EC .\JOMle U\f&PACT Ar~AL YSIS 
F R THE 
ViRGil\! ISLAi\~DS NATIOi~AL PARf( 
Prepared under contract for the 
United States Department of the Interior 
National Park Service 
Southeast Regional Office 
Atlanta, Georgia 
by the 
Island Resources Foundation 
Red Hook Center 
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 
October, 1981 
ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION 
FINAL REPORT 
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 
FOR THE 
VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT FOR: 
The United States Department of the Interior 
National Park Service 
Southeast Regional Office 
Atlanta, Georgia 
CONTRACT NO: 
CX50001016 
PREPARED BY: 
Dr. Ben Posner 
Clarence Cuthbertson 
Dr. Edwar.d Towle 
Charlotte Reeder 
October-1g81 
RED HOOK CENTER. BOX 33. ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801 • (809) 775-3225 
i 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The Island Resources Foundation and the study team wish to ex-
press their appreciation to the Superintendent of the Virgin 
Islands National Park, Noel Pachta; the Resource Management 
Officer of the V.I. National Park, Jim Riddle; and the entire 
staff of the VINP for their never-failing help and active assis-
tance in connection with this study. 
Valu~ble research advice and assistance were given by Dr. Jay 
Gogue and Dr. Frank Noe from the Southeast Regional Office of the 
National Park Service, and by Dr. Robert Brander, from the Vir-
gin Islands National Park. 
Warren Brown, Planner, Heritage Con-
servation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C., spent sever-
al days with the study team and with the VINP, providing valuable 
suggestions on the study, particularly in connection with ques-
tions having to do with land management. 
Special thanks also go to E. David Brewer, Vice President/General 
Manager, Caneel Bay Resorts, and John Harvey, Manager of Maho 
Bay Campground, for their generous cooperation in making surveys 
of guests residing on St. John possible. 
The College of the Virgin Islands assisted greatly in the study 
by making it possible for the study team to use C.V.I. students 
in conducting the surveys. 
Mr. James Pobicki, Director of 
Policy and Planning for the V.I. Government Department of Com-
merce, and his staff were most helpful in making research suggest-
ions and in making available to the study team information col-
lected by his office on the economy of the Virgin Islands. 
Finally, thBstudy team extends its thanks to all the other of-
ficials and individuals on St. Thomas and St. John who were con-
sulted in connection with the study and who were all, without 
exception, most generous in lending us their time, their informa-
tion, and their knowledge. 
ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page No. 
CHAPTER I: 
INTRODUCTION 
1 
A. 
Background and Purpose 
1 
B. 
History and Setting 
1 - 3 
C. 
Concept of Study 
4 - 7 
D. 
Outline of Study 
7 - 8 
CHAPTER II: 
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VINP ON TOURISM 
IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN 
10 
A. 
Methodology and Research 
10-r2 
B. 
Summary of Findings 
12-20 
CHAPTER III: 
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL 
PARK ON BOATING INDUSTRY IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN 
22 
A. 
Analytical Appro~cH 
22-24 
B. 
Summary of Findings 
24 
C. 
Conclusion 
25 
CHAPTER IV: 
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE VINP ON LAND VALUES ON 
ST. JOHN 
27 
A. 
Methodology 
27-31 
B. 
Summary of Findings 
32-33 
CHAPTER V: 
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VINP AND 
VINP CONCESSIONAIRES ON ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN ECONOMY 
35 
A. 
Costs of the VINP 
35-37 
B. 
Economic Benefits of the VINP 
37-39 
C.. 
Economic Benefits of Caneel Bay/Cinnamon Bay 
Operations on St. John 
39-40 
CHAPTER VI: 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
41 
A. 
Summary 
41-46 
B. 
Conclusions 
46-48 
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING COURSE OF STUDY 
50-51 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
52-53 
APPENDIX A. 
SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
APPENDIX B. 
SURVEY OF GUESTS OF CANEEL BAY PLANTATION 
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUND AND MAHO BAN CM1PGROUND 
APPENDIX C. 
SURVEY OF CHARTERBOATING AND RELATED BUSINESSES ... 
report prepared for the Department of Commerce 
APPENDIX D. 
A SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY VIEWS 
A-I - A-20 
B-1 - B-13 
C-l - C-7 
D-l - D-2 
TABLE 1 
TABLE 2 
TABLE 3 
TABLE 4 
TABLE 5 
TABLE A-I 
TABLE A-2 
TABLE A-3 
TABLE A-4 
TABLE A-5 
TABLE A-6 
TABLE A-7 
TABLE A-8 
TABLE B-1 
TABLE B-2 
TABLE B-3 
TABLE B-4 
TABLE B-5 
TABLE B-6 
iii 
LIST OF TABLES 
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TRAVELING TO AND FROM 
ST. JOHN VIA FERRY, JANUARYTHRU DECEMBER, 1980 
RECREATIONAL PUBLIC USE OF THE VINP, CY 1980 
DERIVATION OF ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 
VINP ON TOURISM IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN 
ACREAGE PURCHASED BY V.I. NATIONAL PARK SINCE 
ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN 1956 
COMPARISONS OF ANNUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS, ECONOMIC 
H~PACT OF VINP ON ST. THm~AS/ST. JOHN ECONOMY, 
1980 DATA 
PROFILE OF USERS 
MAIN PURPOSE OF TRIP 
NU~~BER IN PARTY 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF STAY 
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE FACT THAT ST. JOHN HAS A NATIONAL 
Page No. 
13 
17 
18 
30 
46-47 
A-8 
A-9 
A-I0 
A-ll - A-12 
PARK INFLUENCE YOUR VISIT? 
A-13 - A-14 
EVALUATION OF ST. JOHN EXPERIENCE 
AVERAGE DAILY EXPENSES PER ADULT 
APPROXU1ATE ANNUAL INCOME OF HOUSEHOLD 
PERMANENT RESIDENTS 
TRAVELING PARTY COMPOSITION 
LENGTH OF STAY 
AVERAGE DAILY EXPENSES 
EXTENT OF NATIONAL PARK INFLUENCE 
ON VISITS 
AGE AND SEX OF RESPONDENTS 
A-15 - A-16 
A-17 - A-18 
A-19 - A-20 
B-7 
B-8 
B-9 
B-I0,- B-ll 
B-12 
B-13 
CHAPTER I: 
INTRODUCTION 
A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 
In October 1980, the U.S. Department of Interior, National 
Park Service, entered into a contract with Island Resources 
Foundation to perform an objective evaluation of the special 
economic impact made by the Virgin Islands National Park (VINP) 
on the economy of St. Thomas/St. John.l 
This report pre-
sents the results of that study. 
The study deals only with economic benefits such as visitor 
expenditures; increases in land values that are attributable 
to the existence of the VINP; employment opportunities; bene-
fits to local merchants from operations of the national park 
installation and its concessionaires; and similar items. 
No 
attempt is made to quantify benefits such as the preservation 
of natural sceneryr 
the provision of recreational opportuni-
ties; the preservation of historical landmarks; and related 
esthetic and cultural benefits of the VINP. 
It is worth n6ting, 
however, that the local officials and individuals contacted 
in the course of the study almost without exception volun-
teered their awareness and appreciation of these benefits. 
The study deals only with the existing economic situation. 
It can be argued that if the national park on St. John did 
not exist, private enterprise in cooperation with the Govern-
ment of the Virgin Islands would have developed the island 
of St. John in a way that would have provided economic bene-
fits equal or superior to those identified in this study. 
An 
approach based on an attempt to construct and quantify such 
an alternative model was considered. 
It was discarded be-
cause of the degree of uncertainty that would exist with re-
spect to items such as capital requirements of constructing 
air and sea port facilities, the implications of direct 
competition between St. Thomas and St. John, and a host of 
other imponderables that cannot reasonably be dealt with. 
The study does attempt to identify all costs associated with 
the park, including the impact of the VINP on public service 
facilities of the Government of the Virgin Islands; real 
estate tax revenues lost to the V.I. Government because of 
the removal of property from its tax rolls; interest costs 
on government investments; and similar items. 
B. HISTORY AND SETTING 
History 
During the late 1930's the U.S. National Park Service indi-
cated an interest in the park potentialities of the American 
Virgin Islands. 
At that time the Park Service dispatched 
- 2-
Superintendent Harold Hubler of the San Juan National Historic 
Site, Puerto Rico, to do a study to determine the feasibility 
of creating a park in the Virgin Islands. 
Particular attention 
was focussed on the island of St. John which is fifty miles 
east of Puerto Rico. 
As a result of the outbreak of war in 
Europe the idea to establish a park in the islands was indef-
initely deferred. 
In 1954, Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller, who then owned the Caneel 
Bay Estate on St. John, became intensely interested in the 
possibilities of creating a Virgin Islands National Park and 
brought the matter before the Director of the National Park 
Service in the form of a proposal. 
Superintendent Hubler was 
assigned to return to St. John and make a second study to de-
termine whether the island was suitable for the establishment 
of a national park. 
In an article published in 1954, Hubler 
uncondi tionally endorsed the idea of creating a national park 
on St. John stating, "It is a colorful, tropical island under 
the American flag, rich in historic, scientific, and recrea-
tional interests. 
The proposed park would comprise a major 
part of the island of St. John omitting the settled areas and 
arable land and including nearby small islands and cays. 
Pre-
servation of the Carib Indians stone picture writings, the old 
forts, the estate ruins and other features of historic and 
scientific qualities would be accomplished by establishment 
of the proposed Virgin Islands National Park."2 
On August 2, 1956, the law authorizing creation of the Virgin 
Islands National Park was passed by Congress.~ At that time 
the National Park Service (NPS) was authorized to acquire not 
more than 9,485 acres on or around St. John and 15 acres on 
St. Thomas. 
Certain offshore waters were added in 1962 which 
expanded the park's boundaries within the framework of the Act 
of 1916 which created the National Park Service. 
In 1956 more 
than 5,000 acres were donated by Jackson Hole Preserve, a 
non-profit educational and scientific foundation. 
These do~ 
nations provided the first federally owned lands within the 
boundary delineated by Congress. 
Since that time, donated 
and purchased lands added to the park have totaled nearly 
1,900 acres. 
Setting 
The Virgin Islands National Park is principally located on the 
island of St. John, the smallest of the three major islands in 
the American Virgin Islands group (see Map 1). 
Its area com-
prises some 20 square miles, the island being eight to nine 
miles long at its extremities in its east-west axis and four 
to five miles in width north to south. 
From St. John its 
sister island, St. Thomas, can be seen a mile and three-
quarters west across Pillsbury Sound. To the north across 
Drakes Passage, British Tortola is visible some three miles 
.."" 
-
"-
-
"- '" 
_ r---
~ 
"'''''010/. 
...... ...... '4l. 
I 
...... .o4~ 
..... 
'I( 
'" /JOll 
" 
""0 
.... 
'4/i 
....... 
)-
..... 
I 
....... 
...... 
, 
..... 
........ 
I 
...... ....... 
, 
..... ........ 
I 
I 
...... .... ..... 
I 
I 
..... ...... 
F-ffl 
I 
.AP"J'oo.. 
.*" 
e 
'/ < 
Iti'. 
I 
, 
I 
) <t~~ts~r 
I 
./ 
.. 
./ 
" 
I 
I~ 
I I 
~ 
- -
,,........ 
~., \ 
I 
Illlhcru2 ---... -..... -... .-
,_ 
B~ 
\ 
..... 
--
.. 
\ 
" '" 
,} 
, 
..-
, 
\ 
~' 
, 
\ , 
\ 
" " \ 
\ 
\ 
'\ 
I 
I 
1.. ________________ ........ " 
lJ : 
" 
"" 
I 
" 
J 
-""',,-
---
"-
o 
.~ 
1 Miles 
ST. JOHN 
® Urban Areas 
-3-
away, while St. Croix is barely visible 32 miles west of and 
south of the Anegada Passage. 
St. John is a rural-resort type community with no intensive 
or extensive development and with an environment that is pris-
tine. 
It occupies 20 square miles of land, or 12,624 acres~ 
55.2% or 6,968 acres of which are under the supervision of 
the u.S. National Park Service and in public recreation and 
beaches. 
The area covered by the park is perhaps the most 
valuable scenic and environmentally sensitive area of St. 
John and is predominantly mountainous with the highest peak 
being 1,277 feet. 
The primary resource of the park is a scenic-sensory product 
of steep, forested slopes meeting clear waters of the sea, 
wild blossoms and foliage, quiet coves with white sandy beaches, 
offshore islands and cays, sea waters that display everchanging 
hues of blue -- all bathed in an atmosphere of sounds and 
fragrances of the most pleasant kind. 
The heavily indented coastline features numerous bays each at 
the foot of a steep valley. 
Each bay is normally divided from 
the next by prominent headlands that project out into the ocean. 
The eastern end of the island consists of a narrow hooklike 
projection that curls to form the north and east shores of 
Coral Bay, which is thereby protected from the sea. 
The clear warm sea, over which all travelers must approach 
St. John, is host to an extraordinary underwater world. 
The 
one-third of the park which is sea, the offshore areas being 
added to the park in 1962, is the world of the coral reef, 
the sea grass community, and the open sea. 
Ruins of former sugar plantation structures remain on several 
dozen sites on St. John. 
Nearly all of the plantation ruins 
on St. John are within the park boundary. 
The structures at 
Annaberg and Reef Bay are in the best condition. 
Remains at 
some of the other sites are little more than crumbled walls. 
Also within the boundaries of the park are eight known pre-
Columbian sites, six historic structures, and 39 historic 
sites. 
Of the pre-Columbian sites, Reef Bay petroglyphs 
and the prolonged settlement areas of Caneel, Trunk, Cinnamon 
and Francis Bay have been classified as worthy of inclusion 
in the National Register of Historic Places. 
St. John has two main urban centers: Cruz Bay, the most urban 
and developed, in the west, and Coral Bay in the east. 
Perma-
nent_ population of the island in 1980 was approximately 2,400. 
-4-
C. CONCEPT OF STUDY 
General 
Several studies of the economic impact of national parks and 
similar areas on their adjacent communities have been made. 
A fair sampling of such studies was reviewed before the final 
concept for the VINP economic impact study was adopted. 
The 
factors influencing the study concept adopted for the VINP 
study are explained in this section. 
Review of Comparable Studies: 
In a 1976 study made to eval-
uate the economic impact of the proposed Klondike Gold Rush 
National Historic Park in Alaska, the authors applied what 
they called the "economic base theory," which identified those 
aspects of the existing economy that would be most affected 
by the introduction of a national park in the local community. 
Segments of the retail sector involving the tourist -- food 
services and retail ship trade -- were identified as being 
the most likely to benefit from increased demands for services, 
In fact, the study indicated that the transportation sector 
would be most likely to benefit from the creation of the 
na tional park. 4 
A 1977 study by Dryer et. al. evaluated the economic impact of 
recreationists visiting-an-illinois reservoir. 
Trends in re-
tail sales during the pre- and post-reservoir periods were 
examined to determine what changes were attributable to the 
influence of recreationists using the particular water re-
source. 
In the absence of information about the actual local 
expenditures by recreationists, it was necessary to infer 
these expenditures and their local impact from retail sales 
tax information. S 
A draft of a manual on economic methods in park planning 
contains a chapter on, "The Regional Economic Factor". 
In-
cluded in the chapter is the following statement: 
The formulation of a study should begin with 
questions like: What are the most sensitive 
economic questions in the case? 
Are they direct 
changes in employment? 
Changes in visitor levels 
and visitor expenditures? 
Transportation patterns? 
Displacement of local industry or potential devel-
opment, mining, quantity and quality of water and 
air? 
Tax losses or gains to local government? 6 
This report goes on to suggest research models based on levels 
of complexity of the economic areas affected. 
-5-
An interesting approach aimed primarily at establishing the 
economic benefits of parks is presented in a 1980 study by 
Mills et.al. 
The study establishes the concept of visitors' 
annual~irringness-to-pay as the principal beneficial effect 
of the park's development. ,This is measured in terms of 
approximate average travel costs and use per thousand pop-
ulation from three defined travel zones starting with the 
area closest to the park and ex~ending out to the rest of 
the nation. 7 
In a study titled, "Some Data Related to Costs and Benefits 
of National Parks in Latin America," the author resorts to 
ratios such as numbers of visitors per park employee; number 
of hectares per employee; costs per visitor (non-capital and 
capital costs calculated separately). 
As the study points 
out, no other information was available in the countries 
studied.8 
A study entitled, "Cost-Benefit Analysis Cape Cod National 
Seashore," introduces still another concept. 
The study takes 
the position that it is not possible to measure the dollar 
value of the intangible benefits of the national seashore 
(recreational opportunities primarily) but it is possible to 
measure the impact which the presence of these benefits has 
on land values: 
... . Rather than avoiding double-counting by 
omitting increase in land value as a benefit, 
we shall avoid double-counting by only using 
increase in land value as an index-or-indirect 
benefit. 
Land near the Seashore has become 
more valuable in part because of the benefits 
the Seashore offers: a more predictable future, 
and also a better future, whether for commercial 
development or summer home owners. 
The benefits 
of the Seashore cannot be less than the increased 
amount persons are willing to pay for land nearby 
as a result of the Seashore. 
Private land has 
been made more 'productive' as a result of the 
Seashore, in the same way that a highway makes 
nearby land more productive. 
9 
The study cautions that the applicability of the method used 
is limited, and that comparative cost/benefit analyses using 
this technique might well be misleading, reflecting more 
the different extent to which land reflects benefits than 
the real difference in benefits.10 
As one of its approaches, the VINP study makes use of the 
concept used in the Cape Cod National Seashore analysis, 
-6-
despite the inherent limitations in the methodology. 
As 
explained in later sections of this study, the concept is 
one of the few that can be applied to available data in the 
Virgin Islands. 
Factors Influencing Concepts Used: 
Factors influencing the 
concepts adopted and the approaches used in the current study 
are: 
The Major Role of Tourism in The Economy of the Virgin 
Islands. 
The "Annual Economic ReVlew 1980," published by 
the Department of Commerce of the Virgin Islands Government, 
reveals clearly that tourism is by far the most significant 
private industry in the Virgin Islands. 
Direct tourism em-
ployment (lodging places, retail shops catering to tourists, 
eating and drinking places, taxis, boating, etc.) accounts 
for 25.7% of all Virgin Islands employment (including Gov-
ernment employment), and over 40% of all private employment~l 
The figures are for St. Jo~,:St. Thomas, and St. Croix. 
The 
percentage of employment engaged in tourism would be consid-
erably higher if St. Croix data were excluded, since that 
island contains the bulk of non-tourist industrial employ-
ment in the Virgin Islands. 
Thus, the major consideration in a study of the economic 
significance of the VINP must be the relationship between 
the VINP and tourism in St. Thomas and St. John. 
The Importance of Boating to the V.I. Economy. 
A sep-
arate aspect of the tourism influence on St. Thomas/St. John 
is the extensive recreational boating industry. 
This indus-
try, in turn, is influenced greatly by the special attractions 
of the waters around St. John, particularly VINP waters. 
Fortunately, a separate study of the recreational boating 
industry was completed recently, and it is therefore possible 
to deal specifically with the relationships between this 
industry and the VINP. 
The Limited Amount of Available Economic Data. 
Econom-
ic data on the Virgin Islands are limited. 
There is even 
less information that provides data on economic growth and 
the nature of the economy on St. John -- the island itiflu-
enced primarily by the VINP. 
The economy of St. John is 
intermingled with that of St. Thomas to an extent that 
precludes the possibility of analyzing separately the 
economic impact of the VINP on St. John. 
The study group explored the possibility of finding indi-
cators that might suggest the extent of growth of the econ-
omy on St. John before and after the establishment of the 
VINP. 
One possibility explored was the amount of gross 
receipts taxes paid by St. John business establishments. 
- 7-
As might have been expected, this source proved impractical 
because too many businesses did not distinguish between St. 
John and St. Thomas branches, and in any event the historical 
record is quite incomplete. 
Given these circumstances, the study group decided that the 
changes in land values concept adopted for the Cape Cod Na-
tional Seashore cost-benefit analysis would furnish the best 
available measure of economic growth attributable to the VINP. 
A separate section of the current report identifies indirect 
costs and benefits using a modified form of land value analy-
sis, for which information from V.I. Government sources was 
obtained. 
The Availability of Data from the VINP and VINP Concession-
aires. 
The section of the report dealing with direct costs of 
all kinds incurred in connection with maintaining the park and 
providing access and services to visitors is based on fiscal 
year 1980 data provided by VINP. 
Separate materials on employ-
ment, data on which to estimate taxes paid by VINP employees, 
the extent of expenditures in the local economy, and related 
items required in order to assess direct economic benefits attri-
butable to its activities were also received from the VINP. 
