PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS



COASTAL DEVE LOPM ENT



Technical Supplement No. 2



A report on two surveys of public perceptions



and attitudes undertaken in developing the



Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program



Juan Luis



Governor



Thomas R. Blake



Director of Planning



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAE



COASTAL SERVICES CENTER



EenenNMENy



2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE



CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413



2



SG



es OF Fe,



a f



Pr



oponty of CSC Bibs



ne



ary



* Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States



NOVEMBER 1977



St dg



~o pe



This program is funded in part through



coed



financial assistance pravided by the



‘o 2



Coastal Management Act of 1972,



> ~~



administered by the Office of



Ly



Coastal Zone Management,



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.



Printed in the U.S. Virgin Islands



AUTHENTICATED



U.S. GOVERNMENT



INFORMATION



GPO



7)

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF



Darlan Brin, Assistant Director of Planning and Program Director

Edward H. Lindelof, CZ2M Project Coordinator/Senior Planner



Marsha McLaughlin, Regional Planner and Public Attitude

Project Coordinator



Walter L. Stewart, Ph.D., Resource Economist/Planner and Data

Analyst



Roy E. Adams, Senior Planner



Steve Colman, Resource Planner



William F. Newbold, Jr., Landscape Architect/Planner

Joseph Mahoney, Planning Assistant



Ithon Babb, Draftsman



Olga McBean, Administrative Secretary II



Myrna T. Richards, Administrative Officer



Edris Sebastien, Administrative Officer



Bienvenida Torres, Secretary ‘

Consultants

Ervin H. Zube, Ph.D., General Consultant



Frank Mills, Ph.D., Geographer and Survey Analyst



Project Interviewers



Lenniston Brown

George Dennis

Nurbert Hughes

Jacqueline Hurley

Axelina Plaskett

Arthur Richards

' Eustace Roper

Wayne Thomas

Lorraine Todman

Rita Vallarde

Phyllis Walcott

Lynette White



Special thanks to Robert Marohn of the Good Hope School,

St. Croix, for his assistance with some of the statistical

analyses.



ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page



AcknowledgementS eee ieee cece eee c eect waco ene nscecsnaseesesenee Li

List of Figures Peewee nearer cece recto neem s ete aneneasereses VI

List of Tables cee ewe eee e mene tee e eee e eee eereneese Vv



ABSTRACT 2. cece ccc ccc c ccc ence cece ewer c cece reeset eseccesereeses VIL

CHAPTER ONE ~ OVERVIEW 2... cece ccc eee e ence te tee eee ween eee seeees lL



Public Attitudes as an Input to Coastal Zone

Management °

Purpose of the SurveyS ...vecccccescnesesesccsenene

The Test Population: A Profile ..c ccc wc wc w ncn enene



tw Ww



CHAPTER TWO - SURVEY TECHNIQUES 1.2... cee esc e cee ccc ew ence eevenees Ll



Household Survey ....ccccc cece wc ncc cece anencseaee LS

Interview Format ... cece eee reece ences cnscessecess L3

Sampling Procedure 2... cece eee e ewer cece ea sencens LA

Interview Procedure ..ccccec ceca aesacenenesessane LB

Data AnalySiS ...... ccc cece wcrc ener wer esaseceseene LY

Problems Encountered ..scseccccencccsscscccsnecene LY



Newspaper Survey .. 2. cece ese cece eee e erases encaes 20

Survey Format and Procedures ...cccceccccccceveses 20

Data AnalySiS 2... cece ccc w cece ream ere nen scceveseese 2L

Problems Encountered ....cccc nen cc n ewan cnccesevee 21



CHAPTER THREE — SURVEY RESULTS 1... cee cece ence wen cece ence cteeses 2a



Household Survey Sample ...... ccc cer eer cc cece cecevesee 25

Household Survey ReSponseS ...cceec cece cere ver eacusenes 29



Perceptions of Coastal Problems .......eneeseceees 29

Shoreline Utilization ..... cece sce e ence eee ceeseeee SL

Shoreline Protection ... csc were nce c ccc cesnavecce 40



The Location of Future Development ......eeee0e202 50

Respondents’ CommentS ..... cc ecr ec cc cc ccccccenesee 54

Newspaper Survey Respondents -......cc.escsceveeccnenecce 55

Newspaper Survey ResultS 2.2.2... ccc cece cence cece ene c ee 55

Shoreline Utilization ....... cece cece wee ev aeenes OO



Location of Future Development ........cecceenenee 58



. Shoreline Protection ..csecerccecsccnavecccecnecee 39



CHAPTER FOUR - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......ccewcncccccecesees GL

Survey RESults cic cece c cence esse acer asenccsassasesane 63



Survey Utility ... ccc cw ence cee were wens onan essenetaes 10

APPENDICES 2... cee eee cece cece eee e eee en ccc c et eetstesesssasesaeeee 73

APPENDIX A - HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FORMAT .........ccee0e08 75



Interview Schedule 2.1... cece cee cece cece ce eeenene V7



Photograph Panels ccc cess ccc acc c waren ereccsnece 18



APPENDIX B - NEWSPAPER SURVEY FORMAT .....cccccaeevesne 83

QUESTLONNALTE wives cc scares eccccnsccnacccvesceese S4

TABLE OF CONTENTS |(cont!.d)



Page



APPENDIX C - HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA



.



enor one



.



ae



.



eenone



85



Selected Tabulations



i ee ee



.



a ey



«



we



.



aeee



ee



.



86



Selected Cross Tabulations



awe



.



eoueneae



.



oe



.



aeee



.



93



a



.



a6



.



«



eeae



.



96



Available Information .........



APPENDIX D - NEWSPAPER SURVEY DATA



.



eee ree



.



ee



.



.



aeee



.



.



97



.



oe



.



ewcee



.



.



97



Complete Tabulations ....ecse eee e cues



1v

Table

Table



Table’



Table

Table

Table

Table



Table



Table

Table



Table

Table



Table

Table



Table ©

Table



Table

Table



Table

Table



Table



Table



Table.



Table

Table

Table



Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table



Table



Table



SOO WN Fe



35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



45



LIST OF TABLES



Page

Sample Composition by Sex .........6. enw ewww encase 26

Sample Composition by Age ...ceeseescccece weseseans 26

Sample Composition by Length of Residency wees ae 27

Sample Composition by Education ...... enw necacee 28

Sample Composition by Occupation .....ceeer erences 28



Sample Composition by Intent to Staty in the V.I.. 29

Perceptions of the Virgin Islands' Three Most



Important Coastal Problems .......cceeees ewes -.- 30

Attitudes Towards Shoreline Development: Uses to



be Emphasized .....cccev er cceee eee ee eee eens eee SL

Shoreline Use to Emphasize First .......006 an eceee 32

Attitudes Towards Economic Development: The

' Three Most Favored IndustrieS ........eeeeees eee 33

The Most Favored Industry .. cee ececcncscreccecene 35

Attitudes Towards Tourism: The Three Most Favored



MOdES cece cece nsec nese ese neneane rere 36

The Most Favored Mode of Tourism ......... ee eneaee 36

Attitudes Towards Recreational Development : .. The



Three Most Favored TYPES 2... eee ence c ences escnence 38



The Most Favored Type of Recreational. Opportunity. 38

Attitudes Towards Shoreline Protection From Over



Development 2... ccc c cece nese eee s ersten eae esenes 40

Rationale for Shoreline Protection ....ceeceee sees 41

Perceptions of the Virgin Islands' Three Main



Tourist Attractions .......eeeee wee eee e eens 42



The Virgin Islands'Main Tourist Attraction ....... 43

St. Croix Respondents' Perceptions of St. Croix

Shoreline Visual Quality ....... ace nrecevenavee 44

St. John Respondents' Perceptions of St. John

Shoreline Visual Quality a: ©

St. Thomas Respondents' Perceptions of St. Thomas



Shoreline Visual Quality ....cecc ccc ccc ces eneeee 45

Territory-Wide, Perceptions of Territory Shoreline

Visual Quality ....... peewee eee e eae nee eeneees 45



Perceptions of :the Most and Least Scenic’Areas ... 46

Perceptions.of Relative Visual Quality by Shoretype47

Shoretypes Which May Need Protection From Over



Development oc. cccer es cnccccnceces wee e eens «. 49

Shoretype Utilization ... cece wees cece cee w ewer ence 51

Respondents" Comments ....ccccccccnencnccccsecenen 54



- Comparative Demographic Data ......... ace ceeerecee 55

Use of the Coastal AreaS ....2.0. see c cece see cen ee 56

Beach USE c.awace ees ceneie Cece rene ewan ewe eresesae FO



Perceptions of ‘the Obstacles to Greater Beach Use. 57



- Perceptions, of..the Three Most Important

“Shoreline Uses .......04- eee ewe wenn eenasenes 57



Perceptions of the Adequacy of Current Shoreline



USES cece ecccnnersncccee Cem een eee ener cneoecacnee 58

Shoretypes Most Suitable for Intensive Development 58

Shoretypes Needing Protection From Overdevelopment 59

Shoretypes Needing Protection from All development

St. Croix Residents’ Attitudes Towards Shoretype



Protection and/or Utilization 2... cence neccacee «+. 86

St. Thomas Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype

Protection and/or Utilization ....c cece ween ene anas 87

St. John Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype

Protection and/or Utilization ...ccecccaccccunccae 88

Attitudes Towards Shoreline Development by Survey

Sub-areas ...... i ee ee ei ie ia aa 89

Attitudes Towards Economic Development by Survey

Sub-aredS 2... ce ecw ecw ewe eee wee eee ee ee eee eee - 89

Attitudes Towards Coastal Recreation Opportunities



by Survey Sub-areaS 1.2... ccc wwe rence enn ecee ese. 90

Perceptions of the V.I.'s Three “Most Important

Coastal Problems by Survey Sub-areas ........0020. 90

Complete Tabulation of Respondents' Comments ..... 91

Table

Table

Table



Table

Table



Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table



46

47

48



49

50



51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58



60

61

62



‘LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)



Education as Associated With Length of Residency ........6e-

Age As Associated With Length of Residency ......ceuseeceace

Attitudes Towards Over-all Shoreline Development



By Educational Levels .......seeeee



Attitudes Towards Economic Development By



Educational Levels



Attitudes Towards Shoreline Protection By



Educational Levels ...ccesecceees



ee ee



Perceptions of Coastal Problems By Educational Levels ....

Demographic Data For Newspaper Respondents ...s.sseeeesesene



Coastal Activities wo... n ewww ween



Beach Activities



- Adequacy of Current Shoreline Uses,.



Ce |



ee



Co



eee eventos meanest ranma revnesrensevetenesaeeteennaen



Beach USC ...cceeceseseaces er are ara a ars

Existence of Unused but Desired Beaches .....e.. ccc ee eeeees

Reasons For Not Using Particular: Beaches ...... eae t wee reneee

- Most Important Current Shoreline Uses ..... Oe r eens eweracen



ey



Shoretypes Suited for Intensive Development .....eeeeeedaeee

Shoretypes Needing Protection From Extensive Development....



Figure 1



Figure 2:



a&b



Figure 3



- Figure 4 -



Figure 5_



Shoretypes Needing Protection From All Development



‘LIST OF FIGURES ©



- Diagram ofthe CZM Program

' Development Process ©

- Shoreline Environments

- Map of St. Croix Survey Areas

- Map of St. John Survey Areas



- Map of St. Thomas Survey Areas



vi



is

16.

17



Page



93

93



94

Abstract



-Of the eight studies undertaken in the development of the Virgin

Islands Coastal Zone Management Program, the Public Attitude Survey was

one of the most valuable. The information used by the survey gave

insight into what the public's needs and concerns were in relation

to a host of coastal related issues ranging from conservation to

industrial development.



The survey was undertaken according to standard scientific methods

for ascertaining public opinion. Two approaches were used: an

informal newspaper questionnaire in the local newspapers, and a more

detailed household survey conducted by interviewers on all three

islands. The data collected was analyzed by computer and is summarized

here. .



It is interesting to note that the respondents' length of

residence in the Territory did nctappear. to influence opinions. . However,



opinions on many issues did seem to vary by Island and level of education.



THE NEED FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION



Seventy percent of the household respondents and ninety~seven per-

cent of all newspaper respondents feel some shore areas need protection

from over-development. Less that eight. percent of those questioned are

opposed to shoreline protection and regulations. Rationales for protection

included both statements of appreciation for an area's amenity qualities

and concern about possible negative effects induced by development.



When asked which areas were in need of protection, respondents

nominated those areas highly valued in terms of recreation, scenic, and/

or natural qualities. Sand beaches, harbors with waterfront parks, and



undeveloped mangrove areas are given highest priority. Strong support



100% NEED FOR SHORELINE



I a PROTECTION

(Teritory Wide}

50

25

Y

0 YA WW



NO OPINION NO



Source: VICZM Household Survey



vil

is also given to the protection of some undeveloped salt ponds arid ©

rocky shores, as well. as-intensively: developed harbor areas. Those

surveyed generally feel new construction could best be accommodated

in areas which already have some devélopment, particuarly habor or

industrial areas. and low relief or’ steep rocky shorelines. To a-

lesser extent, gravel or rocky beaches and salt ponds ‘are also’



considered suitable for development.



ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT



While there is apt to be considerable disagreement among some ”

population groups as to the importancé of economic dévelopment, there’

is a consensus Territory-wide that agriculture and food processing should

be encouraged.



The extent of support for tourism’ varies*among the Islands, but

respondents across the Territory indicate a preference for hotel/

guest house and cruiseship related development over other forms of

tourism.



The great majority of respondents agree that coastal recreational

‘development is important. There is considerable support throughout

‘the Territory for the improvement of beach access, and to a. lesser

extent, beach facilities, The newspaper survey provided considerable

information about existing patterns of recreational activity, including

a listing of beaches where access is considered an issue. | Poor roads

or an exclusively private atmosphere are the most frequently cited



obstacles, although the lack of facilities and safety. are also concerns.



100% FUTURE ECONOMIC —100% 4 MOST IMPORTANT SHORELINE

DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES ACTIVITIES

(Territory Wide) Ct os bo (Territory Wide)



LTS rs +2



50 _ 50



WG



1, 0 GZ ZB Za. - te



0 :

AGRICULTURE TOURISM FISHING rs : a RECREATION COMMERCIAL

LIGHT INDUSTRY HEAVY: MFG. eo : : CONSERVATION INDUSTRIAL

Source: VICZM Household Survey wee / - ; iF oe Si VICZM H sid Survey



wilt

DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES BY ISLAND



ST. CROIX



Recreational development, and beach access in particular, is of

greater concern on St. Croix than on the other two islands. Res-

pondents from Christiansted voiced the strongest: concern. Compared

with St. Thomas and St. John, concern about conservation is greater,

but less interest is expressed in commerce and industry. Agriculture

and light industry are clearly the most preferred and widely supported

development options. However, the percentage of population favoring

heavy industry is larger than on St. Thomas and St. John.



Interest in fishing and tourism is weaker in St. Croix than the

other two islands. Attitudes toward. tourist development are reflective

of the Territorial preference for hotel/guest houses and cruise ships.

Support for condominium/second home development is stronger on



St. Croix than on the other islands.



ST. THOMAS



The survey results on St. Thomas indicate that industrial and

conservation uses are a high priority and while recreational and

residential development are not a high priority, they are recognized

as being important. Respondents are more united in their support

for agriculture, light industry, and, to a lesser extent, tourism as

modes of economic development. Regarding tourism, there was agreement

with the Territory-wide preference for hotel/guest house and cruise

ship development. Respondents also support other Territorial-wide

recreational concerns. Beach access is paramount, but beach

facilities, fishing piers and waterfront parks are concerns in



certain areas.



ST. JOHN



Residential and commercial development are of greatest concern ac-—



‘cording to the survey results from St.John. Interest in conservation



is less widespread. Respondents express very little interest in

industrial uses. Stronger support is given to the development of



agriculture, tourism, and fishing. Interest in fishing and tourism



is stronger on St. John than anywhere else in the Virgin Islands.



ix

With respect to tourism development, respondents express a

clear support for the Territory-wide preference for hotel/guest houses

and cruise ships. In addition, there is equally clear and strong

support for developing boating. While recreational development is

rarely considered to be a first priority, it is widely acknowledged

as important. There is considerable support for the development of



waterfront parks and fishing piers.



TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES



7% Camping 7% 6% 4%

10% Boating ™% 13%

Ly SS

18% SN 2nd Home 13% N NV 30%

33% 12% BSS

28% Cruise Ships 2a%

24%

36% Hotel 40% 33% 30%

TERRITORY St. St " St.

Thomas Croix John



Source: VICZM Household Survey

RR a ae ae



sper ns



1



INTRODUCTION

AND

OVERVIEW

a



SS _ sae eer



Public Attitudes as an Input to the Virgin Islands: C2M Program



The U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (Public Law

92-583) in 1972 to stimulate state and territorial leadership in managing the

Nation's coastal land and water resources. Spurred by this Act, as well as

by problems resulting from rapid and unplanned growth, the Virgin Islands

began work on its own Coastal Zone Management Program in early 1975. The

Virgin Islands Planning Office, which has responsibility for the program, is

developing both a plan and appropriate mechanisms for regulating coastal

resource use.



As Figure 1 indicates, identifying the best use of scarce and fragile

resources has involved a varlety of technical analyses, including not only

assessments of resource capabilities and economic demand factors, but also

a study of public attitudes regarding utilization of coastal areas. It is

this study that is reported here.



This chapter presents first the underlying rationale and objectives of

surveying public attitudes regarding coastal development, and then a brief

overview of the report. Study methods are detailed in Chapter II while

Chapter III elaborates on study results and their implications. Chapter IV

summarizes survey findings in light of their utility in developing the



Territory's Coastal Zone Management Program.



Purpose of the Surveys



SURVEYING THE GENERAL PUBLIC



Determining public attitudes towards any issue is obviously made difficult

by the fact that the public speaks with many voices. For this reason, elected

officials and community and interest groups leaders are generally relied upon

to assess and to articulate their constituents' interests. If the issues are

clear cut and have received widespread attention, this is a resonable and

certainly the easiest means of gauging public sentiment.



However, in the Virgin Islands, growth and development since the early

sixties has resulted in substantial changes in the landscape, the population

and their way of life. Traditional attitudes and values appear to be changing

rapidly. Accordingly, extrapolation of public sentiment from the past seems



precarious, While public reactions to current events provide some indication

FIGURE 1



CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS



RECOMMENNED



MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .



OCZM PROGRAM ELEMENTS



STUDY PROCEDURES



IMPLEMENTATION



CZM PROGRAM



MECHANISMS



(REQUIREMENTS)



BOUNDARY



TERRESTRIAL INVENTORY



COASTAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES,



REVISED ORGANIZATIONS



POLICIES



AND AUTHORITIES



PERMISSIBLE USES



MARINE INVENTORY



MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY



ZONING



AREAS OF PARTICULAR



CAPABILITY ANALYSIS



CONCERN



GENERAL LAND AND



PERMIT SYSTEM



@ATTITUDE SURVEYS/PUBLIC



WATER USE PLANS



PUBLIC/GOVERNMENTAL



PARTICIPATION/GOVERNMENTAL



INVOLVEMENT



ORGANIZATION AND



AESTHETIC/VISUAL QUALITY



AUTHORITIES REVISIONS



FEDERAL INTERACTION



ASSESSMENT



AND THE NATIONAL



ECONOMIC ANALYSIS



INTEREST



LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS



SHORELINE ACCESS



SITING OF ENERGY



FEDERAL INTERACTION AND



FACILITIES



THE NATIONAL INTEREST



COASTAL EROSION



eee



et it



aoe. ». wei.

EE



lane Aa



of attitudes towards coastal development, it is far from adequate. This is

of particular concern since coastal resource utilization is an important de-

terminant of growth and development in the Territory as a whole. Surveying

the public-at-large seemed called for. The Planning Office used the results

of these surveys to supplement information obtained from contacts with local



officials, leaders, and groups.



EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL FUNCTIONS



There were two other reasons for surveying public attitudes. It was

anticipated that the surveys would have both educational and informational

functions. Questions were designed not only to obtain needed information, but

also to encourage participants to be more conscious of coastal resources; to

think about their value and utilization in fresh ways. Moreover, the surveys

provided a novel vehicle for making people aware of, and hopefully, interested

in the Coastal Zone Management Program. It was hoped that interest would lead



to active participation in program development.



APPROACH



In May of 1976, a questionnaire was inserted in all local newspapers. It

dealt with personal recreational habits, perceptions of existing and future

shoreline use, plus attitudes toward development of different shoreline areas.

It was anticipated that the primary value of the survey would be educational;

being an interesting means of communicating information through the news

media, Its value as a vehicle for public input was secondary. It was expected

that response would reflect the opinions of people with the time, interest and

ability to fill out and return the questionnaire -- in all probability a some-

what more educated and affluent group.



To obtain a sample which would be more representative of residents as a

whole, a program of household interviews was conducted over the summer. Inter-



views also permitted probing some of the newspaper survey questions in greater



detail.



A unique aspect of the household survey was the utilization of photographs



depicting the various types of shoreline areas found in the islands. These



provided a focus for questions regarding shoreline use, as well as for assessments

eee



a



oe



L



Bee



=



oe



ge



o



2



a.



Z



Ze



ee



=



2



*



ee



a



Og



oe



a



ae



oe



a



S



A



de



®



Se



oy



*



8



ee



fe



is



oe



-



oe



a



oe



Pe



sy



fe



ee



Dee



oa



vee



ves



ee



ve



el



Se



ee



ie



aoe



cs



ene



S



Pe



ee



ee



ee



2



S



eS



re



oe



eS



ee



A



f



ges



=



eet



“e



epee



s)



o



a



Ne



ge



a



fe



VG



uta



ARES oe



eo



i



es



Be



ee



a



7s



Hoses



Zz



ee,



steep rocky shore; low relief



Figure 2a — Examples of shoreline environments (from top):



shorer salt pond; mangrove stand; sand beach; developed shore.

of visual quality. Assessment of the different types of coastal areas has been



a central feature of the Territory's CZM Program. The concept of coastal en-

vironments is grounded in the assumption that areas which have similar charac-

teristics also have similar potentials and constraints for use, and therefore

similar management requirements. Classification of all shoreline and marine areas

was based on soils, vegatation, slope, erosion susceptibility, and use attributes.



Thirteen distinct coastal environments were identified:



Shoreline Environments: Developed shorelines

Steep rocky shorelines

Low relief shorelines

Salt ponds

Beaches

Mangrove stands

Marine Environments: Marine meadows (grass beds)

Sand bottoms

Rocky bottoms

Developed bottoms

Reefs

Open water



off-shore islands and cays



Developing management recommendations for each of the different coastal

environments involved weighing environmental, economic and social considerations.

Both surveys, but particularly the household survey, were designed to assess

public perceptions of the shoreline environments and the relative values

associated with each. To this end, each of the six shoreline environments was

further sub-divided to assess differences in perceptions based on the type

and amount of development. Developed shorelines were divided into industrial

and harbor sub-classes. The others were divided into undeveloped and some

development sub-classes. Also investigated were interviewees' attitudes

regarding coastal development priorities, tourist assets, recreational oppor-

tunities and coastal problems. Demographic and geographic data were collected



to distinguish differences in opinion between population sub-groups.

Figure 2b — Examples of shoretype sub-classes (from top): developed ~ harbor; developed ~

industrial; beach with some development; salt pond with some development.



THE SAMPLE POPULATION; A PROFILE



While it has been difficult to assess the success of these surveys in

terms of educational objectives, they did produce a great deal of useful

information. Not only do they provide a good indication of the economic,

amenity, and ecological values which the public associates with coastal areas,

but also their relative importance as reflected in attitudes towards shore-

line utilization.



Sex, age, occupation, and length of residence in the Territory were not

found to have a significant bearing on respondents’ views, but island of resi-

dence and level of education in many instances were. The newspaper survey



sample, as anticipated, was relatively small (154 respondents) and more reflec-



ae

tive of the views espoused by the better educated household survey respondents.

The household survey sample, however, was considerably larger (743 respondents)

and more representative of the population as a whole.



Survey data thus suggest areas of both public consensus and dissension.

Strong consensus appears to exist about: the importance of. coastal recreation

and improving beach access; the encouragement of agriculture; the recognition

of water pollution as a significant problem; the high value attached to sand



- beaches, undeveloped mangroves, and some harbor areas; and the importance of

protecting such areas from overdevelopment.



There is considerably less agreement, however, on over-all development

priorities, Attitudes towards development tend to be associated with educa-

tional background, with the more educated favoring amenity and natural con~

siderations and the less educated stressing economic ones. Attitudes towards

future development also vary considerably among the islands. Island development

priorities seem to reflect not only residents’ perceptions of what is desirable,



but also what is feasible given island resources.



Considering survey response as a whole, respondents seem to give less

weight to economic considerations than was anticipated. While concern about

economic development is by no means negligible, it appears to be tempered

by a widespread concern for the natural and amenity attributes of the coast.

The impact of development on sand beaches, harbors, and mangrove stands seems

to be of greatest concern.



Judging from respondents’ comments, there is substantial support for both

planned coastal development and "going to the people” for guidance. There was

however, some skepticism that survey results would be heeded or that effective

management of our coastal resources would ever occur.



The composition of the population has altered greatly in the past fifteen

years, and further changes can be anticipated. The surveys provide at least

a tentative indication of the influence of such shifts on public attitudes.

Concerns about the type and location of future coastal development tend to

be most strongly influenced by educational background and by island of

residence, They are not associated with length of residence per se. Thus

the assumption that neat distinctions can be made between the views of native



Virgin Islanders, continentals, and aliens would appear to be unjustified.

What is perhaps clearer, is that since educational levels are generally rising,



further shifts in public values and attitudes may be anticipated along the



lines indicated by the household survey ~~ towards a balance among economic,



ecological, and amenity considerations.



oe



ur



te



4 %



Se a



ar



es



mi



7m



3



vs



fy



#,



a



??



ae



2)



te



a



‘“*



es



He



we



fa



e



te,



ss



ot add



re



Ret ie bial



‘2



wa



dt.



7,4



Ere



a



By



a.



&,



Bry



we,



As



a



ot



phe S.,



rege



ev



wet



re



or



Rd



Pry



we



=



2



ve



%



ey



AN,



eae



~



ah



awe



ty Aen



“



‘ait



a



2



AS



+,



rae



Ag



ms



hey



‘



-



aed



is



re



on,



PAs



Vane



a



y



*R



4



€s,



a att



ae



4 5ahe



a



si



wee



‘ind



aa



ft



B



Bie FUSE



\e



F



&



ay



Netde



af



Be



a



nd 7



Fa



ys



iw



VV £-



“ae



pi



ae



ys



&



sit



—



“



pat



as



ms



Ad



Sere



a ad



oe:



tt HS,



Sa ee,



oth



Ss.



ao



Recreational use of the shoreline, and particularly sand beaches, has widespread support.



10

SURVEY

TECHNIQUES

This chapter describes how both Coastal Zone Management surveys were

designed and carried out. The household survey is discussed first, and then



the newspaper questionnaire.



Household Survey



INTERVIEW FORMAT

The household survey consisted of two components:



1) .Three panels of photographs -- the first, depicting the various types

of shorelines found in the Territory; the second, shoreline examples from the

respondents' island; the third, examples of different types of shoreline uses.



2) A set of twenty-five questions, focusing on the assessment of shore-

line value, and appropriate utilization.



The photographs were intended to serve several purposes. As illustrative

examples of shoretypes and coastal uses they provided respondents with a common

understanding of terminology used in the questions (shoreline, industry,

commerce, residential, recreation/parkland), as well as a shared understanding

of the range of areas encompassed by both the questions and the Coastal Zone

Management Program. Second, the photographs served as concrete stimuli for

what would otherwise be rather abstract questions. Third, having a series of

questions focussing on the photographs permitted assessment of respondents’

perceptions of a single shoretype relative to both economic and amenity issues.

Lastly, the photographs added visual interest and variety to the somewhat

lengthy interview format.



The four shoreline photo panels were made of fifteen 24"x3" color prints

arranged in three columns of five prints each, and mounted on 16" x11" white

cardboard: one with Territory-wide shoreline examples, plus one for each of

the three main islands. The photograph panel depicting shoreline use was of

the same size, but had ten 3" x 5" black and white photos arranged in two

columns of five each (Appendix A). The photograph set employed in each interview

consisted of three panels: Panel A - the Territory-wide shoreline panel; Panel B~

island shoreline panel; and Panel C - the shoreline use panel. These were

bound as a folio with a cardboard cover for ease of use.



The interview schedule (Appendix A) used a force-choice response format for

all but three questions. While this approach admittedly limits participants'



responses, it was necessary to obtain comparable and quantifiable data suited



13

to statistical analysis. A measure of freedom was provided in some instances

by the opportunity to specify a different response under "other". For three

questions however, free responses were permitted: reasons for shoreline

protection; occupation; and respondent comments.



/



SAMPLING PROCEDURE



Time, logistical and financial constraints dictated a relatively small

sample: 300 interviews each were planned on St. Croix and St. Thomas, plus

75 interviews on St. John. Samples were drawn from island sub-areas in propor-

tion to population distribution. This was done to permit analysis of responses

in terms of geographic as well as demographic variables. The survey sub-areas

(Maps 1-3) are units which are relatively homogeneous with respect to-physical

and demographic characteristics, as well as having a common physical orientation

towards particular coastal and/or urban areas.



Population data were taken from the recently completed Virgin Islands Mass

Transit study? rather than from the 1970 U.S. Census. This was done because

the Mass Transit Study contains 1975 population estimates incorporating

corrections for widely acknowledged errors in the 1970 census data. Moreover,

since these population estimates were for sub-divisions of the census enumeration

districts, they could be aggregated so as to coincide with the planning areas

to be surveyed.



After population distribution was determined, the proportionate sample

size for each planning area was calculated. Selection of households to be

surveyed involved scanning a list of all tax properties in a given planning area

and randomly selecting developed residential properties to generate the correct

sample size (e.g. every nth property depending on the number of properties

and sample size per area). When tax data indicated a parcel was not improved

or was non~residential and therefore contained no household, the next improved

residential lot in the list was substituted. Tax data provided addresses and

were used to map ail parcels to be sampled.



One drawback to this approach was noted and corrected. Single-family



homes were as likely to be chosen as properties with multiple units. While



lwilbur Smith and Associates in association with Design Collaborative,

Virgin Islands Mass Transit Study: Final Draft Report, (February 1976)



14

MAP ft:



ST. CROIX SURVEY AREAS



Grove Place



Frederiksted



eo



as00"



sae0"



re aga”

9T



Cruz Bay



MAP 2:

ST JOHN SURVEY AREAS



Coral Bay & Outlying Areas



2500"



78 eG0”

LT



MAP 3: ;

ST. THOMAS SURVEY AREAS



Northside



Charlotte Amatie



New Quarter



East End



ago’ ga00"



70.000"

there are not very many people Living in large apartment complexes in the

Virgin Islands, there are a lot of people Living in public housing. To avoid

under-representing this group, the sample was. to be supplemented by interviews



with sixty project residents on both St. Croix and St. Thomas.



INTERVIEW. PROCEDURES



. Fourteen interviewers, seven men, seven women, were employed. Teams of

seven under a supervisor were formed for each of the main islands, with the

St. Thomas team covering St. John.



Most interviewers had had previous survey experience either with an earlier

housing survey conducted by the Planning Office or with research at the College

of the Virgin Islands. After a three hour meeting to review survey objectives

and procedures and to discuss means of soliciting responses and avoiding bias

in the presentation of questions, interviewers were sent to do a pre-test.



The pre-test served not only to season the interviewers, but to identify

problems with the interview schedule and procedures. As a result, several

questions were rephrased. Several others were dropped to shorten interview

time to about 40 minutes. It was also found that interviewers experienced

difficulty locating many of the houses which were to be surveyed. This was



due in large measure to inaccuracies in the tax data, but also in part to the



fact that street addresses, where present, follow no logical sequence.

Accordingly, in a subsequent meeting interviewers were instructed that when

the target house did not exist as mapped, to take the house nearest to that

location. Due to time constraints, a policy to eliminate calls back was also

established. If the target house were located, but unoccupied (or if the oc-

cupant declined to be interviewed) , interviewers were told to try the’ nearest

house (s) until they had success, A third household identification procedure

emerged when it became apparent that some of the targeted properties were

businesses (which could not be detected from tax books). Interviewers were

again instructed to go to the nearest residential unit. Interviewers were

cautioned in all instances of substitution to avoid biasing the sample in

favor of any class of unit or occupant. Interviews could be conducted with

any occupant eighteen years or older.



The survey began in mid-July and ran through August 1976.



18

DATA ANALYSIS



Due to changes in the interview schedule, pre-test results were not

integrated with those of the survey. Responses to all but three questions

were pre-coded. Coding categories for question 18 (occupation) were derived

from U.S. Census categories as listed in the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences Manual.” Responses to question 16 (reason for shoreline

protection) were examined and tabulated to generate coding categories. Responses

to question 25 (respondents' comments) were examined and tabulated, but they

were not suitable for statistical analysis and hence were not formally coded.

Coding was the responsibility of the survey supervisors. Since the Virgin

Islands Mass Transit Study does not contain data on population composition,

and in the absence of a more reliable source, Virgin Islands Census data

(1950 - 1970) were employed as the only available check for the representa-

tiveness of the survey sample.



The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version H, release 6.2)



was used to analyze survey responses. Cross-tabulations between non~photo

questions and all demographic variables were run by island. Chi Square was

used to test the significance of associations between demographic variables

and responses. Response tabulations and cross-tabulations for St. John were

examined (and have been included in all tables), but due to the small sample

size, were not tested for significance. For the same reason responses by

island sub-areas were inspected, but not subjected to statistical analysis.

Computer work was performed at the Virgin Islands Department of Finance



computer center.



PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

There were several problems related to survey design and implementation.

Time constraints and difficulties with off-island photo processing required

construction of photo panels from a somewhat limited array of photographs.

Several photographs of rocky beaches and low or steep relief rocky shores

might be considered "hybrid" rather than clear examples of a particular shore~



type. Additionally, developed shoretypes were underrepresented on St. Croix.



2Nie, N., D.H. Bent, and C,H. Hull, Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences, McGraw-Hill Company, (1970)



19

A more fundamental constraint was posed by the dearth of a satisfactory

data base for sampling,.. Since many residents lack telephones,. postal boxes

or street addresses, no comprehensive list of households was available. Tax

rolls provided the most complete, if not entirely up to date, listing of

improved properties. The tax maps used to locate targeted households required

interviewers to do a fair amount of substitution.



The need to substitute households was. compounded by the fact that half

of the interviewers were women who only worked weekdays when many people,

particularly men, are not at home. This was a particular problem on St. Croix

and undoubtedly accounted for the disproportionate number of women interviewed.



Lastly, free responses to question 16 (reasons for shoreline protection)

were probably influenced by previous questions. Moreover, questions 16 and 22

(occupation) generated a wide array of responses. Since guidelines on the

grouping of these responses into coding categories were not always clear, some



coding inconsistencies exist.



Newspaper Survey



SURVEY FORMAT AND PROCEDURES



The full page (15" x 11%") layout which was used contained: 1) the

questionnaire; 2) a brief explanation; 3) a letter of endorsement from the

Governor and 4) several photographs of different shoreline areas. A news

article discussing the purpose of the survey and more generally Coastal Zone

Management was also run on a different page in the same paper (Appendix B).

By removing most explanatory material from the survey page and adding photo-

graphs, it was hoped that the layout would be distinctive and have visual

appeal. The Governor's message was intended to encourage response. As an

additional incentive to respond, the questionnaire was designed to be folded,

stapled and mailed free of charge (business reply permit).



Most of the sixteen questions called for forced-choice responses. However,

‘the opportunity for an "other" response was always available. Moreover, question

structure was designed to. both. introduce’ respondents to terminology which is

integral to the program and to encourage them to think more comprehensively

about shoreline areas, and uses, The questionnaire and the accompanying



article were run May 22, 1976 in all four of the Territory's newspapers.



20

a ee



Tv



DATA ANALYSIS



A relatively small return rate made hand tabulation and visual inspection



feasible. No statistical analyses other than tabulation of frequencies and



percentages were undertaken.



PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

As anticipated, the survey return rate was rather small, It might have

been boosted if the questionnaire had run for several days, This was not done due

to the high cost of running a full page advertisement, but in retrospect, it

probably should have been. More publicity might also have helped. Arrangements

for notices to the broadcast media were made, but did not work out very well.

‘However, the survey's real value was expected to be informational and

educational rather than as a means of soliciting public input. While its

success in this regard is impossible to assess, to the extent that more people

read the survey than responded, it undoubtedly had wider impact in stimulating



thinking about Coastal Zone Management.



21

7 wo



[gE Se



3



SURVEY

RESULTS

a en «<n



This chapter reports the results of both surveys. The household survey

is presented first, and in greatest detail. After a discussion of the sample

questions, responses are considered. Particular attention is given to those

issues involving both greatest and least public consensus . Significant

attitudinal/value deviation between sample sub-groups (geographic or demographic)

are presented.



Discussion of the newspaper survey follows and focuses on the extent that



findings support or amplify interview responses.



Household Survey



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SAMPLE



Conducting the household survey proved to be somewhat more time consuming

than anticipated. Consequently, only 743 of the targeted 795 interviews were

completed, However, interview distribution was approximately as intended:



348 on St. Croix; 339 on St. Thomas; and 56 on St. John.



The social composition of the Virgin Islands' population has undoubtedly

undergone great change on the past 20 years. However, data regarding current

population composition are not very accurate, due to serious undercounting of

certain sub-groups by the 1970 census and to the complex migrational patterns

which have occurred since that census. Accordingly, it has been very difficult

to assess the survey sample's representativeness of major sub-groups.



Nevertheless, the sample has been analyzed in terms of respondents' sex

and age, length of residency in the Territory, and education and occupation,

and is described in Tables 1-6 both by island and in terms of Territory-wide

totals. When available, comparative data from the 1970 census have also been

included, although reservations regarding its reliability must be kept in

Mind.



Irrespective of reservations about census data, the sample is clearly

skewed with respect to sex (Table 1). Overrepresentation of females undoubtably

resulted from interviewing during the day, when housewives comprise a very

large share of the household population. Distortion is greatest on St. Croix



where interviewing was almost exclusively daytime. However, females were not

found to differ significantly from other sub-groups in their perceptions of

most coastal issues. Where significant differences by sex or any other

demographic or geographic variables are suggested by the data, they are noted



in the text.



TABLE 1



SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY SEX



Sex St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory

N=348 N=53 N=309 N=711



Male 32.2% (50.3) 41.5% (42.5) 43.4% (48.8) 37.8% (49.8)



Female 67.8 (49.7) 58.5 (57.5) 56.6 (51.2) 62.2 (50.2)



NOTE: 1970 Virgin Islands Census data enclosed in

parenthesis.



To a lesser extent, the sample also appears to be skewed with respect toa

age when compared with the age breakdown of the 1970 census population (Table 2).

Discrepancies may well be attributable to flaws in the census data. However,

the survey may have been under-representative of 18-29 year olds and slightly

over-representative of three older age categories. This could be explained by

the fact that daytime interviews failed to catch the younger, working population

at home. It may also be attributable to shifts in population distribution

induced by immigration of older continentals and emmigration of younger, less-

established natives and aliens. Regardless of the cause, differences with



respect to age do not appear to be significant.



TABLE 2



SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY AGE.



