2.?. 9s'. £olX
Clemson Universi
3 1604 016 838 429
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
by the
Island Resources Foundation
Red Hook Center
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
FEDOiAL
ttJBUCATKai
October, 1981
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Virgin Islands National Park
Box 7789
- St. Thomas, V.I. 00801
December
29,
1981
Dear Reader:
It
is with a sense of pride
that
I encourage the release of this analysis
of
the Economic
Impact
of the Virgin Islands National Park to the Virgin Islands.
This study though done for the National Park Service,
is
the product
of
a
Virgin
Islands organization and the conclusions
are arrived
at by them without
pressure from the Service.
I believe the objective evaluation of the economic impact by the park on the
economy of
St.
Thomas and
St.
John shows
that the park plays
a significant
role in the local economy.
There will be those that question the conclusions and feel that
if the park
didn't exist
other uses would be more beneficial.
Our ability to measure the
"what
if" philosophy
is nil.
We now have an answer and
a system to determine data for the question "What
value
is
the park to the Islands?"
This
report
is certainly not
the final effort or action by the National Park
Service but
one of several studies
that are needed to properly develop
the
Service's position in the
Islands.
NoeTvO.
Pachta
ti^
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.
Edward
Towle
Charlotte
Reeder
October
1981
RED HOOK CENTER
. BOX 33
• ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801
• (809) 775-3225
EXECUTIVE 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.
To
accomplish 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.
These are explained
in detail
in the appropriate sections of
this
report.
Economic impact was generally determined first by securing 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.
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.
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
Findings
The findings
of
the multivariate analyses used
in the study are
summarized
in the following tabulations.
COMPAEISONS OF ANNUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS, ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VINP
ON ST. THOMAS /ST.
JOHN ECONOMY,
1980 DATA
Direct
(Thous .
)
Indirect
(Thous.)
Total
(Thous .
Costs
Operation and Maintenance
of VINP
(see Chapter
V)
Interest
on Federal Investment
in VINP Properties
(see
Chapter
IV)
Taxes Lost
on Property Removed
from Local Government Rolls
(see Chapter
IV)
$1,250
$
670
176
TOTAL COSTS
Benefits
$1,250
$
846
$2,096
Outlays
of VINP in Local
Economy
(see Chapter
V)
$
830
Outlays
of VINP Concessionnaires
in Local Economy
(see Chapter
V)
2,500
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)
$12,061
3,000
5,000
TOTAL BENEFITS
$3,330
$20,061
$23,391
Reduced
to ratios,
the above tabulation indicates
that:
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 substantially—in either direction.
In sum,
however,
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—well beyond
the costs incurred in
its operation and maintenance.
Future Projections
The Virgin Islands Government projects
a continuation of tourism as
the
number one
industry
of
the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
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 economy 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
850-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 by some of the officials
and individuals contacted during the study,
should be increasingly
important—from the economic point
of view,
and,
more
importantly,
because of the esthetic/cultural benefits
that
it guarantees for future
years.
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.
Valuable
research advice
and assistance was
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,
the study 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.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
No
CHAPTER
I:
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background and Purpose
B.
History and Setting
C.
Concept of Study
D.
Outline of Study
CHAPTER
II
ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF VINP ON TOURISM
IN
ST.
THOMAS/ST.
JOHN
A.
Methodology and Research
B.
Summary of Findings
CHAPTER
III:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF VIRGIN
ISLANDS NATIONAL
PARK ON BOATING
INDUSTRY
IN
ST.
THOMAS/ST.
JOHN
A.
Analytical
Approach
B.
Summary of Findings
C.
Conclusion
CHAPTER
IV:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF THE VINP ON LAND VALUES ON
ST.
JOHN
A.
Methodology
B.
Summary of Findings
CHAPTER
V:
DIRECT AND
INDIRECT ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF VINP AND
VINP CONCESSIONAIRES ON
ST.
THOMAS/ ST.
JOHN ECONOMY
A.
Costs of the VINP
B.
Economic
Benefits of the VINP
C.
Economic
Benefits of Caneel
Bay/Cinnamon
Bay
Operations
on
St.
John
CHAPTER VI:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A.
Summary
B.
Conclusions
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING COURSE OF STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
A.
SURVEY OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS
APPENDIX
B.
SURVEY OF GUESTS OF CANEEL BAY PLANTATION
CINNAMON
BAY CAMPGROUND AND MAHO BAN CAMPGROUND
APPENDIX
C.
SURVEY OF CHARTERBOATING AND RELATED BUSINESSES...
report prepared for
the Department of Commerce
APPENDIX
D.
A SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY VIEWS
1
1
1
-
3
4
-
7
7
-
8
10
10-12
12-20
22
22-24
24
25
27
27-31
32-33
35
35-37
37-39
39-40
41
41-46
46-48
50-51
52-53'
A-l
-
A-20
B-l
-
B-•13
C-l
-
C-
D-l
-
D-
7
•2
Ill
LIST OF TABLES
Page
No.
TABLE
1
TABLE
2
TABLE
3
TABLE 4
TABLE
5
TABLE
A-1
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
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TRAVELING TO AND FROM
ST.
JOHN VIA FERRY,
JANUARY THRU 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
IMPACT OF VINP ON
ST.
THOMAS/ST.
JOHN ECONOMY,
1980 DATA
PROFILE OF USERS
MAIN PURPOSE OF TRIP
NUMBER
IN PARTY
ESTIMATED LENGTH
OF STAY
TO WHAT EXTENT
DID THE FACT THAT
ST.
JOHN HAS A NATIONAL
PARK
INFLUENCE YOUR VISIT?
EVALUATION OF
ST.
JOHN EXPERIENCE
AVERAGE DAILY
EXPENSES PER ADULT
APPROXIMATE 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
13
17
18
30
46-47
A-8
A-9
A- 10
A-11
-
A-12
A-13
-
A-•14
A-•15
-
A-16
A-•17
-
A-•18
A-19
-
A-
B-7
B-8
B-9
20
B--10
-
B-
B-12
B-13
11
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. 1
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
scenery;
the provision
of recreational
opportuni-
ties;
the preservation
of historical
landmarks;
and related
esthetic and cultural benefits
of
the VINP.
It
is worth noting
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
overwhelmingly
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. 3
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
1968 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
3
-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 caves 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
districts.
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 Registry
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
national park
. 4
A
1977
study by Dryer
e_t. 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. 5
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
e_t. al_.
The
study establishes
the
concept
of visitors'
annual willingness- 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 extending
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
of 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
:
Th e Major
Rg_le
9J Tourism
in
The Economy
of
the Virgin
I si a ncfs \
The
"Ann i ia 1
Economic ~R e view
1980," published
by
the~TJepartment 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
25.71
of
all Virgin
Islands employment
(including
Gov-
ernment employment),
and
over
40%
of
all private employment
.
The
figures
are
for
St.
John, 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
influ-
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
organization consist
of:
Caneel
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
the. VINP
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 ofthe
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.
FOOTNOTES
FOR CHAPTER
I
The
analysis
does
not
include
consideration
of
segments
of
the VINP
on
the island
of
St.
Croix
in
the Virgin
Islands.
zHarold 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. )
4 Casavant,
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
.
^Dwyer,
John,
and Robert Espereth.
"Improved
Local
Planning
for
Reservoir-Oriented Recreation Opportunities."
Water Resources
Center,
Urbana,
Illinois,
1977.
"Nez,
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".
7
'Mills,
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.
°Dalfelt,
Arne
.
"Some
Data Related
to
Costs
and Benefits
of
National
Parks
in
Latin America,"
Centro Agronomico Tropical
de
Inves tigacion
y Ensenanza
Catie,
Departamento
de
Ciencias
Forestales,
Turrialba,
Costa Rica,
1976.
Phillip
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.
10 Ibid.
,
p. 8.
1
Govt,
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
INJlL
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 visitors
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 brochures
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
file
on vacationing,
traveling,
and sightseeing within
the
park,
indicating
the
interests
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
.
Despite
the
fact
that
there
would inevitably be
some
overlaps,
the
study undertook
three
separate
analyses
dealing with
the economic
impact of VINP
on
tourism:
(1)
St.
