USVI Public Records

Document text

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS COASTAL DEVE LOPM ENT Technical Supplement No. 2 A report on two surveys of public perceptions and attitudes undertaken in developing the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program Juan Luis Governor Thomas R. Blake Director of Planning U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAE COASTAL SERVICES CENTER EenenNMENy 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 2 SG es OF Fe, a f Pr oponty of CSC Bibs ne ary * Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States NOVEMBER 1977 St dg ~o pe This program is funded in part through coed financial assistance pravided by the ‘o 2 Coastal Management Act of 1972, > ~~ administered by the Office of Ly Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Printed in the U.S. Virgin Islands AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO 7) COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF Darlan Brin, Assistant Director of Planning and Program Director Edward H. Lindelof, CZ2M Project Coordinator/Senior Planner Marsha McLaughlin, Regional Planner and Public Attitude Project Coordinator Walter L. Stewart, Ph.D., Resource Economist/Planner and Data Analyst Roy E. Adams, Senior Planner Steve Colman, Resource Planner William F. Newbold, Jr., Landscape Architect/Planner Joseph Mahoney, Planning Assistant Ithon Babb, Draftsman Olga McBean, Administrative Secretary II Myrna T. Richards, Administrative Officer Edris Sebastien, Administrative Officer Bienvenida Torres, Secretary ‘ Consultants Ervin H. Zube, Ph.D., General Consultant Frank Mills, Ph.D., Geographer and Survey Analyst Project Interviewers Lenniston Brown George Dennis Nurbert Hughes Jacqueline Hurley Axelina Plaskett Arthur Richards ' Eustace Roper Wayne Thomas Lorraine Todman Rita Vallarde Phyllis Walcott Lynette White Special thanks to Robert Marohn of the Good Hope School, St. Croix, for his assistance with some of the statistical analyses. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AcknowledgementS eee ieee cece eee c eect waco ene nscecsnaseesesenee Li List of Figures Peewee nearer cece recto neem s ete aneneasereses VI List of Tables cee ewe eee e mene tee e eee e eee eereneese Vv ABSTRACT 2. cece ccc ccc c ccc ence cece ewer c cece reeset eseccesereeses VIL CHAPTER ONE ~ OVERVIEW 2... cece ccc eee e ence te tee eee ween eee seeees lL Public Attitudes as an Input to Coastal Zone Management ° Purpose of the SurveyS ...vecccccescnesesesccsenene The Test Population: A Profile ..c ccc wc wc w ncn enene tw Ww CHAPTER TWO - SURVEY TECHNIQUES 1.2... cee esc e cee ccc ew ence eevenees Ll Household Survey ....ccccc cece wc ncc cece anencseaee LS Interview Format ... cece eee reece ences cnscessecess L3 Sampling Procedure 2... cece eee e ewer cece ea sencens LA Interview Procedure ..ccccec ceca aesacenenesessane LB Data AnalySiS ...... ccc cece wcrc ener wer esaseceseene LY Problems Encountered ..scseccccencccsscscccsnecene LY Newspaper Survey .. 2. cece ese cece eee e erases encaes 20 Survey Format and Procedures ...cccceccccccceveses 20 Data AnalySiS 2... cece ccc w cece ream ere nen scceveseese 2L Problems Encountered ....cccc nen cc n ewan cnccesevee 21 CHAPTER THREE — SURVEY RESULTS 1... cee cece ence wen cece ence cteeses 2a Household Survey Sample ...... ccc cer eer cc cece cecevesee 25 Household Survey ReSponseS ...cceec cece cere ver eacusenes 29 Perceptions of Coastal Problems .......eneeseceees 29 Shoreline Utilization ..... cece sce e ence eee ceeseeee SL Shoreline Protection ... csc were nce c ccc cesnavecce 40 The Location of Future Development ......eeee0e202 50 Respondents’ CommentS ..... cc ecr ec cc cc ccccccenesee 54 Newspaper Survey Respondents -......cc.escsceveeccnenecce 55 Newspaper Survey ResultS 2.2.2... ccc cece cence cece ene c ee 55 Shoreline Utilization ....... cece cece wee ev aeenes OO Location of Future Development ........cecceenenee 58 . Shoreline Protection ..csecerccecsccnavecccecnecee 39 CHAPTER FOUR - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......ccewcncccccecesees GL Survey RESults cic cece c cence esse acer asenccsassasesane 63 Survey Utility ... ccc cw ence cee were wens onan essenetaes 10 APPENDICES 2... cee eee cece cece eee e eee en ccc c et eetstesesssasesaeeee 73 APPENDIX A - HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FORMAT .........ccee0e08 75 Interview Schedule 2.1... cece cee cece cece ce eeenene V7 Photograph Panels ccc cess ccc acc c waren ereccsnece 18 APPENDIX B - NEWSPAPER SURVEY FORMAT .....cccccaeevesne 83 QUESTLONNALTE wives cc scares eccccnsccnacccvesceese S4 TABLE OF CONTENTS |(cont!.d) Page APPENDIX C - HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA . enor one . ae . eenone 85 Selected Tabulations i ee ee . a ey « we . aeee ee . 86 Selected Cross Tabulations awe . eoueneae . oe . aeee . 93 a . a6 . « eeae . 96 Available Information ......... APPENDIX D - NEWSPAPER SURVEY DATA . eee ree . ee . . aeee . . 97 . oe . ewcee . . 97 Complete Tabulations ....ecse eee e cues 1v Table Table Table’ Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table © Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table. Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table SOO WN Fe 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 LIST OF TABLES Page Sample Composition by Sex .........6. enw ewww encase 26 Sample Composition by Age ...ceeseescccece weseseans 26 Sample Composition by Length of Residency wees ae 27 Sample Composition by Education ...... enw necacee 28 Sample Composition by Occupation .....ceeer erences 28 Sample Composition by Intent to Staty in the V.I.. 29 Perceptions of the Virgin Islands' Three Most Important Coastal Problems .......cceeees ewes -.- 30 Attitudes Towards Shoreline Development: Uses to be Emphasized .....cccev er cceee eee ee eee eens eee SL Shoreline Use to Emphasize First .......006 an eceee 32 Attitudes Towards Economic Development: The ' Three Most Favored IndustrieS ........eeeeees eee 33 The Most Favored Industry .. cee ececcncscreccecene 35 Attitudes Towards Tourism: The Three Most Favored MOdES cece cece nsec nese ese neneane rere 36 The Most Favored Mode of Tourism ......... ee eneaee 36 Attitudes Towards Recreational Development : .. The Three Most Favored TYPES 2... eee ence c ences escnence 38 The Most Favored Type of Recreational. Opportunity. 38 Attitudes Towards Shoreline Protection From Over Development 2... ccc c cece nese eee s ersten eae esenes 40 Rationale for Shoreline Protection ....ceeceee sees 41 Perceptions of the Virgin Islands' Three Main Tourist Attractions .......eeeee wee eee e eens 42 The Virgin Islands'Main Tourist Attraction ....... 43 St. Croix Respondents' Perceptions of St. Croix Shoreline Visual Quality ....... ace nrecevenavee 44 St. John Respondents' Perceptions of St. John Shoreline Visual Quality a: © St. Thomas Respondents' Perceptions of St. Thomas Shoreline Visual Quality ....cecc ccc ccc ces eneeee 45 Territory-Wide, Perceptions of Territory Shoreline Visual Quality ....... peewee eee e eae nee eeneees 45 Perceptions of :the Most and Least Scenic’Areas ... 46 Perceptions.of Relative Visual Quality by Shoretype47 Shoretypes Which May Need Protection From Over Development oc. cccer es cnccccnceces wee e eens «. 49 Shoretype Utilization ... cece wees cece cee w ewer ence 51 Respondents" Comments ....ccccccccnencnccccsecenen 54 - Comparative Demographic Data ......... ace ceeerecee 55 Use of the Coastal AreaS ....2.0. see c cece see cen ee 56 Beach USE c.awace ees ceneie Cece rene ewan ewe eresesae FO Perceptions of ‘the Obstacles to Greater Beach Use. 57 - Perceptions, of..the Three Most Important “Shoreline Uses .......04- eee ewe wenn eenasenes 57 Perceptions of the Adequacy of Current Shoreline USES cece ecccnnersncccee Cem een eee ener cneoecacnee 58 Shoretypes Most Suitable for Intensive Development 58 Shoretypes Needing Protection From Overdevelopment 59 Shoretypes Needing Protection from All development St. Croix Residents’ Attitudes Towards Shoretype Protection and/or Utilization 2... cence neccacee «+. 86 St. Thomas Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype Protection and/or Utilization ....c cece ween ene anas 87 St. John Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype Protection and/or Utilization ...ccecccaccccunccae 88 Attitudes Towards Shoreline Development by Survey Sub-areas ...... i ee ee ei ie ia aa 89 Attitudes Towards Economic Development by Survey Sub-aredS 2... ce ecw ecw ewe eee wee eee ee ee eee eee - 89 Attitudes Towards Coastal Recreation Opportunities by Survey Sub-areaS 1.2... ccc wwe rence enn ecee ese. 90 Perceptions of the V.I.'s Three “Most Important Coastal Problems by Survey Sub-areas ........0020. 90 Complete Tabulation of Respondents' Comments ..... 91 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 ‘LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Education as Associated With Length of Residency ........6e- Age As Associated With Length of Residency ......ceuseeceace Attitudes Towards Over-all Shoreline Development By Educational Levels .......seeeee Attitudes Towards Economic Development By Educational Levels Attitudes Towards Shoreline Protection By Educational Levels ...ccesecceees ee ee Perceptions of Coastal Problems By Educational Levels .... Demographic Data For Newspaper Respondents ...s.sseeeesesene Coastal Activities wo... n ewww ween Beach Activities - Adequacy of Current Shoreline Uses,. Ce | ee Co eee eventos meanest ranma revnesrensevetenesaeeteennaen Beach USC ...cceeceseseaces er are ara a ars Existence of Unused but Desired Beaches .....e.. ccc ee eeeees Reasons For Not Using Particular: Beaches ...... eae t wee reneee - Most Important Current Shoreline Uses ..... Oe r eens eweracen ey Shoretypes Suited for Intensive Development .....eeeeeedaeee Shoretypes Needing Protection From Extensive Development.... Figure 1 Figure 2: a&b Figure 3 - Figure 4 - Figure 5_ Shoretypes Needing Protection From All Development ‘LIST OF FIGURES © - Diagram ofthe CZM Program ' Development Process © - Shoreline Environments - Map of St. Croix Survey Areas - Map of St. John Survey Areas - Map of St. Thomas Survey Areas vi is 16. 17 93 94 Abstract -Of the eight studies undertaken in the development of the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program, the Public Attitude Survey was one of the most valuable. The information used by the survey gave insight into what the public's needs and concerns were in relation to a host of coastal related issues ranging from conservation to industrial development. The survey was undertaken according to standard scientific methods for ascertaining public opinion. Two approaches were used: an informal newspaper questionnaire in the local newspapers, and a more detailed household survey conducted by interviewers on all three islands. The data collected was analyzed by computer and is summarized here. . It is interesting to note that the respondents' length of residence in the Territory did nctappear. to influence opinions. . However, opinions on many issues did seem to vary by Island and level of education. THE NEED FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION Seventy percent of the household respondents and ninety~seven per- cent of all newspaper respondents feel some shore areas need protection from over-development. Less that eight. percent of those questioned are opposed to shoreline protection and regulations. Rationales for protection included both statements of appreciation for an area's amenity qualities and concern about possible negative effects induced by development. When asked which areas were in need of protection, respondents nominated those areas highly valued in terms of recreation, scenic, and/ or natural qualities. Sand beaches, harbors with waterfront parks, and undeveloped mangrove areas are given highest priority. Strong support 100% NEED FOR SHORELINE I a PROTECTION (Teritory Wide} 50 25 Y 0 YA WW NO OPINION NO Source: VICZM Household Survey vil is also given to the protection of some undeveloped salt ponds arid © rocky shores, as well. as-intensively: developed harbor areas. Those surveyed generally feel new construction could best be accommodated in areas which already have some devélopment, particuarly habor or industrial areas. and low relief or’ steep rocky shorelines. To a- lesser extent, gravel or rocky beaches and salt ponds ‘are also’ considered suitable for development. ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT While there is apt to be considerable disagreement among some ” population groups as to the importancé of economic dévelopment, there’ is a consensus Territory-wide that agriculture and food processing should be encouraged. The extent of support for tourism’ varies*among the Islands, but respondents across the Territory indicate a preference for hotel/ guest house and cruiseship related development over other forms of tourism. The great majority of respondents agree that coastal recreational ‘development is important. There is considerable support throughout ‘the Territory for the improvement of beach access, and to a. lesser extent, beach facilities, The newspaper survey provided considerable information about existing patterns of recreational activity, including a listing of beaches where access is considered an issue. | Poor roads or an exclusively private atmosphere are the most frequently cited obstacles, although the lack of facilities and safety. are also concerns. 100% FUTURE ECONOMIC —100% 4 MOST IMPORTANT SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES ACTIVITIES (Territory Wide) Ct os bo (Territory Wide) LTS rs +2 50 _ 50 WG 1, 0 GZ ZB Za. - te 0 : AGRICULTURE TOURISM FISHING rs : a RECREATION COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRY HEAVY: MFG. eo : : CONSERVATION INDUSTRIAL Source: VICZM Household Survey wee / - ; iF oe Si VICZM H sid Survey wilt DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES BY ISLAND ST. CROIX Recreational development, and beach access in particular, is of greater concern on St. Croix than on the other two islands. Res- pondents from Christiansted voiced the strongest: concern. Compared with St. Thomas and St. John, concern about conservation is greater, but less interest is expressed in commerce and industry. Agriculture and light industry are clearly the most preferred and widely supported development options. However, the percentage of population favoring heavy industry is larger than on St. Thomas and St. John. Interest in fishing and tourism is weaker in St. Croix than the other two islands. Attitudes toward. tourist development are reflective of the Territorial preference for hotel/guest houses and cruise ships. Support for condominium/second home development is stronger on St. Croix than on the other islands. ST. THOMAS The survey results on St. Thomas indicate that industrial and conservation uses are a high priority and while recreational and residential development are not a high priority, they are recognized as being important. Respondents are more united in their support for agriculture, light industry, and, to a lesser extent, tourism as modes of economic development. Regarding tourism, there was agreement with the Territory-wide preference for hotel/guest house and cruise ship development. Respondents also support other Territorial-wide recreational concerns. Beach access is paramount, but beach facilities, fishing piers and waterfront parks are concerns in certain areas. ST. JOHN Residential and commercial development are of greatest concern ac-— ‘cording to the survey results from St.John. Interest in conservation is less widespread. Respondents express very little interest in industrial uses. Stronger support is given to the development of agriculture, tourism, and fishing. Interest in fishing and tourism is stronger on St. John than anywhere else in the Virgin Islands. ix With respect to tourism development, respondents express a clear support for the Territory-wide preference for hotel/guest houses and cruise ships. In addition, there is equally clear and strong support for developing boating. While recreational development is rarely considered to be a first priority, it is widely acknowledged as important. There is considerable support for the development of waterfront parks and fishing piers. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES 7% Camping 7% 6% 4% 10% Boating ™% 13% Ly SS 18% SN 2nd Home 13% N NV 30% 33% 12% BSS 28% Cruise Ships 2a% 24% 36% Hotel 40% 33% 30% TERRITORY St. St " St. Thomas Croix John Source: VICZM Household Survey RR a ae ae sper ns 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW a SS _ sae eer Public Attitudes as an Input to the Virgin Islands: C2M Program The U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (Public Law 92-583) in 1972 to stimulate state and territorial leadership in managing the Nation's coastal land and water resources. Spurred by this Act, as well as by problems resulting from rapid and unplanned growth, the Virgin Islands began work on its own Coastal Zone Management Program in early 1975. The Virgin Islands Planning Office, which has responsibility for the program, is developing both a plan and appropriate mechanisms for regulating coastal resource use. As Figure 1 indicates, identifying the best use of scarce and fragile resources has involved a varlety of technical analyses, including not only assessments of resource capabilities and economic demand factors, but also a study of public attitudes regarding utilization of coastal areas. It is this study that is reported here. This chapter presents first the underlying rationale and objectives of surveying public attitudes regarding coastal development, and then a brief overview of the report. Study methods are detailed in Chapter II while Chapter III elaborates on study results and their implications. Chapter IV summarizes survey findings in light of their utility in developing the Territory's Coastal Zone Management Program. Purpose of the Surveys SURVEYING THE GENERAL PUBLIC Determining public attitudes towards any issue is obviously made difficult by the fact that the public speaks with many voices. For this reason, elected officials and community and interest groups leaders are generally relied upon to assess and to articulate their constituents' interests. If the issues are clear cut and have received widespread attention, this is a resonable and certainly the easiest means of gauging public sentiment. However, in the Virgin Islands, growth and development since the early sixties has resulted in substantial changes in the landscape, the population and their way of life. Traditional attitudes and values appear to be changing rapidly. Accordingly, extrapolation of public sentiment from the past seems precarious, While public reactions to current events provide some indication FIGURE 1 CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS RECOMMENNED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM . OCZM PROGRAM ELEMENTS STUDY PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTATION CZM PROGRAM MECHANISMS (REQUIREMENTS) BOUNDARY TERRESTRIAL INVENTORY COASTAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, REVISED ORGANIZATIONS POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES PERMISSIBLE USES MARINE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY ZONING AREAS OF PARTICULAR CAPABILITY ANALYSIS CONCERN GENERAL LAND AND PERMIT SYSTEM @ATTITUDE SURVEYS/PUBLIC WATER USE PLANS PUBLIC/GOVERNMENTAL PARTICIPATION/GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT ORGANIZATION AND AESTHETIC/VISUAL QUALITY AUTHORITIES REVISIONS FEDERAL INTERACTION ASSESSMENT AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INTEREST LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS SHORELINE ACCESS SITING OF ENERGY FEDERAL INTERACTION AND FACILITIES THE NATIONAL INTEREST COASTAL EROSION eee et it aoe. ». wei. EE lane Aa of attitudes towards coastal development, it is far from adequate. This is of particular concern since coastal resource utilization is an important de- terminant of growth and development in the Territory as a whole. Surveying the public-at-large seemed called for. The Planning Office used the results of these surveys to supplement information obtained from contacts with local officials, leaders, and groups. EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL FUNCTIONS There were two other reasons for surveying public attitudes. It was anticipated that the surveys would have both educational and informational functions. Questions were designed not only to obtain needed information, but also to encourage participants to be more conscious of coastal resources; to think about their value and utilization in fresh ways. Moreover, the surveys provided a novel vehicle for making people aware of, and hopefully, interested in the Coastal Zone Management Program. It was hoped that interest would lead to active participation in program development. APPROACH In May of 1976, a questionnaire was inserted in all local newspapers. It dealt with personal recreational habits, perceptions of existing and future shoreline use, plus attitudes toward development of different shoreline areas. It was anticipated that the primary value of the survey would be educational; being an interesting means of communicating information through the news media, Its value as a vehicle for public input was secondary. It was expected that response would reflect the opinions of people with the time, interest and ability to fill out and return the questionnaire -- in all probability a some- what more educated and affluent group. To obtain a sample which would be more representative of residents as a whole, a program of household interviews was conducted over the summer. Inter- views also permitted probing some of the newspaper survey questions in greater detail. A unique aspect of the household survey was the utilization of photographs depicting the various types of shoreline areas found in the islands. These provided a focus for questions regarding shoreline use, as well as for assessments eee a oe L Bee = oe ge o 2 a. Z Ze ee = 2 * ee a Og oe a ae oe a S A de ® Se oy * 8 ee fe is oe - oe a oe Pe sy fe ee Dee oa vee ves ee ve el Se ee ie aoe cs ene S Pe ee ee ee 2 S eS re oe eS ee A f ges = eet “e epee s) o a Ne ge a fe VG uta ARES oe eo i es Be ee a 7s Hoses Zz ee, steep rocky shore; low relief Figure 2a — Examples of shoreline environments (from top): shorer salt pond; mangrove stand; sand beach; developed shore. of visual quality. Assessment of the different types of coastal areas has been a central feature of the Territory's CZM Program. The concept of coastal en- vironments is grounded in the assumption that areas which have similar charac- teristics also have similar potentials and constraints for use, and therefore similar management requirements. Classification of all shoreline and marine areas was based on soils, vegatation, slope, erosion susceptibility, and use attributes. Thirteen distinct coastal environments were identified: Shoreline Environments: Developed shorelines Steep rocky shorelines Low relief shorelines Salt ponds Beaches Mangrove stands Marine Environments: Marine meadows (grass beds) Sand bottoms Rocky bottoms Developed bottoms Reefs Open water off-shore islands and cays Developing management recommendations for each of the different coastal environments involved weighing environmental, economic and social considerations. Both surveys, but particularly the household survey, were designed to assess public perceptions of the shoreline environments and the relative values associated with each. To this end, each of the six shoreline environments was further sub-divided to assess differences in perceptions based on the type and amount of development. Developed shorelines were divided into industrial and harbor sub-classes. The others were divided into undeveloped and some development sub-classes. Also investigated were interviewees' attitudes regarding coastal development priorities, tourist assets, recreational oppor- tunities and coastal problems. Demographic and geographic data were collected to distinguish differences in opinion between population sub-groups. Figure 2b — Examples of shoretype sub-classes (from top): developed ~ harbor; developed ~ industrial; beach with some development; salt pond with some development. THE SAMPLE POPULATION; A PROFILE While it has been difficult to assess the success of these surveys in terms of educational objectives, they did produce a great deal of useful information. Not only do they provide a good indication of the economic, amenity, and ecological values which the public associates with coastal areas, but also their relative importance as reflected in attitudes towards shore- line utilization. Sex, age, occupation, and length of residence in the Territory were not found to have a significant bearing on respondents’ views, but island of resi- dence and level of education in many instances were. The newspaper survey sample, as anticipated, was relatively small (154 respondents) and more reflec- ae tive of the views espoused by the better educated household survey respondents. The household survey sample, however, was considerably larger (743 respondents) and more representative of the population as a whole. Survey data thus suggest areas of both public consensus and dissension. Strong consensus appears to exist about: the importance of. coastal recreation and improving beach access; the encouragement of agriculture; the recognition of water pollution as a significant problem; the high value attached to sand - beaches, undeveloped mangroves, and some harbor areas; and the importance of protecting such areas from overdevelopment. There is considerably less agreement, however, on over-all development priorities, Attitudes towards development tend to be associated with educa- tional background, with the more educated favoring amenity and natural con~ siderations and the less educated stressing economic ones. Attitudes towards future development also vary considerably among the islands. Island development priorities seem to reflect not only residents’ perceptions of what is desirable, but also what is feasible given island resources. Considering survey response as a whole, respondents seem to give less weight to economic considerations than was anticipated. While concern about economic development is by no means negligible, it appears to be tempered by a widespread concern for the natural and amenity attributes of the coast. The impact of development on sand beaches, harbors, and mangrove stands seems to be of greatest concern. Judging from respondents’ comments, there is substantial support for both planned coastal development and "going to the people” for guidance. There was however, some skepticism that survey results would be heeded or that effective management of our coastal resources would ever occur. The composition of the population has altered greatly in the past fifteen years, and further changes can be anticipated. The surveys provide at least a tentative indication of the influence of such shifts on public attitudes. Concerns about the type and location of future coastal development tend to be most strongly influenced by educational background and by island of residence, They are not associated with length of residence per se. Thus the assumption that neat distinctions can be made between the views of native Virgin Islanders, continentals, and aliens would appear to be unjustified. What is perhaps clearer, is that since educational levels are generally rising, further shifts in public values and attitudes may be anticipated along the lines indicated by the household survey ~~ towards a balance among economic, ecological, and amenity considerations. oe ur te 4 % Se a ar es mi 7m 3 vs fy #, a ?? ae 2) te a ‘“* es He we fa e te, ss ot add re Ret ie bial ‘2 wa dt. 7,4 Ere a By a. &, Bry we, As a ot phe S., rege ev wet re or Rd Pry we = 2 ve % ey AN, eae ~ ah awe ty Aen “ ‘ait a 2 AS +, rae Ag ms hey ‘ - aed is re on, PAs Vane a y *R 4 €s, a att ae 4 5ahe a si wee ‘ind aa ft B Bie FUSE \e F & ay Netde af Be a nd 7 Fa ys iw VV £- “ae pi ae ys & sit — “ pat as ms Ad Sere a ad oe: tt HS, Sa ee, oth Ss. ao Recreational use of the shoreline, and particularly sand beaches, has widespread support. 10 SURVEY TECHNIQUES This chapter describes how both Coastal Zone Management surveys were designed and carried out. The household survey is discussed first, and then the newspaper questionnaire. Household Survey INTERVIEW FORMAT The household survey consisted of two components: 1) .Three panels of photographs -- the first, depicting the various types of shorelines found in the Territory; the second, shoreline examples from the respondents' island; the third, examples of different types of shoreline uses. 2) A set of twenty-five questions, focusing on the assessment of shore- line value, and appropriate utilization. The photographs were intended to serve several purposes. As illustrative examples of shoretypes and coastal uses they provided respondents with a common understanding of terminology used in the questions (shoreline, industry, commerce, residential, recreation/parkland), as well as a shared understanding of the range of areas encompassed by both the questions and the Coastal Zone Management Program. Second, the photographs served as concrete stimuli for what would otherwise be rather abstract questions. Third, having a series of questions focussing on the photographs permitted assessment of respondents’ perceptions of a single shoretype relative to both economic and amenity issues. Lastly, the photographs added visual interest and variety to the somewhat lengthy interview format. The four shoreline photo panels were made of fifteen 24"x3" color prints arranged in three columns of five prints each, and mounted on 16" x11" white cardboard: one with Territory-wide shoreline examples, plus one for each of the three main islands. The photograph panel depicting shoreline use was of the same size, but had ten 3" x 5" black and white photos arranged in two columns of five each (Appendix A). The photograph set employed in each interview consisted of three panels: Panel A - the Territory-wide shoreline panel; Panel B~ island shoreline panel; and Panel C - the shoreline use panel. These were bound as a folio with a cardboard cover for ease of use. The interview schedule (Appendix A) used a force-choice response format for all but three questions. While this approach admittedly limits participants' responses, it was necessary to obtain comparable and quantifiable data suited 13 to statistical analysis. A measure of freedom was provided in some instances by the opportunity to specify a different response under "other". For three questions however, free responses were permitted: reasons for shoreline protection; occupation; and respondent comments. / SAMPLING PROCEDURE Time, logistical and financial constraints dictated a relatively small sample: 300 interviews each were planned on St. Croix and St. Thomas, plus 75 interviews on St. John. Samples were drawn from island sub-areas in propor- tion to population distribution. This was done to permit analysis of responses in terms of geographic as well as demographic variables. The survey sub-areas (Maps 1-3) are units which are relatively homogeneous with respect to-physical and demographic characteristics, as well as having a common physical orientation towards particular coastal and/or urban areas. Population data were taken from the recently completed Virgin Islands Mass Transit study? rather than from the 1970 U.S. Census. This was done because the Mass Transit Study contains 1975 population estimates incorporating corrections for widely acknowledged errors in the 1970 census data. Moreover, since these population estimates were for sub-divisions of the census enumeration districts, they could be aggregated so as to coincide with the planning areas to be surveyed. After population distribution was determined, the proportionate sample size for each planning area was calculated. Selection of households to be surveyed involved scanning a list of all tax properties in a given planning area and randomly selecting developed residential properties to generate the correct sample size (e.g. every nth property depending on the number of properties and sample size per area). When tax data indicated a parcel was not improved or was non~residential and therefore contained no household, the next improved residential lot in the list was substituted. Tax data provided addresses and were used to map ail parcels to be sampled. One drawback to this approach was noted and corrected. Single-family homes were as likely to be chosen as properties with multiple units. While lwilbur Smith and Associates in association with Design Collaborative, Virgin Islands Mass Transit Study: Final Draft Report, (February 1976) 14 MAP ft: ST. CROIX SURVEY AREAS Grove Place Frederiksted eo as00" sae0" re aga” 9T Cruz Bay MAP 2: ST JOHN SURVEY AREAS Coral Bay & Outlying Areas 2500" 78 eG0” LT MAP 3: ; ST. THOMAS SURVEY AREAS Northside Charlotte Amatie New Quarter East End ago’ ga00" 70.000" there are not very many people Living in large apartment complexes in the Virgin Islands, there are a lot of people Living in public housing. To avoid under-representing this group, the sample was. to be supplemented by interviews with sixty project residents on both St. Croix and St. Thomas. INTERVIEW. PROCEDURES . Fourteen interviewers, seven men, seven women, were employed. Teams of seven under a supervisor were formed for each of the main islands, with the St. Thomas team covering St. John. Most interviewers had had previous survey experience either with an earlier housing survey conducted by the Planning Office or with research at the College of the Virgin Islands. After a three hour meeting to review survey objectives and procedures and to discuss means of soliciting responses and avoiding bias in the presentation of questions, interviewers were sent to do a pre-test. The pre-test served not only to season the interviewers, but to identify problems with the interview schedule and procedures. As a result, several questions were rephrased. Several others were dropped to shorten interview time to about 40 minutes. It was also found that interviewers experienced difficulty locating many of the houses which were to be surveyed. This was due in large measure to inaccuracies in the tax data, but also in part to the fact that street addresses, where present, follow no logical sequence. Accordingly, in a subsequent meeting interviewers were instructed that when the target house did not exist as mapped, to take the house nearest to that location. Due to time constraints, a policy to eliminate calls back was also established. If the target house were located, but unoccupied (or if the oc- cupant declined to be interviewed) , interviewers were told to try the’ nearest house (s) until they had success, A third household identification procedure emerged when it became apparent that some of the targeted properties were businesses (which could not be detected from tax books). Interviewers were again instructed to go to the nearest residential unit. Interviewers were cautioned in all instances of substitution to avoid biasing the sample in favor of any class of unit or occupant. Interviews could be conducted with any occupant eighteen years or older. The survey began in mid-July and ran through August 1976. 