St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory

N=347 N=54 N=320 N=720

Age

18-29 Yrs. 20.2% (39.5) 18.5% (43.6) 31.33 (38.3) 24.93 (39.1)

30-39 Yrs. 25.6 (24.4) 31.5 (18.7) 33.7 (24.4) 29.7 (24.2)



40-59 Yrs. 37.5 (26.1) 35.2 (26.7) 31.9 (26.8) 34.9 (26.9)

60 + Yrs. 16.7 (10.0) 14.8 (11.0) 3.1 (9.5) 10.6 ( 9.8)



NOTE: 1970 V.I. Census data.is enclosed in

parentheses for comparison. Percentages

have been calculated using 18 and over

population only. ,



26



me he eke

Although no precise data exist on how much of recent population growth

is attributable to immigration, it is generally assumed to be considerable.

However, the survey, if anything, appears to be biased in favor of natives

and long term residents (20 years or longer). In absolute numbers, assuming

no deaths or emmigration, the total number of people living in the Territory

twenty years ago could at most comprise only 31% of today's population (fable 3).

Disproportionate sampling of long-term residents may be attributable to

interviewers unconsciously selecting fellow Virgin Islanders in making household



substitutions.



'TABLE 3



SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCY



St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territor

N=340 N=25 ~NE290 Hees



¥rs. Here .

0-5 Yrs. 14.7% 12.08% 9.7% 12.4%

.6-10°. 18.8 28.0 12.8 16.4

11-15 9.7 20.0 13.1 11.6

16-20. 11.8 20.0 . 42,1 12.2

20+ 45.0 20.0 52.3 47.4(31.2)



NOTE: Parenthesis indicates maximum possible

percentage of long term residents as

calculated from interpolated 1950-1960

census data. -



If census data are used as a gauge, and a constant ratio between population

sub-groups is assumed, about 3/4 of those respondents who are long-term re-

sidents are probably native Virgin Islanders. For this reason, the responses

of long-term residents are considered to provide a rough indication of

Virgin Islanders' views. Some indication of the sentiments of the continental

and alien communities could also be obtained if responses were cross-tabulated

with education and occupation (see Appendix C). In few instances, however,

has length of residency in the Territory been. found to be strongly related

to variability in attitudes. towards coastal issues.



Of the demographic variables analyzed, education was found to be most

highly associated with variations in response (see Appendix C). If the census

is used as a gauge, the survey sample appears to be over-representative of



those with advanced schooling (Table 4), While this could reflect a greater



27

willingness to participate in the survey on the part of more educated persons,

given the apparently proportional participation of those with least education,



it may also reflect a real shift in the level of educational attainment.



TABLE 4



SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY EDUCATION



St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory

N=348 N=54 N=316 N=718



Education



Grade Sch. 27.9% (28.5) 33.3% (38.7) 24.7% (28.5) 26.7%. (26.8)

High Sch. "8.5 (54.7) 44.4 (44.6) 43.4 (54.7) 41.1 (55.6)

Advanced *.6 (16.8) 22.3) (16.7) 32.0 (16.8) 32.2 (17.6)



NOTE: 1970 Virgin Islands Census data in parenthesis.



As Table 5 shows, the survey sample also appears to be rather irregular

with regard to particular occupational categories on individual islands, but

fairly representative of occupational distribution Territory-wide. Discrep-

ancies may be attributed to the failings of census data, differences in the

classification of jobs into coding categories, and/or actual occupational

shifts, specially the widely acknowledged rise in government employment and a

decline in construction related industries since the 1970 census. was conducted.

Regardless of what the occupational profile of the population actually is,



occupation was not found to be highly associated with variability in response.



TABLE 5



SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY OCCUPATION



St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory

N=348 N=52 W=304 “N=704



Occupation



White Collar 23.9% (20.0) 21.2% (19.9) 35.9% (26.6) 28.8% (22.9)

Blue Collar 9.8 (25.6) 11.5. (27.8) 11.8 (20.3) 10.9 (23.3)



Services 9.8 (34.8) 34.6 (25.0) 24.0 (18.8) 17.7 (17.0)

Housewife 38.2 (23.5) 21.2 (11.7) 17.1 (18.2) 27.9 (20.8)

Retired 12.6 (3.6) 5.8 (3.9) 1.3 ( 2.8) 7.2 (¢ 3.2)

Student 2.0 .( 4.9) 1.9 ( 4.8) 2.3 ( 6.3) 2.1 ( 5.5)

Unemployed 0.0 ( 3.4) 1.9 ( 3.9) 3.3 ( 2.7) 2.6 ( 3.1)

None 3.7 ( 4.2) 1.9 (3.0) 4.3 ( 4.3) 3.8 (¢( 4.2)



NOTE: 1970 Virgin Islands Census data in parenthesis.



28

Analysis of survey responses revealed that some differences in values

and attitudes. do exist between population sub-groups. While education appears

to be the most important of the demographic variables, geography also plays

an important role (with noteworthy differences on some issues among islands and

sub~island units), Survey respondents were fairly much in accord, however, in

one regard, and perhaphs ultimately the most significant one: the Territory

is home, When asked whether they intended to stay in the Territory, an



overwhelming majority affirmed (Table 6).



TABLE 6



SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY INTENT TO STAY IN THE V.I.



St.. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory



. N=347 N=55 N=319 N=722

Staying

‘Yes - 80.4% 87.3% 793% 80.2%

No 6.9 0.0 4.4 5.3

Unsure 12.7 12.7 16.3 14.5



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESPONSES



The survey was designed to elicit a better understanding of public per-

ceptions and attitudes ~ specifically, those associated with shoreline areas.

Accordingly, survey results are discussed in terms of public priorities con-

cerning four categories of issues: 1) coastal problems 2) shoreline

utilization 3) shoreline protection; and 4) the location of future development.

Findings regarding each are presented so as to focus on the extent of public

consensus, Where wide variability is evident, an attempt is made to trace

differences to demographic or geographic variables. In the final chapter

conclusions are drawn regarding the implications of survey findings for both

coastal zone management and other public actions. The intent is to clarify

for decision-makers both those issues and actions for which widespread public

support is indicated, as well as those areas where the community is indifferent



or divided.



COASTAL PROBLEMS

Respondents' perceptions of the Virgin Islands' most pressing coastal

problems are indicated in Table 7, If all problems had been considered of



equal importance, the percentage distribution in the table would approximate



29

60% each (see footnote). However, as shown, the extent of concern over coastal



problems varied considerably. Water pollution seems to be an important issue



to the most respondents, but particularly on St. Thomas. The removal of sand



for construction and the loss of important natural areas are also of wide



concern,



TABLE 7



PERCEPTIONS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' THREE

MOST IMPORTANT COASTAL PROBLEMS*



Problem St. Croix** St. Thomas**St. John Territory

N=345 N=325 N=54 _N=724

Beach Access 55.7% 32.9% 60.0% 45.7%

Water Pollution - 67.0 87.1 69.1 76.3

Flooding 7.5 31.8 25.5 19.9

Loss Natural Areas 67.9 45.1 72.2 57.8

Sand Removal 59.9 57.6 46.3 57.9

Decreasing Seafoods 41.0 36.2 20.4 37.1

295.3%



Question #18 ~ "What do you think are the three most

important problems relating to the coast?" (Since

respondents were allowed to emphasize up to three uses,

the maximum total responses could equal 300%).



** Testing of response distribution for St. Croix and

St. Thomas show response patterns to be significant

(%2=230.6; F4 0.01).



Most



respondents consider water pollution an important coastal problem.



30

Beach access appears to be less of an issue than.was anticipated, though it

appears to be of more concern on St. Croix and St. John than on St. Thomas.

Residents of Christiansted evinced greatest concern with 75% considering it

an important problem.



Declining catches of seafoods and flooding are generally viewed as less

important problems. However, flooding is viewed as a significant problem

by long-term residents of St. Thomas and St. John, who have probably experienced

it first hand. Understandably, greatest concern was expressed by residents

of Charlotte Amalie (62.0%). On St. Croix, where fewer floods have occured

it is not seen as a problem by long-term residénts. . In sum, perceptions of

coastal problems are probably most strongly influenced by experience, either

over time or in particular geographic areas. There is apparently very broad



consensus about water pollution, and to a lesser extent regarding the damage



which has been done to sand beaches and natural areas.



SHORELINE UTILIZATION

Overall Development Attitudes



A sense of the relative importance of economic, amenity and natural values

is gained from respondents attitudes toward coastal development.



As Table 8 indicates, when firgt, second and, third responses are

aggregated there is broadest support, throughout the Territory, for recreational

use Of the shoreline, Although support is stronger on St, Croix than on



St, Thomas or St. John, the widespread importance of recreation is clear. On



TABLE 8



ATTITUDES TOWARD SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT:

USES TO BE EMPHASIZED*



Use ' St, Croix** St. Thomas+* St.'John ‘Territory

~— “N=346 N=339 N=55 N=734

Industry ' 45.5% 51.4% 34.5% 47.3%

Commerce 49.6 55.3 61.8 53.1

Residential 56.8 71.8 , 83.6 ~ 65.5

Recreation 82.4 64.6 67.3 73.1

Conservation 65.7 51.1 49.1, . 57.8

. 296.83

* Question #9 - “If you were deciding how coastal areas should

be used, which of the following uses would you emphasize

first? Second? third?" (Since respondents Could emphasize



up to three uses, the maximum total response gould equal

300%; distribution of response would approximate 60% each

if all uses were perceived to be of equal importance).



ae Response patterns are significant (x2=68.6; PEQ.01).



31

the other hand support for industrial use of the shoreline is least widespread.

Attitudes toward commercial, residential and conservation uses are more variable.

The relative strength of people's attitudes is more clearly indicated by

the type of shoreline development they would emphasize first. Table 9 includes

only first responses and shows that recreation is not necessarily people's

primary concern, Rankings were found to be significantly associated with

differing levels of education (and presumably income). See Table 48 Appendix C).

Recreation tends to be a major concern for the more educated. Attitudes, however

are also associated with island of residency. St. Croix respondents were not ‘



any more educated, but did perceive shoreline recreation to be more important.



TABLE 9



SHORELINE USE TO EMPHASIZE FIRST*



Use St. Croixss St. Thomasss« St. John Territory

N=346 N=333 N=55 N=734

Industry 21.6% 23.4% 7.3% 21.4%

Commerce 22.1 16.5 29.1 15.4

Residential 12.4 17.1 25.5 15.7

Recreation 33.5 15.3 14.5 23.9

Conservation 20.5 27.6 23.6 23.9

T0038



Question #9 - First choice responses only (since res-

pondents could have only one first choice, responses

should total 100%. However, occasionally two first

choices were recorded, hence totals do not exactly equal

100%; response distribution would approximate 20% each

if all uses were favored equally).



** Response patterns are significant (x7=71.3; P#0.01).



The converse of recreation is true of industry, While support for

industrial development is not widespread there is a considerable segment

of the population to whom it is of primary concern, While this tends to

be a less educated group, island of residency is also significant. Support

for industry is weakest on St. John, Respondents from St. John, however,

are more concerned about commercial and residential development than those

from St. Croix or St. Thomas where shopping and housing opportunities are

more extensive,



Conservation was the only use which was of primary concern to a large

number of respondents Territory-wide, although it is of most concern to the



more educated.



32

In sum, the population appears to agree on the importance of recreation

if not on its primacy. Otherwise people are divided regarding future shore-

line development: the more educated (and probably more affluent) favor con-

servation; those that are less so seem to favor industrial development. It

bears emphasis that long-term residents, who are probably primarily native

Virgin Islanders, appear to fall in both camps and do not have attitudes which

differ significantly from newcomers . In the future, as educational levels

continue to rise, consensus regarding the importance of recreation and con-

servation may increase somewhat, and support for industrial, commercial, or



residential development over recreation and conservation may decline.



Economic Development Attitudes



When first, second and third choices regarding modes of economic development

are aggregated, widest support is indicated throughout the Territory for

agriculture; heavy manufacturing receives least support (Table 10). Perceptions

of the importance of other economic development options vary among the islands,

but not greatly among demographic sub-groups. After agriculture, light

industry was favored on St. Thomas and St. Croix. St. John respondents



favored the expansion of tourism and fishing.



TABLE 10



ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

THE THREE MOST FAVORED INDUSTRIES*



industry St. Croixse St. Thomass*«St. John Territory

N=348 N=333 N=54 ‘N=735

Heavy Manufacturing 35.9% 22.8% 14.8% 28.3%

Light Industry 67.4 63.5 44.4 63.9

Agriculture 87.1 87.7 81.5 86.9

Tourism 52.6 59.8 75.9 57.8

Fishing 56.2 59.8 68.5 58.7

295.68

* Question #10 - "If economic growth does occur, and you could

choose, which three of the following types would you favor

first? second? third?" (Since respondents were asked to



select three uses, the maximum total response could equal

300%, response distribution would approximate 60% each if all

were perceived equally).



** Response patterns are significant (X25206.4; P£0.01).



Based on first choices only, Table 11 indicates that while agricultural



development has general support Territory-wide, economic development priorities



33

ma:



us



&



oS



ee



Ee



a



=



E



ai



oe:



.



e



7



Ae



a



an.



Be



oe



m



a



ee



ie



ie



ee



FE



~



oo



E



ES



=



Re



x



a



Bees



Ae



ee



aoe



se



Sask



oo



I ge



ise



Ae



aie Ss



ae



os



Expansion



of agriculture has strong



support through-out the Territory.



S



-



B



ve



Be



BS



Support for further heavy industrial development is not widespread, but is of great



con-



cern to some residents.



34

otherwise differ considerably among the islands. Support for agriculture



is very strong on St. Thomas with substantial though much smaller segments of

the community advocating light industry and tourism. On St. Croix agriculture

and light industry both have strong support, while heavy manufacturing has



a smaller, but notable constituency. Respondants from St. John favored tourism,



fishing and agriculture in approximately equal numbers.



TABLE 11



THE MOST FAVORED INDUSTRY*



Industry St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory

N=348 N=333 N=54 N=735

Heavy Manufacturing 16.1% 9.3% 3.7% 12.1%

Light Industry 33.3 21.3 14.8 26.6

Agriculture 31.3 41.6 24.1 35.4

Tourism 12.4 17.4 29.6 16.1

Fishing 6.9 9.6 27.9 9.7

, 99.9%



* Question #10 - First choice responses only (responses should

total 100%, but some respondents did not distinguish first

from second and third choices, hence totals do not always equal

100%; response distribution would approximate 20% if all in-

dustries were viewed equally).



** Response pattern is significant (x2=213.7; P#0.01).



Although attitudes towards economic development vary among the islands,

within each there is apparently more consensus regarding economic development

than about shoreline development over all. The pattern of responses in

Tables 10 and 11 are quite consistent (in contrast to Tables 8 and 93), indicating

that there would seem to be less of a problem with large educational sub-

groups having different attitudes from island residents as a whole,



Preference for heavy manufacturing was the only response found to be

significantly associated with educational characteristics (see Table 49,

Appendix C). Given that preference for heavy manufacturing was notable only

on St. Croix, it is possible that positive experience with manufacturing and

the feasibility of expansion on that island were more important factors than

educational level. Thus, the apparent dilemma raised by educational sub-

groups favoring conflicting industrial development and conservation goals is

somewhat mitigated. While respondents may differ on the importance of

economic development, there is considerable agreement by island as to the



modes preferred.



35

Tourism Development Attitudes



With the exception of St. John, further tourist development was not

strongly preferred, however, the subject was probed in detail since tourism

is, and is likely to continue to be, a dominant element in the Virgin Islands’

economy. Moreover, tourist-related development exerts great pressure on

coastal zone resources.



Tables 12 and 13 indicate that if tourism is to continue growing, cruise

ships and hotels are viewed as the most important modes to emphasize Territory-

wide. While support for cruise ship development seems to be somewhat more

widespread, when it come to which type of development is preferred, as

indicated by first choice responses, the greatest number of people favored



hotel and guest house development. On St. John there is considerably more



TABLE 12



ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM:

THE THREE MOST FAVORED MODES*



Mode St. Croix** St. Thomasx* St. John Territory

N=345 : N=325 N=54 — N=724

Condominium/2nd home 50.0% 741.1% 38.9% 45.2%

Hotel/guest house 72.0 80.4 75.9 76.0

Cruise ship 85.8 85.9 72.2 84.8

Boating 47.7 51.8 70.4 51.4

Camping . 43.9 36.2 37.0 39.9

297.3%

* Question #11 - “If growth in tourism does occur, and you

could choose, which type of tourism would you favor first?

second? third?" (Since respondents were allowed to empha-



size up to three uses, maximum total response could equal

300%; response distribution would approximate 60% if all

types were favored equally).



ae Response pattern is significant (X2=190.6; P<0.01).



TABLE 13



THE MOST FAVORED MODE OF TOURISM*



Mode St. Croix** St. Thomas**St. John Territory

N=346 N=326 N=54 N5724

Condominium/2nd home 24.0% 12.9% 13.0% 18.2%

Hotel/guest house 33.2 39.9 29.6 35.9

Cruise ship 24.3 33.4 24.1 28.3

Boating 5.5 6.7 29.6 7.9

Camping 13.0 6.7 3.7 9.5

99.8%



Question #11 - First choice responses only (responses

should total 100%, but not all respondents distinguished

first choices, hence totals do not always equal 1003).



Response pattern is significant (X2=258.9; P<0.01).



36



aoe lM a

Oe.



eS



support for developing the boating industry; indeed, a large segment of the

community feels it should be emphasized first. This is particularly important

since respondents on St. John seem to have more interest in tourist development

than those on St. Thomas or St. Croix.



Support for condominium and second home development is not particularly

widespread, but it is the favored mode of tourism among a considerable number

of those interviewed on St. Croix. This type of development tends to be

preferred by shorter-term residents (fifteen years or less) and particularly

those who are not sure they will stay in the Territory. |



In sum, with the exception of this sub-group on St. Croix, there appears

to be strong consensus among residents as to their priorities if tourist

development is to continue: hotels, guest houses and cruise ships Territory-



wide, plus additional boating on St. John,



Hotel, guest house, and cruise trade are the most widely preferred modes

of tourism.



Recreational Development Attitudes



Coastal recreation was an important, if not the primary concern, of nearly

three-quarters of all interviewees. Table 14 indicates that when first, second,

and third choices aré aggregated, there appears to be wide consensus regarding

the desirability of creating waterfront parks. There is less support for

both underwatez parks and public boating facilities. " Support for other types



of coastal recreation varies somewhat among the islands.



37

TABLE 14



ATTITUDES TOWARDS COASTAL RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

THE THREE MOST FAVORED TYPES*



Type St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory

N=346 N=329 N=53 N=728

Beach Access ' 67.5% 55.0% 41.5% 60.0%

Beach Facilities “59.8 58.7 62.3 59.3

Boating Facilities 27.3 31.9 47.2 30.8

Fishing Piers 43.7 51.1 50.9 47.5

Underwater Parks 28.2 32.5 22.6 © 29.8

Waterfront Parks 71.6 64.1 71.7 68.3

295.7%

* Question #13 - "If more opportunities for recreation and

relaxation were being provided, which of the following would

you favor first? second? third?" (Since respondents were



allowed to metion up to three uses, maximum total response

could equal 300%; response distribution would approximate

50% if all choices were viewed equally).



** Response pattern is significant (¥22195.6; P£0.01).



Table 15, however, indicates that beach access is the primary recrea-

tional concern of the greatest number of people, particularly on St. Croix

and specifically in Christiansted where beach access was also considered

a major coastal problem. The primacy given to heach access may be in some

part attributable to the widespread publicity this issue has received in recent



years.



TABLE 15



THE MOST FAVORED TYPE OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY*



Type : St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory

. N=346 N=329 N=53 N=728

Beach Access 47.1% 36.8% 35.5% 40.6%

Beach Facilities 17.8 20.7 5.1 17.6

Boating Facilities 3.2 2.2 6.8 2.3

Fishing Piers “21.5 18.9 15.3 14.8

Underwater Parks 6.0 8.7 5.1 . 6.77

Waterfront Parks 14.4 12.7 32.2 secs

9%



Question #13 - First choice responses only (response should

total 100% except not all respondents distinguished first

choice; response distribution would approximate 16% if all

choices were viewed equally).