John
can be visited only over 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 boat)
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
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 were
interviewed 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*
VARLACK VENTURES
TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL
Red Hook
to
Cruz Bay
14,600
15,400
15,780
16,400
13,422
11,000
16,349
19,420
8,682
11,100
12,000
13,300
158,453
Cruz Bay
to
Red Hook
14,623
14,497
15,550
16,447
13,200
10,543
12,141
10,242
8,500
10,166
11,296
12,644
149,849
Red Hook
to
Cruz Bay
13,300
14,590
14,350
13,393
13,100
13,403
13,341
11,102
9,159
10,533
10,200
11,182
147,653
Cruz Bay
to
Red Hook
13,112
13,404
14,250
12,800
12,113
13,200
10,341
10,400
8,500
10,300
10,099
10,100
138,619
TOTAL
55,635
57,891
59,930
59,040
51,835
48,146
52,172
42,164
34,841
42,099
43,595
47,226
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
1001
It was
also determined
that
the principal purposes
of trips were:
Vacation
921
Business
or Commuting
5
Shopping
(or "Other")
3
100%
Step
Three
involved determining
to what
extent
ferry users
were
influenced
to visit
St.
John by
reason
of
the
fact
that
the VINP
was
on
that
island.
The
survey
(excluding commuters)
gave
the
following
results:
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.
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
on
the
stay
in
St.
John and
gave
an over-all
average
of
$34.60 per
adult.
(The
large
per-
centage
of ferry users
(47%)
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-
2
rco
l-D
Eh
CO
EhH
Eh
CO
< H
X >
Eh
ps
Eh D
u o
a,
>H
h w
W u
X 2
Eh WD
Q J
M
Pn
Q 2H
Eh2 *
W «
Eh <
X
Cm
w
.J
Eh
<c
<C 2
a O
s M
Eh
o <
^ 2
<
\D
CO
<
2 a
OM
Eh
COWD
Cx
c
•H
-P
(0
Jh
>1
0)
M
T3
03 H
E
W
H
C
>H
o
PiA u
#
dP
A
rt
>-i
0>
-OA
U)
c
ou
dPo
in
-P
OA<
di
e
o
CO
4J
td
P
o2
w
0)w
c
o
Ck
tn
0)
u
iw
O
(1)
Cn
(0
H
0)
>
(d
X!P
c
os
0>
Jh"
Eh
in
o
in
O
in
o
^
TT
m
m
(N
CN
15-
ment
of commerce.3
A second analysis
was
made
of
the
guests
of
the major VINP-related
installations
on
St.
John.
This
analysis
was
designed
to secure
demographic
and economic
impact
information concerning visitors
who
remain
on
St.
John
for
a period of
days
and weeks.
The
ques-
tionnaires were
administered by
the managements
of
the
facilities,
along with questionnaires
used
for
their
internal management pur-
poses
.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
43.71,
and
for Cinnamon Bay Campground
it was
72.61;
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
is
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.
£5
CO
Eh
Q M M
J 2 5
o o
Eh
8
w
toie;<w
a,
2OH
g
co
EhH
COH>
§
1
-i 7-
r~
rH
rH
r»
o
m
r^
r-i
rH
o
r-\
r-
00
CO
(T>
m
o
r-{
^r
o
CD
CA
CM
CD
cD
r-
•-i
CO
T
cr>
CM
CO
00
r-i
^
o
H
CD
m
O
CD
CO
o
rr
<j\
CD
CM
CD
r-
O
CD
CTi
r~
r-
r~
CO
m
xy
m
Lfl
CM
ro
CD
CO
...a
J
E?3
CO
r»
co
CM
CO
CO
CM
m
CM
cn
r-
r~-
CD
Eh
^
r>
o
00
CO
CM
rH
in
CO
CD
CD
r-
CO
£
^r
o
<N
ro
CM
CD
C\
00
CO
<tf
r-
»
rH
m
in
r~
in
CM
r-\
rH
o
in
CD
00
CM
co
rH
rH
rH
-h
rH
r-i
r-\
rH
f-{
rH
rH
o
«tf
o
CM
CD
r*
CM
r-»
CO
r~-
CTi
CO
4->
rH
r-i
r^
CD
^f
CO
^
rH
CN
CN
cd
r-i
00
tfl
CD
C
W
r»
m
id
o
O
CM
00
in
r^
CD
r^
CD
co
CO P
p>
r-
CO
CO
r-
CD
CD
in
ro
^
in
r^
CTi
1
T3
E
3
r»
r^-
(N
CM
CD
r-
in
CO
in
^i
o
00
CD
co
co
co
CM
^T
CO
cd
«*
in
*?
o
m
CD
r-
in
m
CO
CM
CO
o
CO
CD
00
o
r-1
O
ttJ
O
r~
r^
00
l*»
in
m
in
in
r-\
rH
CO
in
CD
u
u
m
&>
<
Eh
en
q1
in
in
CM
CM
m
co
<Ti
r-\
*)
o
CM
iH
rH
•^
CM
CN!
CM
<7>
o
o
in
C\
CTi
CTi
r-
CO
CM
in
<Ti
CM
00
CO
rH
m
CO
CO
CO
O
Eh
^
rH
r-{
in
r-{
CO
<*
rH
r-i
o
rH
CO
CD
IT)
ID
CO
<3*
rr
ro
vT
•^r
CM
CO
in
in
^r
in
P
00
00
r»
<tf
CO
CTi
r~
«3*
O
CD
CO
CO
in
C*
r-
<T>
r*>
r-t
00
00
CO
CO
CO
00
<3"
r-
tO
<1)
o
to
00
m
rH
o
r>
CO
GO
m
CTi
00
r~
O
CT>
n d
ro
00
r^
•^
rH
O
^
o
CD
t-
o
CD
CM
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
•-<
rH
rH
rH
rH
m
o
a)
fO
CO
CD P
LD
m
CO
^r
m
sf
CD
m
CM
rH
CM
O
m
CX>
^r
CO
o
r-
r^
00
CM
CD
Sf
r~
<tf
o
CO
(N
CM
en
co
CO
CD
in
rH
^*
CO
•^
in
ro
00
O
rH
o
rH
r-
r-
in
r-
CO
<*
^
•h*
CO
00
CO
<D
U
CD
3
P
O
P
Eh
a)
to
(N
r-
CD
m
o
CM
rH
CM
CD
o
«*
a\
^
rH
^
t*«
r-»
CTi
d
co
T
t-\
in
CO
o
r-
<Ti
rH
<r>
CD
r-
o
o
r-
CM
CM
CO
CD
00
CO
00
CO
in
•^
in
CD
"d*
CO
CD
in
r-»
o
04 J
>i
tom p
to
H
CD
CD
3
O
00
<T\
cd
CO
r-t
CD
CD
O
cyi
o
o
CO
in
'tf
•f
r-
<Ti
CM
"tf
rH
r-
CD
CD
o
o
o
co
*r
ro
CM
r-H
O
CO
in
r-\
CM
in
in
a) o
rH
rH
rH
r-\
lH
•-i
r-i
rH
rH
>-i
rH
^
c
tou
r-\
Vj
CD
-a
rH
o
r~
f-{
m
•f
in
CTi
o
CN
CD
T
CD
m
m
cm
co
o
r~
en
O
CO
CM
r-~
CD
CD
ro
o
^
p»
CO
rH
"j-
CTi
rH
CO
m
CTi
r-i
<-{
00
cH
CO
in
<D
<T>
rH
O
o
CN
^
CO
T~\
m
CM
<-t
rH
rH
r-\
f-i
•-i
rH
rH
r-\
rH
1
T!
& S
r-
r»
CN
CM
CD
r-
in
ro
in
rH
o
CO
CO
ro
CD
CO
CM
"tf
co
CD
^
m
sT
o
m
O
r-
m
in
ro
CM
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
o
r-\
CO
(fl
o
U
M
a-
r-
p»
00
r^
in
in
in
LD
rH
rH
CO
in
CO
CD
06
>j
pq
tf
f4
S
3
•
Eh
W
w
W
<p
ffi
s
•J
>H
g
CO
CDO
Eh
04
e
i
i
i
rD
§
%
a
i
D
<
W
CO
o
o
S3
wQ
8
p
tO
o
14H
c
C
•H
4J
U
aa
a
CO
TJC
t0
>
sip
4H
o
top
>HO
ft
CDM
<U
CO
uH
rH
•S
04
Ph2
(1)
T3
TJ
a>
cu
rH
T3
•rl
-rl
a, >
e
o
o
Sh
U
04
U
in
cn
18
c P
X)
Pn
„
o H
0) 2
•
CN
o
HH
JJ H
P
^
w
CD
3 >
m
-p
c
<D a O £
CN
0) a H P
-
2
</>
Ehu 2
rt!