18 DATA ANALYSIS Due to changes in the interview schedule, pre-test results were not integrated with those of the survey. Responses to all but three questions were pre-coded. Coding categories for question 18 (occupation) were derived from U.S. Census categories as listed in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Manual.” Responses to question 16 (reason for shoreline protection) were examined and tabulated to generate coding categories. Responses to question 25 (respondents' comments) were examined and tabulated, but they were not suitable for statistical analysis and hence were not formally coded. Coding was the responsibility of the survey supervisors. Since the Virgin Islands Mass Transit Study does not contain data on population composition, and in the absence of a more reliable source, Virgin Islands Census data (1950 - 1970) were employed as the only available check for the representa- tiveness of the survey sample. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version H, release 6.2) was used to analyze survey responses. Cross-tabulations between non~photo questions and all demographic variables were run by island. Chi Square was used to test the significance of associations between demographic variables and responses. Response tabulations and cross-tabulations for St. John were examined (and have been included in all tables), but due to the small sample size, were not tested for significance. For the same reason responses by island sub-areas were inspected, but not subjected to statistical analysis. Computer work was performed at the Virgin Islands Department of Finance computer center. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED There were several problems related to survey design and implementation. Time constraints and difficulties with off-island photo processing required construction of photo panels from a somewhat limited array of photographs. Several photographs of rocky beaches and low or steep relief rocky shores might be considered "hybrid" rather than clear examples of a particular shore~ type. Additionally, developed shoretypes were underrepresented on St. Croix. 2Nie, N., D.H. Bent, and C,H. Hull, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, McGraw-Hill Company, (1970) 19 A more fundamental constraint was posed by the dearth of a satisfactory data base for sampling,.. Since many residents lack telephones,. postal boxes or street addresses, no comprehensive list of households was available. Tax rolls provided the most complete, if not entirely up to date, listing of improved properties. The tax maps used to locate targeted households required interviewers to do a fair amount of substitution. The need to substitute households was. compounded by the fact that half of the interviewers were women who only worked weekdays when many people, particularly men, are not at home. This was a particular problem on St. Croix and undoubtedly accounted for the disproportionate number of women interviewed. Lastly, free responses to question 16 (reasons for shoreline protection) were probably influenced by previous questions. Moreover, questions 16 and 22 (occupation) generated a wide array of responses. Since guidelines on the grouping of these responses into coding categories were not always clear, some coding inconsistencies exist. Newspaper Survey SURVEY FORMAT AND PROCEDURES The full page (15" x 11%") layout which was used contained: 1) the questionnaire; 2) a brief explanation; 3) a letter of endorsement from the Governor and 4) several photographs of different shoreline areas. A news article discussing the purpose of the survey and more generally Coastal Zone Management was also run on a different page in the same paper (Appendix B). By removing most explanatory material from the survey page and adding photo- graphs, it was hoped that the layout would be distinctive and have visual appeal. The Governor's message was intended to encourage response. As an additional incentive to respond, the questionnaire was designed to be folded, stapled and mailed free of charge (business reply permit). Most of the sixteen questions called for forced-choice responses. However, ‘the opportunity for an "other" response was always available. Moreover, question structure was designed to. both. introduce’ respondents to terminology which is integral to the program and to encourage them to think more comprehensively about shoreline areas, and uses, The questionnaire and the accompanying article were run May 22, 1976 in all four of the Territory's newspapers. 20 a ee Tv DATA ANALYSIS A relatively small return rate made hand tabulation and visual inspection feasible. No statistical analyses other than tabulation of frequencies and percentages were undertaken. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED As anticipated, the survey return rate was rather small, It might have been boosted if the questionnaire had run for several days, This was not done due to the high cost of running a full page advertisement, but in retrospect, it probably should have been. More publicity might also have helped. Arrangements for notices to the broadcast media were made, but did not work out very well. ‘However, the survey's real value was expected to be informational and educational rather than as a means of soliciting public input. While its success in this regard is impossible to assess, to the extent that more people read the survey than responded, it undoubtedly had wider impact in stimulating thinking about Coastal Zone Management. 21 7 wo [gE Se 3 SURVEY RESULTS a en «<n This chapter reports the results of both surveys. The household survey is presented first, and in greatest detail. After a discussion of the sample questions, responses are considered. Particular attention is given to those issues involving both greatest and least public consensus . Significant attitudinal/value deviation between sample sub-groups (geographic or demographic) are presented. Discussion of the newspaper survey follows and focuses on the extent that findings support or amplify interview responses. Household Survey HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SAMPLE Conducting the household survey proved to be somewhat more time consuming than anticipated. Consequently, only 743 of the targeted 795 interviews were completed, However, interview distribution was approximately as intended: 348 on St. Croix; 339 on St. Thomas; and 56 on St. John. The social composition of the Virgin Islands' population has undoubtedly undergone great change on the past 20 years. However, data regarding current population composition are not very accurate, due to serious undercounting of certain sub-groups by the 1970 census and to the complex migrational patterns which have occurred since that census. Accordingly, it has been very difficult to assess the survey sample's representativeness of major sub-groups. Nevertheless, the sample has been analyzed in terms of respondents' sex and age, length of residency in the Territory, and education and occupation, and is described in Tables 1-6 both by island and in terms of Territory-wide totals. When available, comparative data from the 1970 census have also been included, although reservations regarding its reliability must be kept in Mind. Irrespective of reservations about census data, the sample is clearly skewed with respect to sex (Table 1). Overrepresentation of females undoubtably resulted from interviewing during the day, when housewives comprise a very large share of the household population. Distortion is greatest on St. Croix where interviewing was almost exclusively daytime. However, females were not found to differ significantly from other sub-groups in their perceptions of most coastal issues. Where significant differences by sex or any other demographic or geographic variables are suggested by the data, they are noted in the text. TABLE 1 SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY SEX Sex St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory N=348 N=53 N=309 N=711 Male 32.2% (50.3) 41.5% (42.5) 43.4% (48.8) 37.8% (49.8) Female 67.8 (49.7) 58.5 (57.5) 56.6 (51.2) 62.2 (50.2) NOTE: 1970 Virgin Islands Census data enclosed in parenthesis. To a lesser extent, the sample also appears to be skewed with respect toa age when compared with the age breakdown of the 1970 census population (Table 2). Discrepancies may well be attributable to flaws in the census data. However, the survey may have been under-representative of 18-29 year olds and slightly over-representative of three older age categories. This could be explained by the fact that daytime interviews failed to catch the younger, working population at home. It may also be attributable to shifts in population distribution induced by immigration of older continentals and emmigration of younger, less- established natives and aliens. Regardless of the cause, differences with respect to age do not appear to be significant. TABLE 2 SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY AGE. St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory N=347 N=54 N=320 N=720 Age 18-29 Yrs. 20.2% (39.5) 18.5% (43.6) 31.33 (38.3) 24.93 (39.1) 30-39 Yrs. 25.6 (24.4) 31.5 (18.7) 33.7 (24.4) 29.7 (24.2) 40-59 Yrs. 37.5 (26.1) 35.2 (26.7) 31.9 (26.8) 34.9 (26.9) 60 + Yrs. 16.7 (10.0) 14.8 (11.0) 3.1 (9.5) 10.6 ( 9.8) NOTE: 1970 V.I. Census data.is enclosed in parentheses for comparison. Percentages have been calculated using 18 and over population only. , 26 me he eke Although no precise data exist on how much of recent population growth is attributable to immigration, it is generally assumed to be considerable. However, the survey, if anything, appears to be biased in favor of natives and long term residents (20 years or longer). In absolute numbers, assuming no deaths or emmigration, the total number of people living in the Territory twenty years ago could at most comprise only 31% of today's population (fable 3). Disproportionate sampling of long-term residents may be attributable to interviewers unconsciously selecting fellow Virgin Islanders in making household substitutions. 'TABLE 3 SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCY St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territor N=340 N=25 ~NE290 Hees ¥rs. Here . 0-5 Yrs. 14.7% 12.08% 9.7% 12.4% .6-10°. 18.8 28.0 12.8 16.4 11-15 9.7 20.0 13.1 11.6 16-20. 11.8 20.0 . 42,1 12.2 20+ 45.0 20.0 52.3 47.4(31.2) NOTE: Parenthesis indicates maximum possible percentage of long term residents as calculated from interpolated 1950-1960 census data. - If census data are used as a gauge, and a constant ratio between population sub-groups is assumed, about 3/4 of those respondents who are long-term re- sidents are probably native Virgin Islanders. For this reason, the responses of long-term residents are considered to provide a rough indication of Virgin Islanders' views. Some indication of the sentiments of the continental and alien communities could also be obtained if responses were cross-tabulated with education and occupation (see Appendix C). In few instances, however, has length of residency in the Territory been. found to be strongly related to variability in attitudes. towards coastal issues. Of the demographic variables analyzed, education was found to be most highly associated with variations in response (see Appendix C). If the census is used as a gauge, the survey sample appears to be over-representative of those with advanced schooling (Table 4), While this could reflect a greater 27 willingness to participate in the survey on the part of more educated persons, given the apparently proportional participation of those with least education, it may also reflect a real shift in the level of educational attainment. TABLE 4 SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY EDUCATION St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory N=348 N=54 N=316 N=718 Education Grade Sch. 27.9% (28.5) 33.3% (38.7) 24.7% (28.5) 26.7%. (26.8) High Sch. "8.5 (54.7) 44.4 (44.6) 43.4 (54.7) 41.1 (55.6) Advanced *.6 (16.8) 22.3) (16.7) 32.0 (16.8) 32.2 (17.6) NOTE: 1970 Virgin Islands Census data in parenthesis. As Table 5 shows, the survey sample also appears to be rather irregular with regard to particular occupational categories on individual islands, but fairly representative of occupational distribution Territory-wide. Discrep- ancies may be attributed to the failings of census data, differences in the classification of jobs into coding categories, and/or actual occupational shifts, specially the widely acknowledged rise in government employment and a decline in construction related industries since the 1970 census. was conducted. Regardless of what the occupational profile of the population actually is, occupation was not found to be highly associated with variability in response. TABLE 5 SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY OCCUPATION St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory N=348 N=52 W=304 “N=704 Occupation White Collar 23.9% (20.0) 21.2% (19.9) 35.9% (26.6) 28.8% (22.9) Blue Collar 9.8 (25.6) 11.5. (27.8) 11.8 (20.3) 10.9 (23.3) Services 9.8 (34.8) 34.6 (25.0) 24.0 (18.8) 17.7 (17.0) Housewife 38.2 (23.5) 21.2 (11.7) 17.1 (18.2) 27.9 (20.8) Retired 12.6 (3.6) 5.8 (3.9) 1.3 ( 2.8) 7.2 (¢ 3.2) Student 2.0 .( 4.9) 1.9 ( 4.8) 2.3 ( 6.3) 2.1 ( 5.5) Unemployed 0.0 ( 3.4) 1.9 ( 3.9) 3.3 ( 2.7) 2.6 ( 3.1) None 3.7 ( 4.2) 1.9 (3.0) 4.3 ( 4.3) 3.8 (¢( 4.2) NOTE: 1970 Virgin Islands Census data in parenthesis. 28 Analysis of survey responses revealed that some differences in values and attitudes. do exist between population sub-groups. While education appears to be the most important of the demographic variables, geography also plays an important role (with noteworthy differences on some issues among islands and sub~island units), Survey respondents were fairly much in accord, however, in one regard, and perhaphs ultimately the most significant one: the Territory is home, When asked whether they intended to stay in the Territory, an overwhelming majority affirmed (Table 6). TABLE 6 SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY INTENT TO STAY IN THE V.I. St.. Croix St. John St. Thomas Territory . N=347 N=55 N=319 N=722 Staying ‘Yes - 80.4% 87.3% 793% 80.2% No 6.9 0.0 4.4 5.3 Unsure 12.7 12.7 16.3 14.5 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESPONSES The survey was designed to elicit a better understanding of public per- ceptions and attitudes ~ specifically, those associated with shoreline areas. Accordingly, survey results are discussed in terms of public priorities con- cerning four categories of issues: 1) coastal problems 2) shoreline utilization 3) shoreline protection; and 4) the location of future development. Findings regarding each are presented so as to focus on the extent of public consensus, Where wide variability is evident, an attempt is made to trace differences to demographic or geographic variables. In the final chapter conclusions are drawn regarding the implications of survey findings for both coastal zone management and other public actions. The intent is to clarify for decision-makers both those issues and actions for which widespread public support is indicated, as well as those areas where the community is indifferent or divided. COASTAL PROBLEMS Respondents' perceptions of the Virgin Islands' most pressing coastal problems are indicated in Table 7, If all problems had been considered of equal importance, the percentage distribution in the table would approximate 29 60% each (see footnote). However, as shown, the extent of concern over coastal problems varied considerably. Water pollution seems to be an important issue to the most respondents, but particularly on St. Thomas. The removal of sand for construction and the loss of important natural areas are also of wide concern, TABLE 7 PERCEPTIONS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' THREE MOST IMPORTANT COASTAL PROBLEMS* Problem St. Croix** St. Thomas**St. John Territory N=345 N=325 N=54 _N=724 Beach Access 55.7% 32.9% 60.0% 45.7% Water Pollution - 67.0 87.1 69.1 76.3 Flooding 7.5 31.8 25.5 19.9 Loss Natural Areas 67.9 45.1 72.2 57.8 Sand Removal 59.9 57.6 46.3 57.9 Decreasing Seafoods 41.0 36.2 20.4 37.1 295.3% Question #18 ~ "What do you think are the three most important problems relating to the coast?" (Since respondents were allowed to emphasize up to three uses, the maximum total responses could equal 300%). ** Testing of response distribution for St. Croix and St. Thomas show response patterns to be significant (%2=230.6; F4 0.01). Most respondents consider water pollution an important coastal problem. 30 Beach access appears to be less of an issue than.was anticipated, though it appears to be of more concern on St. Croix and St. John than on St. Thomas. Residents of Christiansted evinced greatest concern with 75% considering it an important problem. Declining catches of seafoods and flooding are generally viewed as less important problems. However, flooding is viewed as a significant problem by long-term residents of St. Thomas and St. John, who have probably experienced it first hand. Understandably, greatest concern was expressed by residents of Charlotte Amalie (62.0%). On St. Croix, where fewer floods have occured it is not seen as a problem by long-term residénts. . In sum, perceptions of coastal problems are probably most strongly influenced by experience, either over time or in particular geographic areas. There is apparently very broad consensus about water pollution, and to a lesser extent regarding the damage which has been done to sand beaches and natural areas. SHORELINE UTILIZATION Overall Development Attitudes A sense of the relative importance of economic, amenity and natural values is gained from respondents attitudes toward coastal development. As Table 8 indicates, when firgt, second and, third responses are aggregated there is broadest support, throughout the Territory, for recreational use Of the shoreline, Although support is stronger on St, Croix than on St, Thomas or St. John, the widespread importance of recreation is clear. On TABLE 8 ATTITUDES TOWARD SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT: USES TO BE EMPHASIZED* Use ' St, Croix** St. Thomas+* St.'John ‘Territory ~— “N=346 N=339 N=55 N=734 Industry ' 45.5% 51.4% 34.5% 47.3% Commerce 49.6 55.3 61.8 53.1 Residential 56.8 71.8 , 83.6 ~ 65.5 Recreation 82.4 64.6 67.3 73.1 Conservation 65.7 51.1 49.1, . 