** = ©6Response pattern is significant (X2=247.6: P#0.0L).



Relatively small though notable numbers of respondents were more interested

in emphasizing beach facilities, waterfront parks or fishing piers first.

Preferences tended to be associated with geographic rather than demographic



variables (see Table 43 Appendix C). Beach facilities were the first choice



38



i ee ae ee

of quite a few. respondents on St. Thomas and St, Croix, but few on St. John ,



where there is



a considerable constituency for waterfront parks.



About one



in seven respondents throughout the Territory would give first priority to



the development of fishing piers.



a



=



ae



oh



ry



a



‘A



a



% bo



“Me



ads



ej



o



Bry



iat



rk



Sy



Bye



a



re



ee ae



er



at.



4



ae



1M,



#



Fe



%,



Sil



ees



ast



ts



vt



atte



oer



Saat



—



as



Some respondents also expressed interest in developing beach facilities



«e.-.and waterfront parks.



see



tin



ue



ul



aos



In sum, there is broad support for the improvement of beach access;



residents of all three islands perceive it to be the Territory's primary



coastal recreation concern. This might seem at odds with the relatively



39

lesser importance assigned to beach access as a perceived coastal problem.

Only respondents from St. John perceive beach access to be one of the Virgin

Islands' three most important coastal problems. However, this appear less

contradictory when it is remembered that while most people considered

recreation an important shoreline use, fewer gave it primary emphasis.



As for what the primary emphasis of coastal development should be, however,



the public appears divided. As much support was expressed for emphasizing con-



servation or industrial development as for recreation. This dilemma regarding

shoreline utilization is somewhat abated by the fact that there is a great

deal of consensus regarding economic development. It is perhaps fortunate

that agriculture and light industry are most widely supported. Neither is

dependant on a coastal site, and can be accommodated inland, thereby freeing

coastal areas for both recreation and conservation plus water dependent com-



mercial activities.



SHORELINE PROTECTION



Apparent public concern about such problems as water pollution, the loss

of natural areas and the destruction of beaches, as well as mixed feeling

regarding future development is further illuminated by respondent's attitudes



toward shoreline protection.



The Need for Shoreline Protection



As Table 16 indicates over 70% of all interviewees responded in the

affirmative when asked if there were any shoreline areas in need of protection

from overdevelopment. While a considerable number had no opinion very few



were opposed to the idea.



TABLE 16



ATTITUDES TOWARD SHORELINE PROTECTION

FROM OVER DEVELOPEMENT



St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory



N=346 N=288 N=55 N=689

Yes 67.0% 72.6% 89.1% 71.0%

No 8.0 -—" 8.0 3.6 7.7

No opinion 25.07 | 19.4 7.3 21.3

Too 703



* Question #14 - "Are there any shorelines which should be



protected from over development?"



** Response pattern is significant (X2=397.2; P€0.01).



40

Moreover, on St. John where shorelines are largely protected by the

National Park Service and where it is reported that residents feel "over-

protected" the strongest support was exhibited. Their experience may have

convinced most residents that regulation of development can be beneficial.



Response to the concept of shoreline protection is linked with both

education and occupation. Support was strongest amongst the more educated,

and particularly white collar workers, however, opposition was’ not found to

be great among any occupational groups. Respondents with least education |.



were much more likely to have no opinion than to be opposed.



Rationale for Protection



Most respondents selected examples, from the set of photographs of

areas where protection might be called for, and explained why. A wide variety

of reasons were cited, including statements about the area's natural or amenity

values; concerns about possible negative impacts; and often simply, that they

“like it the way it is."



Responses were grouped as shown in Table 17. However, since there seems

to have been some coding discrepancies between islands regarding the treatment

of statements falling into the last two categories, and since many statements

could have been placed in two or more categories, percentages should be



interpreted loosely.



TABLE 17



RATIONALE FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION*



Reason St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory

N=228 N=157 N=1L7 N=402

Ecological value 30.6% 10.1% 26.4% 21.2%

Recreational value 27.1 3.8 5.2 16.0

Scenic Value 35.2 . 49.7 36.9 41.5

Prevent Pollution 7.1 4.3 §.2 5.9

Like as is. 0.0) 23.1 21.1 11.1

Already too developed 0.0 9.1 ~ $5.2 - 4.3

100.0%



* Question #16 - "Why do you feel these areas should be pro-

tected?" (Response distribution would approximate 17% if

all viewed equally).



**©6)©6Response pattern is significant (%2=374.5; P€0.01).



41

Respondents on St, Croix, who favored both recreation and conservation

more than those on either St, Thomas ox St, John, consistently place greater

emphasis on recreational and ecological values than their counterparts,

Demographic variables were not found to be significantly associated with

reasons given.



As Table 17 indicates, respondents seem to perceive shoreline protection

primarily in terms of the preservation of positive values: aesthetic, ecological

or recreational, rather than the prevention of negative effects, Why this is

so is unclear, but it may explain why pollution was rarely cited despite being



considered the Virgin Islands' most important coastal problem,



Tourist Attractions



Residents’ perceptions of what makes the Territory enjoyable to tourists

provide additional information about. the attributes of coastal areas which

are most highly valued. As Table 18 indicates, when first, second and third

ranked attractions were aggregated, weather, beaches, and to a lesser extent

duty-free shops and scenery are the Territory's main tourist attractions.



Neither hotels/restaurants nor friendly people are considered very important.



TABLE 18



PERCEPTIONS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

THREE MAIN TOURIST ATTRACTIONS*



Attraction St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory

N=348 N=330 N=54 N=732

Duty-free shops 53.4% 69.2% 33.9% 58.6%

Scenery 42.9 57.3 80.4 56.8

Hotels/restaurants 8.0 7.3 8.9 7.8

Weather 79.5 67.0 76.8 73.6

Beaches 74.4 70.3 76.4 72.8

People 31.3 28.6 26.4 29.8

299 4%

* Question #12 ~ "What are the Virgin Islands' main attractions

to tourists? first? second? third?" (Since three selections



were requested response could total at maximum 300%; response

distribution would approximate 50% each if all choices were

‘viewed equally).



** Response pattern is significant (x2=473.1; P40.01).



Perceptions of the single greatest asset (Table 19) tend to discount

beaches somewhat but emphasize scenery. They also vary considerably betweer

islands, and reflect in large measure residents' understanding of the key



assets of each island.



42



nleeatiamicbicniiit EK ma ee a i a

TABLE 19



THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' MAIN TOURIST ATTRACTION*



Attraction St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory

N=348 N=330 N=54 N=732

Duty-free shops 26.7% 35.2% 19.6% 29.9%

Scenery 12.1 26.1 35.7  — 20.2

Hotel/restaurants 1.4 0.3 | 0.0 0.8

Weather 41.4 18.8 23.2 29.8

Beaches 10.6 14.2 18.2 12.9

People 7.8 5.8. 3.8 6.6



100.2%



Question #12 - First attraction only (response distribution

would approximate 17% each if. all attractions were viewed

equally) . .



** Response pattern is significant (X2=389.4; P4£0.01).



Enjoyed by both tourists and residents?



Scenic Quality



Since development is unlikely to affect the weather or the duty-free

status of Virgin Islands*' shops, scenic quality and beaches are the tourist

attractions most likely to be threatened by over development. Scenic value,

as noted above, was also the reason most often cited for shoreline protection.



To determine the degree of consensus regarding what is considered scenic,

respondents were asked to evaluate the beauty of different types of shoreline

areas as shown in photographs: first of their own island, then of the

Territory as a whole. The data indicate a great deal of agreement regarding



scenic assessments - not only about individual areas, but also more generally



43

about the different shoretypes. Tables 20 through 23 show how each photo set



was ranked. Standard deviations from mean scores were not found to be large



(1.75 or less), indicating that respondents did not vary greatly in their



assessments of



individual photos.



TABLE 20



ST. CROIX RESPONDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF

ST. CROIX SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY*



Photo** Shoretype x S.D. Rank Order (xX)

1 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 3.05 0.81 10

2 Developed: Harbor 2.50 0.82 3

3 (10) Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.00 0.80 9

4 Developed: Industrial 3.43 0.77 13

5 Mangroves (Undev.) 2.980 0.75 6

6 (5) Developed: Harbor 2.62 0.88 4

7 Low Relief (Undev.} 3.12 0.72 11

8 (12) Dead Mangroves 4,47 0.79 15

9 (1) Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 3.17 0.69 12

10 Sand Beach (Undev.) 2.02 0.96 1

1i Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.77 0.79 5

12 (9) Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.44 0.76 2

13 Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.80 0.72 14°

14 (2) Low Relief (Undev.) 2.88 0.77 7

15 Low Relief (Undev.} 2.92 0.67 8

N=348

TABLE 21



ST. JOHN RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF

ST, JOHN SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY*



Photo** Shoretype x s.D. Rank Order (XxX)

1 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.91 0.67 7

2 Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 3.46 0.63 13

3 Salt Pond (Dev. ) 3.32 0.77 IL

4 Mangroves (Dev. ) 3.30 0.71 10

5 Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.32 0.69 3

6 (7) Salt Pond (Undev. ) 3.77 0.93 14

7 Mangroves (Undev.) 3.13 0.60 8

8 Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.84 1.07 15

9 (15) Salt Pond (Dev. ) 3.27 0.80 9

10 Sand Beach (Undev.) 2.16 0.68 2

11 Steep Rocky {Undev.) 3.36 0.77 12

12 Developed: Harbor 2.73 0.62 5

13° (6) Sand Beach (Undev.) 1.75 0.90 1

14 Developed: Harbor 2.88 0.43 6

15 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.32 0.61 3

N=56



Rk



Questions #1-4 ~- "Looking at this panel” (Panel B, with

examples from St. Croix) "which four shorelines are the

most beautiful?" “Which is the most beautiful?" "Which

four shorelines do you find least beautiful?" "The least

beautiful?"



Several photographs were repeated on Panel A (Territory-wide).

Parenthesis identify those repeated by number on Panel A.



44

TABLE 22



ST. THOMAS RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF



ST. THOMAS SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY*

Photo** Shoretype , x S.D. Rank Order (X)

1 Developed: Harbor 2.980 0.67 5

2 Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.43 1.05 13

3 Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.14 0.90 11

4 Sand Beach (Undev.) 2.18 0.86 2

5 Developed: Harbor 3.25 0.72 12

6 Sand Beach (Dev. )} 2.13 0.92 1

7 Steep Rocky (Dev. )} 2.94 0.69 7

8 Mangrove (Undev.} 2.70 0.75 4

9 Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.51 0.99 3

10 Developed: Harbor 3.07 0.73 10

11 Steep Rocky (Dev. } 2.81 0.63 6

12 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 3.03 0.64 E)

13 Salt Pond (Undev.} 4.00 0.90 is

14 Developed: Harbor 3.54 0.80 14

15 Mangrove (dev. ) 2.96 0.54 8

N=339



Panel A provided a check on whether respondents' perceptions of scenic

quality would be influenced by familiarity with the areas depicted. This

does not appear to have any bearing, however, since photos which were repeated

on Panel A for reassessment by all respondents tended to be evaluated the



same as when included on Panel B.



TABLE 23



TERRITORY-WIDE PERCEPTIONS OF TERRITORY

SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY*



Photo** Shoretype x S.D. Rank Order (X)

1 (x95) Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 3.10 0.60 10

2 (X14) Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.92 0.77 7

3 (T5) Developed: Harbor 2.86 0.72 6

4 (T2) Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.32 0.85 12

5 (x6) Developed: Harbor 2.74 0.77 5

6 (713) Sand Beach (Undev.) 1.85 0.87 1

7 (76) Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.21 0.76 11

8 (T13) Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.51 0.73 14

9 (X12) Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.45 0.74 3

10 (x3) Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.03 0.76 9

11 (17) Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 2.73 0.70 4

12 (x8) Dead Mangroves 4.17 0.93 15

13 Developed: Industrial 3.43 0.85 13

14 Mangroves (Undev.) 2.39 0.81 2

15 (79) Salt Pond (Dev. ) 2.97 0.75 8



N=743



* Questions #5~-8 - “Looking at this. panel” (Panel A, with

examples from all three islands) “Which four shorelines

are the most beautiful?" "Which four shorelines do you

find least beautiful?" "The least beautiful?"



Thirteen of the fifteen photos were repeated from B panels

(single island). Letter and number in parenthesis identify

‘its source by island panel and photo number.



x*



45

Perceptions of the relative quality of each shoretype are more clearly



seen in Tables 24 and 25. The first. compares the types of areas ranking



highest and lowest on each panel. Sarmlbeaches, undeveloped mangroves, harbors



and steep rocky shores were the types nominated as most beautiful. Sand

beaches were consistently ranked first. Those areas considered least



beautiful included: rocky beaches, dead mangroves, salt ponds, harbors and

steep rocky shores. With the exception of the last two categories -- harbors



and steep rocky shores, which included low to high rankimexamples -- reaction



to the different shoretypes were reasonably consistent (Table 25). For most

types, the range of assessments is relatively narrow; much of what variation

exists



examples to be ranked in each photo set.



PERCEPTIONS OF THE MOST AND LEAST SCENIC AREAS*



TABLE 24



is probably attributable to variations in the types and quality of the



RANK PANEL B PANEL A

St. Croix St. John St. Thomas

Highest 1 Sand Beach Sand Beach Sand Beach Sand Beach

(Undev.) (Undev. ) (Dev. )} (Undev.)

2 Sand Beach Sand Beach Sand Beach Mangroves

(Dev. } (Undev. ) (Undev.} (Undev.)

3 Developed: | Steep Rocky Sand Beach Sand Beach

Harbor (Undev,) (Dev. ) (Dev, )

4 Developed: Sand Beach Mangrove Steep Rocky

Harbor (Dev. ) (Undev.) (Dev. 3)

12 Steep Rocky Steep Rocky Developed: Rocky Beach

(Dev. ) (Undev.) Harbor (Undev.)

13 Developed: Steep Rocky Rocky Beach Developed:

Industrial (Dev. ~ } (Undev.) Industrial

14 ‘Salt Pond Salt Pond | Developed Galt Pond

(Undev.) (Undev.) Harbor - (Undev.)

Lowest 15 Dead Mangroves | Rocky Beach Salt Pond Dead Mangroves

(Undev.) (Undev.)



*



ranking lowest on each panel.



46



Question #1-8 - Considering the four photoes ranking highest and the four photos

SHORETYPE



PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIVE VISUAL QUALITY BY SHORETYPR*



TABLE 25



NO. OF EXAMPLES | RANKINGS ASSIGNED TO SHORETYPE EXAMPLES BY PANEL

St. Croix St. Thomas St. John A

Sand Beach (Undev.) 5 1 2 lie 2

Sand Beach (Dev. ) 5 2/3 1, 3 3

Mangroves. (Undev.) 4 6 4 8 2

Mangroves (Dev. .) 2 8 10

Low Relief (Undev.) 4 7/7, 8, 11

Salt Pond (Dev. ) 3 9/8, 12

Rocky Beach 5 9/9 13 /12 15

Salt Pond (Dev. ) 6 14 ll, 15/4 14 fll

Dev: Industrial 2 13 13

Dead Mangroves 2 15 /15

Steep Rocky (Undev.) 5 5, 10 9 3, 12

Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 7 12 /10 6, 7 /a 7, 13

Dev: Harbor , 10 3, 4/5 5, 10, 12/6, 14 5, 6



* Questions #1-8 Comparision of the mean rankings associated with shoretype examples



on each photo set. Rankings of photos repeated on panel A are

shown as a/b where a indicates the rank on invividual island panel

and b indicates rank for the same photo on Panel A.



What can be said about-shoretype aesthetics? As Table 25 indicates,

sand beaches were consistently perceived to be of highest scenic quality. No



clear distinction is apparent, however, between developed and undeveloped



beaches, Perceptions of mangrove areas seem to be rather mixed, with



natural, undeveloped areas ranking considerably higher than their developed



counterparts. Low relief shorelines and developed salt ponds are considered



to have moderate to moderately low visual quality. Rocky beaches ranged



somewhat lower followed by undeveloped salt ponds. Dead mangrove and



industrial areas consistently ranked the lowest.



Undeveloped mangrove stands are considered more beautiful than developed ones.



47

Perceptions of steep rocky shores, however, tend to be quite variable,



ranging from moderately high to moderately low.



Dramatic topography appeared



to influence assessments positively; sharp jagged rocks at the waterline



negatively .



Perceptions of harbor areas were also variable, but tended



towards the polar extremes.



Areas with waterfront parks were considered



very scenic; those congested by cars and boats the opposite, To obtain a



better understanding of the factors contributing to positive and negative



assessments, a more detailed analysis of the elements contained in each



photograph was undertaken.



Findings are reported in the technical supplement



"BResthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone".



Boe



reap



—



13



i



”



wn



ia



- OB



te



|



lan



ghee atte



i aaa



sieseto



€ 4



Some harbor areas were considered very beautiful...others quite the opposite,



48

Shoreline Areas Needing Protection



Aesthetic considerations may suggest a need for development controls in

some areas. In others, protection may be desirable on different grounds.

To determine the types of areas for which protection may be justified,

respondents were asked to suggest appropriate areas from their island photo

panel. -Table 26 displays responses by shoretypes to provide an indication

of the relative importance of protection in different areas (see Apendix C



for complete tabulations of responses by photo panel).



TABLE 26



SHORETYPES WHICH MAY NEED PROTECTION

: FROM OVER DEVELOPMENT*



Shoretypes Shoretype Protection Rate**

Sand Beach (Undev.) 14.5%

Sand Beach (Dev. ) 11.5



a

.

uw



Developed: Harbor

Mangroves (Undev.)

Racky Beach (Undev.)

Steep Rocky (Undev.)

Low Relief (Undev.)

Salt Pond (undev.)

Mangroves (Dev. )

Steep Rocky(Dev. )}

Developed: Industrial

Salt Pond (Dev. )

Dead Mangroves.



RPRNMNWWUaA A ~)

ee et er er ?

ASOHH PAHO



N=461



* Question #15 - "If yes," (to question #14 - "Are there any

shorelines which should be protected from over development?")

which types?" (indicate no more than three).



** Percentages do not equal 100% since they are averages of

respondants' reactions to all photographs in a particular

category. A protection rating was calculated for each photo

by island panel (the frequency % of all nominations for that

island). Rates for all examples of a given shoretype were

then averaged. Protection ratings for each shoretype were

based on the average of example ratings rather than composite

ratings (total frequency %) due to differences in the number

of examples of a given type and also in the number of res~-

pondents assessing each island photo set.



Respondents. were also requested to identify areas perceived to be

appropriate for various types of shoreline development. Viewing shoreline

protection nominations in light of respondents' perceptions of both

appropriate use (Table 27) and scenic quality (Table 25) is revealing of public

attitudes towards different shoretypes. Respondents' perceptions of coastal.

problems provide additional insights.



Sand beaches, which were ranked the highest in terms of both scenic and



recreational use, are clearly considered most in need of protection. Concern



49

about overdevelopment of harbor areas and undeveloped mangroves is also fairly

widespread, but probably for somewhat different reasons. Neither are con-

sidered to have particular recreational value. Nor were harbor areas generally.

considered very scenic, but the few examples that were tend to be the areas

nominated for protection. Respondents' perceptions of potential pollution



and congestion problems may also have been contributory. Undeveloped mangroves

on the other hand, were considered to have moderately high scenic value. This

nomination for protection may also reflect respondents' concern about the loss

of natural areas.



To a lesser extent, there appears to be some support for protection of

other undeveloped shoretypes: rocky beaches, steep rocky and low relief shores.

Concern about loss of natural areas might be the rationale, since none of

these types were highly valued for either scenic or recreational qualities.



Of all the undeveloped shoretypes, there was least support for protection of

“salt ponds. The remaining shoretypes are all developed to some extent and



are not perceived as warranting protection.



LOCATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT



After expressing attitudes towards coastal development and assessing

both coastal amenities and the need for shoreline protection, respondents

were asked to consider the location of future development. As Table 27

indicates, there seems to be great support for the notion that future deve-

lopment should follow existing development patterns and that undeveloped

areas should be kept for recreation and conservation.