33
^—
eu O
5h
a b
Pi
H
,
Eh
CO
U
Eh
D
H
CO
Q
S \
2
o w
H
2O 9
U
U o
2
W
aa
H
^
Eh
fn
<
O
•
o
&
m
CO
CO
w
2
Eh 2
O
H H
Eh
H a
U
Eh
CO
<
CO M
ft
w
ft!
a
D
H
P4 O
o
Eh
2
2 2
H
o O
Q
H
D
Eh
EM
J
< 2
U
> H
X
H >
w
&w
Cm
Q O
<D
T3
ft
U
0)
(1) 2
C
P
9 H
qj
3 H >
3
a
<Q
rH
E >
'P.
lfc|
H
o
cM
01U
fi
<P
C
M
(D
-H
^1
ft
-H
rH
a
dp
in
in
cnm
cn
<*
o\°
CJJ
CO
-P
r-
o2
.
,_.
o
rH
t)
•
VD
03
C
3
<tf
P
0)
s
O
Eh &S
in
w —
vy
•
>.
O
rH
X)
fO
o
C Q
•
<D
0)
^
-p
ft H
CO
o
X
0>
2
W
ft
v>
v~''
CO
ft
>1
2
fO
H Q O
o
>
CO
o
>h
a\
o
UH
O
rH
*
o P
in
-rH
c
vD
•
CO M
•H
2 >
"^
O
Cn
P»
en
CM
"3*
00
r-
CO
CN
O
^T
o
CT>
en
CO
m
cu
o
<u
in
o)
in
<u
m
<u
m
-P
r-
+J
in
-P
in
-P
in
-P
•
o
•
O
•
•
•
2
2
2
2
2
rH
VD
in
«T»
CO
CO
CO
ro
in
o
VD
•^
**
<r>
r-
OJ
r-
dP
rH
0*>
rH
<K>
rH
p»
vD
in
dP
0)
<*>
o>
•
0>
•
o>
0)
CO
-P
C^
-P
n
+5
CN
+J
10
-p
r-
O
r-
o
^
r-
O
vD
O
2
2
2
2
2
r>
CM
CO
CO
CO
•^
CO
<tf
cn
vD
CO
CO
rH
vo
in
CN
,_^
o
CN
n
o
in
r»
CO
f-i
r-
rH
<»
rH
o
vD
T
rH
rH
•
0)
•
•
(U
•
0)
•
Q)
ID
-P
r^
rH
+J
00
-P
rH
-P
CO
O
CN
O O
>*
VD
O
2
H 2
2
2
•co-
•
</>
</> *—
</>
^-«
</> -^
O
"H/
O
VD
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
in
0)
O
Oi
o
o
o
-
-P
-
-p
*
*
w
•"31
O
oo
o
o
VD
CN
rH 2
vo 2
o
in
<a<
en
c
•
1
0)
CO
co
p
•rH
p
o
CO
Cl, 6 P
C
CO
2
>1
ffl
2
c
•H
r
CO
CO
H
a
0)
>
c
CQ
c
>i
u
>
id
T3
B)
o
• •
o
cO
x H
C
CO H
c
rH
£
PQ
p
Cn
-U
co
•H
p P
X
0)
fo
•H
a
<D
T3
c
CO
0)
c
CO
-H
M &
rH
0)
O
'o
c
c
-i
•H
p
<l)
CO
T>
cd
CO
•H
cO
>
•H
CO 5
C
fi!
Pi
H
0) >
+J U
U
a
CU
•H
o
CO
OJ
d
CO
-P
•P
-p
•H
>
rH
CO
PS
o
CO
cO
Tf
c0
t)
^
k
[fl P
c
C
c
i
CO
co
c M
CO
C
•
cc
cr>
CP 3
Cn D
+J
o
QJ
.c
M 2
C
c
O
C
O
Eh
0)
CO H
q
3
o
• M
CO H
•H U
•rH
M
O
CO
•H
4J H O
rD
> >
4J
•O
T3
Cn
13
§
Eh
H
>H
CO
Cn
CO
•H
•H &
•H
3
3
U
r)
T3
•
CO
cn
0)
CO
CO
£
CO
£
U
o
id H
C
-P
•
C
3
K
<y
CO
S)
fo
u
H > >
fl
CO
D
•H
o «
pj U
IX U
Note
1
Note
2
Note
3
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
I s
and Study - -Summary
Report
and Analysis
,
an
EDA~TecTinical 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.
Note
4
:
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
other 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-l)
(
8,500 )
Balance
114 ,500
Note
5
:
From Annual
Econ omic
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-l
and A-2:
781
of
87,000
total
no.
of
U.S. V.I.
residents
estimated
to
Note
7
Note
8
Note
9
Note
10
Note
11
Note
12
Note
13
make
use
of shuttle
boat per year.
From Appendix
A,
Table A-5.
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.
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.
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.
See Appendix
B,
Table
B-5.
Appendix
B,
Table
B-4.
See
Note
10
above.
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
were
supplied by Maho
Bay Management.
-21-
FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER
II
See Annual Economic
Review
1980
,
U.S.
Virgin
Islands,
Department
of Commerce,
Government
of
the Virgin
Islands,
p.
9.
See Appendix A
for
a
complete description
of
the methodology used
in
this
survey
and
a
complete
report
of results
of
the
survey.
3 In Annual Economic Review
1980
,
op.
cit.,
p.
28.
See Appendix
B
for
a complete description
of
the methodology used
in
this
survey and
a
complete' report
of results
of
the
survey.
See 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.
See 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
for
a response
indicating
that
the
influence
of
the VINP was
"not
at
all".
7 This
estimate
is
supported by
separate statistics
furnished by
the
two principal
tour
operators
on
St.
Thomas.
See
also Annual
Economic Review
1980
,
op.
cit.,
p.
68,
for
total
cruise
ship
passengers
to
St.
TEomas
in
1980.
oAnnual Economic Review
1980,
op.
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
.
Boatin
waters
of
the America n Virgin
Is 1 ands
has
last
five years
as
evidenced by
the
increa
from
1,583
in
1975
to
2,644
as
of December
can be attributed
to
two major
factors:
m
come
from islands
in
the
Caribbean and
the
tant
taxes
and other restrictions make
cha
operation;
and
the waters
of
the Virgin
Is
surrounding
St.
John,
are considered
the
n
anchorage
in
the
area.
This
section deals
between
the viability of
the
expanding boa
attraction
of National
Park waters.
grown rapidly
se
in boat
reg
1980 ^
This
any of
the new
Bahamas where
rtering
a marg
lands,
particu
umber
one pref
with
the
rela
t
industry
and
g
in
the
in
the
istration
increase
boats
exorbi-
inal
larly
erred
tionship
the
Extent
of Charterboating
in
National
P ark 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,
45.31
carrying
21,937
boaters were
not registered
as based
at
an American port.
ording
to
a
1980
survey
conducted
for
the V.I.
that
there
are
190
charter-
le
for crewed term charters
ively
for overnight
chart-
ek
one day sails
through
re
are
189 overnight
are
registered
in
the
by eleven companies,
rs will
add
62 boats
by
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
Types
and
Costs
of Charterboating.
Ace
of charterb oating
in
th e Virgin
Islands
Department
of Commerce4
it was
reported
boats
,
main ly
all
sail
,
that
are
availab
In addition
to
the
190,
which
are
exclus
ers,
there
are
20 boats
that
actively
se
hotels
and resorts
.
It
is
estimated
the
charters
wi thout
crew
(t areboats),
which
U.S.
Virgin
Island 5.
Thiese
are operated
Expansion
p lans
of
five
of these operato
the end
of
1982.
-23-
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".5
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
spend
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 hote
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 wife
and also
the
owners
of
the
boat.
If
they
can be
considered employees,
the
crewed boat
fleet
has
about
665
employ-
ees.
At. an
average
of
17 weeks
employment
per year
the
total
workforce
of crewed boat charters
earned
approximately
$1.5
million
in wages.
g
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,
seventy percent
of
all
charter
activity
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
spend 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
previously
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
Annual
Boat Registry
,
1975
and
1980;
V.I.