57.8 . 296.83 * Question #9 - “If you were deciding how coastal areas should be used, which of the following uses would you emphasize first? Second? third?" (Since respondents Could emphasize up to three uses, the maximum total response gould equal 300%; distribution of response would approximate 60% each if all uses were perceived to be of equal importance). ae Response patterns are significant (x2=68.6; PEQ.01). 31 the other hand support for industrial use of the shoreline is least widespread. Attitudes toward commercial, residential and conservation uses are more variable. The relative strength of people's attitudes is more clearly indicated by the type of shoreline development they would emphasize first. Table 9 includes only first responses and shows that recreation is not necessarily people's primary concern, Rankings were found to be significantly associated with differing levels of education (and presumably income). See Table 48 Appendix C). Recreation tends to be a major concern for the more educated. Attitudes, however are also associated with island of residency. St. Croix respondents were not ‘ any more educated, but did perceive shoreline recreation to be more important. TABLE 9 SHORELINE USE TO EMPHASIZE FIRST* Use St. Croixss St. Thomasss« St. John Territory N=346 N=333 N=55 N=734 Industry 21.6% 23.4% 7.3% 21.4% Commerce 22.1 16.5 29.1 15.4 Residential 12.4 17.1 25.5 15.7 Recreation 33.5 15.3 14.5 23.9 Conservation 20.5 27.6 23.6 23.9 T0038 Question #9 - First choice responses only (since res- pondents could have only one first choice, responses should total 100%. However, occasionally two first choices were recorded, hence totals do not exactly equal 100%; response distribution would approximate 20% each if all uses were favored equally). ** Response patterns are significant (x7=71.3; P#0.01). The converse of recreation is true of industry, While support for industrial development is not widespread there is a considerable segment of the population to whom it is of primary concern, While this tends to be a less educated group, island of residency is also significant. Support for industry is weakest on St. John, Respondents from St. John, however, are more concerned about commercial and residential development than those from St. Croix or St. Thomas where shopping and housing opportunities are more extensive, Conservation was the only use which was of primary concern to a large number of respondents Territory-wide, although it is of most concern to the more educated. 32 In sum, the population appears to agree on the importance of recreation if not on its primacy. Otherwise people are divided regarding future shore- line development: the more educated (and probably more affluent) favor con- servation; those that are less so seem to favor industrial development. It bears emphasis that long-term residents, who are probably primarily native Virgin Islanders, appear to fall in both camps and do not have attitudes which differ significantly from newcomers . In the future, as educational levels continue to rise, consensus regarding the importance of recreation and con- servation may increase somewhat, and support for industrial, commercial, or residential development over recreation and conservation may decline. Economic Development Attitudes When first, second and third choices regarding modes of economic development are aggregated, widest support is indicated throughout the Territory for agriculture; heavy manufacturing receives least support (Table 10). Perceptions of the importance of other economic development options vary among the islands, but not greatly among demographic sub-groups. After agriculture, light industry was favored on St. Thomas and St. Croix. St. John respondents favored the expansion of tourism and fishing. TABLE 10 ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: THE THREE MOST FAVORED INDUSTRIES* industry St. Croixse St. Thomass*«St. John Territory N=348 N=333 N=54 ‘N=735 Heavy Manufacturing 35.9% 22.8% 14.8% 28.3% Light Industry 67.4 63.5 44.4 63.9 Agriculture 87.1 87.7 81.5 86.9 Tourism 52.6 59.8 75.9 57.8 Fishing 56.2 59.8 68.5 58.7 295.68 * Question #10 - "If economic growth does occur, and you could choose, which three of the following types would you favor first? second? third?" (Since respondents were asked to select three uses, the maximum total response could equal 300%, response distribution would approximate 60% each if all were perceived equally). ** Response patterns are significant (X25206.4; P£0.01). Based on first choices only, Table 11 indicates that while agricultural development has general support Territory-wide, economic development priorities 33 ma: us & oS ee Ee a = E ai oe: . e 7 Ae a an. Be oe m a ee ie ie ee FE ~ oo E ES = Re x a Bees Ae ee aoe se Sask oo I ge ise Ae aie Ss ae os Expansion of agriculture has strong support through-out the Territory. S - B ve Be BS Support for further heavy industrial development is not widespread, but is of great con- cern to some residents. 34 otherwise differ considerably among the islands. Support for agriculture is very strong on St. Thomas with substantial though much smaller segments of the community advocating light industry and tourism. On St. Croix agriculture and light industry both have strong support, while heavy manufacturing has a smaller, but notable constituency. Respondants from St. John favored tourism, fishing and agriculture in approximately equal numbers. TABLE 11 THE MOST FAVORED INDUSTRY* Industry St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory N=348 N=333 N=54 N=735 Heavy Manufacturing 16.1% 9.3% 3.7% 12.1% Light Industry 33.3 21.3 14.8 26.6 Agriculture 31.3 41.6 24.1 35.4 Tourism 12.4 17.4 29.6 16.1 Fishing 6.9 9.6 27.9 9.7 , 99.9% * Question #10 - First choice responses only (responses should total 100%, but some respondents did not distinguish first from second and third choices, hence totals do not always equal 100%; response distribution would approximate 20% if all in- dustries were viewed equally). ** Response pattern is significant (x2=213.7; P#0.01). Although attitudes towards economic development vary among the islands, within each there is apparently more consensus regarding economic development than about shoreline development over all. The pattern of responses in Tables 10 and 11 are quite consistent (in contrast to Tables 8 and 93), indicating that there would seem to be less of a problem with large educational sub- groups having different attitudes from island residents as a whole, Preference for heavy manufacturing was the only response found to be significantly associated with educational characteristics (see Table 49, Appendix C). Given that preference for heavy manufacturing was notable only on St. Croix, it is possible that positive experience with manufacturing and the feasibility of expansion on that island were more important factors than educational level. Thus, the apparent dilemma raised by educational sub- groups favoring conflicting industrial development and conservation goals is somewhat mitigated. While respondents may differ on the importance of economic development, there is considerable agreement by island as to the modes preferred. 35 Tourism Development Attitudes With the exception of St. John, further tourist development was not strongly preferred, however, the subject was probed in detail since tourism is, and is likely to continue to be, a dominant element in the Virgin Islands’ economy. Moreover, tourist-related development exerts great pressure on coastal zone resources. Tables 12 and 13 indicate that if tourism is to continue growing, cruise ships and hotels are viewed as the most important modes to emphasize Territory- wide. While support for cruise ship development seems to be somewhat more widespread, when it come to which type of development is preferred, as indicated by first choice responses, the greatest number of people favored hotel and guest house development. On St. John there is considerably more TABLE 12 ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM: THE THREE MOST FAVORED MODES* Mode St. Croix** St. Thomasx* St. John Territory N=345 : N=325 N=54 — N=724 Condominium/2nd home 50.0% 741.1% 38.9% 45.2% Hotel/guest house 72.0 80.4 75.9 76.0 Cruise ship 85.8 85.9 72.2 84.8 Boating 47.7 51.8 70.4 51.4 Camping . 43.9 36.2 37.0 39.9 297.3% * Question #11 - “If growth in tourism does occur, and you could choose, which type of tourism would you favor first? second? third?" (Since respondents were allowed to empha- size up to three uses, maximum total response could equal 300%; response distribution would approximate 60% if all types were favored equally). ae Response pattern is significant (X2=190.6; P<0.01). TABLE 13 THE MOST FAVORED MODE OF TOURISM* Mode St. Croix** St. Thomas**St. John Territory N=346 N=326 N=54 N5724 Condominium/2nd home 24.0% 12.9% 13.0% 18.2% Hotel/guest house 33.2 39.9 29.6 35.9 Cruise ship 24.3 33.4 24.1 28.3 Boating 5.5 6.7 29.6 7.9 Camping 13.0 6.7 3.7 9.5 99.8% Question #11 - First choice responses only (responses should total 100%, but not all respondents distinguished first choices, hence totals do not always equal 1003). Response pattern is significant (X2=258.9; P<0.01). 36 aoe lM a Oe. eS support for developing the boating industry; indeed, a large segment of the community feels it should be emphasized first. This is particularly important since respondents on St. John seem to have more interest in tourist development than those on St. Thomas or St. Croix. Support for condominium and second home development is not particularly widespread, but it is the favored mode of tourism among a considerable number of those interviewed on St. Croix. This type of development tends to be preferred by shorter-term residents (fifteen years or less) and particularly those who are not sure they will stay in the Territory. | In sum, with the exception of this sub-group on St. Croix, there appears to be strong consensus among residents as to their priorities if tourist development is to continue: hotels, guest houses and cruise ships Territory- wide, plus additional boating on St. John, Hotel, guest house, and cruise trade are the most widely preferred modes of tourism. Recreational Development Attitudes Coastal recreation was an important, if not the primary concern, of nearly three-quarters of all interviewees. Table 14 indicates that when first, second, and third choices aré aggregated, there appears to be wide consensus regarding the desirability of creating waterfront parks. There is less support for both underwatez parks and public boating facilities. " Support for other types of coastal recreation varies somewhat among the islands. 37 TABLE 14 ATTITUDES TOWARDS COASTAL RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE THREE MOST FAVORED TYPES* Type St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory N=346 N=329 N=53 N=728 Beach Access ' 67.5% 55.0% 41.5% 60.0% Beach Facilities “59.8 58.7 62.3 59.3 Boating Facilities 27.3 31.9 47.2 30.8 Fishing Piers 43.7 51.1 50.9 47.5 Underwater Parks 28.2 32.5 22.6 © 29.8 Waterfront Parks 71.6 64.1 71.7 68.3 295.7% * Question #13 - "If more opportunities for recreation and relaxation were being provided, which of the following would you favor first? second? third?" (Since respondents were allowed to metion up to three uses, maximum total response could equal 300%; response distribution would approximate 50% if all choices were viewed equally). ** Response pattern is significant (¥22195.6; P£0.01). Table 15, however, indicates that beach access is the primary recrea- tional concern of the greatest number of people, particularly on St. Croix and specifically in Christiansted where beach access was also considered a major coastal problem. The primacy given to heach access may be in some part attributable to the widespread publicity this issue has received in recent years. TABLE 15 THE MOST FAVORED TYPE OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY* Type : St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory . N=346 N=329 N=53 N=728 Beach Access 47.1% 36.8% 35.5% 40.6% Beach Facilities 17.8 20.7 5.1 17.6 Boating Facilities 3.2 2.2 6.8 2.3 Fishing Piers “21.5 18.9 15.3 14.8 Underwater Parks 6.0 8.7 5.1 . 6.77 Waterfront Parks 14.4 12.7 32.2 secs 9% Question #13 - First choice responses only (response should total 100% except not all respondents distinguished first choice; response distribution would approximate 16% if all choices were viewed equally). ** = ©6Response pattern is significant (X2=247.6: P#0.0L). Relatively small though notable numbers of respondents were more interested in emphasizing beach facilities, waterfront parks or fishing piers first. Preferences tended to be associated with geographic rather than demographic variables (see Table 43 Appendix C). Beach facilities were the first choice 38 i ee ae ee of quite a few. respondents on St. Thomas and St, Croix, but few on St. John , where there is a considerable constituency for waterfront parks. About one in seven respondents throughout the Territory would give first priority to the development of fishing piers. a = ae oh ry a ‘A a % bo “Me ads ej o Bry iat rk Sy Bye a re ee ae er at. 4 ae 1M, # Fe %, Sil ees ast ts vt atte oer Saat — as Some respondents also expressed interest in developing beach facilities «e.-.and waterfront parks. see tin ue ul aos In sum, there is broad support for the improvement of beach access; residents of all three islands perceive it to be the Territory's primary coastal recreation concern. This might seem at odds with the relatively 39 lesser importance assigned to beach access as a perceived coastal problem. Only respondents from St. John perceive beach access to be one of the Virgin Islands' three most important coastal problems. However, this appear less contradictory when it is remembered that while most people considered recreation an important shoreline use, fewer gave it primary emphasis. As for what the primary emphasis of coastal development should be, however, the public appears divided. As much support was expressed for emphasizing con- servation or industrial development as for recreation. This dilemma regarding shoreline utilization is somewhat abated by the fact that there is a great deal of consensus regarding economic development. It is perhaps fortunate that agriculture and light industry are most widely supported. Neither is dependant on a coastal site, and can be accommodated inland, thereby freeing coastal areas for both recreation and conservation plus water dependent com- mercial activities. SHORELINE PROTECTION Apparent public concern about such problems as water pollution, the loss of natural areas and the destruction of beaches, as well as mixed feeling regarding future development is further illuminated by respondent's attitudes toward shoreline protection. The Need for Shoreline Protection As Table 16 indicates over 70% of all interviewees responded in the affirmative when asked if there were any shoreline areas in need of protection from overdevelopment. While a considerable number had no opinion very few were opposed to the idea. TABLE 16 ATTITUDES TOWARD SHORELINE PROTECTION FROM OVER DEVELOPEMENT St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory N=346 N=288 N=55 N=689 Yes 67.0% 72.6% 89.1% 71.0% No 8.0 -—" 8.0 3.6 7.7 No opinion 25.07 | 19.4 7.3 21.3 Too 703 * Question #14 - "Are there any shorelines which should be protected from over development?" ** Response pattern is significant (X2=397.2; P€0.01). 40 Moreover, on St. John where shorelines are largely protected by the National Park Service and where it is reported that residents feel "over- protected" the strongest support was exhibited. Their experience may have convinced most residents that regulation of development can be beneficial. Response to the concept of shoreline protection is linked with both education and occupation. Support was strongest amongst the more educated, and particularly white collar workers, however, opposition was’ not found to be great among any occupational groups. Respondents with least education |. were much more likely to have no opinion than to be opposed. Rationale for Protection Most respondents selected examples, from the set of photographs of areas where protection might be called for, and explained why. A wide variety of reasons were cited, including statements about the area's natural or amenity values; concerns about possible negative impacts; and often simply, that they “like it the way it is." Responses were grouped as shown in Table 17. However, since there seems to have been some coding discrepancies between islands regarding the treatment of statements falling into the last two categories, and since many statements could have been placed in two or more categories, percentages should be interpreted loosely. TABLE 17 RATIONALE FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION* Reason St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory N=228 N=157 N=1L7 N=402 Ecological value 30.6% 10.1% 26.4% 21.2% Recreational value 27.1 3.8 5.2 16.0 Scenic Value 35.2 . 49.7 36.9 41.5 Prevent Pollution 7.1 4.3 §.2 5.9 Like as is. 0.0) 23.1 21.1 11.1 Already too developed 0.0 9.1 ~ $5.2 - 4.3 100.0% * Question #16 - "Why do you feel these areas should be pro- tected?" (Response distribution would approximate 17% if all viewed equally). **©6)©6Response pattern is significant (%2=374.5; P€0.01). 