Information was also secured from the principal tourist-related 
commercial activities directly connected with the existence of 
the VINP. 
This information was necessary for an analysis of the 
economic impact of their operations on the Virgin Islands economy. 
These organizations consist of: 
Ganeel Bay Plantation, operated 
by Rock Resorts on private land as a concessionaire of the VINP; 
Cinnamon Bay Campground, operated by Rock Resorts for the VINP 
on VINP property; and Maho Bay Campground, operated privately. 
Managements of these installations were most cooperative in pro-
viding direct information. 
They also assisted by helping to ad-
minister a survey of their guests. 
These surveys, described in 
later sections of this report, provided data on the extent to 
which guests were influenced by the VINP in coming to St. John, 
as well as other information helpful in the study. 
D. OUTLINE OF STUDY 
The outline of the study is dictated by the above considerations. 
Chapter II summarizes the approach used and the conclusions 
reached based on the study of the economic impact of the VINP 
on tourism in St. Thomas/St. John. 
This chapter also explains 
the original research undertaken to supplement secondary sources 
concerning the symbiotic relationship between the VINP and vis-
itors to the islands. 
Chapter III deals with the boating industry in relation to 
the VINP, as a separate part of tourism and the VINP. 
The 
-8-
chapter is based primarily on secondary sources, including 
data maintained by the VINP; a separate study of the recre-
ational boating industry in St. Thomas/St. John that provides 
data on the economic contribution of the boating industry to 
St. Thomas/St. John; derivation of information on the extent 
to which St. Thomas/St. John-based boats make use of the VINP 
waters; a limited number of interviews with boat captains; 
and, finally, an "order of magnitude" estimate of indirect 
economic benefits reasonably attributable to the existence 
of theVINP in connection with the boating industry. 
Chapter IV is an analysis of the economic impact of the VINP 
on land values on St. John, making use of a modified form of 
the methodology used in the Herr cost-benefit study of the 
Cape Cod National Seashore, referred to above. 
The records 
of the VINP, and of the V.I. Government (Office of the Asses-
sor and of the Recorder of Deeds) provided most of the basic 
data used in this analysis. 
From this information it is 
possible to develop relatively accurate estimates of the 
value of lands incorporated into the VINP; the value of lands 
on St. John; the amounts of real property taxes lost to the 
V.I. Government due to the establishment of the VINP; the 
increases in land values on St. John since the VINP was 
created; and, through the use of standard economic indica-
tors, to estimate the extent to which St. John land values 
increased beyond what could be attributable to the impact 
of inflation. 
Also included in this analysis is the amount 
of Federal Government investment in land purchased for the 
VINP, which provides a basis for estimating the annual in-
terest cost that can be imputed to this investment. 
Chapter V presents the analysis of direct and indirect costs 
and economic benefits of the VINP and the three major tour-
ist-related commercial activities directly connected with 
the existence of the VINP. 
This analysis provides the basis 
for estimates of annual non-capital and capital costs in-
curred by the VINP and the local community to provide access 
and maintain services to visitors. 
Also included in the 
section are the direct and indirect benefits accruing to the 
V.I. economy from persons employed and expenditures made in 
the V.I. economy by the VINP and those activities directly 
associated with it. 
Chapter VI, Summary and Conclusions, pulls together infor-
mation from all facets of the study into a consolidated tab-
ulation of estimated direct and indirect costs and benefits. 
Conversion of outlay information into estimated economic 
benefits to the V.I. makes use of a range of multipliers 
used in earlier studies by the Department of Commerce of the 
V.I. Government. 
A summary of community views expressed 
by officials and individuals contacted during the study is 
included as Appendix D of the study. 
-9-
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER I 
lThe analysis does not include consideration of segments of 
the VINP on the island of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. 
2Harold Hubler, "Proposed Virgin Islands National Park", 
National Parks Magazine, Sept. 1955 pp.1-6 
3Act of August 2, 1956 (16 U.S.C. 398 et. seq.) 
4Casavant, Ken, and James Barron. "Economic Impact of Proposed 
Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park on Skagway, Alaska," 
First Conference on Scientific Research in National Parks, 
New Orleans, LA., 1976. 
5Dwyer, John, and Robert Espereth. 
"Improved Local Planning for 
Reservoir-Oriented Recreation Opportunities." 
Water Resources 
Center, Urbana, Illinois, 1977. 
6Nez , George, and Richard Walsh. "R-The Regional Economic Factor," 
identified as a chapter of the Manual on Economic Methods in 
Park Planning. 
Science Section, Branch of Special Programs, 
Professional Support Division, Denver Service Center, National 
Park Service, "Draft 8 -
79". 
7Mills, Allan S., Joseph G. Massey, and Hans M. Gregersen. 
"Benefit-Cost Analysis of Voyageurs National Park", Evalu-
ation Review, Vol. 4, No.6, Dec. 1980. 
8Dalfelt, Arne. 
"Some Data Related to Costs and Benefits of 
National Parks in Latin America," Centro Agronomico Tropical 
de Investigacion y Ensenanza Catie, Departamento de Ciencias 
Forestales, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 1976. 
9phillip B. Herr & Associates. 
"Cost-Benefit Analysis Cape 
Cod National Seashore," A Study made for U.S. Dept. of the 
Interior, National Park Service, 
Branch of Statistics Analysis, 
1968. 
Mimeographed report. 
Quotation at p.2. 
10Ibid., p.8. 
llGovt. of the V.I., Dept. of Commerce, Office of Policy Plan-
ning and Research. "Annual Economic Review, 1980," pp. 4ff. 
-10 -
CHAPTER II. 
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VINP ON TOURISM 
IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN 
A. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH 
General, The U.S. Virgin Islands is a fragile microstate economy 
with an open economic structure that differs substantially from 
the large, essentially independent systems with which it inter-
acts. 
The structure of the U.S. Virgin Islands needs to be 
viewed in the context of a unique, small, microstate economy 
which is the dominant factor or weight in all economic activity. 
Within this economy, the movement in recent years has been in-
creasingly toward a reliance on tourism as the single most import-
ant industry in the Virgin Islands -- an industry heavily depen-
dent on the United States mainland for its success. 
The initial premise of this portion of the study is that the 
existence of VINP is part of the total attraction that brings 
tourists to the Virgin Islands. 
The VINP has no monopoly on the 
weather, beaches, scenery, and water-related activities that jus; 
tify the advertising claim of the Virgin Islands as the "American 
Paradise". 
At the same time, it seems reasonable to believe that 
the existence of a "National Park" constitutes a kind of "seal 
of approval" by the United States and contributes to the reasons 
why tourists would want to see for themselves what the Virgin 
Islands have to offer. 
The study premise is supported by readily ascertainable facts: 
(1) a considerable portion of the advertising of the Virgin 
Islands points up the existence of the national park; (2) a 
very substantial number of visitors to the Virgin Islands visit 
the VINP, either as a part of their trips to St. Thomas/St. John, 
or by staying at facilities on St. John that largely depend on 
the VINP. 
To establish a reasonable estimate of the economic impact of the 
VINP on tourism, the study needed to ascertain some additional 
facts: 
What is the profile of the visitors to St. John, where 
the VINP is located? 
How many tourists visit the VINP? 
To what extent (if at all) are tourists who visit St. John 
and the VINP influenced by the existence of the VINP in 
connection with their visits? 
What are the expenditures of the tourists who visit the 
VINP? 
-11-
Some of the answers to the above questions are available either 
in whole or in part from secondary sources: 
the VINP provides 
complete data on number of visitors to the park. 
In 1976, 1977, 
and 1980, the Virgin Islands Department of Commerce conducted 
extensive surveys of cruise ship passenger and tourist air arrival 
spending preferences. 
This survey data has provided the basis 
for estimating total tourist expenditures in the u.S. Virgin 
Islands .1 
Not available from existing sources was information concerning 
the profile of visitors to St. John, the extent to which visitors 
to St. John were influenced by the existence of the VINP, and any 
data that might suggest that visitors to St. John (and the VINP) 
spent amounts more or less than other tourists to the Virgin Is-
lands. 
To develop answers to these questions the current study 
developed and administered surveys explained in more detail be-
low and in Appendices A and B to this report. 
Promotion of VINP. 
The VINP is promoted to potential Vlsltors in 
several ways: 
The Tourism Office of the Department of Commerce 
of the Virgin Islands Government refers specifically to the VINP 
in some 50,000 to 60,000 brochures and pamphlets that are printed 
and distributed through travel agencies 
and six mainland offices. 
Personnel from the Visitor's Bureau report that many of their 
personal and written inquiries deal with the VINP. 
The waters within the VINP boundary have been a preferred location 
for the shooting of major motion pictures, as well as commercial 
advertisements. 
Several travel writers visit the islands annually with a special 
interest in writing about St. John and the VINP. 
The VINP is highly publicized in two publications that are widely 
distributed to residents and visitors: 
Beyond the Blue Horizon, 
a brochure that deals largely with rates charged on all three 
Virgin Islands; and St. Thomas This Week, a local advertisement 
and shopper's guide. 
In recent years, the VINP has been mentioned prominently in such 
national publications as the National Geographic, Skin Diver mag-
azine, and in numerous articles written for newspapers and maga-
zines that direct some of their articles to potential vacationers. 
The VINP is featured prominently in colorfully packaged and print-
ed bvochures distributed by the three major resort areas assoc-
iated with the Park: 
Caneel Bay Plantation; Cinnamon Bay Camp-
ground; and Maho Bay Campground. 
At least eleven cruise ships which call at the port of St. Thomas 
weekly all promote excursions to the VINP as part of their itin-
eraries for passengers. 
According to several cruise ship direc-
tors of activities, some 10 to 15% of passengers take advantage 
-12-
of outings to the VINP. 
The National Park Service and the VINP directly promote the VINP. 
The NPS circular on the Virgin Islands is a colorful and attrac-
tive document. 
The Virgin Islands National Park office has an 
extensive inquiry file on Vacationing~ traveling, and sightseeing wi thin 
the park, indicating the interest of potential tourists in the 
VINP. 
The net effect of all the above supports the premise that the VINP is 
an important part of the reason why tourists visit the Virgin Islands. 
B. 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 
Methodology and Research Findings. 
would inevitably be some overlaps, 
separate analyses dealing with the 
tourism: 
Despite the fact that there 
the study undertook three 
economic impact of VINP on 
(1) 
St. John can be visited only via water. 
It has no 
airport and there is no seaplane service from St. 
Thomas. 
Thus, nearly all visitors (other than those 
on their own or chartered boats) take the ferry that 
runs hourly between St. Thomas and St. John through-
out the day and into the early evening. 
(Of the 
facilities on St. John, only Caneel Bay Plantation 
has its own transportation facilities, including its 
own boats, for transporting guests to and from St. 
Thomas.) 
The first analysis, therefore, was based 
on ferry (or shuttle boat) users. 
(2) 
A substantial number of individuals who are directly 
involved with the VINP are the guests of the three 
major installations on St. John associated with the 
VINP. 
A separate survey of these guests was made 
with the cooperation of the installations involved. 
(3) 
The third analysis, which is the subject of Chapter 
III of this report, deals with those visitors whose 
visits to St. John are on boats based on St. John 
and St. Thomas. 
The first analysis -- of ferry boat users to St. John -- is sum-
marized as follows: 
Step One involved determining the number of shuttle boat users. 
Table I shows the number of passengers traveling to and from St. 
John via ferry for calendar year 1980. 
It indicates that some 
300,000 passengers made the round trip that year. 
Step Two involved securing a profile of these passengers. 
This 
was done through a survey conducted over a three-month period 
(March, April and May 1981) during which a random sampling of 
passengers 
was taken 
just prior to their trip from St. 
John to St. Thomas: 2 
-13-
TABLE 1 
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TRAVELING TO AND FROM ST. JOHN 
VIA FERRY, JANUARY THRU DECEMBER 1980* 
TRANSPORTATION 
VARLACK VENTURES 
SERVICES 
._--
Red Hook 
Cruz Bay 
Red Hook 
Cruz Bay 
to 
to 
to 
to 
Cruz Bay 
Red Hook 
Cruz Bay 
Red Hook 
TOTAL 
January 
14,600 
14,623 
13,300 
13,112 
55,635 
February 
15,400 
14,497 
14,590 
13,404 
57,891 
March 
15,780 
15,550 
14,350 
14,250 
59,930 
April 
16,400 
16,447 
13,393 
12,800 
59,040 
May 
13,422 
13,200 
13,100 
12,113 
51,835 
June 
11,000 
10,543 
13,403 
13,200 
48,146 
July 
16,349 
12,141 
13,341 
10,341 
52,172 
August 
19,420 
10,242 
11,102 
10,400 
42,164 
September 
8,682 
8,500 
9,159 
8,500 
34,841 
October 
11,100 
10,166 
10,533 
10,300 
42,099 
November 
12,000 
11,296 
10,200 
10,099 
43,595 
December 
13,300 
12,644 
11,182 
10,100 
47,226 
TOTAL 
158,453 
149,849 
147,653 
138,619 
594,574 
* Virgin Islands Port Authority, Marine Division; Office of Marine Manager. 
-14-
From this survey it was determined that, on the basis of the 3-
month sample: 
Users of the shuttle were: 
Residents of the U.S.------------------------------
62% 
Residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands(Commuters)----
5 
Residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands(Non-Commuters) 
24 
Residents of Foreign Countries---------------------
9 
100% 
It was also determined that the principal purposes of trips were: 
Vacation-------------------------------------------
92% 
Business or Commuting------------------------------
5 
Shopping (or "Other")------------------------------
3 
Step Three involved 
influenced to visit 
was on that island. 
following results: 
100% 
determining to what extent ferry users were 
St. John by reason of the fact that the VINP 
The survey (excluding commuters) gave the 
Not at all-----------------------------------------
2% 
Some-----------------------------------------------
5 
About 50%------------------------------------------
11 
Considerably---~-----------------------------------
36 
Primary Consideration------------------------------
42 
Did not Answer-------------------------------------
4 
100% 
Because of the importance of this aspect of the study, a separate 
bar graph depicting additional details of the results of this 
aspect of the survey follows on the next page. 
A separate question asking users how they evaluated their St. 
John experience gave the following results: 
Outstanding----------------------------------------
36% 
Better than Average--------------------------------
43 
About Average--------------------------------------
12 
Below Average--------------------------------------
5 
Poor-----------------------------------------------
Did not Answer-------------------------------------
4 
100% 
Step Four involved securing an answer to the question of how much 
shuttle boat users spent. 
The survey question on this subject 
limited responses to amounts spent ort the stay in St. John and 
gave an over-all average of $34.60 per adult. 
(The large per-
centage of ferry users [47%J were one;;:'day visitors, including 
24% Virgin Island residents; thus, this amount is considerably 
less than the $86.00 per day per tourist reported by the Depart-
% 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
QUESTION 6: 
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE FACT THAT ST. JOHN 
HAS A NATIONAL PARK INFLUENCE YOUR VISIT 
36% 
11% 
2% 
5% 
Not at all 
Some 
About 50% 
Considerably 
** Three (3) Month average of all responses 
42% 
Prlmary 
Consideration 
'I--' 
01':> 
~ 
-15-
ment of commerce.) 3 
A second analysis was made of the guests of the major VINP-re1ated 
installations on St. John. 
This analysis was designed to secure 
demographic and economic impact information concerning visitors 
wh~ remain on S~. J?hn for a period of days and weeks. 
Question-
nalres, along wlth lnternally devi~ed surveys, were administered 
by the management staffs at the selected facilities.4 
From this analysis it was possible to secure estimates of the ex-
penditure patterns of guests and to determine to what extent guests 
were influenced to visit St. John because of the fact that the 
VINP was on that island. 
Results of the survey revealed that guests at Caneel Bay Planta-
tion spent considerably more than the average visitors to the 
Virgin Islands: 
an estimated total of $210.00 per adult per day 
(including lodging and meals). 
Guests at Cinnamon Bay Campground 
spent approximately $68.00 per adult per day (including lodging 
and meals), and guests at Maho Bay Campgrounds spent some $61. 00.5 
The survey also revealed that, in response to the question about 
the extent to which guests were influenced to visit St. John be-
cause of the fact that the VINP was on that island, Caneel Bay 
guests were less influenced by this consideration than were the 
guests who stayed at campgrounds. 
The derived mean of responses 
for Caneel Bay was 43.7%, and for Cinnamon Bay Campground it was 
72.6%; for Maho Bay Campground it was 66.5%.6 
Cruise Ship Visitors to the VINP. 
A substantial number of the 
visitors to St. John and to the VINP are from the cruise ships 
that visit St. Thomas regularly. 
Based on interviews with cruise 
ship directors, set up by the Tourism Officer of the Department 
of Commerce, it can be reasonably estimated that approximately 65,000 
visitors per year --
somewhat more than 10% of total cruise ship 
visitors to St. Thomas in 1980 -- take tours that include the 
VINP and St. John.7 These tours include safari tours through the 
VINP, time to enjoy snorkeling and swimming opportunities at 
Trunk Bay within VINP, and opportunities to shop in St. Thomas. 
Daily expenditures in St. Thomas by the average cruise ship 
passenger amount to $84.00. 8 
No separate survey to determine the special influence of the VINP 
on cruise ship visitors was possible within the time and budgetary 
restraints of the present study, but a substantial number of 
cruise ship visitors were among the ferry boat users that were in-
cluded in the survey described in Appendix A. 
-16-
Derivation of Economic Impact. Estimates. 
From information sum-
marized above, plus supplemental data presented herein, estimates 
of the dollar impact of the VINP on tourism in the Virgin Islands 
can be developed. 
The analysis involves: 
1. 
Numbers of visitor days by category are obtainable from 
the report of users of shuttle boats between St. Thomas and St. 
John (see Table 1 above), and from statistics on public use of 
the VINP for recreational purposes. 
These statistics, taken 
from public use reports and work sheets of the VINP, are summar-
ized in Table 2, following. 
2. 
Daily expenditures of each category of visitor are taken 
from survey results and from the Annual Economic Review for 1980 
of the Department of Commerce of the V.I. Government. 
3. 
The extent of the influence of the VINP on visitors is 
taken from survey results. 
4. 
The imputed value of VINP influence is reduced by a 
factor ("multiplier") used in earlier studies by the Planning and 
Research section of the V.I. Department of Commerce to convert 
actual expenditures to contributions to the gross territorial 
product of the Virgin Islands. 
Table 3, with explanatory notes, presents the results of this 
analysis. 
The analysis presented in this chapter does not constitute the 
total impact of the VINP on tourism in the Virgin Islands. 
An-
other extremely significant aspect of the existence of the VINP 
is in connection with water related activities of visitors to 
the Virgin Islands. 
Because more precise data on the economic 
impact of the recreational boat industry was available, the 
analytical approach is different. 
It is summarized in the fol-
lowing chapter of this report. 
MONTH 
JANUARY 
FEBRUARY 
MARCH 
APRIL 
MAY . 
,JUNE 
JULY 
AUGUST 
SEPTEMBER 
OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 
DECEMBER 
TOTAL 
DAY VISITS 
Camp-
d 
..... __ ...... 
7,737 
7,567 
8,532 
7,322 
5,246 
5,337 
5,065 
5,343 
1,655 
1,841 
3,000 
5,158 
63,803 
Inhold --
, 
16,427 
15,731 
16,803 
9,174 
11,495 
10,909 
I 
.. 
10,130 
12,322 
I 
4,576 
! 8,964 
11,166 
i i 15,135 
i 142,805 
TABLE 2 
RECREATIONAL PUBLIC -q:SE OF THE VINP, 
CALENDAR YEAR-1980 
Caneel Bay Permittee 
Guest 
Land T, 
1,050 
6,912 
1,348 
8,147 
1,449 
6,976 
1,376 
5,675 
1,298 
4,790 
1,121 
5,092 
1,046 
6,081 
1,316 
4,742 
570 
3,216 
1,169 
6,250 
1,260 
5,384 
1,500 
7,609 
14,503 
70,874 
Beach 
Us 
-
8,695 
10,243 
10,288 
7,904 
7,375 
5,374 
7,686 
8,525 
4,162 
4,441 
4,372 
8,440 
87,5_05 
Boat 
Use 
13,898 
18,578 
17,197 
14,074 
11,718 
10,389 
14,887 
10,584 
6,930 
7,886 
10,786 
16,048 
TOTAL 
54,71'9 
61,614 
61,245 
45,525 
41,922 
38,222 
44,895 
41,306 
21,109 
30,551 
51,394 
53,890 
152,9J_5. ___ 549, )92 __ 
OVERNIGHT VISITS 
Camp-
ground 
7,737 
7,567 
8,532 
7,322 
5,246 
5,337 
5,065 
5,343 
1,655 
1,841 
3,000 
5,158 
56 ... 066 
float 
Use 
7,711 
7,510 
8,674 
8,060 
7,042 
6,286 
6,847 
5,512 
3,727 
4,628 
5,767 
7,619 
79,)83_ 
Source: 
Compiled from monthly public use reports of the VINP and supporting information 
provided by the VINP. 