Department
of
Con-
servation
and
Cultural Affairs,
Division
of Fish
and Wildlife.
2V.I.
National
Park
Service,
Monthly
Use
Reports
(1980).
3 U.S.
Customs
Registry of Foreign Arrivals
(1980).
4 Carder,
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
e_t. al. study of the
Cape
Cod National
Seashore. 1
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
is, 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
$
438
1965
637
1968
1,420
1972
2,341
1976
6,952
1979
13,050
1980
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
1961
and
1956
[a
factor
of
.9085].)
The
value
of
all
subsequent
land
and
improvements
obtained by
the
V1NP
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
From 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 inflations are
summar-
ized
in
the
following tabulation.
Adjusted
for
Acreage
Original Val.
Inflation
(Thousands)
(Thousands)
5,085
$2,000
$6,068
14
110
140
i
Original
Donation
Later
Donations 2
All
Purchases 3
1,874
11,167
17,323
Total
6,973
$13,277
$23,531
^-Inflation adjustment
factor,
1956
to
1980,
is
3.034.
2 Donations
made
in
late
1970's.
Estimated value
of $5,000
per
acre plus
inflation adjustment
factor of
1.36.
3 From 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
From
1961
to
1965
1965
to
1968
1968
to
1972
1972
to
1976
1976
to
1979
1979
to
1980
Annual
%
(Thousands)
(Thousands)
Increase
$
2,412
to
$
3,502
10
3,502
7,810
12,878
38,234
71,775
to
7,810
to
12,878
to
38,234
to
71,775
to
101,823
33
13
31
23
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
291
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
201
per year
in
the period
from
1960
to
1980.
30-
TABLE
4
ACREAGE PURCHASED BY V. I.
NATIONAL PARX
SINCE
ITS ESTABLISHMENT
IN
1956
Annual
Year of
Purchase
Property Tax
Purchase Amount
Adj
.
Tract No.
Acquisition
1975
Acreage
93.99
Amount**
$1,800,000
On Purchase
Date
$12,700
For
Inflation***
01-116
$2,754,000
01-134
1958
4.50
1,125
17
3,200
01-135
1959
35.00
250,000
1,640
705,000
01-136
1957
38.67
165,000
1,390
474,000
01-137
1968
55.00
242,000
2,250
574,000
01-141
1977
1.45
100,000
1,015
134,000
02-112
1979
287.00
3,995,000
4,250
4,514,000
02-118
1970
1.80
135,500
1,670
286,000
02-145
1856
.53
99,000
720
245,000
02-147
1959
164. CO
424,500
5,045
1,197,000
02-148
1959
472.20
250,500
1,430
606,400
02-149
1967
2.72
91,300
625
226,000
02-151
1975
376.47
213,143
1,735
326,100
02-152
1974
-
9,500
-
15,650
03-197
1979
1.09
35,000
147
39,600
03-108
1977
1.00
26,000
66
35,600
03-113
1977
.50
16,000
37
21,000
03-148
1977
.35
18,000
23
24,700
04-101
1976
2.13
362,000
1,136
521,300
05-115
1967
7.00
23,000
49
56,800
05-116
1967
6.67
72,500
389
179,100
05-117
1959
162.50
90,000
640
25 3,800
05-118
1965
13.00
3,770
31
9,800
05-119
1958
6.00
1,740
14
4,900
05-120
1959
1.00
5,200
36
14,665
05-121
1967
7.00
17,500
29
43,225
06-116
1963
19.00
7,700
50
20,700
07-115
1976
20.92
45,000
313
64,800
07-116
1976
14.60
255,500
2,106
530,000
08-123
1979
29.60
788,500
2,165
801,000
10-101
1970
2.05
175,000
34
371,000
10-102
1969
2.04
165,000
1 , 210
371,250
10-103
1969
4.67
125,000
840
281,250
10-110
1970
.76
85,000
74
180,200
10-125
1975
3.28
161,353
1,290
246,870
10-126
1975
1.55
75,000
40S
114,750
11-101
1957
9.00
49,500
270
145,000
11-102
1958
6.00
2,300
46
6,540
12-102
1979
9.65
223,000
1,412
252,000
13-112
1979
.58
12,000
82
13,560
13-113
1979
.60
32,000
119
36,160
13-114
1977
.68
27,000
84
37,000
13-116
1977
1.13
32,000
98
43,840
13-120
1977
.72
40,000
278
54,800
13-121
1977
.72
29,000
112
39,700
13-122
1977
.73
29,000
117
39,730
13-135
1979
.72
17,000
91
19,200
13-142
1979
.52
14,500
41
16,400
13-143
1979
.61
16,000
73
18,100
13-145
1979
.86
13,300
36
15,300
15-101
1979
1.62
300,000
2,110
339,000
Total
1,874.18 $11,166,931
$50,540
$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
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Source:
U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Monthly-
Labor
Review.
ALL
ITEMS
81..4
84.,3
86..6
87.,3
88.,7
89. 6
90.,6
91.,7
92.,9
94.,5
97..2
100.,0
104..2
109,,8
116,.3
121..3
125,.3
133,.1
147,.7
161,.2
170,.5
181,.5
195,.3
217,.7
247..0
32-
B.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS
Costs
L oss
of Real
Property Tax
.
The
data presented shows
that
the
estimated value
of taxes
lost
in
1980
on properties
donated
to
or purchased by
the
VINP
since
its
establishment
amounts
cur-
rently
to
$176,483. 5
Interest
on
Invest ment
o f U.S.
Government
Funds
.
Table
4
shows
"that
in
the period
from
19 56" To
19 80
the
UTS^
Government
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
61.
Thus,
the
annual
interest
on
the
U.S.
Investment
of properties
in
the
VINP
is
6%
of
$11,166,931
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
Tn
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), would
be
less
than
$1 million per year,
even
at
current high
inflation
rates.
Put
in
a somewhat different perspective,
in
a period
when population
on
St.
John went
from approximately
950
in
1961
to
2,500
in
1980 6
,
an
increase
of just
over
1501,
the
increase
in property values
was
nearly
1,300%
(from $7.2 million
in
ad-
justed
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 magnitude
as
on
St.
John.
But
St.
Thomas
enjoys
the benefits
of
a
totally
different magnitude
of invest-
ment
plus
the
advantages
of an
internationally known harbour
and
a good airport.
33
Another
point,
made 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
551
of
the
land on
the
island
is
owned by
the
VINP.
The conclusion of
this
study
value
increases
per year
over
($19,000,000,
as
explained
ab
to
the existence
of
the VINP.
to
the VINP
that make
use
of
and
(increasingly)
of shoppin
guaranteed
scenic
and recreat
real estate brokers
on
the
is
sented
in Chapter
II
of
this
of
the VINP
on visitors
to
St
conclusion.
is
that
the
increases
a
ove)
must be
The number
transportati
g
facilities
ional
opport
land;
and
th
study
as
to
.
John
all
b
surplus
of actual
land
ttributable
to
inflation
in part attributable
of visitors
attracted
on,
food
and beverage,
;
the
unique
value
of
unities
extolled by
e
survey
results
pre-
the extent
of
influence
olster
this
general
Th e r e
$19
mi
relate
attrib
withdr
the
va
approp
as
a
b
Caneel
benef
are
s
llion
d
con
utabl
awal
lues
riate
enef i
Bay
ts
fo
evera
woul
struc
e
to
of
th
of
th
for
t
of
Plant
r
wh i
1
reason
d be
too
tion
inv
the VINP
e majori
e
rest
o
this
stu
the VINP
ation pr
ch
are
c
s
,
h ow
high,
estmen
.
The
ty of
f
the
dy
to
when
operty
alcula
ever,
why
Populat
t
on
the
re
is
mer
the
land
land.
Fu
imput
tot
the
aggre
and Maho
ted separ
an
imput
ion
incre
island
ca
it
to
the
on
the
is
thermore
al
increa
gate
numb
Bay
Camp
ately
in
ed benefit
of
ases
and
the
nnot be wholly
point
that
the
land pushes
up
it would
be
in-
ses
in
land value
ers
used include
ground property,
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
Philip
B.
Herr
§ Associates,
ojk
cit
2 Office
of Tax Assessor,
Lt.
Governor's
Office,
Government
of
the Virgin
Islands.
The
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.
U.S.
Bureau
of Labor
Statistics,
Monthl y
Labor
Review
.
5 See
Page
28.