41 Respondents on St, Croix, who favored both recreation and conservation more than those on either St, Thomas ox St, John, consistently place greater emphasis on recreational and ecological values than their counterparts, Demographic variables were not found to be significantly associated with reasons given. As Table 17 indicates, respondents seem to perceive shoreline protection primarily in terms of the preservation of positive values: aesthetic, ecological or recreational, rather than the prevention of negative effects, Why this is so is unclear, but it may explain why pollution was rarely cited despite being considered the Virgin Islands' most important coastal problem, Tourist Attractions Residents’ perceptions of what makes the Territory enjoyable to tourists provide additional information about. the attributes of coastal areas which are most highly valued. As Table 18 indicates, when first, second and third ranked attractions were aggregated, weather, beaches, and to a lesser extent duty-free shops and scenery are the Territory's main tourist attractions. Neither hotels/restaurants nor friendly people are considered very important. TABLE 18 PERCEPTIONS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS THREE MAIN TOURIST ATTRACTIONS* Attraction St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory N=348 N=330 N=54 N=732 Duty-free shops 53.4% 69.2% 33.9% 58.6% Scenery 42.9 57.3 80.4 56.8 Hotels/restaurants 8.0 7.3 8.9 7.8 Weather 79.5 67.0 76.8 73.6 Beaches 74.4 70.3 76.4 72.8 People 31.3 28.6 26.4 29.8 299 4% * Question #12 ~ "What are the Virgin Islands' main attractions to tourists? first? second? third?" (Since three selections were requested response could total at maximum 300%; response distribution would approximate 50% each if all choices were ‘viewed equally). ** Response pattern is significant (x2=473.1; P40.01). Perceptions of the single greatest asset (Table 19) tend to discount beaches somewhat but emphasize scenery. They also vary considerably betweer islands, and reflect in large measure residents' understanding of the key assets of each island. 42 nleeatiamicbicniiit EK ma ee a i a TABLE 19 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' MAIN TOURIST ATTRACTION* Attraction St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John Territory N=348 N=330 N=54 N=732 Duty-free shops 26.7% 35.2% 19.6% 29.9% Scenery 12.1 26.1 35.7 — 20.2 Hotel/restaurants 1.4 0.3 | 0.0 0.8 Weather 41.4 18.8 23.2 29.8 Beaches 10.6 14.2 18.2 12.9 People 7.8 5.8. 3.8 6.6 100.2% Question #12 - First attraction only (response distribution would approximate 17% each if. all attractions were viewed equally) . . ** Response pattern is significant (X2=389.4; P4£0.01). Enjoyed by both tourists and residents? Scenic Quality Since development is unlikely to affect the weather or the duty-free status of Virgin Islands*' shops, scenic quality and beaches are the tourist attractions most likely to be threatened by over development. Scenic value, as noted above, was also the reason most often cited for shoreline protection. To determine the degree of consensus regarding what is considered scenic, respondents were asked to evaluate the beauty of different types of shoreline areas as shown in photographs: first of their own island, then of the Territory as a whole. The data indicate a great deal of agreement regarding scenic assessments - not only about individual areas, but also more generally 43 about the different shoretypes. Tables 20 through 23 show how each photo set was ranked. Standard deviations from mean scores were not found to be large (1.75 or less), indicating that respondents did not vary greatly in their assessments of individual photos. TABLE 20 ST. CROIX RESPONDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ST. CROIX SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY* Photo** Shoretype x S.D. Rank Order (xX) 1 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 3.05 0.81 10 2 Developed: Harbor 2.50 0.82 3 3 (10) Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.00 0.80 9 4 Developed: Industrial 3.43 0.77 13 5 Mangroves (Undev.) 2.980 0.75 6 6 (5) Developed: Harbor 2.62 0.88 4 7 Low Relief (Undev.} 3.12 0.72 11 8 (12) Dead Mangroves 4,47 0.79 15 9 (1) Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 3.17 0.69 12 10 Sand Beach (Undev.) 2.02 0.96 1 1i Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.77 0.79 5 12 (9) Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.44 0.76 2 13 Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.80 0.72 14° 14 (2) Low Relief (Undev.) 2.88 0.77 7 15 Low Relief (Undev.} 2.92 0.67 8 N=348 TABLE 21 ST. JOHN RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF ST, JOHN SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY* Photo** Shoretype x s.D. Rank Order (XxX) 1 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.91 0.67 7 2 Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 3.46 0.63 13 3 Salt Pond (Dev. ) 3.32 0.77 IL 4 Mangroves (Dev. ) 3.30 0.71 10 5 Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.32 0.69 3 6 (7) Salt Pond (Undev. ) 3.77 0.93 14 7 Mangroves (Undev.) 3.13 0.60 8 8 Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.84 1.07 15 9 (15) Salt Pond (Dev. ) 3.27 0.80 9 10 Sand Beach (Undev.) 2.16 0.68 2 11 Steep Rocky {Undev.) 3.36 0.77 12 12 Developed: Harbor 2.73 0.62 5 13° (6) Sand Beach (Undev.) 1.75 0.90 1 14 Developed: Harbor 2.88 0.43 6 15 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.32 0.61 3 N=56 Rk Questions #1-4 ~- "Looking at this panel” (Panel B, with examples from St. Croix) "which four shorelines are the most beautiful?" “Which is the most beautiful?" "Which four shorelines do you find least beautiful?" "The least beautiful?" Several photographs were repeated on Panel A (Territory-wide). Parenthesis identify those repeated by number on Panel A. 44 TABLE 22 ST. THOMAS RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF ST. THOMAS SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY* Photo** Shoretype , x S.D. Rank Order (X) 1 Developed: Harbor 2.980 0.67 5 2 Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.43 1.05 13 3 Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.14 0.90 11 4 Sand Beach (Undev.) 2.18 0.86 2 5 Developed: Harbor 3.25 0.72 12 6 Sand Beach (Dev. )} 2.13 0.92 1 7 Steep Rocky (Dev. )} 2.94 0.69 7 8 Mangrove (Undev.} 2.70 0.75 4 9 Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.51 0.99 3 10 Developed: Harbor 3.07 0.73 10 11 Steep Rocky (Dev. } 2.81 0.63 6 12 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 3.03 0.64 E) 13 Salt Pond (Undev.} 4.00 0.90 is 14 Developed: Harbor 3.54 0.80 14 15 Mangrove (dev. ) 2.96 0.54 8 N=339 Panel A provided a check on whether respondents' perceptions of scenic quality would be influenced by familiarity with the areas depicted. This does not appear to have any bearing, however, since photos which were repeated on Panel A for reassessment by all respondents tended to be evaluated the same as when included on Panel B. TABLE 23 TERRITORY-WIDE PERCEPTIONS OF TERRITORY SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY* Photo** Shoretype x S.D. Rank Order (X) 1 (x95) Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 3.10 0.60 10 2 (X14) Steep Rocky (Undev.) 2.92 0.77 7 3 (T5) Developed: Harbor 2.86 0.72 6 4 (T2) Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.32 0.85 12 5 (x6) Developed: Harbor 2.74 0.77 5 6 (713) Sand Beach (Undev.) 1.85 0.87 1 7 (76) Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.21 0.76 11 8 (T13) Salt Pond (Undev.) 3.51 0.73 14 9 (X12) Sand Beach (Dev. ) 2.45 0.74 3 10 (x3) Rocky Beach (Undev.) 3.03 0.76 9 11 (17) Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 2.73 0.70 4 12 (x8) Dead Mangroves 4.17 0.93 15 13 Developed: Industrial 3.43 0.85 13 14 Mangroves (Undev.) 2.39 0.81 2 15 (79) Salt Pond (Dev. ) 2.97 0.75 8 N=743 * Questions #5~-8 - “Looking at this. panel” (Panel A, with examples from all three islands) “Which four shorelines are the most beautiful?" "Which four shorelines do you find least beautiful?" "The least beautiful?" Thirteen of the fifteen photos were repeated from B panels (single island). Letter and number in parenthesis identify ‘its source by island panel and photo number. x* 45 Perceptions of the relative quality of each shoretype are more clearly seen in Tables 24 and 25. The first. compares the types of areas ranking highest and lowest on each panel. Sarmlbeaches, undeveloped mangroves, harbors and steep rocky shores were the types nominated as most beautiful. Sand beaches were consistently ranked first. Those areas considered least beautiful included: rocky beaches, dead mangroves, salt ponds, harbors and steep rocky shores. With the exception of the last two categories -- harbors and steep rocky shores, which included low to high rankimexamples -- reaction to the different shoretypes were reasonably consistent (Table 25). For most types, the range of assessments is relatively narrow; much of what variation exists examples to be ranked in each photo set. PERCEPTIONS OF THE MOST AND LEAST SCENIC AREAS* TABLE 24 is probably attributable to variations in the types and quality of the RANK PANEL B PANEL A St. Croix St. John St. Thomas Highest 1 Sand Beach Sand Beach Sand Beach Sand Beach (Undev.) (Undev. ) (Dev. )} (Undev.) 2 Sand Beach Sand Beach Sand Beach Mangroves (Dev. } (Undev. ) (Undev.} (Undev.) 3 Developed: | Steep Rocky Sand Beach Sand Beach Harbor (Undev,) (Dev. ) (Dev, ) 4 Developed: Sand Beach Mangrove Steep Rocky Harbor (Dev. ) (Undev.) (Dev. 3) 12 Steep Rocky Steep Rocky Developed: Rocky Beach (Dev. ) (Undev.) Harbor (Undev.) 13 Developed: Steep Rocky Rocky Beach Developed: Industrial (Dev. ~ } (Undev.) Industrial 14 ‘Salt Pond Salt Pond | Developed Galt Pond (Undev.) (Undev.) Harbor - (Undev.) Lowest 15 Dead Mangroves | Rocky Beach Salt Pond Dead Mangroves (Undev.) (Undev.) * ranking lowest on each panel. 46 Question #1-8 - Considering the four photoes ranking highest and the four photos SHORETYPE PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIVE VISUAL QUALITY BY SHORETYPR* TABLE 25 NO. OF EXAMPLES | RANKINGS ASSIGNED TO SHORETYPE EXAMPLES BY PANEL St. Croix St. Thomas St. John A Sand Beach (Undev.) 5 1 2 lie 2 Sand Beach (Dev. ) 5 2/3 1, 3 3 Mangroves. (Undev.) 4 6 4 8 2 Mangroves (Dev. .) 2 8 10 Low Relief (Undev.) 4 7/7, 8, 11 Salt Pond (Dev. ) 3 9/8, 12 Rocky Beach 5 9/9 13 /12 15 Salt Pond (Dev. ) 6 14 ll, 15/4 14 fll Dev: Industrial 2 13 13 Dead Mangroves 2 15 /15 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 5 5, 10 9 3, 12 Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 7 12 /10 6, 7 /a 7, 13 Dev: Harbor , 10 3, 4/5 5, 10, 12/6, 14 5, 6 * Questions #1-8 Comparision of the mean rankings associated with shoretype examples on each photo set. Rankings of photos repeated on panel A are shown as a/b where a indicates the rank on invividual island panel and b indicates rank for the same photo on Panel A. What can be said about-shoretype aesthetics? As Table 25 indicates, sand beaches were consistently perceived to be of highest scenic quality. No clear distinction is apparent, however, between developed and undeveloped beaches, Perceptions of mangrove areas seem to be rather mixed, with natural, undeveloped areas ranking considerably higher than their developed counterparts. Low relief shorelines and developed salt ponds are considered to have moderate to moderately low visual quality. Rocky beaches ranged somewhat lower followed by undeveloped salt ponds. Dead mangrove and industrial areas consistently ranked the lowest. Undeveloped mangrove stands are considered more beautiful than developed ones. 47 Perceptions of steep rocky shores, however, tend to be quite variable, ranging from moderately high to moderately low. Dramatic topography appeared to influence assessments positively; sharp jagged rocks at the waterline negatively . Perceptions of harbor areas were also variable, but tended towards the polar extremes. Areas with waterfront parks were considered very scenic; those congested by cars and boats the opposite, To obtain a better understanding of the factors contributing to positive and negative assessments, a more detailed analysis of the elements contained in each photograph was undertaken. Findings are reported in the technical supplement "BResthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone". Boe reap — 13 i ” wn ia - OB te | lan ghee atte i aaa sieseto € 4 Some harbor areas were considered very beautiful...others quite the opposite, 48 Shoreline Areas Needing Protection Aesthetic considerations may suggest a need for development controls in some areas. In others, protection may be desirable on different grounds. To determine the types of areas for which protection may be justified, respondents were asked to suggest appropriate areas from their island photo panel. -Table 26 displays responses by shoretypes to provide an indication of the relative importance of protection in different areas (see Apendix C for complete tabulations of responses by photo panel). TABLE 26 SHORETYPES WHICH MAY NEED PROTECTION : FROM OVER DEVELOPMENT* Shoretypes Shoretype Protection Rate** Sand Beach (Undev.) 14.5% Sand Beach (Dev. ) 11.5 a . uw Developed: Harbor Mangroves (Undev.) Racky Beach (Undev.) Steep Rocky (Undev.) Low Relief (Undev.) Salt Pond (undev.) Mangroves (Dev. ) Steep Rocky(Dev. )} Developed: Industrial Salt Pond (Dev. ) Dead Mangroves. RPRNMNWWUaA A ~) ee et er er ? ASOHH PAHO N=461 * Question #15 - "If yes," (to question #14 - "Are there any shorelines which should be protected from over development?") which types?" (indicate no more than three). ** Percentages do not equal 100% since they are averages of respondants' reactions to all photographs in a particular category. A protection rating was calculated for each photo by island panel (the frequency % of all nominations for that island). Rates for all examples of a given shoretype were then averaged. Protection ratings for each shoretype were based on the average of example ratings rather than composite ratings (total frequency %) due to differences in the number of examples of a given type and also in the number of res~- pondents assessing each island photo set. Respondents. were also requested to identify areas perceived to be appropriate for various types of shoreline development. Viewing shoreline protection nominations in light of respondents' perceptions of both appropriate use (Table 27) and scenic quality (Table 25) is revealing of public attitudes towards different shoretypes. Respondents' perceptions of coastal. problems provide additional insights. Sand beaches, which were ranked the highest in terms of both scenic and recreational use, are clearly considered most in need of protection. Concern 49 about overdevelopment of harbor areas and undeveloped mangroves is also fairly widespread, but probably for somewhat different reasons. Neither are con- sidered to have particular recreational value. Nor were harbor areas generally. considered very scenic, but the few examples that were tend to be the areas nominated for protection. Respondents' perceptions of potential pollution and congestion problems may also have been contributory. Undeveloped mangroves on the other hand, were considered to have moderately high scenic value. This nomination for protection may also reflect respondents' concern about the loss of natural areas. To a lesser extent, there appears to be some support for protection of other undeveloped shoretypes: rocky beaches, steep rocky and low relief shores. Concern about loss of natural areas might be the rationale, since none of these types were highly valued for either scenic or recreational qualities. Of all the undeveloped shoretypes, there was least support for protection of “salt ponds. The remaining shoretypes are all developed to some extent and are not perceived as warranting protection. LOCATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT After expressing attitudes towards coastal development and assessing both coastal amenities and the need for shoreline protection, respondents were asked to consider the location of future development. As Table 27 indicates, there seems to be great support for the notion that future deve- lopment should follow existing development patterns and that undeveloped areas should be kept for recreation and conservation. Respondents perceived new industry as best accomodated in areas already developed for industrial purposes. Areas of dead mangroves and salt ponds were also seen as appropriate. Existing harbor areas were considered the best place for commercial development. Apparent support for commercial use of developed beaches, however, is misleading, since it is all attributable to the responses to one photo of the beach in Cruz Bay Harbor. A wider array of coastal areas weré viewed as suitable for residential use, all of which were developed shoretypes having at least some existing housing; developed salt ponds, rocky shore, mangroves and sand beaches. 50 Os ee el i i i n-ne TABLE 27 SHORETYPE UTILIZATION* SHORETYPE USE** {in order of protection) _|Conservation Recreation Residential Commerce Industry Sand Beach (Undev.) 13.1% 31.9% 1.5% 1.8% 0.68 Sand Beach (Dev. ) 1.4 17.5 10.7 16.7 4.7 Developed: Harbor 7.6 2.3 5.4 19.1 8.7 Mangroves (Undev.) 20.9 5.4 1.2 2.1 3.4 Rocky Beach (Undev.) 5.3 5.4 6.1 1.3 8.9 Steep Rocky (Undev.) 6.5 2.1 4.8 1.3 3.2 Low Relief (Undev.) 5.7 6.2 3.4 3,3 2.6 Salt Pond (Undev.) 