Respondents perceived new industry as best accomodated in areas already

developed for industrial purposes. Areas of dead mangroves and salt ponds

were also seen as appropriate. Existing harbor areas were considered the

best place for commercial development. Apparent support for commercial use

of developed beaches, however, is misleading, since it is all attributable to

the responses to one photo of the beach in Cruz Bay Harbor. A wider array of

coastal areas weré viewed as suitable for residential use, all of which were



developed shoretypes having at least some existing housing; developed salt



ponds, rocky shore, mangroves and sand beaches.



50

Os ee el i i i n-ne



TABLE 27



SHORETYPE UTILIZATION*



SHORETYPE USE**

{in order of protection)

_|Conservation Recreation Residential Commerce Industry



Sand Beach (Undev.) 13.1% 31.9% 1.5% 1.8% 0.68

Sand Beach (Dev. ) 1.4 17.5 10.7 16.7 4.7

Developed: Harbor 7.6 2.3 5.4 19.1 8.7

Mangroves (Undev.) 20.9 5.4 1.2 2.1 3.4

Rocky Beach (Undev.) 5.3 5.4 6.1 1.3 8.9

Steep Rocky (Undev.) 6.5 2.1 4.8 1.3 3.2

Low Relief (Undev.) 5.7 6.2 3.4 3,3 2.6

Salt Pond (Undev.) 8.6 2.8 1.9 3.9 9.5

Mangroves (Dev. ) 1.6 1.5 11.6 2.0 2.4

Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 1.7 1.1 16.0 2.5 1.4

Developed: Industrial 1.7 1.5 0.6 3.5 36.0

Salt Pond (Dev. )} 1.2 2.0 20.6 2.1 10.0

Dead Mangroves 3.0 1.2 1.2 4.6 32.2



N=626



* Question #17 - "Which types of areas might best be used for each of the following

types of development (indicate up to two types for each).”



** Figures reflect the average of respondents' reactions to all photographs in a

particular category (see note on Table 26).



Developed sand beaches, however, were more often viewed at appropriate

for recreation. All other areas considered suitable for recreation were

undeveloped: low relief shores, mangroves, rocky beaches and, most frequently

of all, undeveloped sand beaches.



The shoretypes where conservation /parkland status was considered appro-

priate roughly parallel those assessed to be in need of protection from

overdevelopment. However, the pattern varies enough to suggest that people

may distinguish between the two concepts. As noted above, areas for protection

included primarily those with high recreational or scenic value. The im-

portance of undeveloped areas appears to increase in connection with con-

servation/parkland status, as evidenced by the importance attached to con-

servation of undeveloped mangroves and salt ponds when compared to their

rankings for protection. Conversely, developed sand beaches, which were high

on the protection list were almost never mentioned for conservation.



In harbor areas, protection and conservation were considered about

equally important overall, but the examples being nominated varied,



Protection was more often called for in areas with intense development and

activity; conservation in those having waterfront parks. This suggests



that while shoreline protection and conservation are both measures associated

with areas of high value, the former may be seen as more appropriate in places



where intensive utilization is desirable, and conservation where it is not.



51

Development controls, but not prohibition.



Consideration of the data in Table 27, from the standpoint of shoretypes,



rather than uses, provides a good indication of the extent of public con-

sensus regarding shoretype utilization.



There seems to be greatest consensus about the use of three shoretypes:

sand beaches, harbors and undeveloped mangroves. Very wide public support

apparently exists not only for recreational use of undeveloped sand beaches,

but also for either conservation or protection measures to safeguard them.

Although most respondents seem to feel similarly about protecting the

recreational use and value of developed beaches, a good: percentage feel that.

since some development already exists, be it residential or commercial,

additional development of the same sort would be appropriate. There is

apparently wide support for locating commercial activities in harbor areas,

and to a lesser extent industry and housing. There also seems to be broad

agreement that conservation is in order for undeveloped mangroves, since no

other uses, except perhaps recreation were consideredvery appropriate.



Attitudes regarding industrial areas as well as developed mangroves,

steep rocky shores and salt ponds appear to reflect, in all instances, the

type of development shown in the photographs. In other words, attitudes



towards appropriate use were probably influenced by existing use.



52



me ee ee me



* ee a ee ene a a

There appear to be mixed feelings regarding the use of undeveloped rocky



beaches, low relief arid steep rocky shores.



While there is some support for



conservation, a variety of uses particularly residential or recreation are



also viewed as suitable.



Responses regarding undeveloped salt ponds are



bimodal.



Roughly equal support was expressed for intensive development



(industry, commerce) as for conservation and protection.



In sum, there is apparent consensus regarding the use of beaches, harbors



and undeveloped mangrove areas.



Respondents were not in strong agreement



about most of the others, and definitely not in accord about undeveloped salt



ponds.



%



2



ae



Ae



SES



°



Conservation or industrial development?



53

RESPONDENTS* COMMENTS



At the end of each interview, the respondent was asked for additional

comments and/or suggestions. One in eight had further comments. Roughly half

Sf those commenting expressed reactions to the survey itself; the rest had

issue-oriented comments. Issue-oriented statements covered a wide array of

topics which tend to fall into three general Categories: those related to

development opportunities; those related to development controls; and those

related to beach utilization (Table 28). The first category covers suggestions

for a range of economic and amenity projects that were considered needed or

desirable. Comments pertaining to development controls included expressions

of appreciation for a variety of coastal assets, of concern about perceived

threats, and occasional suggestions for ameliorating development-induced

problems. Comments about beach utilization ranged from a general "free the

beaches" sentiment to more specific concerns about particular places and



problems. Issue-oriented comments are itemized in Appendix C.



TABLE 28



RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS



Comments St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory



Good Idea 29 24 - 53 (51.0%)



Dev. Controls - 19 4 23° (22.18)



Dev. Opportunities 4 10 2 16 (15.4%)



Beach Utilization 4 8 - 12 (11.5%)

rod



Respondents commenting on the survey itself expressed generally positive

reactions. Many felt that the survey was interesting and informative; that

going to the people was a good idea; and that both the survey and coastal

planning were long overdue. While there were no negative comments per se,

there was a certain amount of skepticism that results would be made public



Or that the survey would have much impact.



Interviewees' comments provide one indication that the survey had at least

some Success in meeting both of its goals. It seems to have not only informed

and caught the interest of many participants, but also provided additional

information from people about the coastal development issues that concern



them most.



54



ne ae rns ee ene enn Ten



eee re ae ee



si



re

Ee ee eS a ee eee Eee lee ee



Newspaper Survey



This section presents the results of the newspaper survey. After

a brief description of questionnaire respondents, results are analyzed

in terms of the extent that responses support or amplify household sur-

vey findings. A complete tabulation of newspaper survey data is contained in



Appendix D.



NEWSPAPER SURVEY RESPONDENTS



As mentioned earlier, response to the newspaper questionnaire was

expected to be, and.was, quite small: 69 from St. Croix; 82 from St.

Thomas; and 3 from St. John, for a total of 154. Inspection of: demo-~

graphic data indicates that the newspaper survey was more representa-~

tive of men and of white collar workers than the household survey. Com-

parison of newspaper and interview responses suggests that participants

were probably from the sector of the population having higher than

average education. With a sample of this size, cross-tabulation of de-



mographic and substantive questions was not practical.



TABLE 29



COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA



Newspaper Household — 1970

Survey _ Survey Census



Sex

Male 58.4% 37.83 49.8%

Female 41.6 62.2 50.2

Occupation

White Collar 66.73% 28.8% 22.9%

Blue Collar 4.7 10.9 23.3

Services 11.3 7.7 17.0

Housewife 4.0 27.9 20.8

Retired 2.0 7.2 3.2

Student 10.0 2.1. 5.5

Unemployed 0.0 1.6 3.1

None 1.3 3.8 4.2



NEWSPAPER SURVEY RESULTS



SHORELINE UTILIZATION

Personal Use of Coastal Areas

Tables 30 and 31 provide an indication of respondents' coastal re-



creational habits. As was expected, people use beaches more than other



55

coastal areas. Beaches are enjoyed by almost everyone and. apparently. :



quite often. Many respondents also spend time boating and fishing,



and at the waterfront.market area on St. Thomas. Most beach users go



to swim, but as indicated in Table 31 .a variety of other activities were



also reported.



TABLE 31

BEACH USE*

use Percent of Respondents

Swim 70.2%

Picnic 20.7

_ Fish 5.9

Snorkel 23.2

Run 14.6

"Lime" 14.6

* Question #8 - “What is your main reason for going there



(beaches used)?" Percentages do not total 100% since

many respondents engage in more than one activity.



TABLE 30



USE OF COASTAL AREAS*



Go: Percent of Respondents Times Per Month

To the beach 92.0% 7.0

Fishing 32.4 3.5

Boating 56.3 4.5

fo the waterfront 26.5 4.5

* Question #5 - "How many of the following activities do



you engage in? ...indicate how ofter you .o- them."



(Percentages do not total.100% since many respondents

engage in several activities).



Respondents were asked which beaches they had used in the past year,



and in particular which beach they. used most often, While many beaches



were named, respondents from St. ‘Thomas and St. John tend to’ agree on



which are used most: Magens, coki, Sapphire, Lindbergh, Brewers. cand



Hull Bay beaches are all very popular on St. Thomas, as are Trunk and



Hawknest Bays on St. John. On St. Croix, Cramer Park and Davis beaches



were named most often but respondents also tended to disperse more evenly



to many places.



Most respondents (61.7%) also named beaches they did not use, but



would like to. As Table 32 indicates, the lack of adequate road access to



a beach or the perception that it is exclusively private are most apt to



keep people away.



The lack of beach facilities and questions of safety were



56



ee a oe



alll cen neds ili ell



nm nT a =

ltl ee, nn



a



also of concern to many. A complete tally of reported beach attendance



and non-attendance is contained in Appendix C, Table 55.



TABLE 32



PERCEPTIONS OF OBSTACLES TO GREATER BEACH USE*



Obstacle Percent of reasons given

Poor road access 29.5%

Exclusively private 27.3

Lack of facilities 15.2

Safety 12.9

Lack of transportation 8.3

Expense - 6.8

100.0%

* Question #11 - “Why don't you use them (beaches not used)?"



Existing and Future Development Patterns



When asked to assess the most important current uses of shoreline areas,

newspaper survey respondents ranked public beaches and conservation way -

above all others. As Table 33 indicates, marinas, cruiseship docks, and



hotels/condominiums -- all tourist uses -~ were also ranked fairly high.



TABLE 33



PERCEPTIONS OF THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT SHORELINE USES*



% OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING



Use St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory

Public beaches 63.1% 84.8% 100.0% 75.5%

Conservation/parks 67.7 75.9 100.0 72.7

Marinas | 30.8 36.7 33.3 34.0

Cruiseship docks 18.5 38.0 0.0 28.6

Hotels/condominiums 33.8 22.8 0.0 27.2

Industry 29.2 2.5 0.0 14.3

Freight docks 13.8 11.4 0.0 12.2

Pubiic utilities 3.0 7.6 Q.0 5.4

Shops & restaurants 4.6 2.5 0.0 3.4

273.3



* Question #13 - "Which of the following do you think are



currently the most important uses of the shoreline?



(Check the three most important)". Since three responses



were permitted maximum total response would equal 300.0%).



Moreover, when asked to assess. whether there is sufficient coastline

devoted to these uses (Table 34), respondents indicated that conservation/

parklands and public beaches are the two main deficiencies. Over 83% of

all respondents felt there is too little conservation/parkland and over

half indicated there should be more public beaches. A need for more



marinas and port facilities was also expressed. However, waterfront shops,



57

restaurants, hotels, condominiums, and industry were generally seen to be



in adequate or excess supply.



TABLE 34



PERCEPTIONS OF THE ADEQUACY OF CURRENT SHORELINE USES*



% OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING



Use Too Much Enough Too Little No Opinion

Conservation/park 0.7% 8.7% 89.2% : 1.4%

Public beach 0.0 37.1 62.1 0.8

Marinas 6.0 51.2 35.3 7.5

Cruiseship docks 6.0 60.6 30.8 2.6

Freight docks 7.5 53.4 25.8 13.3

Utilities 11.2 52.0 17.6 19.2

Industry 31.3 47.8 14.9 6.0

Hotel /condominiums 30.8 52.4 13.3 3.5

Shops/restaurants 13.6 64.0 14.4 8.0

* Question #13 - "Do we have enough, or do we need more of the



following uses? (check the box that most closely reflects

your opinion)".



It must be remembered however, that the newspaper survey sample was very

small, and it was hypothesized it would be more representative of the better

educated residents. Responses do show the same inclination towards conser-

vation and recreation evinced by the more educated component of the household



survey.



LOCATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT



Assuming various types of intensive coastal development would occur in the

future, people were asked what shoretypes could best accommodate it. Table 35

shows that developed areas, low relief and steep rocky shores as well as rock

and gravel beaches were most often nominated. These findings are consistent

with household survey findings, although interviewees were also somewhat

more supportive of developing salt ponds, and both sand beaches and mangroves



which already have some development.



TABLE 35



SHORETYPES MOST SUITABLE FOR INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT*



Shoretype Percent of Total Nominations

Developed areas 21.0%

Low relief 18.5

Steep rocky shores : 17.5

Rocky and gravel beaches 14.7

Salt ponds 11.8

Mangroves 9.0

Sand beaches 7.5

: 100.0%

* Question #14 - "Which types of shorelines do you feel might



best be used for intensive development (such as large hotels,

factories, docks, utilities)? Check no more than three".



58



a eee Sn etn til



tien

SHORELINE PROTECTION



When asked if there are any types of shoreline that should be protected

from intensive development, 97.4% concurred. As Table 36 indicates, sand

beaches, mangrove and salt p@qd areas were mentioned most. Newspaper res-

pondents seemed to be more concerned than interviewees about salt ponds and

much less so about harbor areas. It is important to note however, that the



newspaper respondents did not have the benefit of the photographic examples



of shoretypes that were used in the household survey.



TABLE 36



SHORETYPES NEEDING PROTECTION FROM OVER-DEVELOPMENT*



Shoretype Percent of Total Nominations



Sand beaches 30.1%

Salt ponds 23.3 °

Mangroves 22.8

Rocky & gravel beaches 7.3

Developed areas 6.8

Steep rocky shores 5.5

Low relief 4.2

100.0%



= Question #15 - "Which types of shoreline, if any, should be

protected from intensive development? Check no more than

three".



Finally, shoretypes which respondents felt should be protected from all

development are recorded in Table 37. Again, results are generally consistent

with household survey findings: sand beaches and mangroves are of greatest

concern. However, attitudes toward salt ponds tend to reflect one side of the



bimodal response expressed in the household survey: the conservation viewpoint.



TABLE 37



SHORETYPES NEEDING PROTECTION FROM ALL DEVELOPMENT*



Shoretype Percent of Total Nominations

Sand beaches 28.9%

Mangroves 22.9

Salt ponds. 22.2

Steep rocky shores 8.5

‘Rocky & gravel beaches ; 7.3

Low rocky relief 5.8

Developed areas 4.4

100.0%

* Question #16 - “Are there any types of shoreline you feel



should be protected from all development?"



59

4



SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

—



2



oe



ee



osha



S



ie



=



aon



peti



pa



es



ms



aR



“



ce



A



ee



es



be



a



ee



me



Preeo mi



ibe



at



‘



s



el



fee



y



UK



bs



Sy



a4



pak



pee



ef



my



Bet



ice



an



ee



ne



a



OO



ey wt oa



ce



ac



a



ci



aN



io



Y



7



RU]



oe



se



es



a



Pe



ef



oS



NT



ie



She



¢



.



welt fe



BS



ae



“



ay



Ra



e



het



ae



os



an



aA



oe



re



wa



ay



aay,



Ra



we



a



eo



20



pn:



ater



ae



ret



eRe



a



Sa:



xe



ae



Peony



ee



aes



me



Sees



ae



ret



ops



as



See



oe



oe



ee



ees



Spies



eS



sot



Soe



=



eee



aoe



oe



ie



oe



eas



ee



eee



eee



oy



eae



ee



en



ne



ay



Se



Consensus?



62

Survey Results



The household and newspaper surveys provide important and interesting



insights regarding perceptions of and attitudes towards coastal areas.



| The data suggest that there is strong consensus on many issues, notably:

the importance of coastal recreation and improving beach access; the encour-

agement of agriculture; the recognition of water pollution as a significant

problem; the high value attached to sand beaches, undeveloped mangroves and some

harbor areas; and the importance of protecting such areas from overdevelopment.

Such consensus suggests the possibility of broad public support for appropriate

action on these issues. In many instances, however, attitudes were found to be

divided. Public or private activity in these areas is more likely to be

controversial, particularly so for issues where large dissenting sub-groups have

been identified. Since these surveys are but one of many inputs in developing

a Coastal Zone Management Program for the Virgin Islands, results will be

weighed most heavily when consensus is clear.



This chapter summarizes findings, focusing on the nature and extent of

apparent public agreement as it relates to further action - via Coastal Zone

Management or other means. Findings are summarized first with reference to

general issues and individual islands. and second, with reference to specific



coastal environments.



COASTAL DEVELOPMENT: A QUESTION OF VALUES AND RESOURCES



Regarding the relative importance of economic, natural and amenity values,

the public appears to be divided, primarily along educational lines.



The more educated would most like to see conservation and recreational

development emphasized; the less educated tend to place greatest emphasis on

economic development. This division is greatest with respect to broad ca-

tegories of future coastal development (commercial,residential, etc.)

but is also reflected in differing preferences within specific ategories of

development. Public attitudes regarding coastal development also varies

along geographic lines. Differences among the islands tend to reflect dif-



ferences in both available resources and the feasibility of future development.



63

TERRITORY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES



While there is apt to be considerable disagreement among population

sub-groups as to the importance of economic development, there at least

appears to be considerable consensus Territory-wide that agriculture and

food-processing industries shéuld be emphasized first.



The extent 0& support for tourism varies among the islands, but respondents

across the Territory tend to prefer hotel/guest house and cruise ship related

developments over other forms of tourism development.



A great majority of all respondents also agreed on the importance of

coastal recreational development, if not on its first priority. There is con-

siderable support throughout the Territory for the improvement of beach access

and to a lesser extent, for the development of beach facilities. The news-

paper survey provided a great deal of information about existing patterns of

recreational activity, including a listing of beaches where access is con-

sidered an issue. Poor roads or an exclusively private atmosphere were the



most frequently cited obstacles, although the lack of facilities and safety



also concern many.



Respondents feel that poor roads or an exclusive atmosphere are the

main beach access problems.



64

ISLAND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES

St. Croix



Recreational development, and beach access in particular, is apparently

of greater importance on St. Croix than on the other islands, with respondents

from Christiansted expressing the greatest concern, Interest in beach

facilities, waterfront parks and fishing piers is also quite strong, but

varies among island sub-areas.



Compared with the other islands,» concern about conservation is also some-

what more widespread. Interest in commerce and industry, however, is less so.

Agriculture and light industry are clearly the most widely supported and pre-

ferred modes of economic development. While support for heavy manufacturing

is not large, it is larger than on the other islands. Interest in fishing

and tourism, on the other hand, appears to be weakest on St. Croix.



With respect to tourist development modes, respondents from St. Croix

shared the Territory-wide consensus that hotels/guest houses and cruise ships

are preferred. There are, however, more people who would give first priority



to condominium/second home development on St. Croix than on the other islands.



St. Thomas



Survey data indicate that development preferences may be least clear on

St. Thomas, Residential and recreational development were widely supported,

but were not listed as a first choice by many. Conversely, relatively large

numbers of respondents' first choice was either industry or conservation --

the two options with least widespread support.



Respondents were more united in their support for agriculture, light

industry, and to a lesser extent, tourism as modes of economic development.

Regarding tourism, there wasS agreement with the Territory-wide preference

for hotel and cruise ship development. Respondents also supported Territory-

wide recreational concerns: beach access was paramount, with beach facilities,



fishing piers and waterfront parks also of interest in some areas.