Annual
Economic Review
1980
,
op
.
cit
.
,
pg
.
34-35.
-35-
CHAPTER
V.
DIRECT AND
I NDIRECT ECONOMIC
IMPA CT 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
O F
THE VINP
Ope rational
and
Mai ntena nce
Costs
In attempting
to
arrive
at representative
annual
costs
of
the
VINP
in
1980,
the
study relied principally
on Financial
Plan-
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:
(Thousands)
Personnel
Compensation
(Note
1)
$
825
Other Operating
Costs
(Note
2)
175
Equipment
(capital)
Costs
(Note
3)
50
"Cyclic" Maintenance
Costs
(Note
4)
200
Total
(Note
5)
$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
distincti on
b etween cost
of
the operation
and
total
out lays _in
t h~e~'"V
. I ^~Econqm^.
Thus
,
reimbursable
outlays
of
the
VINT3
[Tor
- 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
Relat ed 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
S e rvice
:
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
VINP.
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 by
the Virgin
Islands
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.
-37-
Police
Protection
:
Virgin
Islands
Government provides
no
security
services
for VINP.
VINP
staff
are
responsible
for security within
the
Park
area.
Other
Services:
VINPS has
conducted
an environmental
studies
pro-
gram
in cooperation with
the Department
of Conservation
and
Cul-
tural Affairs,
and,
when
the program was moved out
of
that
Depart-
ment,
the Department
of Education assumed responsibility
for
the
administration
of
the
program.
Relatively
few children
of VINP
staff make
use
of
the
public
schools,
according
to VINP officials.
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 developments
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
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 which
are Virgin
Islanders.
38-
Economic Ben efits
of VINP
Ou tlays
to _^_on mn_ie s
of
St.
John/St
TTTomas
.
From information
supplied by VINP headquarters,
the
following
analysi:
is
derived:
Total
Outlays
Multiplier
(Thous.)
Salaries
and Wages
(Note
1)
$
855.0
Outlays
for
Supplies,
Materials,
services,
Equipment
in
Local
Economy
(Note
3)
185.0
(Note
2)
.7
Total
$1,040.0
Net
Economic
Benefit
(Thous.)
$
700.0
129.5
$
829.5
Note
1
Note
2
Note
3
Includes
salaries
and wages
for employees
engaged
in
reimbursable activities
as
well
as
in operations
and
maintenance
of
the VINP.
See Water
Island Study
,
op.
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.
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
Envi ronmental
Study
Program
(ESP)
-
A
total
environmental
learning
program Was
established within
the
park
in
I960.
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
scaled down 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,
culture
and history
of
the
island.
*
A children's hike
offering
two hours
of fun-filled hiking, ex-
ploring
the
Cinnamon Bay
areas.
*
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-
roglyphs,
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
OPERAT IONS
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
economics
of
St.
Thomas/St.
John.
These calculations
are
as
follows:
Tot al
Emp l oyment
:
Full
time
employees,
412;
part-time
employees,
18.
Annual
Payroll
Taxes
Paid
to V.I
Govt
Outlays
for
Goods,
Services,
Capital
Items,
Purchased
in
V.I.
Economy
Total
Total
Outlays
(Thous.)
$3,963
1,350
428
$5,741
Multiplier
.8
(Note
1)
.7
Net
Economic
Benefit
(Thous.)
$3,250
1,350
300
$4,900
Note
1
:
See Note
2,
page
38.
The manager
of Caneel
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
Caneel
Bay was
43.71,
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.
SUMMAR Y AN D CONCLUSIONS
A.
SUMMARY
Approache s
and Methodologies
The purpose
of
the
study was
to
perforin 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.
To accomplish
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,1
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
fact, 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
th e 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
1
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
501",
"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
781.
Consequently,
781
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
harid,
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 V1NP
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
separately
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 case 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
Direct
Indirect
Total
(Thous
. )
(Thous.)
(Thous
.
Costs
Operation and Maintenance
of VINP
(see Chapter V)
$1,250
Interest on Federal
Invest-
ment in VINP Properties
(see Chapter
IV)
$
670
Taxes Lost on Property Re-
moved from Local Govern-
ment Rolls
(see Chapter
IV)
176
TOTAL
$1,250
$
846
$2,096
47-
Direct
Indirect
Total
(Thous
. )
(Thous
. )
(Thous.)
Benefits
Outlays of VINP in Local
Economy
(see Chapter V)
$
830
Outlays of VINP Concession-
aires
in Local Economy
(see Chapter V)
2,500
Imputed Benefits from VINP
Impact on Tourism
(see
Chapter
II)
$12,061
Imputed Benefits
from VINP
Impact on Boat Industry
(see Chapter
III)
3,000
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)
5,000
TOTAL
$3,330
$20,061
$23,391
Reduced to ratios,
the above tabulation indicates
that:
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 substantially- -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- -well beyond the costs incurred in its operation and maintenance.
Future Projections
In its section on "Outlook for the
1980 's",
the V.I.
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
850-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 by 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-
portantly,
because
of the esthetic/cultural benefits
that
it
guarantees
for
future years.
49-
FOOTNOTES
FOR CHAPTER VI
'-The
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.
It should be noted
that
the
tours
referred
to provide
ample
oppor-
tunity
for shopping
on
St.
Thomas.
Average
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.
As 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.
5
Q_p.
cit
.
"Cinnamon Bay Campground
is
entirely
on VINP
land,
so
that
it
is
not
included
in
this
qualification.
7Annual Economic
Review,
1980
,
op.
cit
.
,
pg.
17.
°See 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
-
Director of 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.I.
Fire
Division
24.
Jim Loveland
-
Jim Loveland Travel
Services
25.
David Lynton
-
President,
V.I.
Taxi Association
26.
John McCleverty
-
Director,
Cruise'Ship 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
Islands
38.
Christen Venn
-
Assistant Cruise Ship Director,
Cruise
ship
"Skyward"
39.
Douglas White
-
Charterboat
Owner
40.
Clara Whiteside
-
ESP Coordinator,
V.I.
Department
of Education
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advisory Commission
on
Intergovernmental
Relations,
The Adequacy
of Federal
Compensation
to
Local
Governme nts
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, AlaskaT
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
the
U.S.
Virgin
Islands
.
.
1 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,
DOI
,
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 David
A.
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.
53-
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,
Of fice_of_ Policy Planning
arid Research,
Economic Review
19 79
,
A Quarterly economic
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,
19 77.
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
QUESTIONNAIRE
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
IS
PART
OF AN ECONOMIC SURVEY
IN THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS.
WE
WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION
IN ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
Are you:
a)
A resident of
St.
John
b)
A visitor from U.S.
St.
Thomas
(State or Territory)
c)
A visitor from
a
foreign country
(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
d)
Other
b)
Business
trip
d)
Shopping
3.
Are you
traveling:
(No in party)
a)
Alone
(No.
in party)
c) wnh friends
b
With family
d)
With
business associates
c) With
tour group
4.
What
is
(or was)
the estimated
length of your stay on
St.
John?
a)
One
day
c)i_2 weeks
e )
Four weeks or
.
,»
more
°)
2
-
6 days
d '3-4 weeks
5.
If your stay
is
(or was)
for more
than
1
day, where did
(or
do) you stay?
a)
Hotel
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,
entertainment
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
d)
$30,000-$39,999
g)
$60,000-$74,999
b)
$10,000-$19,999
e)
$40,000-$49,999
h)
$75,000-$99,999
c)
$20,000-$29,999
f)
$50,000-$59,999
i)
$100,000 or more
10.
What
is your age?
What
is your sex?
a)
Under
20
.
d)
40-49
,
M
,
b)
20-29
e)
50-59
*
Z^TZ
c)
30-39
f)
60
plus
b)
Female
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*
--
or
28.3 percent
of the
total passengers using
the
shuttle boat
during
the
year,
which
compares
favorably with
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
o'f 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 questionnaires;
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 period
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 Tabulations
of Survey 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 percentages.
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 arithmetic 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.
2-6
days
-
6
days
1-2 weeks
-
14
days
2-3 weeks
-
21
days
4 weeks
or more
-
28
days
Question
5
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
-
0%
Some
influence
-
2
-
25%
About
50%
-
3
-
50%
Considerable
-
4
-
•
75%
Primary consideration
-
5
-
100%
Question
7
The tabulation used
436
response
as
the
denominator
to calcul-
ate percentages.