TOTAL 
15,448 
15,077 
17,206 
15,382 
12,288 
11,623 
11,912 
10,855 
5,382 
6,469 
8,767 
12,777 
J-.4~, 186 
TOTAL DAY & 
.OVERNIGHT 
. VISITS 
70,167 
76,691 
78,451 
60,907 
54,210 
49,845 
56,807 
52 161 
26,491 
37,020 
60,161 
66,667 
689,578 
I 
f-' 
-.....J 
TABLE 3 
DERIVATION OF ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT 
OF VINP ON TOURISM IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN 
(EXCLUDING IMPACT ON BOATING INDUSTRY) 
Imputed 
Net Econ. 
Value 
Benefit 
No. of VINP 
Total 
of VINP 
Imputed 
Visitor Days 
Expend. 
Expend. 
% Influence 
Influence 
to VINP 
In 1980 
Per Day 
(Thou. ) 
of VINP 
(Thou. ) 
Multiplier 
(Thou. ) 
Cruise Ship Visitors 
65,000 
$ 84.00 
$ 5,460 
78% 
$ 4,259 
.55 
$ 2,342 
(Note 1) 
(Note 2) 
(Note 3) 
Tourists Visiting VINP on 
Vacation, other than U.S. 
Virgin Island Residents 
and Guests Residing on 
I-' 
00 
St. John 
114,500 
$ 86.00 
9,847 
78% 
7,681 
.55 
4,224 
(Note 4) 
(Note 5) 
(Note 2) 
(Note 3) 
U.S.V.I. Residents Visit-
ing VINP on Vacation 
68,000 
$ 27.67 
1,882 
79% 
1,486 
.70 
1,040 
(Note 6) 
(Note 7) 
(Note 8) 
Guests on St. John: (Note 9) 
Residing at Caneel Bay 
100,000 
$101.48 
10,148 
43.7% 
4,435 
.55 
2,439 
(Note 10) 
(Note 11) 
(Note 3) 
Residing at Cinnamon Bay 
Campground 
56,000 
$ 48.17 
2,698 
72.6% 
1,959 
.55 
1,077 
(Note 12) 
(Note 11) 
(Note 3) 
Residing at Maho Bay 
Campground 
42,000 
$ 61.14 
2,568 
66.5% 
1,708 
.55 
939 
(Note 13) 
(Note 11) 
(Note 3) 
TOTAL 
$12,061 
Note 1: 
Note 2: 
Note 3: 
Note 4: 
Note 5: 
-19-
NOTES TO TABLE 3 
Expenditures per day of Cruise Ship Visitors taken 
from Annual Economic Review, 1980, op. cit., p. 28. 
From Survey Results, Appendix A, Table A-5. 
The conversion of outlays in various categories into 
contributions to the Gross Territorial Product (GTP) 
of the Virgin Islands has been used by the Office of 
Policy Planning and Research, V.I. Department of Com-
merce, in its studies. 
The multiplier for tourist 
expenditures was set at .55, in recognition of the 
high import component of most products purchased. 
(See Water Island Study--Summary Report and Analysis, 
an 
EDA Technical Assistance Study prepared by the 
SB Corporation under supervision of the Virgin Islands 
Department of Commerce, p. 51.) 
For purposes of this 
analysis, a contribution to GTP of the Virgin Islands 
is considered to be equivalent to net economic 
benefit to the Virgin Islands. 
This number is derived from two sources: 
Total numbers 
of shuttle boat users (see Table 1, p. 13 above), ver-
ified by public use statistics of the VINP. 
It is a 
net number, excluding all VINP visitors grouped in 
atner categories. 
Actual numbers are: 
Gross no. of shuttle boat users 
300,000 
Less: 
29% of users who are U.S.V.I. residents 
(87,000) 
Cruise ship visitors (treated as separate 
category) 
(65,000) 
Estimate of St. John guests who make use of 
shuttle. 
For campground guests this was cal-
culated on basis of 2 round trips per guest; 
for Caneel Bay guests, 1 round trip per guest 
(assuming the other round trip was on Caneel 
Bay transportation) 
(25,000) 
Percentage of users not on vacation (From 
Appendix A, Table A-I) 
( 8,500) 
Balance-------------------------------
114,500 
From Annual Economic Review 1980, op. cit., p. 21 mod-
ified to reflect St. Thomas calculations-only. 
The 
averages summarized in Table A-7, obtained from the 
shuttle boat survey, give a much smaller result because 
the questionnaire asks only for expenditures on St. John. 
Since the study deals also with St. Thomas expeditures, 
the higher average is appropriate. 
-20-
Note 6: 
Derived from Appendix A Tables A-I and A-2: 
78% of 
87,000 total no. of U.S.V.I. residents estimated to 
make use of shuttle boat per year. 
Note 7: 
From Appendix A, Table A-S. 
Note 8: 
See Note 3 above. 
The multiplier for expenditures by 
residents of the Virgin Islands was set at .70, since 
a smaller proportion of their outlays can be expected 
to be for gift and other items which have a large im-
port component. 
Note 9: 
The estimates of VINP visitor days of guests on St. John 
were taken primarily from public use statistics of the 
VINP, verified by independent information secured from 
each of the installations as to guest capacity and 
estimated occupancy rates during 1980. 
Note 10: 
See Appendix B, Table B-4. 
Note that this expenditure 
per day excludes costs of lodging and meals at Caneel 
Bay Plantation. 
This is because the economic impact of 
such expenditures are calculated elsewhere in this re-
port on the basis of specific information supplied by 
the managers of Caneel Bay and Cinnamon Bay. 
Note 11: 
See Appendix B, Table B-S. 
Note 12: 
Appendix B, Table B-4. 
See Note 10 above. 
Note 13: 
Appendix B, Table B-4. 
In the case of guests at Maho 
Bay, the expenditures per day include lodging and meal 
costs, since no separate information of operating costs 
was 
supplied by Maho Bay Management. 
- 21-
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER II 
1See Annual Economic Review 1980, U.S. Virgin Islands, Department 
of Commerce, Government of the Virgin Islands, p. 9. 
2See Appendix A for a complete description of the methodology used 
in this survey and a complete report of results of the survey. 
3In Annual Economic Review 1980, Q£. cit., p. 28. 
4See Appendix B for a complete description of the methodology used 
in this survey and a complete report of results of the survey. 
5See Appendix B, Table B-4, for more information. 
Note that in 
these tables expenditures per day for Caneel and Cinnamon Bay 
exclude amounts for lodging and food taken at the installation, 
while the amount for Maho Bay includes these items. 
The dif-
ference in the questionnaires to the installations involved was 
due to the fact that economic analysis data available from the 
management of Caneel and Cinnamon Bay was more complete than 
that from Maho, requiring different analytical techniques. 
6See Appendix B, Table B-5, for details. 
The "derived mean" is 
based on a weighted average which assigns 100 to a response that 
indicates that the existence of the VINP was the "primary reason" 
for the visit; 75 for a response indicating that the visit was 
"considerably" influenced by the VINP; down to 0 for a response 
indicating that the influence of the VINP was "not at all". 
7This estimate is supported by separate statistics furnished by 
the two principal tour operators on St. Thomas. 
See also Annual 
Economic Review 1980, Q£. cit., p. 68, for total cruise ship 
passengers to St. Thomas in 1980. 
8Annual Economic Review 1980, ~. cit., p. 38. 
-22-
CHAPTER III: 
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS 
NATIONAL PARK ON BOATING INDUSTRY IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN 
A. ANALYTICAL APPROACH 
Extent to which Charterboats· Use National Park Waters. 
Boating and Registry in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
Boating in the 
waters of the American Virgin Islands has grown rapidly in the 
last five years as evidenced by the increase in boat registration 
from 1,583 in 1975 to 2,644 as of December 1980} 
This increase 
can be attributed to two major factors: 
many of the new boats 
come from islands in the Caribbean and the Bahamas where exorbi-
tant taxes and other restrictions make chartering a marginal 
operation; and the waters of the Virgin Islands, particularly 
surrounding St. John, are considered the number one preferred 
anchorage in the area. 
This section deals with the relationship 
between the viability of the expanding boat industry and the 
attraction of National Park waters. 
Extent of Charterboating in National Park Waters. 
According to 
National Park Service records, over a twelve month period 232,358 
persons were counted as entering park water boundaries via charter 
boats (crewed and bareboat), averaging 4.8 persons per boat. 2 This 
accounts for 48,407 boats entering park waters, of which 5,253 
boats transporting 21,937 persons were of foreign registry, ac-
cording to U.S. Customs figures. 3 
Therefore, of the total number 
of boats (48,407) anchoring in park waters, 45.3% carrying 21,937 
boaters were not registered as based at an American port. 
Types and Costs of Charterboating. 
According to a 1980 survey 
of charterboating in the Virgin Islands conducted for the V.I. 
Department of Commerce4 it was reported that there are 190 charter-
boats, mainly all sail, that are available for crewed term charters. 
In addition to the 190, which are exclusively for overnight chart-
ers, there are 20 boats that actively seek one day sails through 
hotels and resorts. 
It is estimated there are 189 overnight 
charters without crew (bareboats), which are registered in the 
U.S. Virgin Islands. 
These are operated by eleven companies. 
Expansion plans of five of these operators will add 62 boats by 
the end of 1982. 
An estimate of the number of charters booked on the 190 crewed 
boats average 17 weeks a year (1979 figures). 
Each charter aver-
ages 5.2 persons a charter at $110.00 per person per day, for a 
total gross income of some $13 million. 
Bareboat companies, on the other hand, reported that their boats 
ranged from 15 to 32 weeks of charter per year. 
In 1979 there 
were 4,370 charters, or 21,000 people, providing an approximate 
- 2 3-
gross annual income of about $4.5 million. 
Taken together, the 
total gross annual income for charterboat operations, crewed 
as well as bareboat, approximates $17.5 million. 
Prices for crewed boats range from $1,500 a week for a two-passen-
ger boat to $12,500 a week for an eight-passenger boat, or an 
average of $110.00 per day per charter person. 
On crewed boats 
this is an all-inclusive price -- all meals, snacks, beverages, 
wine, use of snorkel and fishing equipment are included. 
Bare-
boats range from $350.00 a week for a two-passenger boat to $1,500 
for a boat that will carry up to six. 
The daily per person average 
is $45, but this does not include provisions or beverages, which 
the party chartering the boat can purchase locally or from the 
boat company. 
According to a survey of boat captains/owners it was estimated 
that 70% of all charterers request to visit National Park waters. 
Reason given for such high demand varied from, "friends' recom-
mendations", to "promotion in national and special interest mag-
azines"~ 
The survey also revealed that of those who request to 
charter in park waters, fifty percent of the charter time is 
spent anchored in park waters. 
The Department of Commerce charterboat 
study pointed out there 
are 20 boats in the crewed charterboat fleet that are fully 
equipped for diving and are often chartered for week-long diving 
excursions. 
During the course of this study major dive operations 
were contacted. 
They stated that the impact of diving in National 
Park waters. is insignificant, principally because travel to and 
from park waters is time consuming, the high cost of fuel renders 
it uneconomical, and the general roughness of the water hinders 
diving activities. 
The study team also explored the economic 
impact of the fishing industry (including sport fishing) in re-
lation to the existence of the VINP and reached the conclusion 
that there was a minimal connection. 
Local Expenditures By Charterboat Industry. 
It has already been 
reported that gross annual income from charterboat 
operations 
approximates $17.5 million. 
Of this it is estimated that the 
crewed fleet spends close to $2 million a year on food, beverages 
and condiments. 
About $550,000 was spent on hauling, bottom paint, 
varnish, parts and other maintenance locally. 
About $575,000 was 
spent locally on marine insurance. 
Fuel costs were about $240,000, 
all of which was spent locally, and some $1.8 million was paid 
in broker (booking agent) commissions. 
However, only about eight 
percent of this amount, or $19,200, was earned by the several 
St. Thomas brokers. 
The rest was paid to some 25 brokers in the 
United States and one in Argentina. 
The bareboat fleet of 189 
boats expends about $3,500 per boat for hauling, paint, varnish 
and general maintenance, all procured locally. 
Provisioning, 
whether provided by the boat companies or the charterer, amounted 
-24-
to about $1.7 million. 
Fuel costs were about $125,000. 
Nearly 
all bareboats are individually owned by stateside residents; 
consequently, they are financed and insured there. 
About 90 percent 
of all crewed boat charterers sp.end at least 
one night before or after a charter in a local hotel. 
It is es-
timated that crewed boat charterers spend nearly $700,000 on hotel 
rooms. 
Bareboat charterers spend less time in a hotel room, as 
the boat operating companies will allow them to sleep in the boat 
they chartered if they arrive early or use another boat in the 
fleet if their boat is not ready. 
The charge for this is about 
10 percent of hotel room rates. 
An estimate for bareboat chart-
erers for hotel rooms is about $300,000. 
With regard to employment, crewed boats have an average crew of: 
3.5, including the captain and mate, which generally is the hus-
band and wi fe and als 0 the owners of the boat., I f they can be 
considered employees, the crewed boat fleet has about 665 employ-
ees. 
Atoan average of 17 weeks employment per year the total 
workforce of crewed boat charters earned approximately $1.5 
million in wages. 
The bareboat operators employ about 60 full time people plus 
some casual labor. 
Based on the federal minimum wage ($3.35: 'per 
hour) the gross weekly salaries of bareboat workers totals about 
$8,040. 
Since they are employed on an average of 24 weeks the 
gross estimated wages paid to employees of bareboat charters 
is $192,960. 
B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 
There are a total of 372 crewed or bareboat chartered boats in 
the u.S. Virgin Islands that generate an annual gross income of 
about $17.5 million. 
Based on interviews with charterboat owners 
and operators, 70% of most charter act irvi ty taking place in the 
Virgin Islands is carried out within the water boundary of the 
V.I. National Park. 
As such, approximately 260 of all charters 
regularly do business within park waters. 
Of those (260) that 
regularly charter to the National Park, fifty percent of their 
time is spent anchored within the park boundary. 
Charterboat owners and operators sperid approximately $6.9 mil-
lion annually for food, beverages, boat maintenance, fuel, in-
surance and incidentals. 
This figure includes what bareboat 
charterers spend themselves on provisioning. 
All expenditures 
in these categories are for goods and services procured locally. 
Another $1.7 million goes for personal services. 
No separate 
estimates of taxes paid by these owners and operators is avail-
able. 
-25-
C. CONCLUSION 
The impact of the VINP on the boating industry can be expressed 
in dollar amounts, using approximate relationships. 
Some 260 
boats (70% of the total St. Thomas/St. John boats engaged in 
chartering) use VINP waters regularly -- for approximately 50% 
of the elapsed time that they are out on charters. 
Total income 
of the charterboat industry is estimated at $17.5 million, of 
which approximately $8.6 million can be directly or indirectly 
related to outlays affecting the St. Thomas/St. John economy. 
Assuming that some portion of the balance of the boating industry 
revenue ($17.5 million less the $8.6 million accounted for) is 
also used for purposes that benefit the local economy, and adjust-
ing for the multiplier factors previeusly referred to in Table 3 
at page 19, the "order of magnitude" estimate of economic benefits 
from the boating industry attributable to the VINP is $3.0 million. 
- 26-
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER III 
1Annua1 Boat Registry, 1975 and 1980; V.I. Department of Con-
servation and Cultural Affairs, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 
2 V.I. National Park Service, Monthly Use Reports (1980). 
3U. S. Customs Registry of Foreign Arrivals (1980). 
4Carder, Cldye, "Survey of Charter Boating and Related Businesses 
In the Virgin Islands Relative to their Contribution to our 
Tourism Related Economy", - A Report Prepared for the V. I. De-
partment of Commerce, July 1980. 
A summary of this report is 
included as Appendix C of this study. 
- 27-
CHAPTER IV. 
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 
THE VINP ON LAND VALUES ON ST. JOHN 
A. METHODOLOGY 
General. Determining the economic impact of the VINP on economic 
activities on the island of St. John itself required a different 
form of analysis from those described in Chapters II and III. 
As noted in Chapter I, economic data on the growth and nature of 
the economy of St. John are almost non-existent, largely because 
many of the establishments on St. John are branches of larger 
operations based on St. Thomas. 
In the absence of other viable methods for measuring economic 
impact directly, the study team decided to use a modified form 
of the approach described in the Herr et. al. study of the Cape 
Cod National Seashore. l 
-- --
The essential feature of this approach is that economic growth 
of a surrounding community--increased business establishments 
related to increased numbers of visitors; increased demand for 
properties for home sites; increased employment; increased taxis 
and other transportation vehicles; and other types of increased 
economic activities--nearly all result in increased land values. 
Thus, in the absence of information that permits measurement of 
direct economic growth indicators, comparable conclusions can be 
reached by measuring increases in land values over a period of 
time. 
Analysis. 
For a complete analysis, it would have been desirable 
to know land values of all lands donated or purchased by the 
VINP as of the date of donation or purchase and the annual values 
of land on St. John outside the VINP for each year starting with 
1956. 
Not all this information i~ in fact,available, but there 
is sufficient data so that by interpolation and extrapolation) 
the trend of land values can be determined. 
Following are facts 
required for the land value analysis: 
Average appraised values per acre of land for 7 years were as 
follows :2 
1961 
1965 
1968 
1972 
1976 
1979 
1980 
$ 
438 
637 
1,420 
,2,341 
6,952 
13,050 
18,513 
There is apparently no readily available record from which the 
value of the 5,085 acres donated to the VINP at the time of its 
- 28-
inception can be determined.3 
However, assuming that the value 
of the land donated was approximately equal to the value of the 
remaining land on St. John, this value is estimated at $2.0 mil-
lion. 
(The calculation is based on a $438 value per acre in 
1961) deflated according to consumer price index changes between 
19 6 1 an d 19 5 6 [ a fa c tor 0 f . 9 0 85] .) 
The value of all subsequent land and improvements obtained by 
the VINP is summarized in Table 4, following. 
It should be 
noted that amounts paid were the result of voluntary agreements 
to sell, with prices determined by independent appraisers. 
No 
lands were taken over by condemnation. 
It should also be noted 
that an additional 14 acres (approximately) were donated to the 
VINP subsequent to the initial donations. 
Changes in the Consumer Price Index between 1956 and 1980 are 
summarized on page 31.4 
Prom the above information, derived conclusions concerning land 
values and taxes on St. John are as follows: 
1. 
Value of VINP land based on values at time of donation 
and purchase, . adjusted for the impact of inflatiom,l. are summar-
ized in the following tabulation. 
Original Donati~n1 
Later Donations 
All Purchases 3 
Total 
Acreage 
5,085 
14 
1,874 
6,973 
Original Val. 
(Thousands) 
$2,000 
. 110 
11,167 
$13,277 
Adjusted for 
Inflation 
(Thous ands) 
$6,068 
140 
17,323 
$23,531 
1 Infla tion adj us tment factor, 1956 to 1980, is 3.034. 
2Donations made in late 1970's. 
Estimated value of $8,000 per 
acre plus inflation adjustment factor of 1.36. 
3prom Table 4. 
2. 
Estimated value of taxes lost on properties donated to 
or purchased by the VINP: 
$23,695.000 x 60% assessment x 1.25% 
tax: 
$176,483. 
3. 
Increases in land values on St. John, excluding land 
owned by VINP, based on appraised values furnished by Office of 
the Tax Assessor and on approximate total acreage of 5,500 are 
as follows: 
-29-
Annual 
% 
(Thousands) 
(Thous ands) 
Increase 
From 1961 to 1965: 
$ 2,412 
to 
$ 3,502 
10 
1965 to 1968: 
3,502 
to 
7,810 
33 
1968 to 1972 : 
7,810 
to 
12,878 
13 
1972 to 1976 : 
12,878 
to 
38,234 
31 
1976 to 1979 : 
38,234 
to 
71,775 
23 
1979 to 1980 : 
71,775 
to 
101,823 
42 
From the above data, it is clear that property values (based on 
changes in appraised values of all properties on St. John) have 
increased an average of 22% a year from 1961 to 1980, and have 
increased an average of just under 29 % a year from 1972 to 1980. 