St. John



Respondents from St. John seem to be in considerable agreement with res-

pect to overall development priorities. Residential and commercial develop-

ment are of greatest concern. Interest in conservation is less wide-spread,



but of importance to a sizable sub-group.



65

Very little interest in either light or heavy industry was expressed,

but strong support was indicated for the development of agriculture, tourism,

and fishing. Indeed, interest in fishing and tourism appears to be stronger

on St. John than anywhere else in.the Territory.



Clear support was expressed for hotel/guest house and cruise ship develop-

ment, in agreement with Territory-wide preferences for tourist development.

However, equally clear and strong support was indicated for developing boating.



While recreational development is rarely considered to be of first prio-

rity, it is widely acknowledged as important. As elsewhere, improvement of

beach access is of first concern. to the largest number of people, although

there is considerably broader support for, and almost as many respondents

giving high priority to the development of waterfront parks. The creation of



fishing piers also evokes considerable interest.



St. John respondents expressed more interest in residential, commercial

and tourist development, particularly boating.



SHORELINE PROTECTION: ASSETS AND IMPACTS



While coastal development priorities do vary considerably both by island

and by educational sub-group, there is a great deal of agreement about the

need to avoid overdevelopment. Fully 70 percent of those interviewed and 97

percent of the newspaper respondents felt that there are shoreline areas

which should be protected from overdevelopment. Less than eight percent oppose

the concept, Respondents cited a variety of reasons for protection; primarily

appreciation for scenic, recreational and natural features, and occasionally



concern about possible negative impacts from overdevelopment.



66

Several other questions provided additional information about the values



respondents associate with coastal areas, and their development-related concerns.



First, scenery and sand beaches were ranked, along with weather and duty~free

shops, as the Territory's most important tourist attractions. This suggests

that aesthetic and recreational resources may be valued not only as amenities,

but also for their contribution to the economy.



Second, there appears to be considerable agreement with respect to res-

pondent's perceptions of scenic quality. Assessments of the different types

of shoreline areas revealed that sand beaches, both developed and undeveloped;

harbors with waterfront parks, and undeveloped mangroves are considered to

have the highest scenic value. Undeveloped salt ponds, dead mangroves, and

industrial areas have the least.



Third, responses regarding appropriate utilization of the various shore-

types indicate that there is also tonsiderable agreement about recreational

and natural values. Sand beaches are perceived as having much higher recrea-

tional value than all other shoretypes. Undeveloped shoretypes for which

conservation was considered the most appropriate use provide a gauge of

natural values; Undeveloped mangroves, undeveloped sand beaches, and undeve-

loped salt ponds ranked the highest.



Fourth, when asked to assess the Virgin Islands' most important coastal

problems, respondents tended to agree that water pollution, the loss of

important natural areas and sand removal were most pressing, although percep-

tions of their relative significance varied among the islands.



Finally, respondents’ assessments of the need for protection in different

areas provides a good indication both of the composite value of each shoretype,

and of the magnitude of respondents concern about development induced problems.

The most highly valued shoretypes were most widely recommended for protection,

with sand beaches, harbors, and undeveloped mangroves being nominated most

often. To a lesser extent there is also some support for protecting undeve-

loped rocky beaches as well as steep rocky and low relief shores. Survey data

suggest that respondents distinguish between protection and conservation as

development controls. Protection tends to be recommended for highly-valued

areas where intensive activity is appropriate but may cause problems, whereas

conservation, which would preclude further development, is considered justified



in areas where intensive activity is inappropriate.



67

Substantial consensus appears to exist regarding the value and use of

sand beaches, -



SHORELINE UTILIZATION: . THE LOCATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT



Perceptions of the most appropriate locations for various kinds of develop-

ment indicate that respondents tend to feel future development should follow

existing development patterns, and that highly valued undeveloped areas should

be reserved for conservation and recreation. Consensus is clearest regarding

the utilization of sand beaches, harbors,and undeveloped mangroves. There is



less agreement about most of the others, and there are srongly conflicting



opinions regarding undeveloped salt ponds. Respondent attitudes about each of

the . shoretypes are summarized below:

l. Sand beaches (undeveloped)

. High recreational and scenic value

. Recreational use and either conservation or protection measures

are widely supported.

2. Sandbeaches (developed)

. High recreational and scenic value

. Recreational use has widest support

. Expansion of existing use (either residential or commercial) is

also considered appropriate by many. Protection from over-

development, however, is widely recommended.

3. Rocky Beaches

- Moderate to moderately low scenic value; some recreational value.

- Attitudes towards appropriate use were mixed, with no clear



consensus emerging.



68



i

I

i

=



TON Te eT



ON ee



i tiie eit baile



TS Pe



coal



10,



il.



Mangroves (undeveloped)

. Moderately high scenic value; some recreational value



« Conservation has very broad support, the most of any shoretype



Mangroves (developed)



. Moderate to moderately low scenic value; low recreational value.



. Expansion of existing uses (generally residential) was considered

appropriate, with little concern about protection expressed.



Salt Ponds (undeveloped)



. Low scenic and recreational value.



. Attitudes regarding appropriate use are divided between those

favoring conservation and those favoring industrial development.



Salt Ponds (developed)



. Moderate to moderately low scenic value; low recreational value.



. Residential development, the most prevalent existing use, has



widest support, although many respondents feel industrial development



would be appropriate. Little concern about over-development.



Developed: Harbors



. Moderately high to moderately low scenic value: low recreational

value.



. Perceived as the most suitable of all shoretypes for conmercial

activities, although many respondents feel industry is appropriate.

Protection from over-development has quite broad support.



Developed: Industrial



» Low scenic and recreational value.



Continued industrial use is widely considered the most appropriate.

Little concern about over-development.

Dead Mangroves



. Low scenic and recreational value.



. After existing industrialized areas, was considered the most suitable



place for new industrial development. Little concern about over-

development.

Low Relief Shores (undeveloped)



Moderate to moderately low scenic value; some recreational value



. Sentiment regarding use is mixed, although recreation and conservation



were suggest :d most frequently.



69

12. Steep Rocky Shores (undeveloped)

- Moderately high to moderately low scenic value, little recreational

value.

. Mixed attitudes towards use; although conservation and residential

development were suggested most frequently.

13. Steep Rocky Shores (developed)

- Moderately high to moderately low scenic value; little recreational

value.



- Continued residential development, the prevailing existing use, is



widely considered appropriate. Little concern about over-development.



RESPONDENTS ' COMMENTS



Many of the household survey participants offered additional comments and

suggestions. Roughly half of these were issue-oriented statements which

related to development opportunities, development controls or beach utilization.

These provided additional information about people's most pressing concerns,

and resulted in a wide range of useful suggestions.



The other half of respondents' comments were reactions to the survey itself.

Many felt that the survey was interesting and informative; that going to the

people was a good idea; and that both the survey and coastal planning were long

overdue. There was some skepticism that the results would be made public or



that anything would come of the effort.



Survey Utility



Public attitudes toward shoreline development and protection have been

an important factor in developing the proposed Coastal Zone Management Program

for the Territory. Public perceptions and attitudes are most clearly reflected

in recommended policies regarding shoreline utilization and in the use

designations outlined in the "Coastal Land and Water-Use Plan". Survey results

were also useful in identifying those areas with particular concern (APC's).

Finally, the beach access element of the program will draw on information

about beach utilization and the obstacles to more extensive use.



Above and beyond the survey's utility to the Planning Office in formulating



a Coastal Zone Management Program for the Virgin Islands, they produced a



70



ems ma

wealth of information useful to other Territorial agencies, and perhaps



the private sector as well. The Departments of Commerce and of Conservation

and Cultural Affairs in particular should find data on public attitudes

regarding future economic development and recreational opportunities to be of

assistance in their own economic development and recreational planning



activities. Appendices C and D contain full tabulations of the newspaper



survey data discussed in this report, plus an itemization of the household

survey data which is available. Computer print-outs of household survey data



can be inspected at the Planning Office.



It is hoped that interested parties will avail themselves of this information.

The Territory has undergone dramatic changes in the past twenty years and as

might be expected, public values and attitudes are shifting in response. Survey



data begin to reveal some of these changes,



71

APPENDICES



a ee ae oe ae a ae -_ =.

Appendix A



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY:



Interview Schedule

Photograph Panels



ee elle a

Se Se eee



~*~



8 (eae



’

:



Coastal Planning Interview



Name of interviewer Island



‘Planning Area Number



I. Panel B

1. Looking at this panel, which four shorelines are the most beautiful?



i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14



2. Which is the most beautiful ?



3. Looking st the rest of the photos, which four shorelines do you find least

beautiful ? .



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15

4, Which of those is the least beautiful?



ITI. Panel A

5. Looking at this panel, which four shorelines are the most beautiful?



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15



6. Which is the most beautiful?



7. Looking at the rest of the photos, which four shorelines do you find least

beautiful ?



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15

8. Which of those is the least beautiful?



IIT. Non-photo questions -— Shoreline use



Now I'd like to ask some general questions about the use of Coastal areas like the

ones you've seen.



If you were deciding how coastal areas should be used, which of the following uses



would you emphasize first? second? third? (show photo card)

industry (1) residential (3)

commerce (2) recreational (4}



conservation/



open. space (5)

10. L£ economic growth does occur, and you could choose, which three of the following

types would you favor first? second? third?



heavy manufacturung ( such as oil refineries, alumina

processing plants, utilities ox rum distilleries ) :



light industry ( such as prefume, texiles or electrical

equipment (2)



agriculture and food processing (3)



75

Ship docks’) (4)



other ( please specify )



tourist industry ( hotcls, condominiums or cruise ship



fishing industry ( including culture, processing ): (5)



(6.



11. If growth in tourism does occur, and you could choose, which type of tourism would



you favor first ? second ? third ?



condominium & Second home. (1)



boating (4)



hotel & guest house (2)



camping (5)



cruise ship (3)



12, What are the Virgin Islands' main attraction to tourists?

duty~free shops (1)

ee

scenery (2)



hotels & restaurants (3)



other ( please specify }



(fixst? second? third?)

weather (4)

beaches

friendly people (6)



(7)



13, If more opportunities for recreation and relaxation were being provided, uzhich of

the following would you favor first ? second? third ?



improved public access to beaches (1) underwater parks (5)



public beach facilities (2) waterfront parks (6)



public boating facilities (3) other (specify)



fishing piers (4) (7

Iv. Panel B



We've been talking alot about ‘shoreline use for the islands in géneral. ‘Now let's

talk more specifically about. your island St.



14, Are there any shorelines which should be protected from over development?



yes (1) No (2) : no opinion (3



15. If yes, which types ? {indicate no more than three )



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



16. Why doe you feel these areas should be protected?



17. ( Going back to Panel B ) Which types of areas, might best be used for each of

the following types of development (show card). You may indicate up to two types

of each use

industry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WO 11 12 13 14

commerce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14



residential 1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



76

at



ies



recreation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



conservation/ parkland 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 #8 3 10 11 12 13 14 15

18. What do you think, are the three most important problems relating to the coast ?



beach access (1)



water pollution (2)



flooding by high seas (3)



destruction of important natural areas ( such as

lagoons, salt pends) :



dredging or removing beach sand needed for cor -

struction (5)



decreasing catch of seafoods (6)



other (specify



15



VI. Personal Questions



To better understand how different types of people view coastal use, the Planning

Office would appreciate a little background information.



19. How many years have you lived here?



20, Are you planning to stay for good?



yes ; (1) no (2)

undecid: 4 (3)

21. How mar grades or classes of school have you completed?

grade school college



high school



22. What is your occupation?



23. sex: male (1) female (2)

24, age: 18 to 29 (1)



30 to 39 (2)



40 to 59 (3)



60 (4)



25. Comments?



77

ete



2



ie



oe



tie



Fa



‘ota ee



Soars



ees



Ce



cae



te



“pa



nee



Pe



ve



=



bie



prt



=



ze



oak



one



ie



es:



oe



no



tn



a



isi



te



es



Bes



2



Re



ses,



ones



re



———



ogee



us



oF



oe



pile



os



oe



3



He



pe ee



co



ee



Se



=



Ee



Lomas



y



et



ee



a



cet



peGereac



Somer



eg ek ES



oe



cig



oe



a



2



S



as



oe



sae



aoe



EB



S



ae



a



ee



oe



apes



ot



samt



-



sspgena



a



ce



se



eet



a



ol!



Sie nes



f



se



ae



2



ee



gs



as



oe



ae



We



ie



es



ss



ce



ae



Ge



ey



a



Xi,



te



oe



as.



Roe



ae



i



ae



ot



S



aS



Be



Te



Sh



ee.



a



a Se



eetlase



fi



12



id



Z



Z



soe



oH



ee



ae



ES



=



%



2



iat



7



a



i



“ee



nog



fs



ue



=



Dee



2s



15



13



14



PANEL A-Territory



(originals 2.5"X 3.5' color prints)

eee



iy



i



at



=



>=



ae



SES cat,



ee



oc



a



a



eee



—



ah



i



oe



+e



eo



ie



iE ie



|



z



rat



it



_—



ate



a



Sipe



rate aE



4



ee



oe



ae



eee



ee



Bere



on



=



“



ee



ata



ENT



od



|



4



os



wT



cou



A



veg



ay



ed



Rae er eran



ee



oo



wre



ae



3



ide



8.



a



=



aa



a



a



Pac»



te



o



if



:



Be



i



atte



ye



a



“hey



BLA



Be



TES



I.



12



j



“



&



aoe



vs



NG



an



st



oe



Be



os



Be



ae



Si



[Ss



14



PANEL



B- St Croix



(originals 2.5"X 35" color prints)

&



ou



re



ssa



es



rr



“hie



oe



srg



re



es



cae



[wes



ai



ses



iat



oe



as



yt



ni



moe



Se eee nee ecm eee



re:



wee



mee



om



sie



:



=



Ee



a



JF



e



oe



a



ES



Lx



Liberia



sas &:



8



soma



ses



ee



¥



ee



2



.



-



np



a



Be



ie



Ngee sae



o



*



_



es



eer



ir



ee



ee



ey



ae



fe



oie



at



are



ES



ig #



respon



—



ey



a



erties



—



=



es



=



pl



Ge



=



i



a



fie



ca



ty



.



Ae,



ce



7



er



Sn



a



ms



2



ee



ee:



es



ee



-



oa



ae



oe



=



oe



ue



jo



ii



IZ



es



a



a



=



ce



.



ca



sti



wr



ee



Me



oe



2



os



oo



ei



a



is



Ss



Spee



OS



=



15



13



14



PANEL B St John (originals 2.5"X 35’ color prints )



—

—



sore



=



=



Oe,



©



Mire



&



Ea



aid



Saini sets



ee



oe



Regine?



Feria



Teg BES



Anse



EE



he



meee



waar Sevicemi



bs



oa



aa



<a



a



fe



sate,



oF



Pw



is



in



<<



a



Gtr



Me ae



cigs



ae



°



Ba



Se



-Z



—



ee



ES



ee



iP



ct



Bi



Beant



riot



teres



cranes ered



coakeaeere|



“¥



‘camara tt



eaahioel



ae,



Sass



Biesencer en anrs



ee



a



ine



eee



wets



as



wong



2



Bo



J



ane



Seely



re



ee



i



eee



oe



ee



Be



a



ane



wes



ss



pens



4



ay



a



oe



=



Be



a sent TE?



een 7



a



im



gl AOL ee"



2 Sig



SRR 5 er



®



HS



7



as



punt



ot



ao



aes



re



a



Me



a



aati



Se



ie



es



a



ae



Ge



—_—



z



sesso



ses



=



se



e



mes &



=



ae



pt



es



en



ee



Bie



ete



sr



ee



er



6



ye



2



iT:



%



cals



<



ne 3



ee



e



eens



=



ei



_



“sos



Seon



ve



ce



ie



eS



ee



Snes



ee



id



l]



IZ



5



GREE



See



one



See



Be



a



eet



a



nual



3b



by



s



RCs



my,



ake



aay



Bae



ce,



red



he



Se



Pag Be:



as



ei



meee



|



sent in



Ee.



3



as



a



i 3



ss



i



‘6



sens



tees



of



i)



[+



(5



PANEL B- StThomas (originals 2.5"X 35" color prints )

ab



io



iste



oh



3



a



Se



.



a



INDUSTRY



2



oe



‘s



fat



res



Code



“it



15



bey



aoe



abe



ote



Espen



ae



oe



a



ne a



Pe



a



%



S:



gahee



et



2



22,



a



ds



<a



eS



ee



ae



a



ae



a



Resi.



oe



tes



5



a



oie



=



Pr



ath



=



eS



fens



pe



=



ait



iyi



El



TOUR



u



Ls



H



4



a



pee



soe



ite



atige. 5...



ess



e



Bee



Ae



a



ae



A fa



oe



a



at



at



x 5



t



vias



B:



a



fg



Th



Z



Sie



.



we



Bt



erie.



Pe’



pee



it



Bet



pe



COMMERCE



2



rock



wa



o.



es



wake



-



3



ag cae a NOU



oN



Ee



ee



.



8



Se,



ine



oe



es



oe



ay



eee



Se



as



ake



a



et



4



ie



a 8



fe



SO an



Lane



pen



oe



aoe



Pcesoanoeet



poi e



a



ee



oes,



e



oe



<



Mp



a



gS



es



ne



Ee



FS



loa ay



a



*



ee



a



eee



5



Cy



oe



aa



a



= RESIOENTION



bs



Ss



é



-



"



a



Semi’



ray



aN



aes



Re



er Ks



Be



i



ened



2



n



ie



oe



te



i



ae:



oe



,



2



e



a



See ee



cS



me



2 et



Oy



BP



sae



a



Be



be



i



ak



Et



Seni



heats



e



Ee



ee



RECREATION



i



is



%



er



en



eA



aor



eee



ie



_,



aS



ae



a



is



oe



ree



<a



dnc Mth



ve



wee h



ae



cs



ide



“4



a



ve



fe



as



ee



ovae



tN



3s



fy



ot



nae:



Foe



Le



ans



seas



ae



te



es



Sy



S



Si fs



ee



ye



ered



ea



us



oe,



win:



core



oy



Bead Lf



Bios



i



CONSE



vAKON



Es,



OPE) SPE,



Lng



ee



eae



si



pea



e



an



as



a



a



ca



4



oe



Pe



:



PANEL C- Shoreline Uses



W



prints)



; 5



(originals 3.5X 5 B&\



sommuien



os



iy



S



ee



we

Appendix B



NEWPA PER SURVEY:



Questionnaire

THE DAILY NEWS,



MONDAY, MAY 24, 1976 .



eHe VIRGIN

18



+ .

CUMADYH. A



saan From

A Mes cope



The magnisien™”



of us who vives

sf ban oth the ace

Bach.of jeely BOW



cneip: determine



lands

agement ¥ra

‘caastal bean wh of ous pret

ansuring

zone extends



shores,



We

tree mailed



The V.. Pt



g Office is for the istands’

coastal land and water resources. The intent of the Coastal Zone Monogement

Pragram is to bat ion and fop in 3 fashion that best meets



Virgin Islanders needs, For this reason, the Fanning Office is very much

interested in your views regarding preséat and future uses of shoreline areas,



ain BENE

sults



shoreline of



minis Difice PrEse my

rage wesouret



seawal



“THE V.4 COAST — WHAT DO: YOU THINK?"



a



%

yy Cyril Be in

cavern iaunds



ey.

and inde eg the € aaa be a en

Pap Sass AG FORO

ig preparine@

se of |

2 eritioal a eS poastal

a ‘on the



gadsest

qaamndes abl the



ate activel ay

» parti chp zone



Fives ily .



The questionaire below-is. ‘the: ‘tins of many chances you will have to ter. the

Manning Office kniow how you feal. Just cut it ait, fold a3 diractad arxd-mait.-

it's already. stamped and addressed: The Planning Office hopes thet you'll take.

advantage of this and of future appartunities to make your feelings known,”



FILL IN BELOW — CUT OUT — FOLB ON Dov ED LINE



warcamaee,

to fist a

to picnic! oO

te run of walk 2



A, Background laformation to snort a

To help us better understand how ditterent

segments of the population fee! about coastal

development, the Planning Gifice would like.