The arithmetic mean was based
on
the
follow-
ing weights:
Poor
0%
Below average
2 5%
About
average
50%
Better than average
-
7 5%
Outstanding
100%
Question
8
The tabulation was based on
the
4 36
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
See
Chapter
II,
Table
1,
in body
of the
report.
2 Douglas
Beals,
P.O.
Box
3277,
St.
Thomas,
U.S. V.I.
00801
Information supplied by
U.S.
Department
of Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor Statistics.
A-7
SUMMARY PROFILE
OF
SHUTTLE BOAT
USERS
Composite
Profile
Vacation
91%
Average Number
in
Party
2.03
Average
Length
of
Stay
5.1
days
Average Annual
Income
$40,387
Average
Daily Expenditures
$34.60
Park
Influence
on Visit
to
St.
John
78.3%
Evaluate
VINP Experience
77%
U.S.
Resident
Vacation
96%
Average
Number
in
Party
2.1
Average
Length
of
Stay
8.45
days
Average Annual
Income
$45,357
Average
Daily Expenditures
$34.72
Park
Influence
on Visit
to
St.
John
78%
Evaluate VINP Experience
77%
USVI Resident
Vacation
79%
Average Number
in
Party
2.6
Average
Length
of
Stay
1
day
Average
Annual
Income
$22,109
Average
Daily Expenditures
$27.67
Park
Influence
on Visit
to
St.
John
79%
Evaluate VINP Experience
79%
Foreign Resident
Vacation
93%
Average Number
in
Party
1.9
Average
Length
of
Stay
7.7
days
Average
Annual
Income
$51,500
Average
Daily Expenditures
$44.94
Park
Influence
on Visit
to
St.
John
76%
Evaluate VINP Experience
72%
A-8
TABLE A-l
RESULTS
OF
SURVEY
OF
SHUTTLE BOAT USERS
ST.
JOHN
TO
ST.
THOMAS
MARCH,
APRIL,
MAY
1981
Q UESTION
1;
PROFILE
OF
USERS
(In Percentages)
United States
Resident
U.S.
Virgin
Island
Re si dents -Commuters
U.S.
Virgin
Island
Residents-All
Others
Foreign
Residents
Totals
No.
Responses
(Actual)
March
Apri
69%
63%
23
10
100
(136)
4
22
5
100
(169)
May
55%
28
12
100
(152)
3
Mo.
Total
62%
24
9
100
(457)
A-9
TABL E A-
RESULTS
OF
SURVEY
Q1-
1
SHUTTLE BOAT
USERS
ST.
JOHN
TO
ST.
THOMAS
MARCH,
APRIL,
MAY
1981
QUESTION
2:
MAIN PURPOSE
OF
TRIP
(In
Percentages)
March
Apri
May
All
Re sponses
:
Vacation
90%
92%
91%
Business
12
1
Commuting
4
3
5
Shopping
2
-
Other
3
2
2
Total*
99
99
99
99
Total*
100
100
99
3
Mo.
Total
91%
1
4
1
2
99
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(136)
(169)
(152)
(457)
U.S.
Res idents
:
Vacation
96
95
97
96
Business
-
2
1
1
Commuting
-
Shopping
1
1
-
1
Other
2
1
1
1
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(85)
(117)
(83)
(285)
U.S.' Virgin" Island-Residents
:
Vacation:
c.-
Bus ine ss
Commuting
Shopping
Other
Total
No.
Responses
(Actual)
'(37)
(44)
(50)
(131)
Foreign-Residents
:
Vacation
100
100
84
93
Business
-
-
5
2
Commuting
-
.'
Shopping
-
-
-
-
Other
11
5
70
80
84
78
3
2
-
2
16
16
16
16
3
-
-
1
8
2
100
-
3
100
100
100
Total
100
100
100
100
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(14)
(8)
(19)
(41)
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to rounding.
A- 10
in
oo
r^ m
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Si
&
u
I
CO
I
I
I
I
•h
I
i
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD<
w
^H
<
CO
2
cn
O
rH
XH >
<£
E->
0]
*
I-)
o w
H
CC
a.
Z <
IO
-
l"i Xu
CS
H <
to z
cn
aH
1
•u
TJ
3
c
HJM
in u
M
1
c
CH 2
Bl
r<
1
H
W
> U
c
0)
U3 6
3
Dl
OJ«
>
£
01
Pi
C
«
M
-P
—
c
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
I
I
I
I
I
I o
I
I
I
I
I
en
n
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
i o
£2
(N
r~
*a* o
i-i
iH
<-\
oi
in
in
III
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
22
>-*
(N n ^ m
\0
o» m
rr
irt
kd
St
a
2
§
O
V<
e
o
41C
JC
O
-P
o
3
fN m
«r
in
is
nc
41
a,
•H
n n ^
in
v£>
O
to
B
£
U
H
o
n3
r-
co
c
«
>->
IS
§5
A-ll
TABLE
A-
RESULTS
OF
SURVEY
OF SHUTTLE BOAT USERS
ST.
JOHN
TO
ST.
THOMAS
MARCH,
APRIL,
MAY
1981
Q UESTION
4:
ESTIMATED LENGTH
OF
STAY
i
~
(In/Percentages)
All
Re sponses
:
One
Day
2-6
Days
1-2 Weeks
3-4 Weeks
4 Weeks
or more
Did not answer
Total
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
U.S.
Residents
:
One
Day
2-6
Days
1-2 Weeks
3-4 Weeks
4 Weeks
or more
Did
not
answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
U.S.
Virgin
Island-
Residents
(Non-Commuting)
One
Day
2-6
Days
1-2 Weeks
3-4 Weeks
4 Weeks
or more
Did
not answer
Total
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
3
Mo.
March
Apri 1
May
Total
41
41
59
47
20
24
9
18
38
31
32
33
1
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
100
-
* *
100
100
100
(130)
(162)
(144)
(436)
5
. 1
Days
27
27
39
31
25
26
12
22
47
41
46
45
1
3
2
2
-
1
-
-
-
2
100
-
-
100
99
100
(85)
(117)
97
3
100
(31)
100
100
(37)
(83)
(285)
8.45
Days
100
100
(42)
99
1
100
(110)
1
Day
TABLE
A-
(cont.)
Question
4:
Cont
'
A-12
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
3
Mo.
March
April
May
Total
_
12
37
20
29
25
10
21
64
63
53
59
100
(14)
100
(8)
100
(19)
100
(41)
9
. 7
Days
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to rounding
**
Less
than
.5%
A-13
TABLE
A-
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)
Al 1
Response s
:
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%
Cons iderably
Primary
consideration
Did
not
answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Derived
Mean***
3
Mo.
March
April
May
Total
1
2
3
2
4
6
4
5
13
13
7
11
32
36
40
36
45
40
43
42
5
3
3
4
100
100
100
100
(130)
(162)
(144)
(436)
78. 3%
5
16
29
41
9
100
3
6
15
33
40
3
100
(85)
(117)
1
1
5
5
8
13
40
34
43
41
3
5
100
99
(83)
(185)
78. 0%
3
3
5
4
3
5
2
4
6
11
5
7
29
35
38
33
58
46
48
50
-
-
2
100
1
99
100
99
(31)
(37)
(42)
(110)
79. 0%
TABLE
A-
(cont.)
Question
6:
Cont'd
A- 14
Foreign
Residents
;
Not
at
all
Some
About
50%
Cons ide rably
Primary
consideration
Did
not answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Derived Mean***
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to
rounding.
***
The
Derived mean was
calculated
by
assigning
the
followin,
weights
to
answers
given:
3
Mo
.
March
Apr i 1
May
Total
-
_
5
2
-
13
5
5
14
13
5
12
50
50
47
49
36
13
37
29
-
11
100
-
2
100
99
99
(14)
(8)
(19)
(41)
76%
"Not
at
all"
"Some"
"About
50%"
"Considerably"
"Primary Consid-
eration"
-
100%
25%
50%
75%
A-15
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
;
Outs tanding
Better
than
average
About
average
Below average
Poor
Did not answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Derived Mean***
U.S.
Res ide n ts
;
Outs tanding
Better
than
average
About
average
Below average
Poor
Did not answer
Total
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Derived Mean ***
3
Mo.