An independent verification of these high percentage changes was 
secured by an analysis of sales transactions of land on St. John 
taken from the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of the Virgin 
Islands. 
Several pieces of property were identified that had 
been sold several times over the past 25 years. 
All examples 
report sales of land without improvements: 
A tract of land consisting of .85 acres was originally sold in 
1957 for $250.00. 
In 1969 it was sold for $1,500.00; in 1973 
for $3,900.00; in 1978 for $9,800.00 
Another tract of land consisting of 2.04 acres was sold in 1962 
for $14,000 and in 1969 for $165,000. 
Another tract consisting of 1 acre was sold in 1949 for $225.00 
and resold in 1972 for $4,200.00 
A further verification is based on an inspection of properties 
purchased by the VINP over the years. 
While individual prop-
erties vary enormously because of the improvements thereon, their 
location, etc., personnel of the VINP were able to identify prop-
erties with substantially the same characteristics and to support 
the fact that increased purchase prices for such similar prop~ 
erties over the years are consistent with an average increase of 
around 20% per year in the period from 1960 to 1980. 
Tract No. 
01-116 
01-134 
01-135 
01-136 
01-137 
01-141 
02-112 
02-118 
02-145 
02-147 
02-148 
02-149 
02-151 
02-152 
03-197 
03-108 
03-113 
03-148 
04-101 
05-115 
05-116 
05-117 
05-118 
05-119 
05-120 
05-121 
06-116 
07-115 
07-116 
08-123 
10":101 
10-102 
10-103 
10-110 
10-125 
10-126 
11-101 
11-102 
12-102 
13-112 
13-113 
13-114 
13-116 
13-120 
13-121 
13-122 
13-135 
13-142 
13-143 
13-145 
15-101 
Total 
- 30-
TABLE 4 
ACREAGE PURCHASED BY V.I. NATIONAL PARK 
SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN 1956 
Year of 
Acquisition 
1975 
1958 
1959 
1957 
1968 
1977 
1979 
1970 
1856 
1959 
1959 
1967 
1975 
1974 
1979 
1977 
1977 
1977 
1976 
1967 
1967 
1959 
1965 
1958 
1959 
1967 
1963 
1976 
1976 
1979 
1970 
1969 
1969 
1970 
1975 
1975 
195-7 
1958 
1979 
1979 
1979 
1977 
1977 
1977 
1977 
1977 
1979 
1979 
1979 
1979 
1979 
Acreage 
93.99 
4.50 
35.00 
38.67 
55.00 
l.45 
287.00 
l.80 
.53 
164.00 
472.20 
2.72 
376.47 
l.09 
l.00 
.50 
.35 
2.13 
7.00 
6.67 
162.50 
13.00 
6.00 
1.00 
7.00 
19.00 
20.92 
14.60 
29.60 
2.05 
2.04 
4.67 
.76 
3.28 
1.55 
9.00 
6.00 
9.65 
.58 
.60 
.68 
1.13 
.72 
.72 
.73 
.72 
.52 
.61 
.86 
l.62 
Purchase 
Amount** 
$1,800,000 
1,125 
250,000 
165,000 
242,000 
100,000 
3,995,000 
135,500 
99,000 
424,500 
250,500 
91,300 
213,143 
9,500 
35,000 
26,000 
16,000 
18,000 
362,000 
23,000 
72,500 
90,000 
3,770 
1,740 
5,200 
17,500 
7,700 
45,000 
255,500 
788,500 
175,000 
165,000 
125,000 
85,000 
161,353 
75,000 
49,500 
2,300 
223,000 
12,000 
32,000 
27,000 
32,000 
40,000 
29,000 
29,000 
17,000 
14,500 
16,000 
13,300 
300,000 
1,874.18 $11,166,931 
Annual 
Property Tax 
On Purchase Date 
$12,700 
17 
1,640 
1,390 
2,250 
1,015 
4,250 
1,670 
720 
5,045 
1,430 
625 
1,735 
147 
66 
37 
23 
1,136 
49 
389 
640 
31 
14 
36 
29 
50 
313 
2,106 
2,165 
34 
1,210 
840 
74 
1,290 
405 
270 
46 
1,412 
82 
119 
84 
98 
278 
112 
117 
91 
41 
73 
36 
2,110 
Purchase Amount Adj. 
For Inflation*** 
$2,754,000 
3,200 
705,000 
474,000 
574,000 
134,000 
4,514,000 
286,000 
245,000 
1,197,000 
606,400 
226,000 
326,100 
15,650 
39,600 
35,600 
21,000 
24,700 
521,300 
56,800 
179,100 
253,800 
9,800 
4,900 
14,665 
43,225 
20,700 
64,800 
530,000 
801,000 
371,000 
371,250 
281,250 
180,200 
246,870 
114,750 
145,000 
6,540 
252,000 
13,560 
36,160 
37,000 
43,840 
54,800 
39,700 
39,730 
19,200 
16,400 
18,100 
15,300 
339,000 
$17,322,990 
Source: 
* 
National Park Service - Division of Land Acquisition Master Deed 
Listing (Status of Lands as of 11/30/79) . 
** 
V.I. Tax Assessor's Records (1956-1980). 
*** 
.Inflation Adjustment calculated on basis of National Consumer Price 
Index (In the absence of any similar. index for the Virgin Islands) 
- 31-
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 
YEAR 
ALL ITEMS 
1956 
81.4 
1957 
84.3 
1958 
86.6 
1959 
87.3 
1960 
_88.7 
1961 
89.6 
1962 
90.6 
1963 
91. 7 
1964 
92.9 
1965 
94.5 
1966 
97.2 
1967 
100.0 
1968 
104.2 
1969 
109.8 
1970 
116.3 
1971 
121. 3 
1972 
125.3 
1973 
133.1 
1974 
147.7 
1975 
161. 2 
1976 
170.5 
1977 
181. 5 
1978 
195.3 
1979 
217.7 
1980 
247.0 
Source: 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly 
Labor Review. 
-
32 -
B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 
Costs 
Loss of Real Property Tax. 
The data presented shows that the 
estimated value of taxes lost in 1980 on properties donated to 
or purchased by thesVINP since its establishment amounts cur-
rently to $176,483. 
Interest on Investment of U.S. Government Funds. 
Table 4 shows 
that in the period from 1956 to 1980 the U.S. G6vernment spent a 
total of $11,166,931 on purchases of property for the VINP. 
Dur-
ing these years, a conservative estimate is that the cost of 
borrowing by the Federal Government would average around 6%. 
Thus, the annual interest on the U.S. Investment of properties 
in the VINP is 6% of $11~166,93l or $670,000. 
Benefits 
Additional Taxes to V.I. Government from Increased Land Values. 
Information from the V.I. Government Office of the Tax Assessor 
reveals that property taxes in 1980 on St. John properties will 
total approximately $600,000. 
Taxes on equivalent acreage in 
St. John in 1961 (the latest year for which information is avail-
able) were $24,765. 
Allowing for inflation only from 1961 to 
1980, these taxes would have increased to approximately $70,000 
in 1980. 
The increase is thus $530,000 per year ($600,000 minus 
$70,000) . 
Increased Land Values. 
The factual information available shows 
a dramatic increase ln land values on St. John since the estab-
lishment of the VINP. 
In the aggregate, private property values 
are appraised at more than $100 million in 1980--up from approx-
imately $2 million in 1961. 
The 20% per year growth rate, if 
continued, would lead to further increases of $20 million per 
year, based on 1980 values. 
By contrast, the 1961 total value 
adjusted for inflation amounts to about $7.2 million in 1980 ($2.4 
million times inflation adjustment factor of 3). 
The annual increase 
in land value would be less than $1 million per year, even at current 
high inflation rates. 
Put in a somewhat different perspective, in a 
period when popu6ation on St. John went from approximately 950 in 1961 
to 2,500 in 1980 , an increase of just over 150%, the increase in 
property values was nearly 1,300% (from $7.2 million in adjusted 
1961 dollars to $100 million in comparable 1980 dollars). 
A far more difficult question is whether the VINP should be given 
credit for all or any part of the increases that did, in fact, occur. 
On the negative side, it can be argued that on St. Thomas, where there 
is no national park, land values increased in the same order of 
magni tude as on SL John. 
But St. Thomas enj oys the benefi ts of a 
totally different magnitude of investment plus .. the advantages of an 
internationally known harbour and a good airport. 
- 33-
Another point, mad~ by the chief of the assessment office on ; 
St. John, is that the VINP forces up other land values on St. 
John simply by reason of the enforced scarcity caused by the 
fact that some 55% of the land on the island is owned by the 
VINP. 
The conclusion of this study is that the surplus of actual land 
value increases per year over increases attributable to inflation 
($19,000,000, as explained above) must be in part attributable 
to the existence of the VINP. 
The number of visitors attracted 
to the VINP that make use of transportation, food and beverage, 
and (increasingly) of shopping facilities; the unique value of 
guaranteed scenic and recreational opportunities extolled by 
real estate brokers on the island; and the survey results pre-
sented in Chapter II of this study as to the extent of influence 
of the VINP on visitors to St. John all bolster this general 
conclusion. 
There are several reasons, however, why an imputed benefit of 
$19 million would be too high. 
Population increases and the 
related construction investment on the island cannot be wholly 
attributable to the VINP. 
There is merit to the point that the 
withdrawal of the majority of the land on the island pushes up 
the values of the rest of the land. 
Futhermore, it would be in-
appropriate for this study to impure total increases in land value 
as a benefit of the VINP when the aggregate numbers used include 
Caneel Bay Plantation property and Maho Bay Campground property, 
benefits for which are calculated separately in the study. 
Given all the above, conclusions reached can be stated as follows: 
(1) 
It is reasonable to use increased land values on St. 
John as an indicator of economic growth on St. John, in the absence 
of other more direct studies of increased economic activity. 
(2) 
The VINP has made a very significant contribution to 
land values on St. John. 
(3) 
For purposes of establishing a rough measure of annual 
quantitative benefits in 1980 dollars, an "order of magnitude" 
estimate of $5 million would seem to be conservative. 
-34-
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER IV 
1phi1ip B. Herr & Associates, op. cit. 
20ffice of Tax Assessor, Lt. Governor's Office, Government of 
the Virgin Islands. 
3The Department of the Interior, in response to a question about 
whether there was any record of such a value at the time of the 
establishment of the VINP, responded in the negative. 
4U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review. 
5See Page 28. 
6Annua1 Economic Review 1980, Q£. £it., pg. 34-35. 
- 35-
CHAPTER V. 
DIRECT AND INDIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 
VINP AND VINP CONCESSIONAIRES ON ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN ECONOMY 
This chapter pulls together the direct and indirect costs and 
economic benefits of the VINP and the major tourist-related com-
mercial activities directly connected with it. 
A. COSTS OF THE VINP 
Operational and Maintenance Costs 
In attempting to arrive at representative annual costs of the 
VINP in 1980, the study relied principally on Financial Planning 
Operating Program data for fiscal year 1980. 
However, in order 
to convert this one-year sample into a more representative annual 
cost, financial information and budgets were also reviewed for 
fiscal years 1979,_1981, and 1982. 
Financial information was 
provided by the St. Thomas headquarters of the VINP. 
From this review, 1980 direct costs were approximated as follows: 
Operating Costs: 
Personnel Compensation (Note 1) 
Other Operating Costs (Note 2) 
Equipment (capital) Costs (Note 3) 
"Cyclic" Maintenance Costs (Note 4) 
Total (Note 5) 
(Thous ands) 
$ 
825 
175 
50 
200 
$1,250 
Note 1: The total of $825,000 is slightly in excess of the pro-
grammed amount, but forced absorptions of pay raises in 
fiscal year 1980 and higher costs for the portion of fiscal 
1981 falling in calendar year justify use of the higher 
amount. 
Note 2: Includes costs of supplies and materials, rents, communi-
cations and utilities, printing and reproduction, and all 
other services. 
Note 3: Actual equipment costs for 1980 were programmed at $7,900. 
However, the annual depreciation estimate of $43,800 in 
that year suggests much higher equipment costs in prior 
years, so that an average of $50,000 appears to be justified. 
Note 4: Actual cyclic maintenance program for 1980 was $121,000. 
However, the estimates for subsequent years indicate sub-
stantial maintenance requirements (surfacing of roads) that 
presumably can not be deferred for too long a time. 
Thus 
a rounded estimate of $200,000 seems reasonable. 
- 36-
Note 5: There is a distinction between cost of the operation and 
total outlays in the V.I. Economy. 
Thus, reimbursable 
outlays of the VINP (for quarters and for sanitary collec-
tion) are excluded from this total, although they must be 
taken into account in calculating benefits to the V.I. 
economy related to the existence of the VINP. 
Costs of VINP to Local Government and/or Related Organizations 
After exploring in some depth the question of public services pro-
vided the VINP by other entities, the\study concludes that the 
VINP represents no drain on outside public services and that, in 
the opinion of some officials at the VINP, the VINP provides more 
services than it receives. 
During the course of the study, officials from the following execu-
tive agencies of the Virgin Islands Government, plus the liaison 
officer of the U.S. Coast Guard, were interviewed: 
- Department of Public Works 
- Department of Public Safety 
- Fire Division 
- Conservation and Cultural Affairs 
- Water and Power Authority 
- U.S. Coast Guard 
- Port Authority 
Interactions identified were: 
Road Service: 
There is a 1962 Road Agreement Act (Act #806) be-
tween VINPS and the Virgin Islands Government whereby all roads 
on St. John belong to the Virgin Islands Government, but the 
VINPS maintains some of the roads -- primarily the "North Shore 
Road". 
Since these roads would be required to provide road ser-
vice on the island of St. John, it can be reasonably argued that 
the assumption of maintenance responsibility by the VINP consti-
tutes a kind of windfall to the Virgin Islands Government. 
Solid Waste Disposal Facility: 
VINP provides land for solid waste 
disposal to portions of the St. John community. 
Health Services: 
A rough sort of quid pro quo exists between the 
Department of Public Health and the VIN~ VINP personnel receive 
free physical examinations at the hospital in St. John, and the 
hospital also tests drinking water samples. 
In return, the VINP 
provides standby emergency boat service when the sole, unreliable 
emergency boat available to the St. John Health Service office is 
out of commission. 
Fire Protection: 
No protection is provided to theVINPSby the Virgin Is1anc 
Government, and VINP does not have its own fire protection services. 
VINP officials believe that a cooperative effort with the Virgin 
Islands Government to provide protection to housing located on 
park lands would be desirable. 
Fortunately, the relatively high 
rainfall in the area minimizes dangers from brush or forest fires. 
Police Protection: 
services for VINP. 
the Park area. 
- 37-
Virgin Islands Government provides no security 
VINP staff are responsible for security within 
Other Services: 
VINPS has cooperated in implementation of an en-
VTYOninental studies program in cooperation wi th the Department of 
Conservation and Cultural Affairs, and, when the program was moved 
out of that Department~ the Department of Education, which managed 
the program during its early years, assumed responsibility for the 
ahdministration of the proqrarn. 
Relati vely few children of VINP staff make use of 
t e publlc schools, accormngto VINP offlclals. 
Electricity is provided by the Water and Power Authority (WAPA), a 
separate authority under the Virgin Islands Government. 
VINP has 
only small emergency generators available in locations designated 
as hurricane shelter areas. 
Service is provided on a commercial 
basis; WAPA does not feel that the VINP requirements affect its 
ability to provide services to the St. John community, or that 
the existence of VINP has significantly resulted in services 
being available that would not otherwise be available. 
General. 
All the organizations contacted (including the U.S. 
Coast Guard) which have activities on St. John felt that they had 
little or no involvement with the operation or management of the 
VINP. 
This fact may be attributed to the low level of development 
on St. John in general, and to the fact that only a very small 
precentage of the local operating government's services are al-
located for St. John. 
Another contributing factor may be that be~ 
cause VINP controls some 55 percent of the land area on St. John, 
land that, for the most part, remains undeveloped, the need for 
public services is slight. 
Moreover, the three major dev~lopments 
within the Park (Caneel Bay Plantation, Cinnamon Bay Campgrounds, 
and Maho Bay Campgrounds) maintain their own generating plants, 
sewage treatment facilities, water desalination, and waste dis-
posal facilities. 
In addition to direct interactions between VINP and local govern-
mental entities, it is worth pointing out that the VINP performs 
some functions that would otherwise have to be undertaken by the 
local government (Government of the Virgin Islands). 
For example, 
duties of the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs are 
lighter because the VINP assumes enforcement responsibility for~its share of 
land on St. Thomas. 
And the Department of Public Safety is re-
lieved of its responsibilities for the same reason. 
B. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE VINP 
Direct Benefits 
Employment: 
The VINP employs a total of 64 persons, 48 of whom 
are Virgin Islanders. 
- 38-
Economic Benefits of VINP Outlays to Economies of St. John/St. 
Thomas. 
From information supplied by VINP headquarters, the following analysis 
is derived: 
Salaries and Wages (Note 1) 
$ 
Outlays for Supplies, Materials, 
services, Equipment in Local 
Economy (Note 3) 
Total 
Outlays 
Multiplier 
(Thous.) 
855.0 
185.0 
. 8 
(Note 2) 
.7 
Total 
$1,040.0 
Net 
Economic 
Benefit 
(Thous.) 
$ 
700.0 
129.5 
$ 
829.5 
Note 1: Includes salaries and wages for employees engaged in 
reimbursable activities as well as in operations and 
maintenance of the VINP. 
Note 2: See Water Island Study, ~ cit. pg. 51. 
On the basis of 
information supplied by VINP headquarters, the portion of 
wages and salaries that would be paid in the form of in-
come taxes was estimated. 
The balance of after tax income 
is converted into impact on the St. Thomas/St. John econ-
omy on the basis of a multiplier of .8 -- on the assump-
tion that a larger portion of wages and salaries will go 
for goods and services in the local economy. 
Note 3: The VINP headquarters provided an estimate of the amount 
of outlays for goods and services directly in the V.I. 
economy, as distinguished from those purchased off-island. 
Estimate allows for reimbursable activities as well as 
for direct VINP operations and maintenance. 
Indirect Benefits 
Since its beginning on St. John twenty-five years ago VINP has 
developed and implemented a number of community service programs 
whose benefits have directly affected the recreational, environ-
mental, cultural and scenic quality of life of many Virgin Islanders. 
Many of these programs were beyond the funding capabilities of the 
territorial government. 
A brief description of the most recent 
program offerings follows: 
Volunteers In Park - Administered exclusively by the National Park 
Service, this program assists visitors to better understand both 
the natural and human history of the park and its surrounding area. 
Volunteers working in tandem with park personnel assist in a 
variety of duties including resource management, environmental 
study, arts and crafts, history, archeology and natural science. 
-39-
Environmental Study Program (ESP) - A total environmental learning 
program was established within the park in 1969. 
Three areas (Reef 
Bay, Annaberg Ruins and Salt Pond Bay) were designated National 
Environment Study Areas. 
Funded partially through the local Depart-
ment of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, this program offered an 
opportunity to 15,000 students over the years to experience var-
ious ecosystems, to explore firsthand seashore dynamics and inter-
relations, and to learn more about the linkages of their cultural 
past with the social and physical environment of today. 
Tektite Program - A program for the operation of an underwater 
marine habitat research station at Tektite base camp at Lameshur 
administered by the College of the Virgin Islands within park waters. 
This experimental program has since been phased out, but while in 
full operation, it served as an invaluable scientific and research 
laboratory for academic institutions, private foundations, and the 
national space program. 
In addition to the foregoing, the National Park Service maintains a 
weekly schedule of activities which feature the following: 
* An evening program of slide and film presentations about plants, 
animals, marine life, chlture and history of the island. 
* A children's hike offering two hours of fun-filled hiking} ex-
ploring the Cinnamon Bay area. 
* A hike of Brown Bay featuring stops to Annaberg Ruins, Leinster 
Bay, Brown Bay and Hurricane Hole. 
* Snorkeling instruction enabling novices and enthusiasts to 
learn safe snorkeling and discover the wonders of colorful reef life. 
* Adventure trails featuring leisurely hikes down hills to the 
south shore of the island. 
Visitors are exposed to mysterious pet-
roglyp~s, old sugar mill ruins, and lush forest. 
* Caneel Bay Historic Walk: 
A short stroll through st. John 
history and 19th century sugar mill ruins at Caneel Bay. 
* Historic Places Exploration: 
A visit to some of the lesser 
known historic places with a knowledgeable guide. 
* Leinster Bay Bird Walk: 
A walk into the world of Avian Faun 
(wading, shore, and terrestial). 
C. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CANEEL BAY/CINNAMON BAY 
OPERATIONS ON ST. JOHN 
The management of Caneel Bay cooperated with the study team by pro-
viding information about its 1980 operations from which it is pos-
-40~ 
sible to calculate direct economic benefits to the economies of 
St. Thomas/St. John. 
These calculations are as follows: 
Total Employment: 
Full time employees, 412; part-time 
employees, 18. 
Total 
Outlays 
(ThousJ 
Annual Payroll 
$3,963 
Taxes Paid to V.I. Govt. 
1,350 
Outlays for Goods, Services, 
Capital Items, Purchased in 
V.I. Economy 
428 
Total 
$5,741 
Note 1: See Note 2, page 38. 
Multiplier 
.8 
(Note 1) 
. 7 
Net 
Economic 
Benefit 
(ThousJ 
$3,250 
1,350 
300 
$4,900 
The manager of Canee1 Bay is quoted as saying that without the 
existence of the VINP, Caneel Bay would not be able to continue. 
If this assumption were accepted, the full net economic benefit 
of Caneel Bay/Cinnamon Bay operations would be attributable to the 
VINP. 
The more conservative approach is to use the results of the Caneel 
Bay Survey which indicates that the extent of the influence of the 
VINP on guests at Canee1 Bay was 43.7%, and of guests at Cinnamon 
Bay was 72.6%. The weighted average of approximately 50% suggests 
that some $2,500,000 is a conservative estimate of the contribution 
to the St. Thomas/St. John economy from this source. 
-41-
CHAPTER VI. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
A. SUMMARY 
Approaches and Methodologies 
The purpose of the study was to perform an objective evaluation 
of the special economic impact made by the Virgin Islands National 
Park (VINP) on the economy of St. Thomas/St. John in the Virgin 
Islands. 10 1 acc0mpI i'Sh, this purpose, the study made use of several 
approaches and methodologies. 
The principal determinant in each 
case was the kind and appropriateness of information available. 
For the most part~ economic impact was determined first by secur-
ing information as to funds spent in St. Thomas/St. John that could 
directly or indirectly be attributable to the existence of the VINP. 
Secondly, the net effect on the V.I. economy was derived by using 
multipliers developed and used in the past by the Department of 
Commerce and the Virgin Islands Government to convert expenditures 
to contributions to gross territorial product of the V.I. 
Differ-
ent multipliers are used depending on the types of expenditures. 
Thus, tourist expenditures are given a relatively low multiplier 
(.55), recognizing that many of the gift items purchased contain 
a substantial import component that reduces the economic benefit 
to the local economy. 
PayrollS, on the other hand, are assigned 
a multiplier of .80 (after deducting for estimated taxes paid 
directly) in recognition of the fact that a larger percentage of 
such expenditures are likely to be used within the V.I. economy. 
The several approaches used raised the danger of double counting 
of economic impact. 
The study team was very much aware of this 
danger and was careful to adjust all its calculations so as to 
eliminate double counting. 
Some of the information relevant to the study (such as the cooper-
ative educational programs and other community services of the 
VINP) did not lend themselves to quantification, even though it 
is clear that some economic benefit to the total V.I. economy 
does, in fac~ accrue from these activities. 
The study team believes that its underlying assumptions, approaches 
taken, and methodologies used give a conservative estimate of the 
special economic impact made by the VINP on the St. Thomas/St. John 
economy. 
The multivariate analyses used in the study are summarized 
below. 
The Impact of the VINP on Tourism 
This aspect of the study raised the most difficult problems. 
The 
fact that the VINP is significant to the tourist industry in St. 
Thomas/St. John is supported by the extent to which the park is 
mentioned in promotional advertising for the Virgin Islands and 
by the large numbers of persons who visit the park for recreational 
purposes. 
However, there are many other reasons why the Virgin 
-42-
Islands attract tourists, and the question that had to be resolved 
by the study was the extent to which VINP influences visitors, and 
consequently the extent to which it has an ••. economic impact on the 
St. Thomas/St. John economy. 
The study was constrained by budgetary and time restrictions. 
More 
elaborate research techniques would undoubtedly have yielded more 
positive conclusions. 
Nonetheless, the study team feels that there 
is a good rationale for results presented herein. 
Separate approaches were used for each of three groups: 
Group I 
deals with tourists who do not reside on St. John but who visited 
the VINP. 
Group 2 deals with tourists who stay at the three major 
resort areas on St. John -- Caneel Bay Plantation, Cinnamon Bay 
Campground, and Maho Bay Campground. 
Group 3 deals with the boat 
visitors to St. John. 
The analysis used with respect to the first group is summarized 
as follows: 
The number of individuals visiting St. John can be deter-
mined approximately from statistics secured from the Port Authority 
of the V.I. Government. 
To reach St. John, visitors must nearly 
all come by water transportation, and the Port Authority receives 
monthly statistics on number of passengers on the shuttle boats 
that provide the means of transportation for all but a few visitors 
to St. John. 
The profile of passengers using shuttle boats was secured 
through a survey. 
From this survey it was possible to segregate 
information as to number~ of off-island visitors visiting St. John 
on vacation, as well as number of Virgin Islanders visiting St. 
John on vacation. 
The extent to which visitors to St. John were influenced 
by the existence of the VINP was determined by including in the 
survey a question that permitted visitors to estimate to what ex-
tent they were influenced. (A 5 point scale--"Not at all", "Some", 
'.'About 50%", "Considerably", and "Primary"-- was used.) 
Tourists were further divided into cruise ship visitors 
(almost entirely one-day visitors to St. Thomas) and overnight 
visitors who spend their vacations on St. Thomas and stay for an 
average of more than a week, according to information collected by 
the V.I. Govt. 's Department of Commerce. 
The number of cruise 
ship visitors to St. John was obtained from the major tour compan-
ies 
who arrange with the cruise ship companies to conduct tours 
and by interviews with cruise ship directors of some of the major 
vessels, who have information on the number 
of their passengers 
who choose from among the alternative tours available when the 
ships are in St. Thomas. 
-43-
Expenditures of tourists from outside the Virgin Islands 
are available from information collected by the V.I. Government's 
Department of Commerce. 
The survey of shuttle boat users provided 
similar information concerning daily outlays by the visitors who 
come from the Virgin Islands. 
An independent comparison of visitors to the VINP calculated 
from the above analysis with public use statistics collected by 
the VINP indicates that the two approaches are compatible. 
The assumptions used in calculating economic impact, drawing on 
information summarized above, are: 
Cruise ship visitors choosing to take tours to St. John 
(including the VINP) indicate that they are largely influenced by 
the existence of the VINP. 
The extent of this choice, using the 
scale of weights developed for the study, is 78%. 
Consequently, 
78% of expenditures by cruise ship visitors who take the St. John 
tours is reasonably attributable to the existence of the VINP. 2 
Other non-Virgin Island visitors choosing to spend all (or 
part of) a day visiting St. John likewise indicate that they are 
78% influenced by the existence of the VINP (based on the results 
of the shuttle boat survey). 
Consequently, 78% of the average 
daily expenditures by such visitors for one day is reasonably 
attributable to the existence of the VINP. 
- Visitors from the Virgin Islands constitute approximately 
24% of the visitors to St. John. 
The survey indicates that they 
are 79% influenced by the existence of the VINP (using the scale 
referred to above). 
Hence 79% of expenditures by these visitors 
for the one day of their visit is reasonably attributable to the 
existence of the VINP.~ 
The methodology used for this analysis yields results that might 
be too conservative or too liberal. 
No weight is given to the 
possibility that some visitors to St. Thomas/St. John were in-
fluenced primarily by the existence of the VINP. 
If this fact 
could be established for any number of visitors, the total expen-
ditures during the stay by such visitors could then be attributable 
to the VINP. 
From this standpoint, conclusions reached are too 
conservative. 
On the other harld, it can be argued that the results are too liberal. 
The study gave weight only to visitors who both visited the VINP 
and indicated that they were influenced in making the visit to 
St. John by reason of the VINP. 
However, in so doing) it made the 
implicit assumption that such visitors stayed in the Virgin Islands 
an extra day (rather than deciding to accommodate the VINP visit 
within predetermined lengths of stay). 
From this standpoint, the 
study should not have attributed to the VINP the full average daily 
expenditures of overnight visitors but rather should have included 
-44-
the smaller expenditures exclusively attributable to the visit 
to St. John. 
Tourists Residing at Major Resort Areas on St. John. 
For this 
group of tourists, a different analysis was made, based on special 
surveys conducted with the assistance of the managements of the 
three entities involved. 
The analysis of this group is summarized 
as follows: 
Number of guests at the organizational entities mentioned 
were obtainable from information on capacity and occupancy rates. 
It was also taken from separate statistics collected by the VINP 
for its public use reports. 
The extent of influence of the VINP on their reasons for 
visiting St. John came from survey results. 
Daily expenditures by tourists residing at the various areas 
were also provided by survey results.4 
Numbers of visitor days multiplied by average daily expen-
ditures for the different entities gave gross expenditures, which 
were then corrected to reflect the extent of the influence of the 
VINP on visits, following the procedure described above. 
Boat Visitors to National Park Waters. 
A very different analytical 
approach was used to determine the economic impact of boat visitors, 
since specific information concerning the industry was available. 
The analysis of this group is summarized as follows: 
Information as to total expenditures by the boating industry 
on St. Thomas/St. John was available from a separate study prepared 
for the V.I. Government's Department of Commerce. 
Information as to the extent of the use by the boating in-
dustry of National Park waters was derived through statistics col-
lected by the VINP as to number of boats on a day visit and over-
night visit basis, corrected to exclude foreign registered boats. 
Verification of these calculations was made by interviews of boat 
captains on St. Thomas/St. John. 
Economic impact of the boating industry was determined by 
assigning a share of total expenditures proportional to usage of 
National Park waters. 
This analysis bypasses the need to estimate numbers of tourists 
taking boat visits to the VINP or VINP waters. 
It is based on 
direct benefits to one industry that is largely influenced by the 
VINP. 
There is no double counting with other analyses except to 
the extent that boating installations based on St. John would have 
contributed to the aggregate of economic growth on that island and 
thus contributed to the estimates of increased land values used 
in another section of the current study. 
~45-
Impact of the VINP on Increased Land Values on St. John 
The most direct approach to the impact of a new national park on 
its environment would be by a before and after analysis of economic 
activities. 
Unfortunately, information to permit such an analysis 
was not available in the case of the VINP and the island of St. John. 
From a review of possible alternative approaches, the study team 
decided that the approach used by Philip B.Herr & Associates 5 rep-
resented a viable substitute to direct before and after measures 
of economic activity. 
The essential feature of this approach is 
that economic growth of a surrounding community--increased business 
establishments; increased demand for properties for home sites; 
increased employment; etc.--results in increased land values due 
to appreciation and improvements to land. 
Implementation of this analysis required that: 
(1) land values 
be established as soon as possible, preferably as of the inception 
date of the VINP; (2) that increases in land values thereafter be 
calculated on a projected basis assuming the normal impact of in-
flationary prices; (3) that actual land value increases had to be 
determined on the basis of reliable statistics. 
In practice, the study team found that it could not get necessary 
data for 1956, when the VINP was established, but that it could 
get appraised values for land on St. John for a number of years 
beginning with 1961 and continuing through 1980. 
The information developed, presented in detail in Chapter IV, shows 
that the excess of actual annual land value increases on St. John 
over projected increases attributable to inflation was $19 million 
in 1980. 
Not all of this excess can reasonably be attributable 
to the VINP. 
Furthermore, it would be inappropriate for this study 
to impute total increases in land value as a benefit of the VINP 
when aggregate numbers used include Caneel Bay Plantation property 
and Maho Bay Campground property, benefits for which are calculated 
s~parately in the study.6 
There would also seem to be merit to 
a strongly-voiced opinion by several informed individuals that 
land values on St. John increase in value at least in part because 
of the scarcity of land caused by the occupation of more than 55% 
of all land on St. John by the VINP. 
As a related part of the land value analysis, the study determined 
that land with a value of $23,531,000 (based on values at time of 
donation and purchase, adjusted for the impact of inflation) were 
removed from the real property tax base of the V.I. Government 
in 1980 leading to a tax loss in 1980 of $176,000. 
Also, Federal 
Government investments of over $11 million for the purchase of 
additional properties for the VINP since 1956 represent an annual 
imputed interest cost of some $670,000. 
These items are treated 
as indirect costs for purposes of establishing the economic impact 
of the VINP on St. Thomas/St. John. 
-46-
Direct and Indirect Costs and Benefits of VINP and VINP Concessionaires. 
This analysis (Chapter V of the report) required a straightforward aggregation 
of estimated 1980 costs from the VINP and the Rock Resorts Management, which 
operates Caneel Bay Plantation and Cinnamon Bay Campgrounds. 
The study was concerned also with the question of public services provided 
to the VINP by other entities. As explained in Chapter V, the conclusion 
reached is that the VINP represents no drain on outside public services and 
that, in fact, there is a good cas,e that the VINP provides more services than 
it receives. 
Benefits to the local economy from the existence of the VINP were derived from 
VINP expenditures in the local economy for payrolls and goods and services. 
Similar benefits were derived from expenditures by the management of Caneel 
Bay and Cinnamon Bay facilities. 
B. CONCLUSIONS 
Benefit Cost Ratios Based on Analyses Used in Study 
The following tabulation pulls together results of all analyses presented in 
detail in previous sections of the report: 
TABLE 5 
COMPARISONS OF ANNUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS, ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VINP 
ON ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN ECONOMY, 1980 DATA 
Costs 
Operation and Maintenance 
of VINP (see Chapter V) 
Interest on Federal Invest-
ment in VINP Properties 
(see Chapter IV) 
Taxes Lost on Property Re-
moved from Local Govern-
ment Rolls (see Chapter IV) 
TOTAL 
Direct 
(Thous .) 
$1,250 
$1,250 
Indirect 
(Thous .) 
$ 670 
176 
$ 846 
Total 
(Thous.) 
$2,096 
Benefits 
Outlays of VINP in Local 
Economy (see Chapter V) 
Outlays of VINP Concession-
aires in Local Economy 
(see Chapter V) 
Imputed Benefits from VINP 
Impact on Tourism (see 
Chapter II) 
Imputed Benefits from VINP 
Impact on Boat Industry 
(see Chapter III) 
Imputed Benefits from VINP 
Impact on Increased Land 
Values on St. John, as an 
Indicator of Increased 
Economic Growth on 
St. John (see Chapter IV) 
TOTAL 
-47-
Direct 
(Thous.) 
$ 830 
2,500 
$3,330 
Indirect 
(Thous.) 
$12,061 
3,000 
5,000 
$20,061 
Reduced to ratios, the above tabulation indicates that: 
Total 
(Thous.) 
$23,391 
The Benefit/Cost Ratio of the existence of the VINP on the local 
economy, based on direct costs and benefits only is ----------------2.7 to 1 
The Benefit/Cost Ratio of the existence of the VINP on the local 
economy, based on indirect (imputed) costs and benefits only is ----23.7 to 1 
Total Benefit/Cost Ratio of the existence of the VINP on the local 
economy, based on all costs (direct and indirect) is ----------------11.1 to 1 
These ratios are, of course, approximations. It would take very little change 
in assumptions to alter them substantia11y--in either direction. 
In sum, how-
ever, they support the proposition that the VINP even if measured on only a 
dollar and cents basis, plays a very significant role in the economy of St. 
Thomas/St. John--we11 beyond the costs incurred in its operation and maintenance. 
Future Projections 
In its section on "Outlook for the 1980 IS", 7 the V. 1. Government projects a 
continuation of tourism as the number one industry of the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
-48-
Renovation and expansion of the airport on St. Thomas (as well as 
on St. Croix) will significantly improve the ability of the economy 
to receive more tourists, and it is assumed that the construction of 
hotel rooms and other facilities will make it possible for the econ-
omy to absorb continued expansion. 
With respect to St. John, a new and possibly significant development 
is the decision by the Holland-American Lines to schedule 10 visits 
of an 8S0-capacity cruise ship to St. John during the period from 
October 1981 thru April 1982. 
It seems inevitable that this new, 
additional burden of tourists will have a very significant impact 
on economic activities on St. John. 
The future of the VINP, despite concerns raised b~ some of the offi-
cials and individuals contacted during the study,' should be increas-
ingly important--from the economic point of view, and,_more im-
portatitly, because of the esthetic/cultural benefits that it 
guarantees for future years. 
-49-
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER VI 
1The section of the report dealing with the impact of the VINP on 
land values on St. John did not make use of this approach. 
See 
Chapter IV. 
2It should be noted that the tours referred to provide ample oppor-
tunity for shopping on St. Thomas. 
3Average daily expenditures for V.I. residents are based solely on 
St. John outlays and, as might be expected, average only a third 
of average daily expenditures by non-Virgin Island visitors in both 
St. Thomas and St. John. 
4As noted in the body of the report, these expenditures were collect-
ed differently from Caneel Bay and Cinnamon Bay guests and from Maho 
Bay guests. 
In order to avoid double counting of the economic im-
pact of payments made by guests at Caneel Bay and Cinnamon Bay, they 
were asked to exclude payments made for lodging and meals at these 
installations. 
This is so because detailed data were received from 
these organizations that gave a direct basis for determining economic 
impact on them by the VINP. 
This information was not available from 
Maho Bay, so that total guest expenditures were requested. 
It should 
be noted that the study does contain a minor amount of double count-
ing in that guest expenditures for gift and other items from the 
Caneel Bay and Cinnamon Bay shops are included in financial reports 
used for direct analysis and are also included in guest expenditures 
used for purposes of calculating indirect economic impact. 
Amounts 
are too small to have any appreciable effect on results of the study, 
however. 
So 
. 
l2l? 
£11. 
6Cinnamon Bay Campground is entirely on VINP land, so that it is not 
included in this qualification. 
7Annual Economic Review, 1980, QQ. cit., pg. 17. 
8See Appendix D for a summary of community suggestions that were given 
to members of the study team during the course of the study. 
-50-
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING COURSE OF STUDY 
1. 
Warren Abels - St. John Realtor 
2. 
Pete Allen - Park Ranger, VINPS 
3. 
John Battles - Port Director, West Indian Co., Ltd. 
4. 
Dr. Robert Brander - Researcher, VINPS 
5. 
E. David Brewer - Vice President/General Manager, Caneel 
Bay Resorts 
6. 
Vernon Brown - Director, St. John Tourist Office, V.I. 
Department of Commerce 
7. 
Warren Brown - Planner, Heritage Conservation & Recreation 
Service 
8. 
Leona Bryant - Directorof Tourism, V.I. Department of Commerce 
9. 
Captain Lance Burgo - Charter Boat Owner 
10. 
Joe Burroughs - Charterboat 
Owner 
11. 
Verne Callwood - Tax Assessor, V.I. Tax Assessor's Office, 
Office of Lt. Governor 
12. 
Teddi Ann Davis - Executive Director, V.I. Charterboat 
League 
13. 
Gary Deering - Watersports, Inc. 
14. 
Fred Denton - Fiscal Officer, VINPS 
15. 
Anne Garrity - V.I. Diving Club 
16. 
Calvin George - St. John Tax Assessor's Office 
17. 
Carmen George - Sr. Information Officer, V.I. Tourists Bureau 
18. 
Dr. Jay Gogue - Chief Scientist, NPS Southeast Region 
19. 
John Harvey - General Manager, Maho Bay 
20. 
Larry Hickey - Shore Excursion Manager, Cruise ship "Song of 
Norway" 
- 51-
21. 
Franke Hoheb - Chief Enforcement Officer, V.I. Department 
of Conservation and Cultural Affairs 
22. 
John James - Assistant Commissioner, V.I. Department of 
Public Safety 
23. 
Chief Rudolph Jennings - V. 1. Fire Divis ion 
24. 
Jim Loveland - Jim Loveland Travel Services 
25. 
David Lynton - President, V.I. Taxi Association 
26. 
John McCleverty - Director ,Ctuise'IShip Operations, Virgin 
Islands Department of Commerce 
27. 
Marsha McLaughlin - Senior Planner, Coastal Zone Management 
Commission 
28. 
Lt. John Morrow - U.S. Coast Guard, St. Thomas 
29. 
William Newbold - Economist, V.I. Department of Commerce 
30. 
Ann Petersen - St. John Realtor 
31. 
James Pobicki - Director, Office of Policy, Planning and 
Research, V.I. Department of Commerce 
32. 
Noel Rachta - Superintendent, VINPS 
33. 
Jim Riddle ,- Resource Management Officer, VINPS 
34. 
Ed Rosinski - Economist, V.I. Department of Commerce 
35. 
John Sheridan - St. John Realtor 
36. 
John Silke - Cruise Ship Director, Cruise ship "Sun Viking" 
37. 