8.6 2.8 1.9 3.9 9.5 Mangroves (Dev. ) 1.6 1.5 11.6 2.0 2.4 Steep Rocky (Dev. ) 1.7 1.1 16.0 2.5 1.4 Developed: Industrial 1.7 1.5 0.6 3.5 36.0 Salt Pond (Dev. )} 1.2 2.0 20.6 2.1 10.0 Dead Mangroves 3.0 1.2 1.2 4.6 32.2 N=626 * Question #17 - "Which types of areas might best be used for each of the following types of development (indicate up to two types for each).” ** Figures reflect the average of respondents' reactions to all photographs in a particular category (see note on Table 26). Developed sand beaches, however, were more often viewed at appropriate for recreation. All other areas considered suitable for recreation were undeveloped: low relief shores, mangroves, rocky beaches and, most frequently of all, undeveloped sand beaches. The shoretypes where conservation /parkland status was considered appro- priate roughly parallel those assessed to be in need of protection from overdevelopment. However, the pattern varies enough to suggest that people may distinguish between the two concepts. As noted above, areas for protection included primarily those with high recreational or scenic value. The im- portance of undeveloped areas appears to increase in connection with con- servation/parkland status, as evidenced by the importance attached to con- servation of undeveloped mangroves and salt ponds when compared to their rankings for protection. Conversely, developed sand beaches, which were high on the protection list were almost never mentioned for conservation. In harbor areas, protection and conservation were considered about equally important overall, but the examples being nominated varied, Protection was more often called for in areas with intense development and activity; conservation in those having waterfront parks. This suggests that while shoreline protection and conservation are both measures associated with areas of high value, the former may be seen as more appropriate in places where intensive utilization is desirable, and conservation where it is not. 51 Development controls, but not prohibition. Consideration of the data in Table 27, from the standpoint of shoretypes, rather than uses, provides a good indication of the extent of public con- sensus regarding shoretype utilization. There seems to be greatest consensus about the use of three shoretypes: sand beaches, harbors and undeveloped mangroves. Very wide public support apparently exists not only for recreational use of undeveloped sand beaches, but also for either conservation or protection measures to safeguard them. Although most respondents seem to feel similarly about protecting the recreational use and value of developed beaches, a good: percentage feel that. since some development already exists, be it residential or commercial, additional development of the same sort would be appropriate. There is apparently wide support for locating commercial activities in harbor areas, and to a lesser extent industry and housing. There also seems to be broad agreement that conservation is in order for undeveloped mangroves, since no other uses, except perhaps recreation were consideredvery appropriate. Attitudes regarding industrial areas as well as developed mangroves, steep rocky shores and salt ponds appear to reflect, in all instances, the type of development shown in the photographs. In other words, attitudes towards appropriate use were probably influenced by existing use. 52 me ee ee me * ee a ee ene a a There appear to be mixed feelings regarding the use of undeveloped rocky beaches, low relief arid steep rocky shores. While there is some support for conservation, a variety of uses particularly residential or recreation are also viewed as suitable. Responses regarding undeveloped salt ponds are bimodal. Roughly equal support was expressed for intensive development (industry, commerce) as for conservation and protection. In sum, there is apparent consensus regarding the use of beaches, harbors and undeveloped mangrove areas. Respondents were not in strong agreement about most of the others, and definitely not in accord about undeveloped salt ponds. % 2 ae Ae SES ° Conservation or industrial development? 53 RESPONDENTS* COMMENTS At the end of each interview, the respondent was asked for additional comments and/or suggestions. One in eight had further comments. Roughly half Sf those commenting expressed reactions to the survey itself; the rest had issue-oriented comments. Issue-oriented statements covered a wide array of topics which tend to fall into three general Categories: those related to development opportunities; those related to development controls; and those related to beach utilization (Table 28). The first category covers suggestions for a range of economic and amenity projects that were considered needed or desirable. Comments pertaining to development controls included expressions of appreciation for a variety of coastal assets, of concern about perceived threats, and occasional suggestions for ameliorating development-induced problems. Comments about beach utilization ranged from a general "free the beaches" sentiment to more specific concerns about particular places and problems. Issue-oriented comments are itemized in Appendix C. TABLE 28 RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS Comments St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory Good Idea 29 24 - 53 (51.0%) Dev. Controls - 19 4 23° (22.18) Dev. Opportunities 4 10 2 16 (15.4%) Beach Utilization 4 8 - 12 (11.5%) rod Respondents commenting on the survey itself expressed generally positive reactions. Many felt that the survey was interesting and informative; that going to the people was a good idea; and that both the survey and coastal planning were long overdue. While there were no negative comments per se, there was a certain amount of skepticism that results would be made public Or that the survey would have much impact. Interviewees' comments provide one indication that the survey had at least some Success in meeting both of its goals. It seems to have not only informed and caught the interest of many participants, but also provided additional information from people about the coastal development issues that concern them most. 54 ne ae rns ee ene enn Ten eee re ae ee si re Ee ee eS a ee eee Eee lee ee Newspaper Survey This section presents the results of the newspaper survey. After a brief description of questionnaire respondents, results are analyzed in terms of the extent that responses support or amplify household sur- vey findings. A complete tabulation of newspaper survey data is contained in Appendix D. NEWSPAPER SURVEY RESPONDENTS As mentioned earlier, response to the newspaper questionnaire was expected to be, and.was, quite small: 69 from St. Croix; 82 from St. Thomas; and 3 from St. John, for a total of 154. Inspection of: demo-~ graphic data indicates that the newspaper survey was more representa-~ tive of men and of white collar workers than the household survey. Com- parison of newspaper and interview responses suggests that participants were probably from the sector of the population having higher than average education. With a sample of this size, cross-tabulation of de- mographic and substantive questions was not practical. TABLE 29 COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Newspaper Household — 1970 Survey _ Survey Census Sex Male 58.4% 37.83 49.8% Female 41.6 62.2 50.2 Occupation White Collar 66.73% 28.8% 22.9% Blue Collar 4.7 10.9 23.3 Services 11.3 7.7 17.0 Housewife 4.0 27.9 20.8 Retired 2.0 7.2 3.2 Student 10.0 2.1. 5.5 Unemployed 0.0 1.6 3.1 None 1.3 3.8 4.2 NEWSPAPER SURVEY RESULTS SHORELINE UTILIZATION Personal Use of Coastal Areas Tables 30 and 31 provide an indication of respondents' coastal re- creational habits. As was expected, people use beaches more than other 55 coastal areas. Beaches are enjoyed by almost everyone and. apparently. : quite often. Many respondents also spend time boating and fishing, and at the waterfront.market area on St. Thomas. Most beach users go to swim, but as indicated in Table 31 .a variety of other activities were also reported. TABLE 31 BEACH USE* use Percent of Respondents Swim 70.2% Picnic 20.7 _ Fish 5.9 Snorkel 23.2 Run 14.6 "Lime" 14.6 * Question #8 - “What is your main reason for going there (beaches used)?" Percentages do not total 100% since many respondents engage in more than one activity. TABLE 30 USE OF COASTAL AREAS* Go: Percent of Respondents Times Per Month To the beach 92.0% 7.0 Fishing 32.4 3.5 Boating 56.3 4.5 fo the waterfront 26.5 4.5 * Question #5 - "How many of the following activities do you engage in? ...indicate how ofter you .o- them." (Percentages do not total.100% since many respondents engage in several activities). Respondents were asked which beaches they had used in the past year, and in particular which beach they. used most often, While many beaches were named, respondents from St. ‘Thomas and St. John tend to’ agree on which are used most: Magens, coki, Sapphire, Lindbergh, Brewers. cand Hull Bay beaches are all very popular on St. Thomas, as are Trunk and Hawknest Bays on St. John. On St. Croix, Cramer Park and Davis beaches were named most often but respondents also tended to disperse more evenly to many places. Most respondents (61.7%) also named beaches they did not use, but would like to. As Table 32 indicates, the lack of adequate road access to a beach or the perception that it is exclusively private are most apt to keep people away. The lack of beach facilities and questions of safety were 56 ee a oe alll cen neds ili ell nm nT a = ltl ee, nn a also of concern to many. A complete tally of reported beach attendance and non-attendance is contained in Appendix C, Table 55. TABLE 32 PERCEPTIONS OF OBSTACLES TO GREATER BEACH USE* Obstacle Percent of reasons given Poor road access 29.5% Exclusively private 27.3 Lack of facilities 15.2 Safety 12.9 Lack of transportation 8.3 Expense - 6.8 100.0% * Question #11 - “Why don't you use them (beaches not used)?" Existing and Future Development Patterns When asked to assess the most important current uses of shoreline areas, newspaper survey respondents ranked public beaches and conservation way - above all others. As Table 33 indicates, marinas, cruiseship docks, and hotels/condominiums -- all tourist uses -~ were also ranked fairly high. TABLE 33 PERCEPTIONS OF THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT SHORELINE USES* % OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING Use St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory Public beaches 63.1% 84.8% 100.0% 75.5% Conservation/parks 67.7 75.9 100.0 72.7 Marinas | 30.8 36.7 33.3 34.0 Cruiseship docks 18.5 38.0 0.0 28.6 Hotels/condominiums 33.8 22.8 0.0 27.2 Industry 29.2 2.5 0.0 14.3 Freight docks 13.8 11.4 0.0 12.2 Pubiic utilities 3.0 7.6 Q.0 5.4 Shops & restaurants 4.6 2.5 0.0 3.4 273.3 * Question #13 - "Which of the following do you think are currently the most important uses of the shoreline? (Check the three most important)". Since three responses were permitted maximum total response would equal 300.0%). Moreover, when asked to assess. whether there is sufficient coastline devoted to these uses (Table 34), respondents indicated that conservation/ parklands and public beaches are the two main deficiencies. Over 83% of all respondents felt there is too little conservation/parkland and over half indicated there should be more public beaches. A need for more marinas and port facilities was also expressed. However, waterfront shops, 57 restaurants, hotels, condominiums, and industry were generally seen to be in adequate or excess supply. TABLE 34 PERCEPTIONS OF THE ADEQUACY OF CURRENT SHORELINE USES* % OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING Use Too Much Enough Too Little No Opinion Conservation/park 0.7% 8.7% 89.2% : 1.4% Public beach 0.0 37.1 62.1 0.8 Marinas 6.0 51.2 35.3 7.5 Cruiseship docks 6.0 60.6 30.8 2.6 Freight docks 7.5 53.4 25.8 13.3 Utilities 11.2 52.0 17.6 19.2 Industry 31.3 47.8 14.9 6.0 Hotel /condominiums 30.8 52.4 13.3 3.5 Shops/restaurants 13.6 64.0 14.4 8.0 * Question #13 - "Do we have enough, or do we need more of the following uses? (check the box that most closely reflects your opinion)". It must be remembered however, that the newspaper survey sample was very small, and it was hypothesized it would be more representative of the better educated residents. Responses do show the same inclination towards conser- vation and recreation evinced by the more educated component of the household survey. LOCATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Assuming various types of intensive coastal development would occur in the future, people were asked what shoretypes could best accommodate it. Table 35 shows that developed areas, low relief and steep rocky shores as well as rock and gravel beaches were most often nominated. These findings are consistent with household survey findings, although interviewees were also somewhat more supportive of developing salt ponds, and both sand beaches and mangroves which already have some development. TABLE 35 SHORETYPES MOST SUITABLE FOR INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT* Shoretype Percent of Total Nominations Developed areas 21.0% Low relief 18.5 Steep rocky shores : 17.5 Rocky and gravel beaches 14.7 Salt ponds 11.8 Mangroves 9.0 Sand beaches 7.5 : 100.0% * Question #14 - "Which types of shorelines do you feel might best be used for intensive development (such as large hotels, factories, docks, utilities)? Check no more than three". 58 a eee Sn etn til tien SHORELINE PROTECTION When asked if there are any types of shoreline that should be protected from intensive development, 97.4% concurred. As Table 36 indicates, sand beaches, mangrove and salt p@qd areas were mentioned most. Newspaper res- pondents seemed to be more concerned than interviewees about salt ponds and much less so about harbor areas. It is important to note however, that the newspaper respondents did not have the benefit of the photographic examples of shoretypes that were used in the household survey. TABLE 36 SHORETYPES NEEDING PROTECTION FROM OVER-DEVELOPMENT* Shoretype Percent of Total Nominations Sand beaches 30.1% Salt ponds 23.3 ° Mangroves 22.8 Rocky & gravel beaches 7.3 Developed areas 6.8 Steep rocky shores 5.5 Low relief 4.2 100.0% = Question #15 - "Which types of shoreline, if any, should be protected from intensive development? Check no more than three". Finally, shoretypes which respondents felt should be protected from all development are recorded in Table 37. Again, results are generally consistent with household survey findings: sand beaches and mangroves are of greatest concern. However, attitudes toward salt ponds tend to reflect one side of the bimodal response expressed in the household survey: the conservation viewpoint. TABLE 37 SHORETYPES NEEDING PROTECTION FROM ALL DEVELOPMENT* Shoretype Percent of Total Nominations Sand beaches 28.9% Mangroves 22.9 Salt ponds. 22.2 Steep rocky shores 8.5 ‘Rocky & gravel beaches ; 7.3 Low rocky relief 5.8 Developed areas 4.4 100.0% * Question #16 - “Are there any types of shoreline you feel should be protected from all development?" 59 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS — 2 oe ee osha S ie = aon peti pa es ms aR “ ce A ee es be a ee me Preeo mi ibe at ‘ s el fee y UK bs Sy a4 pak pee ef my Bet ice an ee ne a OO ey wt oa ce ac a ci aN io Y 7 RU] oe se es a Pe ef oS NT ie She ¢ . welt fe BS ae “ ay Ra e het ae os an aA oe re wa ay aay, Ra we a eo 20 pn: ater ae ret eRe a Sa: xe ae Peony ee aes me Sees ae ret ops as See oe oe ee ees Spies eS sot Soe = eee aoe oe ie oe eas ee eee eee oy eae ee en ne ay Se Consensus? 62 Survey Results The household and newspaper surveys provide important and interesting insights regarding perceptions of and attitudes towards coastal areas. | The data suggest that there is strong consensus on many issues, notably: the importance of coastal recreation and improving beach access; the encour- agement of agriculture; the recognition of water pollution as a significant problem; the high value attached to sand beaches, undeveloped mangroves and some harbor areas; and the importance of protecting such areas from overdevelopment. Such consensus suggests the possibility of broad public support for appropriate action on these issues. In many instances, however, attitudes were found to be divided. Public or private activity in these areas is more likely to be controversial, particularly so for issues where large dissenting sub-groups have been identified. Since these surveys are but one of many inputs in developing a Coastal Zone Management Program for the Virgin Islands, results will be weighed most heavily when consensus is clear. This chapter summarizes findings, focusing on the nature and extent of apparent public agreement as it relates to further action - via Coastal Zone Management or other means. Findings are summarized first with reference to general issues and individual islands. and second, with reference to specific coastal environments. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT: A QUESTION OF VALUES AND RESOURCES Regarding the relative importance of economic, natural and amenity values, the public appears to be divided, primarily along educational lines. The more educated would most like to see conservation and recreational development emphasized; the less educated tend to place greatest emphasis on economic development. This division is greatest with respect to broad ca- tegories of future coastal development (commercial,residential, etc.) but is also reflected in differing preferences within specific ategories of development. Public attitudes regarding coastal development also varies along geographic lines. Differences among the islands tend to reflect dif- ferences in both available resources and the feasibility of future development. 