents in communities of Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet are also examined., A correlational research design was used to answer research questions with survey data collected by randomly sampling 1657 residents in fifteen communities of Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet. Of the 1657 surveys mailed a response rate of 41% was obtained. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to analyze the survey information. General descriptive statistical analysis was used to examine responses to each statement in the survey. Inferential statistical analysis was used to quantify the direction and strength of a relationship between variables., In general, 92% of the respondents support the use of mechanical recovery methods, 61% support the use of in situ burning and 45% chemical dispersants. The population recognizes burning as a means of removing large quantities of oil from the sea surface and the environmental risk of displacing pollutants into the atmosphere. Environmental concerns associated with the use of chemical dispersants are tied to seasonal abundance of and impact to marine organisms, amount of area and subsistence use and dependency on marine resources., The survey population's ecological priorities are commercial fishing, sea mammals and sea birds. The U.S. Coast Guard and Commercial Fishing Associations are held to the highest level of trust while the Alaska State Legislature and U.S. Congress received the lowest level of trust for ensuring Alaska waters remain oil free.

This content is only available as a PDF.