Senator Gilbert Sprauve - Member Fourteenth Legislature of 
the Virgin I~lands 
38. 
Christen Venn - Assistant Cruise Ship Director, Cruise ship 
"Skyward" 
39. 
Douglas White - Charterboat 
Owner 
40. 
Clara Whi teside - Environmeri.t.al Stud·l' es. P rogram Coordinator, 
V.I. Department of Education 
-52-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, The Adequacy 
of Federal Compensation to Local Governments for Tax Exempt 
Federal Lands. 
July, 1980. 
Anderson, Raymond L., A. H. Gilbert, John R. McKean - "Deter-
minants of Recreational Land Prices: 
An Empirical Analysis". 
Natural Resource Economics Division; Economics, Statistics, 
and Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
April, 1980. 
Carder, Clyde, "Survey of Charter Boating and Related Businesses 
in the Virgin Islands Relative to Their Contribution to 
Our Tourism Related Economy," 
A Report prepared for the 
Department of Commerce of the U.S. Vrigin Islands, July 14, 
1980. 
Casavant, Ken L., and James C. Barron, Economic Impact of Proposed 
Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park on Skagway, Alaska. 
Paper presented at First Conference on Scientific Research 
in the National Parks, Brannif Place Hotel, New Orleans, 
Louisiana, November 10, 1976. 
Checchi, and' Company, The Significance. of. Tourism .in theU. S . Virgin 
Islands .. A.Report prepared for the Economic Development Admin-
istration, U.S. Department of Commerce, September, 1976. 
College of the Virgin Islands, Growth and Change: 
A Workbook For 
Long-Term Planning, Bureau of Public Administration, 1980. 
Frome, Michael, "Park Concessions and Concessioners", National 
Parks Magazine, June, 1981, pp. 16-18. 
Herr, Philip B. & Associates, "Cost-Benefit Analysis Cape Cod 
National Seashore", A Study made for Branch of Statistics 
Analysis, DOl, NPS. 
Hubler, Harold, "Proposed Virgin Islands National Park", National 
Parks Magazine, Sept., 1955, pp. 1-7. 
Island Resources Foundation, Socio-Economic Survey of Recrea-
tional Boating and Fishing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
Pre-
pared by DavidA. Olsen, Ph.D., for National Marine Fisheries 
Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, May, 1979. 
Mills, Allan S., Joseph G. Massey, and Hans M. Gregersen, "Benefit-
Cost Analysis of Voyageurs National Park", Evaluation Review, 
Vol. 4, No.6, December, 1980. 
- 5 3-
Nez, George and Richard Walsh, The Regional Factor. 
A chapter 
of the manual on economic methods in park planning. 
Science 
section branch of special programs, professional support 
division, Denver Service Center, National Park Service, 
August, 1979. 
Ritsch, Robert A., "Alternatives to Land Acquisition", Transactions 
of the 45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 
Conference, 1980. 
Shands, Wm. E., Federal Resource Lands and Their Neighbors, An 
Issue Report by the Conservation Foundation, 1979. 
"State of the Parks - 1980 A Report to the Congress", National Park 
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, May, 1980. 
Swanson, Ernst W., Travel and the National Park, An Economic Study. 
North Carolina State University, 1969. 
Tyre, Gary L., "Average Costs of Recreation on National Forests 
in the South", Journal of Leisure Research, 1975, Vol. 7, 
No.2, pp .. 114-120. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 
"R - The 
Regional Economic Factor", A Chapter of the Manual on Economic 
Methods in Park Planning. 
Prepared by George Nez and Richard 
Walsh, Science Sec., Branch of Spec. Programs, Professional 
Support Division, Denver Service Center, National Park Service. 
V.I. Government, Department of Commerce, Office of Policy Planning 
and Research, Economic Review 1979, AQ~~it~rl~-~~6~6~ic 
review of the Virgin Islands. 
Economic Review 1980, A Quarterly economic review of the 
Virgin Islands. 
Virgin Islands Planning Office, Office of the Governor, Land Use 
and Housing Elements, U.S. Virgin Islands, June, 1977. 
Wagner, Thomas R. and Laura Ceperley, Economics of Outdoor Recre-
ation Demand (A Bibliography of Analytical and Demand Related 
Literature), Cooperative Park Studies Unit, NPS, College of 
Forest Resources, Univ. of Wash., Seattle, Sept., 1978. 
APPENDIX A 
SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS, ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS, 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
In order to secure essential information available from no 
other source, the study deemed it essential to gather primary 
research data on the aggregate-mix of people traveling to and 
from St. John and St. Thomas by shuttle boat. 
The reasons 
for this research and its connection with the principal thrust 
of the study are discussed in Chapter II. 
The major constraints on the survey were the budget, available 
methodology, and the time frame within which the study could 
be conducted. 
Because of these constraints, the shuttle 
boat survey was conducted for a three-month period starting 
in March and extending through May 1981. 
The questionnaire used for the survey follows. 
A-2 
QUESTIONNAI RE 
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS PART OF AN ECONOMIC SURVEY IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. 
WE 
WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION IN ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 
1. Are you: 
a) A resident of St. 
b) A visitor from U.S. 
(State or Territory) 
St. 
St. 
John 
Thomas 
Croix 
c) A visitor from a foreign country~ _____ 
"-T-__ 
. 
(Name of country) 
2. What is (or was) the main purpose of your trip to St. John? 
a) Vacation (recreation) 
c) Commuting to or from work 
b) Business trip__ --
d) Shopping__ 
--
d) Other ______ _ 
3. Are you traveling: 
a) Alone 
b) With fami ly 
c) With tour group ___ 
c) Wi th fri e nds __ _ 
d) With business associates 
(No i n pa rty ) 
( No. i n pa rty ) 
4. What is (or was) the estimated length of your stay on St. John? 
a) One day 
C)1-2 weeks 
e) Four weeks or 
b) 2 - 6 days 
d)3-4 weeks 
more 
5. If your stay is (or was) for more than 1 day, where did (or do) you stay? 
a) Hote l-ro.-__ :;;---:-,--;---:;-, _______ b) Camp grounds . .,-,--_--=-__ .--____ 
_ 
(Name of Hotel) 
(Name of area) 
c) Condominium/Guest Cottage 
d) Friends or relatives __ e) Other ____ _ 
6 .. To what extent did the fact that St. John has a National Park influence your visit? 
(Please circle the number that most nearly applies) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
(Not at all) 
(Some) 
(About 50%) 
(Considerably) 
(Primary consideration) 
7. How would you evaluate your St. John experience? 
a) Outstanding 
b) Better than average 
c) About average __ _ 
d) Below average 
e) Poor _____ _ 
f) Any comments: 
(Continue on back of sheet, if necessary) 
8. What are (were) the estimated average daily expenses per adult incurred during your 
stay in St. John? (Such as lodging, food, taxis, tours, shopping, recreation, entertainmel 
Exclude transportation costs to and from the Virgin Islands.) 
a) Under $25 
d) $75.00 to $99.99 
g) $200 to $249.99 
b) $25.00 to $49.99 
e) $100 to $149.99 
h) $250 to $349.99-----
c) $50.00 to $74.99 
f) $150 to $199.99 
i) $350 to $499.99 __ 
_ 
j) $500 and over ___ _ 
9. What is the approximate annual income of your household? 
a) Under $10,000 
b) $10,000-$19,999 
c) $20,000-$29,999 
____ d) $30,000-$39,999 ___ g) $60,000-$74,999 __ _ 
____ e) $40,000-$49,999 
h) $75,000-$99,999 ____ _ 
____ f) $50,000-$59,999 
i) $100,000 or more __ _ 
10. What is your age? 
a) Under 20 
b) 20-29 
c) 30-39 
d) 40-49 __ 
e) 50-59 __ 
f) 60 plus __ 
What is your sex? 
a) Male 
b) Fema-=-le---
Thank you for your cooperation. 
The information derived from this questionnaire 
will be used strictly for statistical purposes. ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION, St. Thomas, V.I. 
A- 3 
Validity of Sample 
The empirical findings reflect procedural and methodological 
parameters of the VINP study noted above. 
The VINP aggregate 
survey respondents were randomly selected from the passengers 
from the St. John shuttle boats during the period from March 
to May 1981. 
During this period, the total number of passen-
gers utilizing the St. John shuttle boat was approximately 
85,000 1 -- or 28.3 percent of the total passengers using the 
shuttle boat during the ye.ar, which compares favorably wi th the 
25 percent period of the year included. 
Seasonal factors can 
be assumed to be approximately balanced during the period: 
March and at least a portion of April (when the St. Thomas Car-
nival week is scheduled) are representative primarily of the 
peak tourist season; May and the remaining portion of April 
are representative of the slow season. 
The objective of the survey was to gather data on the people 
traveling to and from St. John, with only one member of each 
traveling group ,eligible for sampling. 
Thus the population 
size to be sampled was approximately 42,500 (one-half the total 
number of passengers, since average size of party was approxim-
ately two). 
The random sample size was 710 respondents who were contacted 
by interviewers (as noted above). 
Four hundred and ninety four 
respondents were willing to complete the questionnairesj however, 
48 responses were eliminated because they were not sufficiently 
complete and/or suffered water damage. 
The loss rate of 9.7 
percent was primarily due to the occasional inclement weather 
condition at the open-air departure area of the shuttle boats 
at Cruz Bay, St. John. 
There were 457 responses sufficiently 
complete -- 64 percent response rate for the sample as a whole 
and these responses formed the base for tabulations. 
The 457 respondents represent a 1.07 percent representation 
rate of projected traveling parties for the three-month pe~iod 
of the survey. 
This representation rate compares favorably 
with the representation rate used in the 1980 V.I. Government 
Exit Survey, according to information from the Exit Survey 
Technical Director. 2 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has also 
selected the 1 percent representation rate in sampling of house-
holds for the consumer price index. 3 
Basis for Calculations of TabulationsofSurvei Results 
Tabulations were made according to the following guidelines: 
Questions 1 & 2 
The tabulation for questions 1 & 2 used the 457 response as the 
denominator for calculating percentages. 
Question 3 
The tabulation used 436 response as the denominator for calcul-
ating percent~ges. 
The 436 is the adjusted response to reflect 
the removal of the 21 commuter respondents, who only answered 
A-4 
questions 1 and 2 in the questionnaire. 
The mean calculation 
was based on the arithmetic mean formula. 
Question 4 
The tabulation used 436 response as the denominator for calcu~ . 
lating percentages. 
The ari thmetic mean calculation assumed 
the following weights for the length of stay. 
The weights were 
established from information on reservation pattern of guests 
provided by Virgin Island hoteliers. 
Question 5 
2 -
6 days 
1 -
2 weeks 
2 -
3 weeks 
4 weeks or more 
6 days 
-
14 days 
-
21 days 
-
28 days 
Results from responses to Question 5 proved to be incompatible 
with other survey information. 
It was determined that this 
was due to misinterpretation of the question by respondents 
and interviewers, so that findings based on this question are 
not included in this report. 
Question 6 
The tabulation used the 436 response as the denominator to cal-
culate percentages. 
The arithmetic mean was calculated with 
the following weights for the scale 1-5. 
The interviews provid-
ed this weighting information from the respondents 
No influence 
-
1 -
Some influence 
-
2 -
About 50% 
-
3 -
Considerable 
-
4 -
Primary consideration -
5 -
Question 7 
0% 
25% 
50% 
75% 
100% 
The tabulation used 436 response as the denominator to calcul-
ate percentages. 
The arithmetic mean was based on the follow-
ing weights: 
Question 8 
Poor 
Below average 
About average 
Better than average -
Outstanding 
0% 
25% 
50% 
75% 
100% 
The tabulation was based on the 436 response as the denominator 
for percentage calculations. 
The arithmetic mean was calculat-
ed in the following manner: 
for the lower limit, $20 was assum-
ed; for the upper limit, $550 was assumed. 
Mid-points were used 
for all the expenditure ranges. 
A-5 
Question 9 
The tabulation used 436 response as the denominator to calculate 
percentages. 
The arithmetic mean used mid-points with the upper 
limit of $150,000. 
The research design selected for the survey involved the ran-
dom sampling of the persons who travel between St. Thomas and 
St. John 
a total of some 300,000, according to information 
supplied by the Virgin Islands Government Port Authority. 
The random sample was set up so that it would include each day 
of the week and each departure time. 
The procedure adopted was as follows: 
Respondents were select-
ed randomly from among persons waiting at the shuttle boat de-
parture area at Cruz Bay, St. John. 
The shuttle boat departs 
every hour on the hour and passengers tend to arrive well in 
advance of departure times, since there is no alternative trans-
portation. 
Interviewers were given the following set of guidelines: 
to 
identify themselves with a one-to-one approach to the potential 
respondents; to state briefly the purpose of the survey; to se-
lect only one respondent from each party traveling together; 
to provide the potential respondent with a copy of the question-
naire to read and fill in; to be available to assist in the pre-
paration of the questionnaire or to answer questions as required. 
Interviewers collected the completed questionnaires from respon--
dents in advance of departure time, trying to make sure that all 
answers were filled in. 
During the three month survey, a total 
of 710 questionnaires were distributed to respondents and 457 
questionnaires were received back: 
a very good percentage of 
returns. 
The interviewers selected were students at the College of the Vir-
gin Islands. 
They were trained in the techniques of the inter-
view process prior to the survey period. 
A member of the study 
team accompanied the interview team during all survey periods. 
For the most part, the interview process went well, and the pur-
pose of the study was adequately conveyed to the respondents. 
The only problem that occured occasionally was due to the fact 
that some foreign respondents were unable to cope with the English 
language, and interviewers were for the most part unable to tran-
slate the questions adequately in such cases. 
The following tabulations summarize the results of the survey, 
starting with a preliminary profile of respondents and contin-
uing with tabulations keyed to the numbered questions in the 
survey instrument. 
A-6 
FOOTNOTES FOR APPENDIX A 
1See Chapter II, Table 1, in body of the report. 
2Douglas Beals, P.O. Box 3277, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00801 
3Information supplied by U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics. 
A-7 
SUMMARY PROFILE OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
Composite Profile 
vacation 
Average Number in Party 
Average Length of Stay 
Average Annual Income 
Average Daily Expenditures 
Park Influence on Visit to 
St. John 
Evaluate VINP Experience 
U.S. Resident 
Vacation 
Average Number in Party 
Average Length of Stay 
Average Annual Income 
Average Daily Expenditures 
Park Influence on Visit to 
St. John 
Evaluate VINP Experience 
USVI Resident 
Vacation 
Average Number in Party 
Average Length of Stay 
Average Annual Income 
Average Daily Expenditures 
Park Influence on Visit to 
St. John 
Evaluate VINP Experience 
Foreign Resident 
vacation 
Average Number in Party 
Average Length of Stay 
Average Annual Income 
Average Daily Expenditures 
Park Influence on Visit to 
St. John 
Evaluate VINP Experience 
91% 
2.03 
5.1 days 
$40,387 
$34.60 
78.3% 
77% 
96% 
2.1 
8.45 days 
$45,357 
$34.72 
78% 
77% 
79% 
2.6 
1 day 
$22,109 
$27.67 
79% 
79% 
93% 
1.9 
7.7 days 
$51,500 
$44.94 
76% 
72% 
A-8 
TABLE A-l 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 1: PROFILE OF USERS 
(In Percentages) 
Mar.ch. 
April 
----
United S ta te s Resident 
63% 
69% 
U.S. Virgin Island 
Residents-Commuters 
4 
4 
U.S. Virgin Island 
Residents-All Others 
23 
22 
Foreign Residents 
10 
5 
Totals 
100 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(136) 
(169) 
May 
55% 
5 
28 
12 
100 
(152) 
3 Mo. 
Total 
62% 
5 
24 
9 
100 
(457) 
A-9 
TABLE A-2 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 2 : 
MAIN PURPOSE OF TRIP 
(In Percentages) 
3 Mo. 
March 
April 
May 
Total 
All Responses: 
Vacation 
90% 
92% 
91% 
91% 
Business 
1 
2 
1 
1 
Commuting 
4 
3 
5 
4 
Shopping 
2 
1 
Other 
3 
2 
2 
2 
--
Tota1* 
lOa 
100 
99 
99 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 136) 
( 169) 
(152) 
(457) 
U.S. Residents: 
Vacation 
96 
95 
97 
96 
Business 
2 
1 
1 
Commuting 
.. Shopping 
1 
1 
1 
Other 
2 
1 
1 
.'.1 
--
Tota1* 
99 
99 
99 
99 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(85) 
(117) 
( 83) 
(285) 
U.S. Virgin 'Is1afid-Residents: 
Vacatidn 
70 
80 
84 
78 
Business 
3 
2 
2 
Commuting 
16 
16 
16 
16 
Shopping 
3 
1 
Other 
8 
2 
3 
Total 
100 
100 
100 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 37) 
(44) 
(5 0) 
( 131) 
Foreign-Residents: 
Vacation 
100 
100 
84 
93 
Business 
5 
2 
Commuting 
Shopping 
Other 
11 
5 
Total 
100 
100 
100 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 14) 
( 8) 
(19) 
(41 ) 
* 
Does. not add to 100% due to rounding. 
TABLE A-3 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCHI-APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 3 : 
NUMBER IN PARTY 
(In Percentages) 
U.S. Virgin Island-
All Responses 
U.S. Residents 
Residents-(Non-Commuting) 
Foreign Residents 
3 Mo. 
3 Mo. 
3 Mo. 
3 Mo. 
Ma~ch 
April 
May 
Total 
March 
April 
May 
Total 
March 
April 
May 
Total 
March 
April 
May 
Total 
No. In 
Party 
Alone 
1 
8 
1 
2 
3 
12 
2 
1 
5 
11 
5 
Wi th Family 
2 
64 
56 
57 
59 
70 
62 
75 
69 
35 
30 
26 
30 
86 
88 
47 
68 
3 
10 
7 
4 
7 
7 
6 
1 
5 
19 
14 
7 
13 
7 
11 
7 
4 
4 
2 
3 
3 
2 
1 
1 
13 
3 
5 
6 
11 
5 
5 
** 
1 
** 
3 
1 
6 
7 or more 
Tour Group 
2 
** 
12 
2 
3 
4 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
5 
~ 
1 
** 
1 
1 
** 
> 
6 
1 
** 
1 
** 
,... 
7 or more 
** 
5 
2 
0 
1 
~li th Friends 2 
4 
17 
9 
11 
13 
7 
7 
19 
30 
17 
22 
3 
4 
11 
12 
9 
4 
10 
3 
6 
7 
16 
29 
18 
7 
5 
5 
4 
1 
1 
5 
3 
1 
3 
1 
5 
12 
6 
5 
1 
** 
1 
** 
6 
7 or more 
Business Associates 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
** 
3 
3 
1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
4 
5 
6 
7 or more 
Did not answer 
1 
1 
3 
2 
2 
4 
2 
3 
1 
10 
5 
Total* 
100 
99 
100 
100 
100 
99 
98 
"""98 
99 
101 
99 
~ 100 
100 
100 
~ 
No. Responses 
(Actual) 
(130) 
(162) 
(144) 
(436) 
(85) 
(117) 
(83) 
(285) 
(31) 
(37) 
. (42) 
(110) 
(14) 
(8) 
(19) 
(41) 
Mean 
2.03 
2.1 
2.6 
1.9 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding. 
** Less than .5% 
A-II 
TABLE A-4 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 4: 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF STAY 
(I n,.Pe rce n tage s) 
March 
April 
All Responses: 
One Day 
41 
41 
2-6 Days 
20 
24 
1- 2 Weeks 
38 
31 
3-4 Weeks 
1 
2 
4 Weeks or more 
1 
Did not answer 
1 
Total 
100 
100 
May 
59 
9 
32 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(13 0) 
(162) 
(144) 
Mean 
U.S. Residents: 
One Day 
27 
27 
39 
2-6 Days 
25 
26 
12 
1- 2 Weeks 
47 
41 
46 
3-4 Weeks 
1 
3 
2 
4 Weeks or more 
1 
Did not answer 
2 
Total* 
100 
100 
99 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(85) 
( 117) 
( 83) 
Mean 
U.S. Virgin Island-
Residents (Non-Commuting) 
(1)ne Day 
97 
100 
100 
2-6 Days 
3 
1-2 Weeks 
3- 4 Weeks 
4 Weeks or more 
Did not answer 
Total 
100 
100 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 31) 
C 37) 
(42) 
Mean 
3 Mo. 
Total 
47 
18 
33 
1 
1 
** 
100 
(436 ) 
5.1 Days 
31 
22 
45 
2 
100 
(285) 
8.45 Days 
99 
1 
100 
(110) 
1 Day 
TABLE A-4 (cant.) 