@ tittle Information about you. Your name is

nat needed, a!) infarmation and opinians will

be treated as group information.

1. Malet}  temae

2. Lotation ef hame—————-—_-_____

3. Age group: up to 19 40 ta 49 0

-Ote29T  -averso.

. Bw33O

4. What is your occupation?

Are you employed in this occupation?



&. Are there any beaches you do nat ise, but

would like ta? ves Claa



4D. HF sa, fist 10 mere than three,



11, Why don’t you use them?



Ono . stag

Are you empinyed in some other way? g seerspontanion Gg fo Facies

Qves fins (ae road access private

8. What the coast means to you. Dover



While it {9 important to weigh the needs for €. Types of Shoreline development



Public facilities, far Bacaus vei

and “fer environmental “protection in Se Gevicpment pfessures ore mast



intense in coastal areas, it is vital that we

determine bow the as yet undeveloped

shorelines can best be used.



determining the best use of our shoratings, we

Must nat forget the personal pleasure, the

physical and mental well being that can also



be derived from their use, The Planning

Office needs to know what value te coast hat

for you.



8. How many of the foliowing activities do

you engage in? (put an X next to those you

da and then indicate pow oten you do



them). if yes, how many



12. Which of the foliowing, do you think are

currently. the ‘most important. uses of the

shareling? {check the esse most important)



Gindustry Cimarinas



Cj cruise ship Cishops and

docks restuarants



DD puntic beaches Cheonservation?



C hotels and park tani

condaminiums O,bublic utitities



Ti treight facilities. Chother



13. Do we have enough, or do we need more

of the following shoreline uses “(check the



times, on the

me yes: average per month?

gotatwbaach OF Of

go fishing jal Q.

4 boating O ia]

HO marketing at = [J Co

the waterfront .

other— QD QO



&. Which beaches did you go to in the past

years?



7. Which beach do yau go ta most often?



8. What is your min resson tor going there?

(put an X text to ainly anel



to swirr, C+ 16 “fire”



that most closely cetiects your



opinion)

too 100 no”

Much enough ttle opinion

marinas Q- o oO

hotels &

rondaminivms ~ a a a

gonservationf = {g oO gp aQ

‘gark lands

industry g o o Qo

femeces O oF Gg

eight facitivies Q

a a

Testuarants :

puttic uilisies a a B 0

eruisa shop

docks . a 2 a

other. oO aq Q Q



D. Location of Sh rey



Some -perts-of the share are “more suitabte for development than others: tt ik

- dererming which should be

Used fo.



44, Which:tynes of shayelines, do you feet might best be used far intensirs development (such



= large howls, factories, doxks, power, water or Sewage trestenent plants). Check aa more than”

Be.



important: 0

quatity, and which cay hest be.



Gi send beaches’ Chimangrove swamps.



PLEASE FOLD ON THIS ,/VE smiran taming



DQigravel & rockey —__ shoretine Clomer:

3 love rocky.or. Q salt ponds and _. beaches © “€) developed

olay iuliy Uj steep rocky waterfront:

1§. Which types of sont, if any, should be from i i idoment {check na

more than three} . .

Ch tt t povide and Coravet & rocky clay blufis”

beaches Osteen rocky Cl other. .

Qa developed -Eyteangrove swamps shoreline CY Othe nn ne

watettronts- {low rocky or ” (3 sand beaches

16, Are there shy tynes'ot shoreline you feel should be pi from all devab

ravel Berecky DD tows rocky ‘or

as aches’ oy olay bluffs

iy steep rocky mangrove swamps C3 ORDO meer eens

sharelines. a eats Bonds &

developed:

a veatertronts (sand beaches



Wl PLEASE FOLD ON THIS £.1Ng “00 cam me RC OL Ao oe ta



FIRST CLASS



erent Ne, ‘a

ohashatte Anualia,

‘gad,



BUSINESS REPLY MAIL



NO PORTAGE STAND NECESSARY IF MAILED 119 LONITED ETATES



POSTAGE WILL GE PAID BY



COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

V1. Planning Office

P:0. Box 2606



St. Thomas, V.1. 00801



nN



wae p; EASE FOLD ON THIS LINE (Saige SUD 8 ste woe ome i San wee: en se Hey



STAPLE OR. TAPE HERE

Appendix C



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA



TABULATIONS OF: Selected photo questions by

island -



Selected non-photo questions

by’ survey sub-areas



Respondents' comments

Selected cross-tabulations



Information available for inspection at Virgin Islands

Planning Office



Other data obtainable

TABLE 38



ST. CROIX RESIDENTS!



ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION



Protection*



USE**



Photo #



Shoretype



Conserv.



Residential



Recr.



Comm.



Ind.



£



(8)



£ (%)



£ (%)



£ (3)



£ (3%)



£ (&)



24 (3.4)



29(4.4)



53(8.1)



9(1



4)



12 (1



-9)



24 (3.7)



Steep Rocky



(undev.)



ae



Developed:



75 (10.8)



103(15.7)



23 (3.5)



43 (6



5)



179 (27.7)



12(1.8)



Harbor w/park



Rocky Beach



69(9.9)



36(5.5)



72(11.0)



56 (8



5)



19 (2.9)



13(2.0)



(undev.)



Developed:



15(2.1)



11(1.7)



4(0.6)



10(1



5)



23 (3.5)



235 (36.0)



Industrial



Mangroves



49 (7.0)



97 (14.7)



8 (1.2)



49(7



4)



12(1.9)



13 (2.0)



(undev.)



Developed:



65 (9.3)



99(15.1)



13(2.0)



16(2.4)



202 (31.3)



Ti (1.7)



Harbor w/parkl



Low Relief



27(3.9}



39 (5.9)



70(10.6)



37 (5.8)



25(3.8)



17(2.6)



(undev.)



Mangroves



11(1.6)



20(3.0)



8(1.2)



8(1.2)



30(4.6)



210 (32.2)



(dead)



Steep Rocky



11(1.6)



13(2.0)



201(30.9)



5(0.8)



13(2.0)



&(1.2)



(dev.)



10.



Sand Beach



117(16.8)



22(3.3)



23(3.5)



215(32.5)



(undev. )



12(1.9)



8(1.2)



ll.



Steep Rocky



39(5.6)



35(5.3)



53(8.1)



15 (2.3)



16(2.5)



13 (2.0)



(undev.)



12



Sand Beach



90(12.9)



9(1.4)



121(18.6)



98(14.9}



15 (2.3)



8(1.2)



(dev.)_



13.



Salt Pond



10(1.4)



72(10.9)



8(1.2)



14(2.1)



52(8.0)



46(7.1)



(undev.)



14.



Low Relief



49 (7.0)



30(4.6)



21(3.2)



19(2.9)



17(2.6)



14(2.1)



(undev.)



15



Low Relief



47(6.7)



43(6.5)



28 (4.3)



32(5.1)



9(1.4)



13 (2.0)



(undev.)



Totals



697



658



653



659



648



651



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



Question #15 - "If yes



(to question #14 - are there any shorelines which should be



R*



protected from over-development) which types? (indicate no more than three).



Question #17 - "Which types of areas might best be used for each of the following



types of development?"



(indicate up to two)



86

TABLE 39



st



THOMAS RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION



Photo #



Shoretype



Protection*



USE**



Ind.



Conserv.



Recr.



Resi.



Comm .



£



(3)



£ (8)



£ (%)



£ (8)



£ (%)



£



(%)



18(3.5)



2(0.6)



9(2



3)



81(20.4)



25 (6.7)



11(3.6)



Developed:



Harbor



2.



Rocky Beach



24 (4.7)



37(10.3)



22(5



.8)



13 (3.3)



4(1.1)



13(4.2)



(undev. )



Salt Pond



32 (6.3)



37(10.3)



18 (4.7)



10 (2.5)



17(4.5)



36(11.9)



(undev.)



Sand Beach



59(16.5)



112 (29.2)



9(2.3)



4(1.1)



4(1.3)



85 (16.8) |



_fundev.)



Developed:



20(3.9)



23 (6.4)



3 (0.8)



73(19.5)



66 (21.9)



Harbor



11 (2.8)



12(3.2)



11(3.6)



Sand Beach



65(12.83



8 (2.2)



101 (26.4)



24 (6.0)



(dev.)



7.



Steep Rocky



14(2.8)



8(2.2)



9(2.3)



23(5.7)



9(2.4)



12 (4.0)



(dev.)



Mangroves



68(13.5)_



73(20.4)



11 (2.8)



2(0.5)



9(2.4)



5(1.7)



(undev. )



Sand Beach



50(9.8)



7(1.9)



40(10.6)



71(17.8)



5 (1.3)



8 (2.6)



(dev.)



10



Developed:



18 (3.5)



13(3.6)



4(1.0)



2(0.5)



108 (28.9)



29(9.6)



Harbor



ll.



Steep Rocky



23(4



5)



15(4.2)



10(2.6)



41(10.3)



22(5.9)



2(0.7)



{dev.)



12.



Steep Rocky



19 (3



7)



39(10.9)



11(2.8)



17 (4.3)



7(1.9)



18(5.9)



(undev. )



Salt Pond



8(2.0)



12(3.2)



41(13.5)



13



26(5



1)



34 (8.5)



9(2.3)



fundev. )



14



Developed:



30(5



8)



2(0.6)



13(3.4)



2(0.5)



51(13.6)



46(15.2)



Harbor



15



Mangroves



3)



3(0.8)



4(1.0)



92(23.1)



7(1.9)



1(0.3)



(dev.)



17(3



TOTALS



509



360



386



398



374



303



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



(100.0)



Question #15 -



"If yes (to question #14 - are there any shorelines which should be



(indicate no more than three)



protected from over-development) which types?



KK



Question #17 - "Which types of areas, might best be used for each of the following



types of development?"



(indicate up to two)



87

allt Mads es,



TABLE 40

ST. JOHN RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION

Photo # | Shoretype Protection* USE**

Conserv. |Recr. Resi. Comm. Ind.

f (3%) £ (%) £ (%) £ (8) £ (3%) £ (3%)

1. Steep Rocky 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 12(23.5) 1(2.1) 2(4.4)

(dev.)

2. Steep Rocky 1(1.8) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 5 (9.8) 0(0.0) 3(6.6)

(dev.) b

3. Salt Pond 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(2.0) 4(7.8) 0(0.0) 7(15.6)

(dev. )

4. Mangroves 2(3.5) 1(2.3) 1(2.0) 0(0.0} 1(2.1) 2(4.4)

(dev.)

5. Sand Beach 6 (10.5) a{0.0) 9(18.0) a(0.0) 29 (60.3) 5 (11.2)

(dev. )

6. Salt Pond 1(1.8) 2(4.7) 1(2.0) 1(2.0) 0(0.0) 3(6.6)

(undev.)

7. Mangroves 1(1.8) 12 (27.8) 3(6.0) 1(2.0) 1(2.1) 3(6.6)

(undev.) i

8. Rocky Beach 2(3.5) 0(0..0) 1(2.0) 2(3.9) 0{0.0) 9 (20.2)

(undev.)

9. Salt Pond 2(3.5) 1(2.3) 1(2.0) 17 (33.3) 2(4.2) 2(4.4)

(dev.)

10. Sand Beach 12(21.1) 10(23.2) 20 (40.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)

(undev.)

1l. Steep Rocky 0(0.0) 3(7.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(4.4)

(undev. )

12. Developed: 18(31.5) 2(4.7) 0(0.0) 2(3.9) 8(16.7) 7(15.6)

Harbor

13. Sand Beach 2(3.5) 4(9.3) 11 (22.0) 0(0.0) 2(4.2) 0(0.0)

(undev.)

14. Developed: 0(0.0) 6 (14.0) 0(0.0) 6(11.8) 4(8.3) 0(0.0)

Harbor

15. Steep Rocky 10(17.5) 2(4.7) 2(4.0) 1(2.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0)

(undev.)

TOTALS 57 43 50 51 48 45

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

* Question #15 - "If yes (to question #41 ~ are there any shorelines which should be

protected from over-development) which types? (indicate no more than three)

** Question #17 - “Which types of areas, might best be used for each of the following

types of development?" (indicate up to two)

88

TABLE 41



ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT

BY SURVEY SUB-AREFA (Question #9)



wae ape



wes



=



Sub-island N Indust. Comm. Resi. _| Recreat. Conserv. _

Planning Area % emphasizing (3 Tevcass first)*

Frederiksted 52 65.4(32.7) 40.4(9.6) 51.9(15.4) | 88.4(23.1) | 53.8(19.2)

(Harrigan Court) 25 64.0(24.0) 68.0(26.0) | 48.0(4.0) 66.0(36.0) | 64.0(16.0)

Northside 4 75.0(25.0) 25.0(0.0) 25.0(0.0) 75.0(50.0) [50.0(25.0).

Grove Place 21 42.9(4.8) 61.9(19.0) | 51.1(9.5) 85.7(52.4) 752.4(14.3)

Southside 24 45.8(29.2) 45.8(20.8) | 66.7(8.3) 73.1(17.4) |[66.7(25.0)

East End 21 23.7(14.3) 45.6(9.5) 57.1(14.3) | 90.5(42.9) }]81.0(19.0)

Christiansted 129 34.1(16.3) 54.3(7.8) 51.9(12.4) | 92.2(46.5) |] 70.5(18.6)

(LBJ Gardens) 31 41.9{22.6) 38.7(25.8) | 83.9(32.3) | 67.7(12.9) |67.7(6.5)

Central 40 60.0(30.0) 42.5(5.0) 57.4(7.5) 72.5(15.0) |67.5(42.5)

Charlotte Amalie 144 64.5(34.0) 71.5(15.3) | 72.9(23.6) ]52.8(11.8) | 33.4(16.0)

(Kirwin Terrace} 29 62.1(27.6) 31.0(6.9) 75.9(20.7) | 65.5(6.9) 65.4(37.9)

West End 39 48.7(20.5) 35.1(10,.3) | 71.8(5.1) 69.2(28.2) |56.4(33.3)

Northside 28 14.3(7.1) 46.4(25.0) | 64.3(3.6) 85.7(14.3) | 78.6(50.0)

New Quarter 42 42.8(11.9) 69.0(40.5) | 83.3(21.4) | 66.7(16.7) |38.1(9.5)

Bast End 23 47.8(21.7) 30.4(0.0) 56.5(13.0) 65.2(13.0) ]92.3(52.2)

Frenchman's Bay 27 29.6(3.7) 33.3(11.1) | 63.0(7.4) 92.6(25.9) | 74.1(51.9)

Cruz Ba 43 32.6(4.7) 62.8(34.9) | 88.4(34.9) | 72.1(11.6) [45.2(16.7)

Coral Bay /country 12 41.7(16.7) 58.3(8.3) 66.7(0.0) 50.0(25.0) }66.7((50.0)

TOTALS* 734 47.4(21,4) 53.1(15.3) | 65.5(15.9) | 73.1(23.9) |[57.8(23.9)



* Up to three uses could be emphasized, thus maximum total percentages could equal

300%. First priorities, however, total 100%.



TABLE 42



ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT



BY SURVEY SUB-~AREA (Question #10)



Sub-island N Hvy. Mfg. Light Mfg. | agricul. Tourism Fishing

Planning Area % emphasizin (% emphasizing first) *

Frederiksted 52 38.5(25.0) | 59.3(32.7) 88.5(23.1) | 69.2(13.5) | 44.2(5.8)

(Harrigan Court) 25 52.0(8.0) 72.0(44.0) 96.0(32.0) | 20.0(4.0) 60.0(12.0)

Northside 4 50.0(50.0) | 50.0(0.0) 100.0(25.0) | 75.0(0.0) 25.0(25.0)

Grove Place 21 61.9(19.0) | 71.4(52.4) 81.0(23.8) | 14.3(0.0) 71.4(4.8)

Southside 24 50.0(33.3) | 45.8(16.7) 70.8(12.5) | 75.0(25.0) | 58.2(12.5}

East End 22 22.7(13.6) | 77.3(36.4) 68.2(18.2) | 77.3(27.3) | 47.6(4.8)

Christiansted 129 26.4(5.4) 72.7(27.3) 93.8(47.3)'] 50.4(13.2) | 56.7(7.1)

(LBJ Gardens) 31 22.6(16.1) | 67.7(61.3) 87.1(12.9) | 38.7(3.2) 83.9(6.5)

Central 40 47.5(30.0) | 65.0(27.5) 80.0(22.5) | 62.5(17.5) | 45.0(2.5)

Charlotte Amalie 144 22.9(13.2) | 74.3(28.5) 94.4(47.2) | 43.7(6.9) 60.4(3.5)

(Kirwin Terrace) 23 41.4(6.9) 62.1(17.2) 86.2(44.8) | 75.9(27.6) | 27.6(0.0)

West End 39 25.6(10.3) | 61.0(17.9) 82.1(43.6) | 71.8(17.9) | 59.0(10.3)

Northside 29 13.8(10,3) | 65.4(17.2) 79.3(31.0) | 62.1(20.7) | 75.9(20.7)

New Quarter _ 42 16.7(2.4) 54.8(19.0) 73.8(14.3) | 73.8(31.0) | 78.4(33.3)

East End 23 34.8(8.7) 56.5(8.7) 100.,0(56.5) | 72.7(13.6) | 31.8(13.6)

Frenchman's Bay 27 7.4(0.0) 55.6(11.1) 81.5(44.4) | 77.8(40.7) | 66.7(0.0)

Cruz Bay 43 14.0(4.7) 32.9(16.7) 79.1(16.3) | 76.7(32.6) | 71.4(33.3)

Coral Bay/country 11 9.1(0.0) 45.5(9.1) 90.9(54.5) | 81.8(27.3) | 63.6(9.1)

TOTALS* 735 28.3(12.1)] 63.8(26.6) 86.9(35.1) | 57.9(16.3) | 58.8(9.7)



* Up to three uses could be emphasized, thus maximum total

First priorities,



30038.



however,



total 100%.



percentages could equal

TABLE 43



ATTITUDES TOWARDS COASTAL RECREATIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES BY SURVEY SUB~AREA (Question #13)



Public Public Boating | Fishing | Underwater | Waterfront

Sub-island N Beach Access Beach F Facd Fac. Piers Park Park

Planning Area % emphasizing* :

Frederiksted 52 69.2 65.4 23.1 42.3 32.7 67.3

(Harrigan Court) 25 4.0 8.0 32.0 92.0 88.0 76.0

Northside 4 100.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 75.0

Grove Place 21 57.1 47.6 9.5 61.0 52.4 52.4

Southside 24 58.3 79.2 54.2 41.7 8.3 58.3

East End 22 40.9 50.0 63.6 40.9 18.2 77.3

Christiansted 127 81.9 59.8 22.0 33.9 24.4 77.2

(LBJ Gardens) 31 90.3 83.9 6.5 19.4 9.7 90.3

Central 40 65.0 65.0 35.0 50.0 17.5 57.5

Charlotte Amalie 143 44.1 51.0 31.5 70.6 31.5 67.1

(Kirwin Terrace) 29 89.7 86.2 17.2 24.1 17.2 51.7

West End 36 55.6 58.3 33.3 55.6 30.6 58.3

Northside 29 51.7 75.9 51.7 34.6 44.8 41.4

New Quarter 41 56.1 58.5 39.0 36.6 31.7 75.6

East End 23 87.0 52.2 13.0 21.7 43.5 69.6

Frenchman's Bay 27 51.9 55.6 33.3 33.3 37.0 70.4

Cruz Bay 42 38.1 64.3 45.2 52.4 28.6 71.4

Coral Bay/country 10 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 20.0

TOTALS* 726 60.1 59.4 30.7 47.5 29.8 68.3



* Up to three uses could be emphasized, thus maximum total percentages could equal

3008.