March
Apri 1
May
Total
34
35
39
36
38
33
42
38
15
21
10
16
5
5
6
5
-
1
1
-
7
5
3
5
99
100
101
100
130)
(162)
(144)
(436)
77. 0%
32
36
45
37
36
31
41
35
16
21
8
16
5
6
5
5
-
2
1
1
11
4
100
-
6
100
100
100
(85)
(117)
(83)
(285)
77.0%
U.S.
Virgin
Island-
Residents
(Non-Commuting)
Outs tanding
Better
than average
About average
Below average
Poor
Did
not answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Derived Mean ***
42
35
13
10
100
(31)
35
41
16
3
100
(37)
33
50
7
2
99
(42)
36
43
12
5
100
(11Q)
79. 0%
A- 16
TABLE A-6
(cont.)
Question
7:
Cont'd
3
Mo
.
March
Apri 1
May
Total
Fore ign
Residents
:
Outstanding
Better
than
average
About
average
Below average
Poor
Did
not answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(14)
(8)
(19)
(41)
Derived Mean***
72.0%
29
13
26
24
57
38
31
41
14
38
21
22
-
-
16
7
-
11
100
5
99
6
100
100
*
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"
-
25%
"Poor"
_
o
A-17
TABLE
A-
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
Re sponses
:
Under
$25.00
$25.00
-
$49.99
$50.00
-
$79.99
$75.00
-
$99.99
$100.00
$150 .00
$200. 00
$250
. 00
Did
not
-
$149
-
$199
-
$249
-
$349
answer
99
99
99
99
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
March
Apri
46
36
9
2
100
(130)
52
21
14
2
1
1
1
101
(162)
May
45
38
7
1
2
1
1
5
100
(144)
3
Mo.
Total
48
31
10
2
1
1
* *
* *
7
100
(436)
$34.60
U.S.
Residents
Under
$25.00
$25.00
-
$49
$50.00
-
$79
$75.00
-
$99
$100. 00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
Did
not
99
99
99
$149.99
-
$199.99
-
$249.99
-
$349.99
answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
U.S.
Virgin
Island-
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
43
38
6
1
11
99
(85)
58
29
13
100
(31)
49
21
17
2
1
1
1
8
100
(177)
70
19
11
100
(37)
43
39
7
1
2
1
1
6
100
(83)
46
32
11
1
1
1
* *
8
100
(285)
$34. 72
55
61
36
28
5
5
4
6
100
100
(42)
(110)
$27.67
TABLE A-
(cont.)
Question
8:
Cont'd
A-18
F oreign
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
Total*
3
Mo
.
March
Apri 1
May
Total
36
13
31
29
36
25
42
37
21
25
11
17
7
13
5
7
-
13
5
5
_
11
100
5
99
5
100
100
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
$44.94
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to rounding
* *
Less
than
. 5%
A- 19
TABLE
A-
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)
March
Apri
All
Responses
:
Under
$10,000
$10,000
-
$19,999
$20,000
•
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$75,000
$100,000
$29,999
$39,999
$49,999
$59,999
$74,999
$99,999
or more
Did
not answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
U.S.
Res ide n ts
:
Under
$10,000
$10,000
-
$19,999
$20,000
$30, 000
$40, 000
$50,000
$60,000
$75,000
$29, 999
$39, 999
$49,999
$59,999
$74, 999
$99, 999
$100,000
or more
Did
not answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
1
4
10
17
21
17
2
1
27
100
2
6
11
9
15
16
3
2
1
35
100
May
6
7
11
20
26
13
2
1
1
12
99
(130)
(162)
(144)
3
Mo.
Total
3
6
11
15
1&
15.
2
2
* *
26
100
(436)
$40, 378
-
1
-
* *
3
5
2
4
24
10
29
20
29
18
37
27
24
18
20
22
1
4
1
2
-
3
2
2
-
1
1
* *
20
40
7
23
101
100
99
100
(85)
(117)
(83)
(285)
$45
, 387
U.S.
Virgin
Island-
Re sident
(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*
19
35
10
3
3
26
8
27
35
5
5
16
21
26
33
12
12
25
35
9
3
1
14
99
98
99
100
Cont
'
TABLE
A-
(cont.)
Question
9:
Cont'd
A-20
March
Apri
U.S.
Virgin
Island-
Res ident
(No n-Commutin g_)_
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
Foreign
Residents
;
Under
$10,000
$10,000
-
$19,999
Cont
' d
$20,000
$30 ,000
$40 ,000
$50, 000
$60, 000
$75
, 000
$29, 999
$39,999
$49,999
$59, 999
$74,999
$99, 999
$100,000
or more
Did
not
answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
(31)
21
14
7
7
50
99
(14)
(37)
13
25
13
13
35
99
(8)
May
(42)
5
42
11
11
31
100
(19)
3
Mo.
Total
(110)
$22, 109
5
32
12
10
2
39
100
(41)
$51,500
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to
rounding
**
Less
than
.5%
APPENDIX
B
SURVEY OF GUESTS
OF CANEEL BAY PLANTATION;
CINNAMON
BAY
CAMPGROUND;
AND MAHO
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
guests
4 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. 1
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
QUESTI ONNAIRE
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 significance 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
(State or Territory)
b)
Other Country
(Name of Country
How many
in your party?
a)
b)
(Adults)
(Children)
What was your
length of stay
in
the Virgin
Islands?_
(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
Bay/
Cinnamon Bay.)
a)
$50 or
less
c)
$100-$150
e)
$200-$250
g)
$300-$400
b)
$50-$100
d)
$150-$200
f)
$250-$300
.
h)
$400-$500
i)
Over $500
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.)
12
3
4
5
TNo t~a tall)
"TSomeT"
(AboTTt
50%)
"(Considerably)
Primary Consideration
/.
Your age and
sex:
a)
Male
c)
Under
20
e)
30-39
g)
50-59
b)
Female
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.
S't/3/81
B-4
QUESTI ONNAIRE
Ma ho
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
(State
or
Territory)
b)
Other
Country
(Name
of
Country)
2.
How
many
in your
party?
a)
b)
(Adults)
(Children!
~~
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
I s
1 a nds
.
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
S500__
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.)
J
2
3
4
5
TNot at
all
)
(Some)
(About
50%)
(Considerably)
(Primary Consideration)
b.
Your age and
sex:
a)
Male
c)
Under
20
e)
30-39
g)
50-59
b)
Female
d)
20-29
f)
40-49
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
herein.
ISLAND RESOURCES
FOUNDATION
St.
Thomas.
V.I
srt/2-81
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.
1 See notes accompanying
Table
3
for
a
further elaboration
on
this
point.
B-6
SUMMARY
PROFILE
OF
GUESTS
AT MAJOR
ST.
JOHN FACILITIES
Caneel
Bay Plantation
(Average)
Number
in
Party
2.0%
Length
of
Stay
11.6
days
Age
40
. 3
Daily Expenses
$101.48
Park
Influence
on Visit
43.7%
Cinnamon Bay
Campgrounds
( Average
Number
in
Party
2.2%
Length
of
Stay
13
days
Age
37.1
Daily Expenses
$48.17
Park
Influence
on Visit
72.6%
Maho Bay Campgrounds
( Average)
Number
in
Party
2.1%
Length
of
Stay
14.3
days
Age
36.2
Daily Expenses
$61.14
Park
Influence
on Visit
66.5%
B-7
TABLE
B-l
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
Maho
Total
U.S
.
96
95
95
96
U.S
. V. I
.
-
1
-
* *
Foreign Country
4
3
5
4
Total*
100
99
100
100
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(227)
(153)
(190)
(570)
*
Does not
add
to
100%
due
to rounding
**
Less
than
.5%
B-8
TABLE
B-2
S URVEY
OF
GUESTS:
CANEEL BAY
PLA NTAT ION,
CINNAMON BAY CAMPGROUNDS,
MAHO
BAY
CAMPGROUND
SURVEY
PERIOD:
MARCH
-
JUNE
1981
QUESTION
2:
TRAVELING PARTY COMPOSITION
(In
Percentages)
Caneel
Cinnamon
Maho
Total
No.
Adults
1
1
11
4
4
2
90
73
83
83
3
2
8
6
5
4
6
3
6
5
5
* *
2
* *
2
6
or more
1
3
1
2
Total
100
100
100
100
No
.