Question 4: 
Cont'd 
Foreign Residents: 
One Day 
1-2 Days 
1-2 Weeks 
3-4 Weeks 
4 Weeks or more 
Did not answer 
Total 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
A-12 
March 
29 
64 
7 
100 
(14) 
* 
** 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding 
Less than .5% 
April 
12 
25 
63 
100 
( 8) 
May 
37 
10 
53 
100 
(19 ) 
3 Mo. 
Total 
20 
21 
59 
100 
( 41) 
9.7 Days 
A-13 
TABLE A-S 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 6: 
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE FACT 
THAT ST. JOHN HAS A NATIONAL PARK INFLUENCE YOUR VISIT? 
(In Percentages) 
All Responses: 
Not at all 
Some 
About 50% 
Considerably 
Primary consideration 
Did not answer 
Total 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Derived Mean*** 
U.S. Residents: 
Not at all 
Some 
About 50% 
Considerably 
Primary consideration 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Derived Mean*** 
U.S. Virgin Island-
Residents (Non-Commuting) 
Not at all 
Some 
About 50% 
Considerably 
Primary consideration 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Derived Mearl"** 
March 
1 
4 
13 
32 
45 
5 
100 
(130) 
5 
16 
29 
41 
9 
--
100 
(85) 
3 
3 
6 
29 
58 
99 
( 31) 
3 Mo. 
April 
May 
Total 
2 
3 
2 
6 
4 
5 
13 
7 
11 
36 
40 
36 
40 
43 
42 
3 
3 
4 
100 
100 
100 
(162) 
(144) 
( 436) 
78.3% 
3 
1 
1 
6 
5 
5 
15 
8 
13 
33 
40 
34 
40 
43 
41 
3 
3 
5 
100 
100 
99 
( 117) 
(83) 
(185) 
78.0% 
3 
5 
4 
5 
2 
4 
11 
5 
7 
35 
38 
33 
46 
48 
50 
2 
1 
100 
100 
99 
( 3 7) 
( 4 2 ) 
(110) 
79.0% 
A-14 
TABLE A-S (cont.) 
Question 6 : 
Cont'd 
3 Mo. 
March 
April 
May 
Total 
Foreign Residents: 
Not at all 
5 
2 
Some 
13 
5 
5 
About 50% 
14 
13 
5 
12 
Considerably 
50 
50 
47 
49 
Primary consideration 
36 
13 
37 
29 
Did not answer 
11 
2 
Total* 
100 
100 
99 
99 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(14 ) 
( 8) 
(19) 
( 41) 
Derived Mean*** 
76% 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding. 
*** The Derived mean was calculated by assigning the following 
weights to answers given: 
"Not at all" 
"Some" 
"About 50%" 
"Considerably II 
"Primary Consid-
eration" 
o 
25% 
50% 
75% 
-
100% 
A-IS 
TABLE A-6 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 7: 
EVALUATION OF ST. JOHN EXPERIENCE 
(In Percentages) 
All Responses: 
Outstanding 
Better than average 
About average 
Below average 
Poor 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Derived Mean *** 
U.S. Residents: 
Outstanding 
Better than average 
About average 
Below average 
Poor 
Did not answer 
Total 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Derived Mean *** 
U.S. Virgin Island-
Residents (Non-Commuting) 
Outstanding 
Better than average 
About average 
Below average 
Poor 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Derived Mean *** 
March 
34 
38 
15 
5 
7 
99 
(130) 
32 
36 
16 
5 
11 
100 
(85) 
42 
35 
13 
10 
100 
( 31) 
April 
May 
35 
39 
33 
42 
21 
10 
5 
6 
1 
1 
5 
3 
---
100 
101 
(162) 
(144) 
36 
45 
31 
41 
21 
8 
6 
5 
2 
1 
4 
100 
100 
(117 ) 
(83) 
35 
33 
41 
50 
16 
7 
3 
2 
5 
7 
100 
99 
( 37) 
( 42) 
3 Mo. 
Total 
36 
38 
16 
5 
5 
100 
(436) 
77.0% 
37 
35 
16 
5 
1 
6 
100 
(285) 
77.0% 
36 
43 
12 
5 
4 
100 
(llQ) 
79.0% 
A-16 
TABLE A-6 (cant.) 
Question 7: 
Cont'd 
3 Mo. 
March 
April 
May 
Total 
Foreign Residents: 
outstanding 
29 
13 
26 
24 
Better than average 
57 
38 
31 
41 
About average 
14 
38 
21 
22 
Below average 
16 
7 
Poor 
Did not answer 
11 
5 
6 
Total* 
100 
100 
99 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 14) 
( 8) 
(19) 
(41) 
Derived Mean*** 
72.0% 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding. 
***The Derived Mean was calculated by assigning the following 
weights to answers given: 
"Outstanding" 
-
100% 
"Better than average -
75% 
"About average" 
50% 
"Below average" 
"Poor" 
25% 
o 
A-17 
TABLE A-7 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 8: 
AVERAGE DAILY EXPENSES PER ADULT 
(In Percentages) 
All Responses: 
Under $25.00 
$25.00 -
$49.99 
$50.00 -
$79.99 
$75.00 -
$99.99 
$100.00 -
$149.99 
$150.00 -
$199.99 
$200.00 -
$249.99 
$250.00 -
$349.99 
Did not answer 
To tal * 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
U.S. Residents: 
Under $25.00 
$25.00 -
$49.99 
$50.00 -
$79.99 
$75.00 -
$99.99 
$100.00 -
$149.99 
$150.00 -
$199.99 
$200.00 -
$249.99 
$250.00 -
$349.99 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
U.S. Virgin Is1and-
Residents (Non-Commuting) 
Under $25.00 
$25.00 -
$49.99 
$50.00 -
$79.99 
$75.00 and above 
Did not answer 
Total 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
March 
46 
36 
9 
2 
7 
100 
(130) 
43 
38 
6 
1 
11 
99 
( 85) 
58 
29 
13 
100 
( 31) 
April 
52 
21 
14 
2 
1 
1 
1 
9 
101 
(162) 
49 
21 
17 
2 
1 
1 
1 
8 
100 
(177) 
70 
19 
11 
100 
( 37) 
May 
45 
38 
7 
1 
2 
1 
1 
5 
100 
( 144) 
43 
39 
7 
1 
2 
1 
1 
6 
100 
( 83) 
55 
36 
5 
4 
100 
(42) 
3 Mo. 
Total 
48 
31 
10 
2 
1 
1 
** 
** 
7 
100 
(436 ) 
$34.60 
46 
32 
11 
1 
1 
1 
** 
** 
8 
100 
(285) 
$34.72 
61 
28 
5 
6 
100 
(110 ) 
$27.67 
TABLE A-7 (cant.) 
Question 8: 
Cont f·.d 
Foreign Residents: 
Under $25.00 
$25.00 -
$49.99 
$50.00 -
$74.99 
$75.00 -
$99.99 
$100.00 -
$149.99 
$150.00 and above 
Did not answer 
Tota1* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
A-18 
March 
36 
36 
21 
7 
100 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding. 
** Less than .5% 
April 
13 
25 
25 
13 
13 
11 
100 
3 Mo. 
May 
Total 
31 
29 
42 
37 
11 
17 
5 
7 
5 
5 
5 
5 
--
99 
100 
$44.94 
A-19 
TABLE A-8 
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS 
ST. JOHN TO ST. THOMAS 
MARCH, APRIL, MAY 1981 
QUESTION 9: 
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL INCOME OF HOUSEHOLD 
(In Percentages) 
All Responses: 
Under $10,000 
$10,000 
$20,000 
$30,000 
$40,000 
$50,000 
$60,000 
$75,000 
-
$19,999 
$29,999 
$39,999 
$49,999 
$59,999 
$74,999 
$99,999 
$100,000 or more 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
U.S. Residents: 
Under $10,000 
$10,000 
$20,000 
$30,000 
$40,000 
$50,000 
$60,000 
$75,000 
-
$19,999 
$29,999 
$39,999 
$49,999 
$59,999 
$74,999 
$99,999 
$100,000 or more 
Did not answer 
Total * 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
U.S. Virgin Island-
Resident (Non-Commuting) 
Under $10,000 
$10,000 -
$19,999 
$20,000 -
$29,999 
$30,000 -
$39,999 
$40,000 -
$49,999 
$50,000 -
$59,999 
$60,000 -
$74,999 
$75,000 -
$99,999 
$100,000 or more 
Did not answer 
Total* 
Cont'd 
March 
1 
4 
10 
17 
21 
17 
2 
1 
27 
100 
(130) 
3 
24 
29 
24 
1 
20 
101 
(85) 
3 
19 
35 
10 
3 
3 
26 
99 
April 
2 
6 
11 
9 
15 
16 
3 
2 
1 
35 
100 
( 162) 
1 
5 
10 
18 
18 
4 
3 
1 
40 
100 
(117) 
8 
27 
35 
5 
5 
2 
16 
98 
May 
6 
7 
11 
20 
26 
13 
2 
1 
1 
12 
99 
(144) 
2 
29 
37 
20 
1 
2 
1 
7 
99 
(83) 
21 
26 
33 
12 
7 
99 
3 Mo. 
Total 
3 
6 
11 
15 
20 
15 
2 
2 
** 
26 
100 
(436) 
$40,378 
** 
4 
20 
27 
22 
2 
2 
** 
23 
100 
(285) 
$45,387 
12 
25 
-:35 
9 
3 
1 
1 
14 
100 
TABLE A-8 (cant.) 
Question 9: Cont'd 
U.S. Virgin Island-
Resident (Non-Commuting) 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
Foreign Residents: 
Under $10,000 
$10,000 -
$19,999 
$20,000 -
$29,999 
$30,000 -
$39,999 
$40,000 -
$49,999 
$50,000 -
$59,999 
$60,000 -
$74,999 
$75,000 -
$99,999 
$100,000 or more 
Did not answer 
Total* 
No. Responses (Actual) 
Mean 
A-20 
March 
Con t' d 
( 31) 
21 
14 
7 
7 
50 
99 
(14) 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding. 
** Less than .5% 
April 
May 
( 37) 
(42) 
13 
5 
25 
42 
13 
11 
13 
11 
35 
31 
99 
100 
( 8) 
( 19) 
3 Mo. 
Total 
(110 ) 
$22,109 
5 
32 
12 
10 
2 
39 
100 
(41 ) 
$51,500 
APPENDIX B 
SURVEY OF GUESTS OF CANEEL BAY PLANTATION; 
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUND; AND ~~HO BAY CAMPGROUND 
In order to secure essential information available from no 
other source, the study deemed it essential to gather pri-
mary research data on guests at the three principal VINP-
related resorts on St. John. 
The reasons for this primary 
research and its connection with the principal thrust of 
the study are discussed in Chapter II. 
Managements of the facilities involved -- Rock Resorts, which 
manages Caneel Bay Plantation and Cinnamon Bay Campground, 
and the manager of the privately owned and operated Maho Bay 
Campground -- were most cooperative. 
All three facilities 
make use of their own questionnaires, designed to provide in-
formation on the quality of service rendered, suggestions 
for improvements, etc. 
Questionnaires prepared by the study 
team were given to the respective managements who, for the 
period of the survey, gave them to their guests along with 
their own questionnaires, collected them along with their 
own questionnaires, and sent the completed questionnaires 
to Island Resources Foundation for tabulation. 
Major constraints on this survey were essentially the same 
as for the survey described in Appendix A, but the period 
of the study was extended somewhat so that the period covered 
a span of 4 months, from March through June 1981. 
Another 
constraint was that each questionnaire be limited to a single 
page and be in a simple format so that it could be easily 
read and completed without assistance. 
A separate questionnaire was prepared for the Rock Resort 
facilities (both Caneel and Cinnamon) and for Maho bay. 
The principal difference was that the study team had obtain-
ed from Rock Resorts sufficient operating information so 
that an economic analysis of the impact of the facilities 
on the economies of the Virgin Islands could be developed 
without going through a multiplier pass~through of payments 
received from guests. 
(Rock Resorts supplied information 
on employment, payroll, taxes, capital and operating costs, 
including estimated amounts spent in the Virgin Islands 
economy.) 
Thus, the guests were asked to exclude amounts 
spent for lodging and meals at Rock Resort facilities. 
Maho Bay did not make this kind of information available. 
Hence the method used for estimating economic impact of 
Maho guests4 outlays entailed the indirect analysis describ-
ed in Chapter II of this report for lodging and meals of 
Maho guests as well as for all other expenditures. l 
B-2 
Another difference between the two questionnaires was in the 
categories used to collect expenditures per day. 
These dif-
fered because of the likelihood that Caneel Bay guests would 
be in higher income brackets. 
The two questionnaires used for the survey are as follows: 
B-3 
QUES TI ONNAI RE 
This questionnaire has been developed in cooperation with the management of 
Caneel Bay, Inc., and Cinnamon Bay Camp Ground. 
It is part of a study to 
estimate the signi/icance of Virgin Islands National Parks on the economy 
of the Virgin Islands. Please complete it and return it along with your 
Caneel Bay (or Cinnamon Bay) questionnaire. 
1. 
Did you stay at: 
Caneel Bay, Inc. 
Cinnamon Bay Camp Ground 
-----
------
2. 
What is your permanent residence? 
a) 
United States 
T(S~t~a~t-e--or~T~e-r-r-l~·t~o-r-y')-----------
b) 
0 the r Co un try..,--;-;-____ =--::;------:-_____________ _ 
(Name of Country 
3. 
How many in your party? 
a) 
~(A~d~u~lt~s~)----------
b) 
T(=Ch~i~l~dr-e-n~)--------
4. 
What was your length of stay in the Virgin Islands?770_----;;:-. __ ,--______ __ 
(No. of days) 
5. 
What were the estimated average daily expenses per adult person incurred 
during your stay in the Virgin Islands (St. John, St. Thomas, St. Croix)? 
(Such as, food, taxis (or other local transportation), tours, shopping, 
recreation, entertainment. 
Do not include transportation costs to and 
from the Virgin Islands, or the costs of lodging and meals at Caneel Bayl 
Ci nnamon Bay.) 
a) $50 or less ----
c) $100-$150 ---
e) $200-$250 __ g) $300-$400 __ 
b) $50-S100 
d) $150-$200 
h) $400-$500 
------
-...,.-
f) $250-$300 __ 
---
i) Over $500 --
6. 
To what extent did the fact that Caneel Bay, Inc. (Cinnamon Bay Camp Ground) 
is in a National Park environment influence your visit? (Circle the number 
that most nearly applies.) 
-TNot a tall ) 
/. 
Your age and sex: 
a) 
b) 
s rt/3/81 
Male ---
Fema 1 e --
2 
3 
4 
5 
(Some) 
(About 50%) 
(Considerably) 
Prima ry Cons i dera ti 01 
e) 30-39 ---
g) 50-59 __ 
c) Under 20 --
d) 20-29 ------
f) 40-49 __ h) 60-69 __ 
i) 70 or over --
Thank you for your cooperation. 
The 
information derived from this ques-
tionnaire will be used strictly for 
statistical purposes. 
ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION 
St. Thomas, V.I.' 
B-4 
QUESTIONNAIRE 
Maho Bay Camps. Inc .• is cooperating with Island Resources Found-
ation on a study to estimate the significance of V.I. National 
Parks on the Virgin Islands economy. 
As part of the study, we 
ask your cooperation in completing the following questionnaire 
and dropping it off at the Front Office in the large envelope 
marked, "STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE." 
1. 
What is your permanent residence? 
a) 
United States 
'(~S~t-a~t-e--o-r~T~e-r-r~i~t~o-r-y-)r-----------
b) 
Other Country 
'(~N-a-m-e--o~f~C~o-u-n~t-r-y~)'--------------
How many in your party? 
a)<7~~~ ______ __ 
(Adults) 
b) 
( C h ~i "'-1 --'d -r e-n----.--) -----
2. 
3. 
What was (is) your planned length of stay in the 
Virgin Islands?~ __ ~ 
___ ~ 
____ _ 
(No. days) 
4. 
What were the estimated average daily expenses per adult person 
incurred during your stay? 
(Such as lodging, food, taxis, tours. 
shopping, recreation. 
Do not include transportation costs to 
and from the Virgin Island~ 
a) $25 or less 
d) $100-$125 ______ 
g) $175-$200 
j) $300-$350 
b) $25-$75 ___ _ 
e) $125-$150 
h) $200-$250 ______ 
k) $350-$400 
c) $75-$100 __ 
f) $150-$175 ___ _ i) $250-$300 
1) $450 $500 
m) Over $500 
5. 
To what extent did the fact that you knew you would be in a National Park 
environment influence your visit? (Circle the number that most nearly applies.) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Tf\lota-i all) 
(Some) 
(About 50%) 
(Considerably) 
(Primary Consideration) 
6. 
Your age and sex: 
a) Male 
c) Under 20 ____ _ e) 30-39 
b) Fema 1 e 
d) 20- 29 ___ _ 
f) 40-49 
srt/2-S1 
g) 50- 59 _____ _ 
h 60-69 
i) 70 or over 
Thank you for your cooperation. 
The information derived from this 
questionnaire will be used strictly 
for statistical purposes in con-
nection with the study referred 
to herei n. 
ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION 
St. Thomas, V.I. 
B-5 
A total of 1,000 questionnaires were left with Caneel Bay 
and Cinnamon Bay management, but it is not known how many 
were actually distributed to guests. 
A total of 277 com-
pleted questionnaires were returned by Caneel Bay guests 
and 153 
by Cinnamon Bay guests - - probably around a 50 percent 
return, based on information concerning occupancy rates 
during the months the survey was in progress. 
A total of 500 questionnaires were delivered to Maho Bay 
Campgrounds, and 190 questionnaires were returned. 
Again 
no information is available as to the number of blank 
questionnaires actually distributed to guests, but the rate 
of return appears to be quite high -- well over 50.percent. 
The following tabulations summarize the results of the sur-
vey, starting with a summary profile of the guests at each 
installation. 
ISee notes accompanying Table 3 
on this point. 
for a further elaboration 
B-6 
SUMMARY PROFILE OF GUESTS AT MAJOR ST. JOHN FACILITIES 
Caneel Bay Plantation 
(Average) 
Number in Party 
Length of Stay 
Age 
Daily Expenses 
Park Influence on Visit 
Cinnamon Bay Campgrounds 
(Average) 
Number in Party 
Length of Stay 
Age 
Daily Expenses 
Park Influence on Visit 
Maho Bay Campgrounds 
(Average) 
Number in Party 
Length of Stay 
Age 
Daily Expenses 
Park Influence on Visit 
2.0% 
11.6 days 
40.3 
$101.48 
43.7% 
2.2% 
13 days 
37.1 
$48.17 
72.6% 
2.1% 
14.3 days 
36.2 
$61.14 
66.5% 
U.S. 
U.S.V.I. 
Foreign 
B-7 
TABLE B-1 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION, 
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUND, MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND 
SURVEY PERIOD: 
MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 1: 
PERMANENT RESIDENCE 
(In Percentages) 
Caneel 
Cinnamon 
96 
95 
1 
Country 
4 
3 
Maho 
95 
5 
Total* 
100 
99 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 227) 
( 153) 
(190) 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding 
** 
Less than .5% 
Total 
96 
** 
4 
100 
(570) 
No. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
B-8 
TABLE B-2 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION, 
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUNDS J 
MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND 
SURVEY PERIOD: 
MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 2: 
TRAVELING PARTY COMPOSITION 
(In Percentages) 
Caneel 
Cinnamon 
Maho 
Adults 
1 
11 
4 
90 
73 
83 
2 
8 
6 
6 
3 
6 
** 
2 
** 
or more 
1 
3 
1 
Total 
100 
100 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
( 227) 
( 153) 
(19 0) 
Hean 
2. 2 
2.2 
2.1 
** 
Less than 
5!l, 
• 
0 
Total 
4 
83 
5 
5 
2 
2 
100 
(570) 
2.19 
One 
2-6 
1-2 
3-4 
B-9 
TABLE B- 3 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION, 
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUND, MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND 
Day 
Days 
Weeks 
Weeks 
SURVEY PERIOD: 
MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 3: LENGTH OF STAY 
(In Percentages) 
Caneel 
Cinnamon 
1 
30 
19 
67 
78 
2 
3 
Maho 
3 
87 
9 
4 Weeks or more 
1 
Total 
100 
100 
100 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(227) 
(153) 
(190) 
Mean 
11. 6 days 13.0 
14.3 
** 
Less than 
~5% 
Total 
** 
18 
77 
5 
** 
100 
(575 ) 
13.4 
$ 
50 or less 
50 -
100 
100 -
150 
150 -
200 
200 -
250 
250 -
300 
300 -
350 
350 -
400 
450 -
500 
over 500 
B-IO 
TABLE B-4 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION 
AND CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUND 
SURVEY PERIOD MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 4: 
AVERAGE DAILY EXPENSES 
(In Percentages) 
Caneel 
Cinnamon 
42 
73 
33 
16 
8 
5 
3 
2 
3 
4 
2 
1 
4 
Did not answer 
2 
Total 
100 
98 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(227) 
( 153) 
Mean* 
$101. 48 
$48.17 
* 
Mean was derived using mid points for expenditure ranges. 