63 TERRITORY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES While there is apt to be considerable disagreement among population sub-groups as to the importance of economic development, there at least appears to be considerable consensus Territory-wide that agriculture and food-processing industries shéuld be emphasized first. The extent 0& support for tourism varies among the islands, but respondents across the Territory tend to prefer hotel/guest house and cruise ship related developments over other forms of tourism development. A great majority of all respondents also agreed on the importance of coastal recreational development, if not on its first priority. There is con- siderable support throughout the Territory for the improvement of beach access and to a lesser extent, for the development of beach facilities. The news- paper survey provided a great deal of information about existing patterns of recreational activity, including a listing of beaches where access is con- sidered an issue. Poor roads or an exclusively private atmosphere were the most frequently cited obstacles, although the lack of facilities and safety also concern many. Respondents feel that poor roads or an exclusive atmosphere are the main beach access problems. 64 ISLAND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES St. Croix Recreational development, and beach access in particular, is apparently of greater importance on St. Croix than on the other islands, with respondents from Christiansted expressing the greatest concern, Interest in beach facilities, waterfront parks and fishing piers is also quite strong, but varies among island sub-areas. Compared with the other islands,» concern about conservation is also some- what more widespread. Interest in commerce and industry, however, is less so. Agriculture and light industry are clearly the most widely supported and pre- ferred modes of economic development. While support for heavy manufacturing is not large, it is larger than on the other islands. Interest in fishing and tourism, on the other hand, appears to be weakest on St. Croix. With respect to tourist development modes, respondents from St. Croix shared the Territory-wide consensus that hotels/guest houses and cruise ships are preferred. There are, however, more people who would give first priority to condominium/second home development on St. Croix than on the other islands. St. Thomas Survey data indicate that development preferences may be least clear on St. Thomas, Residential and recreational development were widely supported, but were not listed as a first choice by many. Conversely, relatively large numbers of respondents' first choice was either industry or conservation -- the two options with least widespread support. Respondents were more united in their support for agriculture, light industry, and to a lesser extent, tourism as modes of economic development. Regarding tourism, there wasS agreement with the Territory-wide preference for hotel and cruise ship development. Respondents also supported Territory- wide recreational concerns: beach access was paramount, with beach facilities, fishing piers and waterfront parks also of interest in some areas. St. John Respondents from St. John seem to be in considerable agreement with res- pect to overall development priorities. Residential and commercial develop- ment are of greatest concern. Interest in conservation is less wide-spread, but of importance to a sizable sub-group. 65 Very little interest in either light or heavy industry was expressed, but strong support was indicated for the development of agriculture, tourism, and fishing. Indeed, interest in fishing and tourism appears to be stronger on St. John than anywhere else in.the Territory. Clear support was expressed for hotel/guest house and cruise ship develop- ment, in agreement with Territory-wide preferences for tourist development. However, equally clear and strong support was indicated for developing boating. While recreational development is rarely considered to be of first prio- rity, it is widely acknowledged as important. As elsewhere, improvement of beach access is of first concern. to the largest number of people, although there is considerably broader support for, and almost as many respondents giving high priority to the development of waterfront parks. The creation of fishing piers also evokes considerable interest. St. John respondents expressed more interest in residential, commercial and tourist development, particularly boating. SHORELINE PROTECTION: ASSETS AND IMPACTS While coastal development priorities do vary considerably both by island and by educational sub-group, there is a great deal of agreement about the need to avoid overdevelopment. Fully 70 percent of those interviewed and 97 percent of the newspaper respondents felt that there are shoreline areas which should be protected from overdevelopment. Less than eight percent oppose the concept, Respondents cited a variety of reasons for protection; primarily appreciation for scenic, recreational and natural features, and occasionally concern about possible negative impacts from overdevelopment. 66 Several other questions provided additional information about the values respondents associate with coastal areas, and their development-related concerns. First, scenery and sand beaches were ranked, along with weather and duty~free shops, as the Territory's most important tourist attractions. This suggests that aesthetic and recreational resources may be valued not only as amenities, but also for their contribution to the economy. Second, there appears to be considerable agreement with respect to res- pondent's perceptions of scenic quality. Assessments of the different types of shoreline areas revealed that sand beaches, both developed and undeveloped; harbors with waterfront parks, and undeveloped mangroves are considered to have the highest scenic value. Undeveloped salt ponds, dead mangroves, and industrial areas have the least. Third, responses regarding appropriate utilization of the various shore- types indicate that there is also tonsiderable agreement about recreational and natural values. Sand beaches are perceived as having much higher recrea- tional value than all other shoretypes. Undeveloped shoretypes for which conservation was considered the most appropriate use provide a gauge of natural values; Undeveloped mangroves, undeveloped sand beaches, and undeve- loped salt ponds ranked the highest. Fourth, when asked to assess the Virgin Islands' most important coastal problems, respondents tended to agree that water pollution, the loss of important natural areas and sand removal were most pressing, although percep- tions of their relative significance varied among the islands. Finally, respondents’ assessments of the need for protection in different areas provides a good indication both of the composite value of each shoretype, and of the magnitude of respondents concern about development induced problems. The most highly valued shoretypes were most widely recommended for protection, with sand beaches, harbors, and undeveloped mangroves being nominated most often. To a lesser extent there is also some support for protecting undeve- loped rocky beaches as well as steep rocky and low relief shores. Survey data suggest that respondents distinguish between protection and conservation as development controls. Protection tends to be recommended for highly-valued areas where intensive activity is appropriate but may cause problems, whereas conservation, which would preclude further development, is considered justified in areas where intensive activity is inappropriate. 67 Substantial consensus appears to exist regarding the value and use of sand beaches, - SHORELINE UTILIZATION: . THE LOCATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Perceptions of the most appropriate locations for various kinds of develop- ment indicate that respondents tend to feel future development should follow existing development patterns, and that highly valued undeveloped areas should be reserved for conservation and recreation. Consensus is clearest regarding the utilization of sand beaches, harbors,and undeveloped mangroves. There is less agreement about most of the others, and there are srongly conflicting opinions regarding undeveloped salt ponds. Respondent attitudes about each of the . shoretypes are summarized below: l. Sand beaches (undeveloped) . High recreational and scenic value . Recreational use and either conservation or protection measures are widely supported. 2. Sandbeaches (developed) . High recreational and scenic value . Recreational use has widest support . Expansion of existing use (either residential or commercial) is also considered appropriate by many. Protection from over- development, however, is widely recommended. 3. Rocky Beaches - Moderate to moderately low scenic value; some recreational value. - Attitudes towards appropriate use were mixed, with no clear consensus emerging. 68 i I i = TON Te eT ON ee i tiie eit baile TS Pe coal 10, il. Mangroves (undeveloped) . Moderately high scenic value; some recreational value « Conservation has very broad support, the most of any shoretype Mangroves (developed) . Moderate to moderately low scenic value; low recreational value. . Expansion of existing uses (generally residential) was considered appropriate, with little concern about protection expressed. Salt Ponds (undeveloped) . Low scenic and recreational value. . Attitudes regarding appropriate use are divided between those favoring conservation and those favoring industrial development. Salt Ponds (developed) . Moderate to moderately low scenic value; low recreational value. . Residential development, the most prevalent existing use, has widest support, although many respondents feel industrial development would be appropriate. Little concern about over-development. Developed: Harbors . Moderately high to moderately low scenic value: low recreational value. . Perceived as the most suitable of all shoretypes for conmercial activities, although many respondents feel industry is appropriate. Protection from over-development has quite broad support. Developed: Industrial » Low scenic and recreational value. Continued industrial use is widely considered the most appropriate. Little concern about over-development. Dead Mangroves . Low scenic and recreational value. . After existing industrialized areas, was considered the most suitable place for new industrial development. Little concern about over- development. Low Relief Shores (undeveloped) Moderate to moderately low scenic value; some recreational value . Sentiment regarding use is mixed, although recreation and conservation were suggest :d most frequently. 69 12. Steep Rocky Shores (undeveloped) - Moderately high to moderately low scenic value, little recreational value. . Mixed attitudes towards use; although conservation and residential development were suggested most frequently. 13. Steep Rocky Shores (developed) - Moderately high to moderately low scenic value; little recreational value. - Continued residential development, the prevailing existing use, is widely considered appropriate. Little concern about over-development. RESPONDENTS ' COMMENTS Many of the household survey participants offered additional comments and suggestions. Roughly half of these were issue-oriented statements which related to development opportunities, development controls or beach utilization. These provided additional information about people's most pressing concerns, and resulted in a wide range of useful suggestions. The other half of respondents' comments were reactions to the survey itself. Many felt that the survey was interesting and informative; that going to the people was a good idea; and that both the survey and coastal planning were long overdue. There was some skepticism that the results would be made public or that anything would come of the effort. Survey Utility Public attitudes toward shoreline development and protection have been an important factor in developing the proposed Coastal Zone Management Program for the Territory. Public perceptions and attitudes are most clearly reflected in recommended policies regarding shoreline utilization and in the use designations outlined in the "Coastal Land and Water-Use Plan". Survey results were also useful in identifying those areas with particular concern (APC's). Finally, the beach access element of the program will draw on information about beach utilization and the obstacles to more extensive use. Above and beyond the survey's utility to the Planning Office in formulating a Coastal Zone Management Program for the Virgin Islands, they produced a 70 ems ma wealth of information useful to other Territorial agencies, and perhaps the private sector as well. The Departments of Commerce and of Conservation and Cultural Affairs in particular should find data on public attitudes regarding future economic development and recreational opportunities to be of assistance in their own economic development and recreational planning activities. Appendices C and D contain full tabulations of the newspaper survey data discussed in this report, plus an itemization of the household survey data which is available. Computer print-outs of household survey data can be inspected at the Planning Office. It is hoped that interested parties will avail themselves of this information. The Territory has undergone dramatic changes in the past twenty years and as might be expected, public values and attitudes are shifting in response. Survey data begin to reveal some of these changes, 71 APPENDICES a ee ae oe ae a ae -_ =. Appendix A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY: Interview Schedule Photograph Panels ee elle a Se Se eee ~*~ 8 (eae ’ : Coastal Planning Interview Name of interviewer Island ‘Planning Area Number I. Panel B 1. Looking at this panel, which four shorelines are the most beautiful? i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 2. Which is the most beautiful ? 3. Looking st the rest of the photos, which four shorelines do you find least beautiful ? . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 4, Which of those is the least beautiful? ITI. Panel A 5. Looking at this panel, which four shorelines are the most beautiful? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 6. Which is the most beautiful? 7. Looking at the rest of the photos, which four shorelines do you find least beautiful ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 8. Which of those is the least beautiful? IIT. Non-photo questions -— Shoreline use Now I'd like to ask some general questions about the use of Coastal areas like the ones you've seen. If you were deciding how coastal areas should be used, which of the following uses would you emphasize first? second? third? (show photo card) industry (1) residential (3) commerce (2) recreational (4} conservation/ open. space (5) 10. L£ economic growth does occur, and you could choose, which three of the following types would you favor first? second? third? heavy manufacturung ( such as oil refineries, alumina processing plants, utilities ox rum distilleries ) : light industry ( such as prefume, texiles or electrical equipment (2) agriculture and food processing (3) 75 Ship docks’) (4) other ( please specify ) tourist industry ( hotcls, condominiums or cruise ship fishing industry ( including culture, processing ): (5) (6. 11. If growth in tourism does occur, and you could choose, which type of tourism would you favor first ? second ? third ? condominium & Second home. (1) boating (4) hotel & guest house (2) camping (5) cruise ship (3) 12, What are the Virgin Islands' main attraction to tourists? duty~free shops (1) ee scenery (2) hotels & restaurants (3) other ( please specify } (fixst? second? third?) weather (4) beaches friendly people (6) (7) 13, If more opportunities for recreation and relaxation were being provided, uzhich of the following would you favor first ? second? third ? improved public access to beaches (1) underwater parks (5) public beach facilities (2) waterfront parks (6) public boating facilities (3) other (specify) fishing piers (4) (7 Iv. Panel B We've been talking alot about ‘shoreline use for the islands in géneral. ‘Now let's talk more specifically about. your island St. 14, Are there any shorelines which should be protected from over development? yes (1) No (2) : no opinion (3 15. If yes, which types ? {indicate no more than three ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Why doe you feel these areas should be protected? 17. ( Going back to Panel B ) Which types of areas, might best be used for each of the following types of development (show card). You may indicate up to two types of each use industry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WO 11 12 13 14 commerce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 residential 1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 76 at ies recreation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 conservation/ parkland 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 #8 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 18. What do you think, are the three most important problems relating to the coast ? beach access (1) water pollution (2) flooding by high seas (3) destruction of important natural areas ( such as lagoons, salt pends) : dredging or removing beach sand needed for cor - struction (5) decreasing catch of seafoods (6) other (specify 15 VI. Personal Questions To better understand how different types of people view coastal use, the Planning Office would appreciate a little background information. 19. How many years have you lived here? 20, Are you planning to stay for good? yes ; (1) no (2) undecid: 4 (3) 21. How mar grades or classes of school have you completed? grade school college high school 22. What is your occupation? 23. sex: male (1) female (2) 24, age: 18 to 29 (1) 30 to 39 (2) 40 to 59 (3) 60 (4) 25. Comments? 