TABLE 44



PERCEPTIONS OF THE V.I.'s THREE MOST IMPORTANT

COASTAL PROBLEMS BY SURVEY SUB-AREA (Question #18)



Beach Water Loss of Sand

Sub-island N Access | Pollution] Flooding Natural Areas} Removal Less Fish

Planning Area % considering important*

Freceriksted 51 33.3 80.4 13.7 72.5 56.9 43.1

(Harrigan Court) | 25 24.0 76.0 4.0 84.0 56.0 66.0

Northside 4 75.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 50.0

Grove Place 21 42.9 76.2 0.90 81.0 61.9 38.1

Southside 23 60.9 65.2 4.3 54.5 59.1 54.5

East End 22 27.3 72.7 4.5 47.6 90.9 45.5

Christiansted 128 74.2 49.6 3.9 72.1 58.3 42.6

(LBJ Gardens) 30 80.0 76.7 13.3 46.7 73.3 10.0

Central 40 42.5 90.0 20.0 67.5 40.0 40.0

Charlotte Amalie [37 25.5 86.2 62.0 23.2 59.9 34.1

(Kirwin Terrace) | 29 69.0 96.6 3.4 48.3 69.0 13.8

West End 38 42.1 94,7 8.1 40.5 55.6 47.2

' Northside 29 27.6 79.3 6.9 65.5 58.6 58.6

New Quarter 41 29.3 90.2 19.5 63.4 53.7 : 39.0

East End 23 39.1 69.6 8.7 78.3 26.1 43.5

Frenchman's Bay 27 25.9 88.9 7.4 77.8 66.7 25.9

Cruz Bay 42 69.0 67.4 23.3 78.5 36.5 23.8

Coral Bay/country} 12 25.0 75.0 41.7 50.0 . 83.3 8.3

TOTAL* [722 45.8 76.3 20.2 57.6 57.9 37.6



* Up to three problems could be mentionned, thus maximum total percentages could

equal 3008.

ONS



TABLE 45



COMPLETE TABULATION OF RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS*



St. Thomas



Issue-oriented comments:



22.

23.



24.

25.

26.



27.



28.

29.



30.

31.

32.

33.



34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40..

41.



42.



There should be no private ownership of beaches.



All shoreline areas should be protected.



Development is the Territory's biggest coastal

problem.



Protect Magens Bay!



Sailing is a major tourist attraction.



Restrict new development in areas which are already

highly developed.



Destruction of historic and archaeological resources

is a major problem,



Shorelines should be protected by requiring develop-

ment (especially industry) to be set back from the

water.



The Virgin Islands has the potential to be the under-

water capital of the world.



Camping facilities would be a good coastal recreational

development.



Providing for one's family is the most important problem

in the Territory.



Protect the shoreline for the people!



Our coastal waters are our greatest resource; and

provide the basis for our economy.



All coastal areas should be protected from over-

development.



Promote the rum industry.



Free the beaches.



Over-development in Cowpet Bay.



Keep the beaches clean.



Industrial or residential use of the coast should not

be encouraged. ;



No more industry.



No more conservation.



Our waters are beautiful -~- prevent pollution.

Develop watersports programs: swimming,



snorkeling, sailing & waterskiing.



Clean up the beaches.



People are the coast's worst enemy.



No more coastal industry; don't overdo coastal

commerce and locate residential development



inland.



I hate to see hotels restrict beach access to



native Virgin Islanders.



New industrial development should go inland.

Development of coastal resources should be directed

towards the creation of jobs.



We need to encourage the shipping industry.



No more industry along the shoreline.



Above all else, preserve the mangrove lagoon.

Mariculture and fish hatcheries should be



developed.



There is too much boating on the East End; this is

causing water pollution.



Preserve natural areas and beach access.



Keep our waters beautiful!



Create waterfront parks ~- old people need a place

to relax too!



Commercial and industrial development should be

encouraged at Red Hook.



Free the beaches -- too many are privately owned.

Keep our waters pretty.

All of the shoreline is beautiful -- and should be



protected from over development.

Develop picnic facilities on the cays.



91

Comments on the survey:



10.

il.



12.



13.

14-27.



St. Croix



Going to the people is an excellent idea.



I am glad to see that coastal planning is being done.

Action!



Make survey findings public.



We need to study the long-range implications of

growth.



The survey is a good idea, but the questions beat

around the bush.



The islands are small and time is short.



I hope the survey is fruitful and the results will

be made available.



The Legislature does not show enough interest in

this kind of thing.



Publish the results.



It is about time we start protecting the Territory’ s

natural resources and beauty.



There is a lot of work to be done.



Surveys! Do something!



The survey is a good idea.



Issue-oriented comments:



8.



10,

li.

12.



Create a shoreline drive from Christiansted to



the East End.



The shoreline should be developed.



I am very concerned about coastal ecology.



Marinas and coastal industry should be encouraged.

Many residents have no means of getting to the beach.

Public transportation should be improved.



Shoreline protection from over development is needed

to preserve public access.



Shoreline areas should be protected so natives and



.tourists both can enjoy them.



Littering of beaches is a major problem.



Encourage marine research,



I hope something will be done with waterfront areas.

Safety is a major coastal problem.



Protecting shoreline areas from over development is

for the good of the community.



Comments on the survey:



1.

2-28.

29&390.



St. John



This survey is a very good idea

The survey is very interesting and/or informational.

I hope the program materializes.



Issue-oriented comments:



i.

2.

3.



Protect Mary Point



Protect all shorelines from over development.

Second home development is acceptable, but no

condominiums!



92

re



k



CROSS-TABULATIONS RELATED TO CHANGES IN TERRITORIAL



POPULATION COMPOSITION



TABLE 46



EDUCATION AS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCY*



Education 0-5 Yrs. Here 6-15 Yrs. Here 16+ Yrs. Here



Elementary 1.83 (14.5) 6.8% (24.0) 18.7% (31.7)



High School 4.5 (34.9) 10.1 (36.1) 24.9 (42,1)



Advanced 6.5 (50.6) 11.2 (39.9) 15.5 (26.2)



Totals 12.8 (100.0) 28.1 (100.0) 59.1 (100.0)

TABLE 47



AGE AS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCY*



Age 0-5 Yrs. Here 6-15 Yrs. Here 16+ Yrs. Here

18-39 Yrs. 4.3% (33.7) 16.2% (57.1) 27.9% (47.5)

40-59 Yrs. 7.7 (60.3) 9.7 (34.2) 23.2 (39.4)

60+ Yrs. 0.8 ( 6.0) 2.5 ( 8.7) 7.7 (13.1)



Totals 12.8 (100.0) 28.4 (100.0) 58.8 (100.0)



* Figures are frequency percentages of the total sample.

Parenthesés indicate frequency percentages of each residency



category.



93

ATTITUDES TOWARD OVER-ALL SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT

BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS*



TABLE 48



CROSS-TABULATION OF NON-PHOTO QUESTIONS

WITH EDUCATIONAL DATA



Ist Priority Ed. Level St. Croix St. Thomas St. John

Industry Elementary 42.7% 43.83% 50.0%

High School 40.0 39.7 25.0

Advanced 17.3 16.4 25.0

N= 75 12 4

x25 11.86** 2.72

Commerce Elementary 41.5% 28.63 26.7%

High School 36.6 46.9 53.3

© Advanced 22.0 24.5 20.0

r= N= 41 49 15

x2 4.40 1.30

Residential Elementary 33.3% 24.5% 28.6%

High School 40.0 62.3 57.1

Advanced 26.7 13.2 14.3

N= 45 53 14

X2= 1.13 10.22**

Recreation Elementary 19.7% 19.6% 16.7%

High School 38.5 39.1 50.0

Advanced 41.9 41.3 33.3

N= 117 45 6

x2= 6. 66** 1.88

Conservation | Elementary 16.9% 11.1% 38.5%

. High School 36.6 34.4 30.8

Advanced 46.5 54.4 30.8

N= 721 90 13

Kee 6.66** 22.53**



* Question #9, first choice responses only, by question



#21.



** Indicates x? values for which p# 0.05



TABLE 49



ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL*



lst. Priority Ed. Level St. Croix St. Thomas St. John

Heavy Man. Elementary 37.5% 31.0% 50.0%

High School 48.2 44.8 25.0

Advanced 14.3 24.1 25.0

N= 56 29 2

x2= 9.43%* 1.04

Light Industry] Elementary 28.4% 27.3% 14.3%

High School 33.6 45.5 85.7

Advanced 37.9 27.3 0.0

N= 116 66 7

X2= 1.37 0.70

Agriculture Elementary 22.4% 26.4% 41.7%

High School 39.3 44,2 33.3

Advanced 38.3 29.5 25.0

N= 107 129 12

x2= 1.88 0.42

Tourism Elementary 28.9% 18.2% 26.7%

High School 28.9 38.2 40.0

Advanced 42.2. 43.6 33.3

N= 45 55 15

x2= 2.08 3.60

Fishing Elementary 29.2% 16.7% 33.3%

High School 50.0 43.3 40.0

Advanced 20.8 40.0 26.7

N= 24 30 15

x25 2.01 1.38



* Question #10, first ‘choice responses only, by Question



#21.



** Indicates x2 values for which P£ 0.05.

TABLE 50



ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORELINE PROTECTION



- BY. EDUCATIONAL LEVELS*



Response



Ed. Level



St. Croix



st. Thomas



St. John



Yes



16.2%



27.7%



Elementary



16.0%



High School



38.5



42.9



48.9



45.5



40.9



23.4



N=



Advanced



231



198



47



No



32.1%



33



3%



0.0%



Elementary



High School



53.6



33



0.0



Advanced |



14,3



33



100.0



N=



28



21



1



Elementary



58.6



22



100.0



No opinion



High. School



32.2



64



0.0



9.2



12



0.0



Advanced .



N=



87



48



4



yee



F1.67%**



17



15**



12.17**



*



Question #14 by question #21.



**



Indicates X2 values for which p¥ 0.05



TABLE 51



PERCEPTIONS OF COASTAL PROBLEMS



BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS*



Problem



Ed.. Level



St. Croix



St. Thomas



St. John



Beach Access



Elementary



26.0%



26.5%



23.3%



High School



40.6



39.2,



60.0



Advanced



33.3



34.3



16.7



192



102



30



0.47



0.72



Water Pollution



Elementary



26.7%



21.9%



33.3%



40.1



43.4



38.9



High School



Advanced



33.2



34.7



27.8



232



265



36



2a



0.29



1.44



Flooding



Elementary



10.7%



36.2%



42.9%



64.3



46.8



42.9



High School



Advanced



25



17.0



14.3



N=



28



94



14



xX



2



=



=



43%*



11.89**



Loss of



Natural areas



28



1%



17.3%



18.9%



Elementary



High School



34



38.8



56.8



Advanced



37



43.9



24.3



231



139



37



wn



1.81



9.91**



Sand Removal



Elementary



30.2%



22.9



32.0



High School



36.1



46.3



40.0



Advanced



33.7



30.9



28.0



N=



205



175



25



x2=



0.70



0.63



Less Fish



Elementary



33.1



22.0



45.5



High School



37.3



45.9



27.3



Advanced



29.6



32.1



27.3



142



109



il



2.11



0.48



* Question #18 by question #21



kk



0.05.



Indicates x values for which p=



95

DATA AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN

THE VIRGIN ISLANDS PLANNING OFFICE



Computer print-outs’ of survey data may be inpected

at the St. Thomas (Sub-base) office of the Virgin Islands

Planning Office. Available area:



1. A complete compilation of responses

(sample and substantive questions)

by island and by Territory.



2. Cross-tabulations of responses to non-photo

questions (#9-14, 16, 18) with demographic

variables by island.



3. Cross-tabulation of selected demographic

variables:



Years here X education )



Years here X age ) by island



Sex X age )



Education X occupation for the Territory



OTHER DATA OBTAINABLE



Further analysis of coded survey responses is possible

using the Standard Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences which is on line at the Department of Finance Com-

puter Center. Those most likely to be of interest include:



1. A complete compilation of responses by island

survey sub-area,



2. Cross-tabulation of responses to photo questions

(#1-8, 15, 17) with demographic variables.



3. Cross-tabulations of other demographic variables

by island or for the Territory.



4. A variety of statistical analyses including

correlation and regression.



96



on ae eS Se

re Tr aT |



vlUlU 'TCOUOUCOCrTCVrTUCUCGELCUCUD



gr wr ae rr Se eee er eer



Appendix D -



NEWSPAPER SURVEY DATA: Tabulations for all Questions



97

TABLE 52



DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR NEWSPAPER RESPONDENTS *



St. Croix St. Thomas St. John j{ Territory

Total Respondents 69 82 3 154

Question

1. Sex

Male 39 49 2 90 (58.4%)

female 30 33 1 64(41.6)

2. Age 7

up to 19 yrs. L 3 i) 4(2.78)

20-29 yrs. ll 18 1 30(20.0)

30-39 yrs. 22 25 0 47 (31.3)

40-49 yrs. 16 14 1 31 (20.7)

50= yrs. 18 20 1 38(25.3)

3. Location of home - Response specificity varied so much

that coding was impractical.

4. Occupation



white collar

blue collar

Service

housewife

student

retired



none



* Data are response frequencies, with frequency

for the total sample in parenthesis.



NEO BBR



ONNNWOWD



98



Ooooroeon



100 (66.73%)

7(4.7)

17(11.3)

6 (4.0)

15(10.0)

3(2.0)

2(1.3)



percentages



fh Ms



a a ae ee



ai mm i. kg.



NN. dt ih — =r ee ee ee



+.

PERSONAL USE OF COASTAL AREAS



TABLE 53

] COASTAL ACTIVITIES (Question #5)

Activity Number of Users

aver. times

' St. Croix St. Thomas St. John| Territory | per month

go to the

beach 67 72 3 139 7

, go fishing 25 24 3 49 3-4

go boating 34 50 3 84 4-5

waterfront

b marketing 16 24 2 40 - 4-5

% responding 98.6 100.0 100.0 99.4

TABLE 54

BEACH ACTIVITIES (Question #8)

Activity Number of Participants

} St. Croix St. Thomas St. John~ | Territory

swim 48 58 2 108

snorkle 20 15 2 37

picnic 14 17 1 32

run 13 9 0} 22

lime 8 13 0 21

fish 7 2 0 9

% responding 98.6 98.8 100.0 98.7

F



99

TABLE. 55



BEACH USE (Questions 6, 7, 10)



St. Croix



Used most

Beach _ Used by often by Not ‘used by



Davis Bay 22

Cramer Park 22

Sandy Point 17

Tague Bay/reef/yacht club 11

Green Cay il

Buck Island 10

Cane Bay 10

Frederiksted



Jack Bay



Pelican Cove



Hapenny Bay



Beach Hotel



Tamarind Reef



Butler Bay



Sprat Hall



Target Wall



Boiler Bay



LaGrange



Sugar Beach



Manchenil Bay

Grapetree Bay



East End Bay



Southgate



Gentle Winds



Salt River

Rust-up-Twist



LaVallee .



St. Croix Country Club

Williams Beach



Stoney Ground



Hope & Carlton

Rod/Robin Bays



Great Pond Bay



Isaacs Bay 1

Pull Point



Buccaneer Hotel



St. Croix by the Sea

Mill Harbor

Protestant Cay

Altona Lagoon



Prune Bay



Smugglers Cove

Sunset Beach



Coakley Bay



Anally Bay

Limetree/Virco

Colombus Bay



Gallows Bay

Solitude Bay



saOw

PERN UO PR NUWD Ww

Prep tw Pow a



PN WENW



NEE



BPE ERE EB HNN ONNNNNNNNUNWWWWWWW EB DUUUD

BPN



mle Hb WwW be



% responding 85.5 87.0



an



100

Beaches Used: St. Thomas



Beach Used by Used most by Not used by



Magens Bay 67 27 1

Coki Point 36 — 6 7 4

Sapphire Bay 26 5

Lindberg Bay 22

Brewers Bay : 20

Hull Bay 19

Vessup Bay 16

Secret Harbor 16

Limetree Bay 14

Morning Star Beach 14

Cowpet Bay/yacht club . 12

Mandal Bay aie)

Stumpy Bay 10

Bolongo Bay.

Bluebeards Beach



Trunk Bay, St. John

Scott Beach



Bordeaux Bay

Neltjeberg



Dorothea ;



Skinny Beach



Smith Bay



Pineapple Beach



Caneel Bay, St. John

Tutu Bay



Sunsi Bay



Botany Bay



St. James



Cinnamon Bay, St. John

Francis Bay " "

Honeymoon Bay," "

Fortuna Bay



Santa Maria Bay



~s bu DAanbr

aa



he

NODOr Mr WwW



BPRRPRPEPE NN WW bUU MA oO

Be WHNYOHPEOABW



Perseverence Bay

Nazareth Bay



Lo ee ll



yresponding 98.8 92.7 62.2



Beaches Used: St. John



Beach _ . Used by Used most By Not used by



Trunk Bay



Hawksnest Bay



Cinnamon Bay



Chocolate Hole

Lameshur Bay



Salt Pond Bay

Rendez-vous Bay >

Magens Bay, St. Thomas

Coki Point " .  "

Bluebeard's Beach, St. Thomas

Maho Bay ‘

Peter Bay



Denis Bay



PRPPPRPRPEREEW



ee



% responding : 66.7 66.7 . 100.0



101

TABLE 56



EXISTENCE OF UNUSED, BUT DESIRED BEACHES



(Question #9)



St. Croix



St. John



Territory



St. Thomas



yes



45



51



1



97



no



23



29



1



53



9



2



G



responding



98.6



97.6



66.7



97.4



TABLE 57



REASONS FOR NOT USING PARTICULAR BEACHES



(Question #11)



Reason



St. Croix



St. Thomas



St. John



Territory



no road access



14



25



39



exiclusively private



13



22



36



no facilities



8



12



20



safety



12



17



transportation



5



il



expense



4



f)



2.



cs)



responding



65.2



62.2



33.3



63.0



.



COASTAL DEVELOPMENT



TABLE 58



MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT SHORELINE USES (Question #12)



Use



St. Croix



St. Thomas



St. John



Territory



Industry



19



2



21



Cruise ships



12



30



42



Public beaches



41



67



111



22



Hotels/condominium



18



40



Freight docks



9



18



Marinas



20



29



50



Sheps/restaurant



2



Conservation/parks



44



60



107



Public utilities



6



9.



2.



3



responding



94.2



96.3



100.0



95.5



TABLE 59



ADEQUACY OF CURRENT SHORELINE USES



(Question #13)



Use



St. Croix



St. Thomas



St. John Territory



Marinas



8



68



47



10



Hotel/condominiums



43



75



19



15



Conservation/park



1



12



123



42



64



20



Industry



Public beaches



0



49



82



Freight. docks



9



64



31



14



17



80



18



10



Shops/restaurants



24



Utilities



14



65



22



Cruiseship docks



7



71



36



2.



2



=



=



6



responding territory wide



95.5



102

SHORELINE UTTLIZATION



TABLE 60



-SHORETYPES. SUITED FOR INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT (Question, #14)



Shoretype



St. Croix. St. Thomas St. John Territory



14



Sand beachés



21



Low rocky relief



24



27



52



Mangroves



12



13



25



Salt ponds



16



17



33



12



29



41



Gravel & rocky béaches



22



25



49



Steép focky Shores



Dévelopéd shores



25



33



58



% responding



89.0



85.7



ABLE 61



:



a



Dy



a



.



wh



.,



5



GRE



TYPES NEEDING. PROTECTION FROM INTENSTVE. DEVELOPMENT (Question $15).



Se



shorétype - ..



St:



¥OLK--S



hones. Sts, John | territory



Sand



51



61



115



8



7



16



ky Peliet



42



42



87



abt



43



33



89



ock



aches



L2



a5



28



OG



ist



rl



3



21



Developed shorés



13



13



28



% responding



3.0



TABLE 63



E. NEEDING. PROTE



io PROM ADL DEVE OPMENT (Quéstion. #16)



Sh



EYpS:



Luo a Sta Croix Ste thomas.



John. f Territory.



hes



45



51



99



Li



20



relief



Man



41



34



78



pond



45



28



i6



cky beaches



i



rn



ia



25



16



12



29



15



Deve Lop



82.6



8758



100.0



% pesbdnding



103