B-11 
TABLE B-4 (cont.) 
$ 
25 or 
25 -
75 -
100 -
125 -
175 -
200 -
Over 
less 
75 
100 
125 
175 
200 
500 
500 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND 
SURVEY PERIOD MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 4: 
AVERAGE DAILY EXPENSES 
(in Percentages) 
Maho Bay 
).1 
13 
56 
18 
6 
5 
Did not answer 
Total 
98 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(19 0.) 
Mean 
$61.14 
B-12 
TABLE B-S 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION, 
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUND, MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND 
SURVEY PERIOD: 
MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 5: 
EXTENT OF NATIONAL PARK INFLUENCE ON VISITS 
Caneel 
Cinnamon 
Maho 
Total 
----
---
Not at all 
29 
4 
4 
14 
Some 
21 
10 
15 
16 
About 50% 
10 
11 
14 
12 
Considerably 
31 
33 
44 
36 
Primary consideration 
8 
39 
23 
21 
Did not answer 
1 
3 
Total * 
100 
100 
100 
99 
No. Responses (Actual) 
(222) 
(149 ) 
(190) 
(561) 
Derived Mean** 
43. 7% 
72.6% 
66.5% 
59.7% 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding 
** 
The derived mean is based on the following weights: 
"Not at all" 
0 
"Some" 
25% 
"About 50%" 
50% 
"Cons ide rably '! 
75% 
"Primary consideration"-
100% 
B-13 
TABLE B-6 
SURVEY OF GUESTS: 
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION, 
CINNAMON BAY, MAHO BAY 
SURVEY PERIOD MARCH -
JUNE 1981 
QUESTION 6: 
AGE & SEX OF RESPONDENTS 
(In Percentages) 
Age 
Caneel 
Cinnamon 
Maho 
Under 20 
1 
3 
3 
20 -
29 
21 
36 
29 
30 -
39 
32 
29 
37 
40 -
49 
20 
11 
17 
50 -
59 
15 
8 
8 
60 '-
69 
6 
9 
4 
70 
& Over 
2 
2 
1 
Did not answer 
2 
2 
1 
Total* 
99 
100 
100 
No. Responses 
(Actual) 
( 227) 
( 153) 
( 190) 
Mean (Age) 
40.3 
37.1 
36.2 
Sex 
Male 
55 
40 
50 
Female 
42 
57 
50 
Did not answer 
3 
3 
Total 
100 
100 
100 
No. Responses 
(~ctual) 
(227) 
(153) 
(190) 
* 
Does not add to 100% due to rounding. 
Total 
2 
28 
33 
16 
11 
6 
2 
2 
100 
(370) 
38.2 
49 
49 
2 
100 
(570) 
r 
' 
APPENDIX C 
SURVEY OF CHARTER BOATING AND RELATED 
BUSINESSES IN' THE VIRGIN ISLANDS RELATIVE 
TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO OUR TOURISH 
RELATED ECONOMY 
, . 
A report prepared for the 
Department of Commerce of the 
U.S. Virgin Islands 
by Cly.de Carder 
July 14, 1980 
(Funds for this project were made available by the 
International Development Research,' Center --" 
Ottawa, Canada) 
To: 
From: 
Re: 
C-2 
Amadeo 1.0. Francis 
Commissioner 
V.I. Department of Commerce 
St. Thomas 
Clyde D. Carder 
Survey of charter boating and related businesses 
in the Virgin Islands relative to their contribu-
tion to our tourism related economy. 
Introduction: 
I was retained by John Tinsley, chief economist 
of the Department, to survey the charter boat and 
related businesses within the "scope of work 
agreement" which is attached to this copy of the 
survey results. 
The survey was conducted during various times in 
February, March ·and April 1980 by personal inter-
views "lith 25 people on St. Thomas, and by phone 
with seven on St. Croix and three on St. John. 
BVI results were determined by interviews with 
about six boat captains who operate out of st. 
Thomas but who are registered in Tortola and are 
quite familiar with the industry there and in the 
other British Virgin Islands, and a careful reading 
of BVI tourist literature. 
Because of the in-depth nature of the conduct of 
the survey, the margin of error for all figures 
cited should not exceed five to seven percent. 
Scope of Work and Results: 
A. 
An inventory of vessels engaged in the following 
types of operations on the U.S. Virgin Islands 
1) 
Charter (sail and/or power) boats avail-
able for overnight charters, crewed. 
There 
are approximately 190 boats, nearly all 
sail; that are avai)tble for crewed term 
charters .. About 25-'-Of these are registered 
in the BVI or elsewhere (the larger boats 
that carry six or more passengers), but 
are considered part of the St. Thomas fleet. 
2) 
Charter boats (sail). available· forchar.ter 
of one day or less, crewed. 
This is an 
almost impossible figure to determine with 
any degree of accuracy. 
At one time a 
good number of the crewed boats that were 
not on term charters were available for 
day charters through the V.I. Charterboat 
League. 
The League gave up trying to be 
l/v.r. Charterboat League indicates this figure to between 40-S( 
noat Survey--2 
C-3 
a central booking office for this activity 
for lack of staff.' A good estimate is that 
there are about 20 boats that actively seek 
day sails through the hotels. 
The average 
day-sail rate is $2.0 per person. 
The figure 
used for the boats engaged in this business 
does not includeHo Te~,Kon Tiki, Capt. 
Yellow Bird' or True Love. 
3) 
Charter boats (sail) available for overnIght 
charters without crew (bareboat). 
There are 
189 bare boats in this category, operated by 
11 companies. 
Expansion plans of five of 
these op.erations will add 62 boats by the end 
of 1982. 
4) 
Fishing or diving charter boats (power) 
available for one day charters, crewed. 
There are 13 fishing boats available for 
charter at all times. 
(When major tournaments 
are held" as many as 15 additional boats come 
from the BVI and Puerto Rico to participate.) 
There are 28 dive boats available for half-or 
full-day charters. 
{About 20 boats in the 
crewed charter boat fleet are fully equipped 
for diving and are often chartered for week-
long diving expeditions.} 
5) 
Any other vessels that can be considered as 
charter boats. 
About 20 small sail boats, 
inclUding multi-hulls, are avaiiable for 
rent by the hour" half-or full-day. 
. 
. 
B. An estimate of the number of Puert; Rican boats 
registered in 'the Virgin Islands and also the num-
ber of Puerto Rican power boats which visit the 
Virgin Islands on a regular basis (four times a 
year). 
The Bureau, of Fish and Wildlife of the 
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, 
the unit that handles boat registration, was unable 
to answer the question about the number of Puerto 
Rican boats registered in the V.I. 
The person said 
that many such boats give a local address, that 
of a relative or friend (presumably to avoid PR 
taxes), so it is 'impossible to identify these bo"ats. 
Thosetha t register with a PR address are .. not .. kept. 
in a separa.te .fileand it would require someone',to . 
go through.' alT registrations toidentifythem~ 
Conservation, wilT not: do . this. for us... 
There,wer.e .. 
2, 765hoats at all typesregrstered.:inthe> V.I .. as 
-'of December 31, 1979. 
The Sheraton Marina does not indicate on its fuel 
receipts the registration area of the boats it ser-
vices. 
{This should have been a best source of 
information on the number of PR boats that come into 
V.I. waters on long weekends, as nearly all fuel 
27 
V. 1. Charterboat League advises that as of mid-()Ctober, 
C-4 
Boat Survey--3 
there on the way in or out.) 
The estimate, 
from several marina employees, is that from 
80 to 100 PR power boats visit during the 
four long weekends of the year. 
C) 
A list of· locally based commercial or other 
enterprises which cater to the charter boat 
fleet. 
Insurance companies that handle marine 
coverage 
Marine supply stores 
Marine electronic sales and repair shops 
-
Inboard and outboard engine sales and 
repair shops 
- Marinas in general and marinas with haul-out 
facilities 
- Supermarkets and wholesale'food purveyors 
- Sail makers and carpet stores 
- Central boat reservation offices and boat 
brokers 
D) 
A summary of the number of charter boats of 
all types based in the British Virgin Islands 
. that compete directly with the u.S. Virgin 
Islands fleet. 
The best estimate from 
several local sources and BVI tourist literature 
is that there are about 220 bare boats based in 
the BVI, which are operated by some 10 companies. 
About 20 of these boats are available with a 
captain. 
(These are not included in the BVI-
based crewed boats mentioned earlier.) It 
seems that BVI bare boat operators see a good 
market for crewed boats and make captains avail-
able to charterers who are not sure of their 
sailing abilities. 
These really can be called 
semi-crewed in that only a captain is provided. 
Cooking is done by the charterer. 
There are four sport fishing boats. 
They are 
operated by owners on a part-time basis who 
have other occupations. 
St. Thomas sport 
fishing boat captains do not consider the BVI 
sport fishing fleet a professional operation. 
Seven dive boats operate from various islands 
In the BVI group. 
E) 
In A,B and C above; statistics should beoh-
tained as far as is pussible covering:. 
1) 
The number of each type: 
This is answered. 
throughout the above information. 
2) 
An estimate of the number of charters booked: 
Crewed boats: each of the 190 boats chartered 
an 
average of 17 wee~a year (1979 figures). 
Each charter, about 3,320, averaged 5.2 
people at an average cost of about $110 per 
person per day, or a total gross income for 
Boat Survey--4 
C-5 
1979 of some $13 million. 
Bare boats: 
bare boat companies reported that 
their boats ranged from 15 to 32 weeks of char-
ter per year. 
There were 4,370 charters of 
21,000 people for an approximate gross annual 
income of about $4.5 million. 
Most bare boat 
operations have a three-season rate schedule, 
which offers a very inexpensive summer (off-
season) rate. 
Each fishing ~t sr;>ent alxmt 140 full .<~ay.s at 
sea. (A comblnatlon_ofhalf and full day charterE 
. . 
. 
Dive boats do not operate as charter boats per 
se, but take anyone who wants to make a dive at 
a scheduled time. 
(This does not apply to the 
20 crewed char.ter boats that are equ,ipped for 
diving and are often chartered specifically for 
week-long diving trips.) 
3) The prices charged for the various services: 
Crewed boa.ts range from $1500 a week for a two 
passenger boat to $12,500 a week for an eight 
passenger boat such as the Antares, or an 
ayerage of $110 per day per charter passenger. 
On 
'crewed boats this is an all inclusive 
price--all meals, snacks, beverages, wine, use 
of snorkel and fishing equipment~re included. 
Bare boats range from $350 a week for a two-
passenger boat to $1500 for a boat that will 
carry up to six. 
Most bare boats have a three 
season rate structure. 
Summer rates are ex-
tremely low. 
The daily per person average is 
about $45, but this does not include provisions 
or beverages, which the charterer can purchase 
at the supermarket or have the boat company 
supply. 
Sport fishing boats ~re $175 for a half day, 
$350 for a full day and $400 a day £or tourna-
ment fishing. 
This is for a boat which four 
persons ~an share. 
Dive boats get $35 for a boat dive and $65 for 
a dive on the Rhone. 
4) Local purchases by charter boat. operators: 
It· 
is estimated. that the crewed fleet spends. close 
to $2 million a 'year on food, beverages arrd .. 8.on:-
diments. 
About $550 ,00 wasspenLorrhauling, 
b6ttom paint, varnish, parts and othermainte-
nance locally. 
Another $300,000 was spent on 
hauling in Puerto Rico and the BVI and an addi-
tional $150,000 was spent on paint and parts in 
the United States and Puerto Rico. 
About $575,00 
was spent locally on marine insurance, with an-
other $125,000 going to BVI agencies. 
Fuel costs 
C-6 
were about $240,000, all of which was spen~ locally. 
Some $1.8 million was paid in broker (bookln~ agent) 
commissions. 
Only about eight percent of thlS a-
mount was earned by the several St~ T~omas brokers. 
The rest was paid to some 25 brokers ln the states 
and one in Argentina. 
The bare boat fleet of 189 boats spent about $3,500 
per boat for hauling, paint, varnish and general 
maintenance, all local. Provisioning, whether pro-
vided by the boat companies or the charterer, 
amounted to about $1.7 million. 
Practically all of 
this was spent locally. 
Fuel costs were about 
$125,000. 
Nearly all bare boats are individually 
owned by stateside residents, financed and insured 
there. 
A few are locally owned and financed. 
Just 
about all bare boat charters are booked directly 
with the operating companies instead of brokers. 
(A significant amolJ_nt of net profit realized from 
the bare boat operation goes t6 the stateside ownerE 
and is not spent here.) 
Fishing boats average 140 days at sea and spend 
between $60 and $70 per trip for fuel (1979 fuel 
costs), or about $110,000 a year. 
Hauling and othel 
maintenance is ab9ut $60,000 for the fleet. 
Dive boats spent about $90,000 on fuel in 1979 and 
$70,000 on hauling and other maintenance. 
5) The 
a) 
b) 
activities of the charter visitors including: 
The amount of shopping done by the charter 
boat visitors: 
It appears that charterers 
of bare and -crewed boats consider shopping of 
secondary importance to being in the V.I., as 
their primary reason is to sail and enjoy the 
associated water sports. 
Their expenditures arE 
difficult to determine. 
A good assumption, baSE 
on interviews with charterers and charter boat 
captains, is that they spend a little less 
thanOa cruise ship passenger-and much less than 
the long-stay visitor. 
The average stay (in time) at local hotels 
before and/or after a charter by charter visitOl 
About 9Dpercent of alL crewed boat charters 
spend at least one night before or a.fter: a char-
t.er -in a local ho.tel. 
The Sheraton.-and .its 
predecesseroperator-soffereda significant. 
discount to charterers_ w-hobookedbo.ats moor.ed. 
at their marina. 
It is estimated that crewed 
boat charterers spent nearly $700,000 on hotel 
rooms duiing 1979. ° 
Bare boat charterers spend less time in a hotel 
room as the boat operating companies will let 
them sleep in the boat they chartered if they 
.. 
C-7 
Boat Survey--6 
arrive early or use another boat in the fleet 
if their boat is not ready. 
The charge for 
this is about 10 percent of hotel room rates. 
An estimate for bare boat charterers for hotel 
rooms is about $300,000. 
F. 
A final report summarizing the information obtaoined 
as part of the project. 
There are 422 crewed, bare, 
fishing and dive boats in the U.S. Virgin Islands 
(several of the crewed charter boats are based in 
the BVI but do nearly all of their business out of 
St. Thomas) that generate an annual· estimated gross 
income of about $21 million. 
This figure does not 
include income generated by the day sail boats 
or the large party-type boats such as the Ho Tei, 
Le Junk, CaptainYellowbird or True Love. 
Boat owners and operators spend about $6 million 
annually for food, beverages, boat maintenance, 
fuel, insurance and incidentals. 
This figure in-
cludes what bare boat charterers spend themselves 
on provisioning. 
The bare boat companies employ about 60 full-time 
people plus some casual labor. 
Crewed boats have an average crew of 3.5, including 
the captain and mate, generally the husband and wifE 
owners of the boats. 
If they can be considered 
employees, the crewed boat fleet has about 665 
employees • 
. Surveyors Comments: 
Many of the crewed boat captains who were interviewed who 
have been chartering here for. five or more years and have 
seen the fleet grow from about ?5 to more than 200 boats 
at the time of the last boat show in November 1979, feel 
that the fleet grew too fast in proportion to the amount of 
business that can be generated and that some will drop out. 
Declining membership in the V.I. Charterboat League is 
evidence that this is beginning to happen. 
(Many of the 
new. boats during the past two years came from islands in 
the Caribbean and the Bahamas where exhorbitant taxes and 
other restrictions made chartering a marginal operation. 
Bare boating has grown rapidly in the last· four years and 
seems to be. holdingitsown,wi thsomecompanies planning.·· 
to expand duringthenextsever.al ye.ars_ 
Sport fishing has declined in recent years as fuel costs 
have raised charter rates to a near prohibitive rate. 
Diving seems to be the current "in" water sports oriented 
activity and growing rapidly. 
Clyde D. Carder 
July 14, 1980 
APPENDIX D 
A SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY VIEWS EXPRESSED BY OFFICIALS 
AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING THE STUDY 
General. As noted previously, the island of St. John has a 
resident population of approximately 2,500 persons, comprised 
mostly of native Virgin Islanders and migrants from other 
Caribbean islands. 
Based on interviews with a number of resi-
dents, including the island legislator (Senator Gilbert Sprauve), 
housewives, taxi drivers, students, entrepreneurs, and govern-
ment officials, it was generally accepted that the presence 
of the VINP was viewed as an asset by those on the island. 
Notwithstanding, 
the general acceptance of the VINP by the local 
populace, issues of disagreement with the relationship between 
the VINP and the St. John community were surfaced. 
Following 
is a summary of issues and suggestions that came up: 
Land Acquisition. 
A number of St. Johnians expressed the view 
that the National Park Service should discontinue land acquisi-
tion until such time as the housing needs of St. Johnians are 
adequately met. 
There also seemed to be considerable confusion 
over the difference between the authorized exterior boundaries 
of the park and the NPS ownership boundary. 
Along with this 
view was a feeling that the National Park Service should com-
pensate the local government for territorial tax revenue losses 
caused by Federal land ownership. 
The thought was expressed 
that if the NPS could not make payments in lieu of taxes it 
should provide more community services on St. John. 
Suggested 
services included providing park land for territorial govern-
ment expansion, and for an island community complex. 
Other 
suggestions were to set aside land for economic development 
activities such as farming, horticulture, and agriculture. 
(It should be noted that VINP officials expressed the view 
that they would be pleased to cooperate with such endeavors, 
subject to NPS policies, but that they felt a strong respons-
ibility to be sure that any such projects would be solidly 
based and supported, so that the VINP, having in good fai th 
participated in a cooperative project, did not find itself 
after a period of time "holding the bag".) 
Cultural Resources. 
Support was expressed for exterior re-
habilitation and/or restoration of historic structures at 
selected locations on St. John, including Reef Bay, Brown Bay, 
Catherineberg, and Trunk Bay. 
Continuation and expansion of 
interpretive programs dealing with the vernacular culture of 
the islands was encouraged, and research to document and pre-
serve St. Johnian folkways and oral history was endorsed. 
One 
suggestion was that an interpretive area be developed at 
D-2 
Larneshur Bay where local senior citizens could perform cultural 
demonstrations. 
It was also noted that a comprehensive arch-
aeological survey of the park might be undertaken usefully. 
Natural Resource Management. 
Pollution control, land based and 
on the waterways, is a matter of prevalent concern. 
It was em-
phasized that new park developments should not be located near 
the shore. 
Shore protection is vital to prevent environmental 
damage to beaches, coral beds, and mangroves. 
Comments regard-
ing waste discharges in park waters varied from insignificant 
due to seaward currents to complaints that they are a potential 
attraction that might lure sharks into park swimming areas. 
Wildlife management is also of concern. 
Specific issues dis-
cussed included controlling wild donkeys on St. John and lib-
eralizing park restrictions on traditional seine fishing. 
Development. 
The use and misuse of beaches in the park was a 
topic of concern. 
St. Johnians expressed a fear that Hawks-
nest Bay might become overdeveloped, or subjected to heavy use, 
as is the case with Trunk Bay. 
Some feel that Trunk Bay is 
currently over-used by tour groups and that the existing con-
cession and dressing room facilities badly need upgrading. 
Visitor Services. 
Other St. Johnians feel that the NPS should 
become more involved in community action and develop more 
recreation and interpretive programs for West Indian visitors. 
Criticism was leveled at the VINP for the lack of Virgin Islanders 
in park concessions, and it was recommended that concession 
contract bidding be more open to local people. 
Other Issues. 
The VINP was urged to employ more Virgin Islanders 
in upper-level park positions, particularly in the area of 
community relations. 
An in-service training and educational 
program for local young people in park management was urged. 
Comments were voiced about the relationship between the VINP 
and Caneel Bay Plantation. 
There were views that Caneel Bay 
has in the past received unfair preferential treatment by the 
VINP in concession bidding and NPS dock access.