Re sponses
(Actual)
(227)
(153)
(190)
(570)
Mean
2. 2
2.2
2.1
2. 19
**
Less
than
. 5%
B-9
TABLE B-3
SURVEY
OF
iGUESTS
CANEEL BAY
PLANTATION,
CINNAMON BAY
CAMPGROUND,
MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND
SURVEY
PERIOD:
MARCH
_
JUNE
1981
QUESTION
3:
LENGTH
OF
STAY
(In Percentages)
One
Day
2-6
Days
1-2 Weeks
3-4 Weeks
4 Weeks
or more
Canee 1
C innamon
Maho
Total
1
-
-
* *
30
19
3
18
67
78
87
77
2
3
9
5
_
_
1
* *
Total
100
100
100
100
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(227)
(153)
(190)
(575)
Mean
11.6
days
13.0
14.3
13.4
**
Less
than
*5%
B-10
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)
50
or
less
50
-
100
100
-
150
150
-
200
200
-
250
250
-
300
300
-
350
350
-
400
450
-
500
over
500
Did
not answer
Total
Canee
42
33
8
3
3
4
Cinnamon
73
16
5
2
100
98
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Me an*
(227)
$101. 48
(153)
$48. 17
*
Mean was
derived using mid points
for expenditure
ranges
B-ll
TABLE B-4
(cont.)
SURVEY
OF
GUESTS:
MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND
SURVEY PERIOD MARCH
-
JUNE
1981
OUESTION
4:
AVERAGE
DAILY EXPENSES
25
or
less
25
-
75
75
-
100
100
-
125
125
-
175
175
-
200
200
-
500
Over
500
Did
not answer
(in Percentages)
M aho
B ay
13
56
18
6
5
Total
98
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(190)
Mean
$61
. 14
B-12
TABLE B-5
SURVEY
OF
GUESTS:
CANEEL BAY PLANTATION,
CINNAMON BAY
CAMPGROUND,
MAHO BAY CAMPGROUND
SU RVEY
PERIOD:
MARCH
-
JUNE
1981
QUESTION
5:
EXTENT
OF
NATIONAL PARK
INFLUENCE
ON VISITS
Canee
Cinnamon
Maho
Total
29
4
4
14
21
10
15
16
10
11
14
12
31
33
44
36
8
39
23
21
1
3
100
-
—
100
100
99
( 222)
(149)
(190)
(561)
43. 7%
72.6%
66 .5%
5 9.7%
Not
at
all
Some
About
50%
Cons iderably
Primary
consideration
Did
not
answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Derived Mean**
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to
rounding
**
The
derived mean
is
based
on
the
following weights
"Not
at
all"
-
"Some"
-
25%
"About
50%"
-
50%
"Considerably"!
-
75%
"Primary
consideration"-
100%
B-13
TABLE
B-6
SURVEY
OF
GUK STS i_ __ C ANE K L
BJ\Y_J^LMT7VJTJJDNi
CINNA MO N__ B A Y_,
M AHO BAY
SURVEY
PERIOD MARCH
-
JUNE
1981
Q UESTION
6:
AGE
&
SEX
OF
RESPONDENTS
(In
Percentages)
Age
Under
20
20
-
29
30
-
39
40
-
49
50
-
59
60
-
69
70
&
Over
Did
not
answer
Total*
No.
Responses
(Actual)
Mean
(Age)
Sex
Canee 1
Cinnamon
Maho
Total
1
3
3
2
21
36
29
28
32
29
37
33
20
11
17
16
15
8
8
11
6
9
4
6
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
99
100
100
100
(227)
(153)
( 190)
( 370)
40. 3
37. 1
36. 2
38. 2
Male
55
40
50
49
Female
42
57
50
49
Did
not answer
3
3
-
2
Total
100
100
100
100
No.
Responses
(Actual)
(227)
(153)
(190)
(570)
*
Does
not
add
to
100%
due
to
rounding.
APPENDIX
C
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.
Virgin Islands
by Clyde Carder
July
14,
1980
(Funds
for this project were made available by
the
International Development Research Center
-
Ottawa,
Canada)
C-2
To:
Amadeo
I.D.
Francis
Commissioner
V.I.
Department of Commerce
St.
Thomas
From:
Clyde
D.
Carder
Re:
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 with
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 available 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
(sa i l)
available
for charter
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
VV.I.
Charterboat League indicates
this figure
to between
40-50,
Boat Survey—
B
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
$20 per person.
The
figure
used
for
the boats engaged
in this business
does not include Ho Te^Kon Tiki,
Capt.
Yellow Bird or True Love.
3)
Charte r boats
(sail)
available
for overn ight
charters without crew
(bareboat)
.
There are
18l) bare boats
in
this category,
operated by
11 companies.
Expansion plans of
five of
these operations 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 available
for
rent by the hour,
half-or full-day.
An estimate of
the number of Puerto Rican boats
registered
in the
Vi.rgm Islands and also the num-
ber of Puer to Rican power bo ats which visit the
Virgin Islands on
a regul ar 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 boats.
Those
that register with
a PR address are not kept
in
a
separate
file and
it would require someone
to
go through all registrations
to identify them.
Conservation will not do this for us.
There were
2,765 boats of all types registered
in
the V.I.
as
of^TRFcernber
31,
19 79.
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
~1
V.I. Charterboat League advises that as of mid-October,
1980,
the day-sail rate is $40 per person.
C-4
Boat Survey—
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 bas ed commercial or oth er
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 be ob-
tained as far
as
is possible covering;
1)
The number of each type:
This
is answered
throughout
the above information.
2)
An estimate of the number of cha rters booked :
Crewed boats:
each of
the
190 boats chartered
an
average of
17 weeks 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
J
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 boat spent about 14
full days at
sea'.
(A combination of half and
full day charters.)
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 charter boats that are equipped for
diving and are often chartered specifically
for
week-long diving
trips.)
3)
The prices charged
for the various
services :
Crewed boats 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
.'
average 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 equipmentare
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 are
$175
for a half day,
$350
for
a
full day and
$400
a day
-for tourna-
ment fishing.
This
is for
a boat which four
persons can share.
Dive boats get
$35
for
a boat dive and
$65
for
a dive on the Rhone.
4)
Loca l purchases by charter boat operators:
It
is estimated
that the crewed
fleet spends close
to
$2 million a year on
food,
beverages and con-
diments.
About $550,00 was spent on hauling,
bottom paint,
varnish,
parts and other mainte-
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
$575,000
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
spent
locally.
Some
$1.8 million was paid
in broker
(booking agent)
commissions.
Only about eight percent of
this
a-
mount was earned by
the several
St.- Thomas brokers.
The rest was paid
to
some
25 brokers
in
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 amount of net profit realized from
the bare boat operation goes to the stateside owners
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 other
maintenance
is about $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 activities
o f
the charter visitors
including:
a
The amount of
shopping done by the charter
boat visito rs:
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,
based
on interviews with charterers and charter boat
captains,
is that they spend
a little less
than a cruise ship passenger and much less than
the long-stay visitor.
*
b)
The average stay
(in
time)
at local hotels
before and/or after a charter by charter visitors
About
90 percent of all crewed boat charters
spend at least one night before or after
a char-
ter
in
a
local hotel.
The Sheraton and
its
predecesser operators offered a significant
discount to charterers who booked boats moored
at their marina.
It
is estimated that crewed
boat charterers
spent nearly $700,000 on hotel
rooms during
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 obtained
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,
Captain Yellowbird 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
35
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 holding its own, with some companies planning
to expand during the next several years.
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~5tudt
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 faith
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
Lameshur
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,
T§
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
m 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.
As
the Nation's
Department
of
the
In
our nationally owned
This
includes
foster
water
resources,
pro
ing
the environment
parks
and
historical
ment
of
life
through
assesses
our energy
assure
that
their
de
al
1
our
people.
The
bi
1 ity
for American
people who
1
i ve
in
i
stration.
principal
conse
terior
has
respo
public
lands
an
ing
the wisest
u
tecting
our
fish
and
cultural
val
places,
and
pro
outdoor recreat
and
mineral
reso
velopment
is
in
Department
also
Indian
reservati
sland
territorie
rvation
a
nsibil ity
d
natural
se
of our
and
wi Id
ue
of our
viding
fo
ion.
The
urces
and
the best
has
a
ma
on
commun
s
under
U
gency,
the
for most
of
resources.
land
and
life,
preserv-
national
r
the
enjoy-
Department
works
to
interests
of
jor
res pons i-
ities
and
for
S.
admini-
-