77 ete 2 ie oe tie Fa ‘ota ee Soars ees Ce cae te “pa nee Pe ve = bie prt = ze oak one ie es: oe no tn a isi te es Bes 2 Re ses, ones re ——— ogee us oF oe pile os oe 3 He pe ee co ee Se = Ee Lomas y et ee a cet peGereac Somer eg ek ES oe cig oe a 2 S as oe sae aoe EB S ae a ee oe apes ot samt - sspgena a ce se eet a ol! Sie nes f se ae 2 ee gs as oe ae We ie es ss ce ae Ge ey a Xi, te oe as. Roe ae i ae ot S aS Be Te Sh ee. a a Se eetlase fi 12 id Z Z soe oH ee ae ES = % 2 iat 7 a i “ee nog fs ue = Dee 2s 15 13 14 PANEL A-Territory (originals 2.5"X 3.5' color prints) eee iy i at = >= ae SES cat, ee oc a a eee — ah i oe +e eo ie iE ie | z rat it _— ate a Sipe rate aE 4 ee oe ae eee ee Bere on = “ ee ata ENT od | 4 os wT cou A veg ay ed Rae er eran ee oo wre ae 3 ide 8. a = aa a a Pac» te o if : Be i atte ye a “hey BLA Be TES I. 12 j “ & aoe vs NG an st oe Be os Be ae Si [Ss 14 PANEL B- St Croix (originals 2.5"X 35" color prints) & ou re ssa es rr “hie oe srg re es cae [wes ai ses iat oe as yt ni moe Se eee nee ecm eee re: wee mee om sie : = Ee a JF e oe a ES Lx Liberia sas &: 8 soma ses ee ¥ ee 2 . - np a Be ie Ngee sae o * _ es eer ir ee ee ey ae fe oie at are ES ig # respon — ey a erties — = es = pl Ge = i a fie ca ty . Ae, ce 7 er Sn a ms 2 ee ee: es ee - oa ae oe = oe ue jo ii IZ es a a = ce . ca sti wr ee Me oe 2 os oo ei a is Ss Spee OS = 15 13 14 PANEL B St John (originals 2.5"X 35’ color prints ) — — sore = = Oe, © Mire & Ea aid Saini sets ee oe Regine? Feria Teg BES Anse EE he meee waar Sevicemi bs oa aa <a a fe sate, oF Pw is in << a Gtr Me ae cigs ae ° Ba Se -Z — ee ES ee iP ct Bi Beant riot teres cranes ered coakeaeere| “¥ ‘camara tt eaahioel ae, Sass Biesencer en anrs ee a ine eee wets as wong 2 Bo J ane Seely re ee i eee oe ee Be a ane wes ss pens 4 ay a oe = Be a sent TE? een 7 a im gl AOL ee" 2 Sig SRR 5 er ® HS 7 as punt ot ao aes re a Me a aati Se ie es a ae Ge —_— z sesso ses = se e mes & = ae pt es en ee Bie ete sr ee er 6 ye 2 iT: % cals < ne 3 ee e eens = ei _ “sos Seon ve ce ie eS ee Snes ee id l] IZ 5 GREE See one See Be a eet a nual 3b by s RCs my, ake aay Bae ce, red he Se Pag Be: as ei meee | sent in Ee. 3 as a i 3 ss i ‘6 sens tees of i) [+ (5 PANEL B- StThomas (originals 2.5"X 35" color prints ) ab io iste oh 3 a Se . a INDUSTRY 2 oe ‘s fat res Code “it 15 bey aoe abe ote Espen ae oe a ne a Pe a % S: gahee et 2 22, a ds <a eS ee ae a ae a Resi. oe tes 5 a oie = Pr ath = eS fens pe = ait iyi El TOUR u Ls H 4 a pee soe ite atige. 5... ess e Bee Ae a ae A fa oe a at at x 5 t vias B: a fg Th Z Sie . we Bt erie. Pe’ pee it Bet pe COMMERCE 2 rock wa o. es wake - 3 ag cae a NOU oN Ee ee . 8 Se, ine oe es oe ay eee Se as ake a et 4 ie a 8 fe SO an Lane pen oe aoe Pcesoanoeet poi e a ee oes, e oe < Mp a gS es ne Ee FS loa ay a * ee a eee 5 Cy oe aa a = RESIOENTION bs Ss é - " a Semi’ ray aN aes Re er Ks Be i ened 2 n ie oe te i ae: oe , 2 e a See ee cS me 2 et Oy BP sae a Be be i ak Et Seni heats e Ee ee RECREATION i is % er en eA aor eee ie _, aS ae a is oe ree <a dnc Mth ve wee h ae cs ide “4 a ve fe as ee ovae tN 3s fy ot nae: Foe Le ans seas ae te es Sy S Si fs ee ye ered ea us oe, win: core oy Bead Lf Bios i CONSE vAKON Es, OPE) SPE, Lng ee eae si pea e an as a a ca 4 oe Pe : PANEL C- Shoreline Uses W prints) ; 5 (originals 3.5X 5 B&\ sommuien os iy S ee we Appendix B NEWPA PER SURVEY: Questionnaire THE DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, MAY 24, 1976 . eHe VIRGIN 18 + . CUMADYH. A saan From A Mes cope The magnisien™” of us who vives sf ban oth the ace Bach.of jeely BOW cneip: determine lands agement ¥ra ‘caastal bean wh of ous pret ansuring zone extends shores, We tree mailed The V.. Pt g Office is for the istands’ coastal land and water resources. The intent of the Coastal Zone Monogement Pragram is to bat ion and fop in 3 fashion that best meets Virgin Islanders needs, For this reason, the Fanning Office is very much interested in your views regarding preséat and future uses of shoreline areas, ain BENE sults shoreline of minis Difice PrEse my rage wesouret seawal “THE V.4 COAST — WHAT DO: YOU THINK?" a % yy Cyril Be in cavern iaunds ey. and inde eg the € aaa be a en Pap Sass AG FORO ig preparine@ se of | 2 eritioal a eS poastal a ‘on the gadsest qaamndes abl the ate activel ay » parti chp zone Fives ily . The questionaire below-is. ‘the: ‘tins of many chances you will have to ter. the Manning Office kniow how you feal. Just cut it ait, fold a3 diractad arxd-mait.- it's already. stamped and addressed: The Planning Office hopes thet you'll take. advantage of this and of future appartunities to make your feelings known,” FILL IN BELOW — CUT OUT — FOLB ON Dov ED LINE warcamaee, to fist a to picnic! oO te run of walk 2 A, Background laformation to snort a To help us better understand how ditterent segments of the population fee! about coastal development, the Planning Gifice would like. @ tittle Information about you. Your name is nat needed, a!) infarmation and opinians will be treated as group information. 1. Malet} temae 2. Lotation ef hame—————-—_-_____ 3. Age group: up to 19 40 ta 49 0 -Ote29T -averso. . Bw33O 4. What is your occupation? Are you employed in this occupation? &. Are there any beaches you do nat ise, but would like ta? ves Claa 4D. HF sa, fist 10 mere than three, 11, Why don’t you use them? Ono . stag Are you empinyed in some other way? g seerspontanion Gg fo Facies Qves fins (ae road access private 8. What the coast means to you. Dover While it {9 important to weigh the needs for €. Types of Shoreline development Public facilities, far Bacaus vei and “fer environmental “protection in Se Gevicpment pfessures ore mast intense in coastal areas, it is vital that we determine bow the as yet undeveloped shorelines can best be used. determining the best use of our shoratings, we Must nat forget the personal pleasure, the physical and mental well being that can also be derived from their use, The Planning Office needs to know what value te coast hat for you. 8. How many of the foliowing activities do you engage in? (put an X next to those you da and then indicate pow oten you do them). if yes, how many 12. Which of the foliowing, do you think are currently. the ‘most important. uses of the shareling? {check the esse most important) Gindustry Cimarinas Cj cruise ship Cishops and docks restuarants DD puntic beaches Cheonservation? C hotels and park tani condaminiums O,bublic utitities Ti treight facilities. Chother 13. Do we have enough, or do we need more of the following shoreline uses “(check the times, on the me yes: average per month? gotatwbaach OF Of go fishing jal Q. 4 boating O ia] HO marketing at = [J Co the waterfront . other— QD QO &. Which beaches did you go to in the past years? 7. Which beach do yau go ta most often? 8. What is your min resson tor going there? (put an X text to ainly anel to swirr, C+ 16 “fire” that most closely cetiects your opinion) too 100 no” Much enough ttle opinion marinas Q- o oO hotels & rondaminivms ~ a a a gonservationf = {g oO gp aQ ‘gark lands industry g o o Qo femeces O oF Gg eight facitivies Q a a Testuarants : puttic uilisies a a B 0 eruisa shop docks . a 2 a other. oO aq Q Q D. Location of Sh rey Some -perts-of the share are “more suitabte for development than others: tt ik - dererming which should be Used fo. 44, Which:tynes of shayelines, do you feet might best be used far intensirs development (such = large howls, factories, doxks, power, water or Sewage trestenent plants). Check aa more than” Be. important: 0 quatity, and which cay hest be. Gi send beaches’ Chimangrove swamps. PLEASE FOLD ON THIS ,/VE smiran taming DQigravel & rockey —__ shoretine Clomer: 3 love rocky.or. Q salt ponds and _. beaches © “€) developed olay iuliy Uj steep rocky waterfront: 1§. Which types of sont, if any, should be from i i idoment {check na more than three} . . Ch tt t povide and Coravet & rocky clay blufis” beaches Osteen rocky Cl other. . Qa developed -Eyteangrove swamps shoreline CY Othe nn ne watettronts- {low rocky or ” (3 sand beaches 16, Are there shy tynes'ot shoreline you feel should be pi from all devab ravel Berecky DD tows rocky ‘or as aches’ oy olay bluffs iy steep rocky mangrove swamps C3 ORDO meer eens sharelines. a eats Bonds & developed: a veatertronts (sand beaches Wl PLEASE FOLD ON THIS £.1Ng “00 cam me RC OL Ao oe ta FIRST CLASS erent Ne, ‘a ohashatte Anualia, ‘gad, BUSINESS REPLY MAIL NO PORTAGE STAND NECESSARY IF MAILED 119 LONITED ETATES POSTAGE WILL GE PAID BY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM V1. Planning Office P:0. Box 2606 St. Thomas, V.1. 00801 nN wae p; EASE FOLD ON THIS LINE (Saige SUD 8 ste woe ome i San wee: en se Hey STAPLE OR. TAPE HERE Appendix C HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA TABULATIONS OF: Selected photo questions by island - Selected non-photo questions by’ survey sub-areas Respondents' comments Selected cross-tabulations Information available for inspection at Virgin Islands Planning Office Other data obtainable TABLE 38 ST. CROIX RESIDENTS! ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION Protection* USE** Photo # Shoretype Conserv. Residential Recr. Comm. Ind. £ (8) £ (%) £ (%) £ (3) £ (3%) £ (&) 24 (3.4) 29(4.4) 53(8.1) 9(1 4) 12 (1 -9) 24 (3.7) Steep Rocky (undev.) ae Developed: 75 (10.8) 103(15.7) 23 (3.5) 43 (6 5) 179 (27.7) 12(1.8) Harbor w/park Rocky Beach 69(9.9) 36(5.5) 72(11.0) 56 (8 5) 19 (2.9) 13(2.0) (undev.) Developed: 15(2.1) 11(1.7) 4(0.6) 10(1 5) 23 (3.5) 235 (36.0) Industrial Mangroves 49 (7.0) 97 (14.7) 8 (1.2) 49(7 4) 12(1.9) 13 (2.0) (undev.) Developed: 65 (9.3) 99(15.1) 13(2.0) 16(2.4) 202 (31.3) Ti (1.7) Harbor w/parkl Low Relief 27(3.9} 39 (5.9) 70(10.6) 37 (5.8) 25(3.8) 17(2.6) (undev.) Mangroves 11(1.6) 20(3.0) 8(1.2) 8(1.2) 30(4.6) 210 (32.2) (dead) Steep Rocky 11(1.6) 13(2.0) 201(30.9) 5(0.8) 13(2.0) &(1.2) (dev.) 10. Sand Beach 117(16.8) 22(3.3) 23(3.5) 215(32.5) (undev. ) 12(1.9) 8(1.2) ll. Steep Rocky 39(5.6) 35(5.3) 53(8.1) 15 (2.3) 16(2.5) 13 (2.0) (undev.) 12 Sand Beach 90(12.9) 9(1.4) 121(18.6) 98(14.9} 15 (2.3) 8(1.2) (dev.)_ 13. Salt Pond 10(1.4) 72(10.9) 8(1.2) 14(2.1) 52(8.0) 46(7.1) (undev.) 14. Low Relief 49 (7.0) 30(4.6) 21(3.2) 19(2.9) 17(2.6) 14(2.1) (undev.) 15 Low Relief 47(6.7) 43(6.5) 28 (4.3) 32(5.1) 9(1.4) 13 (2.0) (undev.) Totals 697 658 653 659 648 651 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Question #15 - "If yes (to question #14 - are there any shorelines which should be R* protected from over-development) which types? (indicate no more than three). Question #17 - "Which types of areas might best be used for each of the following types of development?" (indicate up to two) 86 TABLE 39 st THOMAS RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION Photo # Shoretype Protection* USE** Ind. Conserv. Recr. Resi. Comm . £ (3) £ (8) £ (%) £ (8) £ (%) £ (%) 18(3.5) 2(0.6) 9(2 3) 81(20.4) 25 (6.7) 11(3.6) Developed: Harbor 2. Rocky Beach 24 (4.7) 37(10.3) 22(5 .8) 13 (3.3) 4(1.1) 13(4.2) (undev. ) Salt Pond 32 (6.3) 37(10.3) 18 (4.7) 10 (2.5) 17(4.5) 36(11.9) (undev.) Sand Beach 59(16.5) 112 (29.2) 9(2.3) 4(1.1) 4(1.3) 85 (16.8) | _fundev.) Developed: 20(3.9) 23 (6.4) 3 (0.8) 73(19.5) 66 (21.9) Harbor 11 (2.8) 12(3.2) 11(3.6) Sand Beach 65(12.83 8 (2.2) 101 (26.4) 24 (6.0) (dev.) 7. Steep Rocky 14(2.8) 8(2.2) 9(2.3) 23(5.7) 9(2.4) 12 (4.0) (dev.) Mangroves 68(13.5)_ 73(20.4) 11 (2.8) 2(0.5) 9(2.4) 5(1.7) (undev. ) Sand Beach 50(9.8) 7(1.9) 40(10.6) 71(17.8) 5 (1.3) 8 (2.6) (dev.) 10 Developed: 18 (3.5) 13(3.6) 4(1.0) 2(0.5) 108 (28.9) 29(9.6) Harbor ll. Steep Rocky 23(4 5) 15(4.2) 10(2.6) 41(10.3) 22(5.9) 2(0.7) {dev.) 12. Steep Rocky 19 (3 7) 39(10.9) 11(2.8) 17 (4.3) 7(1.9) 18(5.9) (undev. ) Salt Pond 8(2.0) 12(3.2) 41(13.5) 13 26(5 1) 34 (8.5) 9(2.3) fundev. ) 14 Developed: 30(5 8) 2(0.6) 13(3.4) 2(0.5) 51(13.6) 46(15.2) Harbor 15 Mangroves 3) 3(0.8) 4(1.0) 92(23.1) 7(1.9) 1(0.3) (dev.) 17(3 TOTALS 509 360 386 398 374 303 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Question #15 - "If yes (to question #14 - are there any shorelines which should be (indicate no more than three) protected from over-development) which types? KK Question #17 - "Which types of areas, might best be used for each of the following types of development?" (indicate up to two) 87 allt Mads es, TABLE 40 ST. JOHN RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION Photo # | Shoretype Protection* USE** Conserv. |Recr. Resi. Comm. Ind. f (3%) £ (%) £ (%) £ (8) £ (3%) £ (3%) 1. Steep Rocky 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 12(23.5) 1(2.1) 2(4.4) (dev.) 2. Steep Rocky 1(1.8) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 5 (9.8) 0(0.0) 3(6.6) (dev.) b 3. Salt Pond 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(2.0) 4(7.8) 0(0.0) 7(15.6) (dev. ) 4. Mangroves 2(3.5) 1(2.3) 1(2.0) 0(0.0} 1(2.1) 2(4.4) (dev.) 5. Sand Beach 6 (10.5) a{0.0) 9(18.0) a(0.0) 29 (60.3) 5 (11.2) (dev. ) 6. Salt Pond 1(1.8) 2(4.7) 1(2.0) 1(2.0) 0(0.0) 3(6.6) (undev.) 7. Mangroves 1(1.8) 12 (27.8) 3(6.0) 1(2.0) 1(2.1) 3(6.6) (undev.) i 8. Rocky Beach 2(3.5) 0(0..0) 1(2.0) 2(3.9) 0{0.0) 9 (20.2) (undev.) 9. Salt Pond 2(3.5) 1(2.3) 1(2.0) 17 (33.3) 2(4.2) 2(4.4) (dev.) 10. Sand Beach 12(21.1) 10(23.2) 20 (40.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) (undev.) 1l. Steep Rocky 0(0.0) 3(7.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(4.4) (undev. ) 12. Developed: 18(31.5) 2(4.7) 0(0.0) 2(3.9) 8(16.7) 7(15.6) Harbor 13. Sand Beach 2(3.5) 4(9.3) 11 (22.0) 0(0.0) 2(4.2) 0(0.0) (undev.) 14. Developed: 0(0.0) 6 (14.0) 0(0.0) 6(11.8) 4(8.3) 0(0.0) Harbor 15. Steep Rocky 10(17.5) 2(4.7) 2(4.0) 1(2.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) (undev.) TOTALS 57 43 50 51 48 45 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) * Question #15 - "If yes (to question #41 ~ are there any shorelines which should be protected from over-development) which types? (indicate no more than three) ** Question #17 - “Which types of areas, might best be used for each of the following types of development?" (indicate up to two) 88 TABLE 41 ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT BY SURVEY SUB-AREFA (Question #9) wae ape wes = Sub-island N Indust. Comm. Resi. _| Recreat. Conserv. _ Planning Area % emphasizing (3 Tevcass first)* Frederiksted 52 65.4(32.7) 40.4(9.6) 51.9(15.4) | 88.4(23.1) | 53.8(19.2) (Harrigan Court) 25 64.0(24.0) 68.0(26.0) | 48.0(4.0) 66.0(36.0) | 64.0(16.0) Northside 4 75.0(25.0) 25.0(0.0) 25.0(0.0) 75.0(50.0) [50.0(25.0). Grove Place 21 42.9(4.8) 61.9(19.0) | 51.1(9.5) 85.7(52.4) 752.4(14.3) Southside 24 45.8(29.2) 45.8(20.8) | 66.7(8.3) 73.1(17.4) |[66.7(25.0) East End 21 23.7(14.3) 45.6(9.5) 57.1(14.3) | 90.5(42.9) }]81.0(19.0) Christiansted 129 34.1(16.3) 54.3(7.8) 51.9(12.4) | 92.2(46.5) |] 70.5(18.6) (LBJ Gardens) 31 41.9{22.6) 38.7(25.8) | 83.9(32.3) | 67.7(12.9) |67.7(6.5) Central 40 60.0(30.0) 42.5(5.0) 57.4(7.5) 72.5(15.0) |67.5(42.5) Charlotte Amalie 144 64.5(34.0) 71.5(15.3) | 72.9(23.6) ]52.8(11.8) | 33.4(16.0) (Kirwin Terrace} 29 62.1(27.6) 31.0(6.9) 75.9(20.7) | 65.5(6.9) 65.4(37.9) West End 39 48.7(20.5) 35.1(10,.3) | 71.8(5.1) 69.2(28.2) |56.4(33.3) Northside 28 14.3(7.1) 46.4(25.0) | 64.3(3.6) 85.7(14.3) | 78.6(50.0) New Quarter 42 42.8(11.9) 69.0(40.5) | 83.3(21.4) | 66.7(16.7) |38.1(9.5) Bast End 23 47.8(21.7) 30.4(0.0) 56.5(13.0) 65.2(13.0) ]92.3(52.2) Frenchman's Bay 27 29.6(3.7) 33.3(11.1) | 63.0(7.4) 92.6(25.9) | 74.1(51.9) Cruz Ba 43 32.6(4.7) 62.8(34.9) | 88.4(34.9) | 72.1(11.6) [45.2(16.7) Coral Bay /country 12 41.7(16.7) 58.3(8.3) 66.7(0.0) 50.0(25.0) }66.7((50.0) TOTALS* 734 47.4(21,4) 53.1(15.3) | 65.5(15.9) | 73.1(23.9) |[57.8(23.9) * Up to three uses could be emphasized, thus maximum total percentages could equal 300%. First priorities, however, total 100%. TABLE 42 ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY SURVEY SUB-~AREA (Question #10) Sub-island N Hvy. Mfg. Light Mfg. | agricul. Tourism Fishing Planning Area % emphasizin (% emphasizing first) * Frederiksted 52 38.5(25.0) | 59.3(32.7) 88.5(23.1) | 69.2(13.5) | 44.2(5.8) (Harrigan Court) 25 52.0(8.0) 72.0(44.0) 96.0(32.0) | 20.0(4.0) 60.0(12.0) Northside 4 50.0(50.0) | 50.0(0.0) 100.0(25.0) | 75.0(0.0) 25.0(25.0) Grove Place 21 61.9(19.0) | 71.4(52.4) 81.0(23.8) | 14.3(0.0) 71.4(4.8) Southside 24 50.0(33.3) | 45.8(16.7) 70.8(12.5) | 75.0(25.0) | 58.2(12.5} East End 22 22.7(13.6) | 77.3(36.4) 68.2(18.2) | 77.3(27.3) | 47.6(4.8) Christiansted 129 26.4(5.4) 72.7(27.3) 93.8(47.3)'] 50.4(13.2) | 56.7(7.1) (LBJ Gardens) 31 22.6(16.1) | 67.7(61.3) 87.1(12.9) | 38.7(3.2) 83.9(6.5) Central 40 47.5(30.0) | 65.0(27.5) 80.0(22.5) | 62.5(17.5) | 45.0(2.5) Charlotte Amalie 144 22.9(13.2) | 74.3(28.5) 94.4(47.2) | 43.7(6.9) 60.4(3.5) (Kirwin Terrace) 23 41.4(6.9) 62.1(17.2) 86.2(44.8) | 75.9(27.6) | 27.6(0.0) West End 39 25.6(10.3) | 61.0(17.9) 82.1(43.6) | 71.8(17.9) | 59.0(10.3) Northside 29 13.8(10,3) | 65.4(17.2) 79.3(31.0) | 62.1(20.7) | 75.9(20.7) New Quarter _ 42 16.7(2.4) 54.8(19.0) 73.8(14.3) | 73.8(31.0) | 78.4(33.3) East End 23 34.8(8.7) 56.5(8.7) 100.,0(56.5) | 72.7(13.6) | 31.8(13.6) Frenchman's Bay 27 7.4(0.0) 55.6(11.1) 81.5(44.4) | 77.8(40.7) | 66.7(0.0) Cruz Bay 43 14.0(4.7) 32.9(16.7) 79.1(16.3) | 76.7(32.6) | 71.4(33.3) Coral Bay/country 11 9.1(0.0) 45.5(9.1) 90.9(54.5) | 81.8(27.3) | 63.6(9.1) TOTALS* 735 28.3(12.1)] 63.8(26.6) 86.9(35.1) | 57.9(16.3) | 58.8(9.7) * Up to three uses could be emphasized, thus maximum total First priorities, 30038. however, total 100%. percentages could equal TABLE 43 ATTITUDES TOWARDS COASTAL RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BY SURVEY SUB~AREA (Question #13) Public Public Boating | Fishing | Underwater | Waterfront Sub-island N Beach Access Beach F Facd Fac. Piers Park Park Planning Area % emphasizing* : Frederiksted 52 69.2 65.4 23.1 42.3 32.7 67.3 (Harrigan Court) 25 4.0 8.0 32.0 92.0 88.0 76.0 Northside 4 100.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 Grove Place 21 57.1 47.6 9.5 61.0 52.4 52.4 Southside 24 58.3 79.2 54.2 41.7 8.3 58.3 East End 22 40.9 50.0 63.6 40.9 18.2 77.3 Christiansted 127 81.9 59.8 22.0 33.9 24.4 77.2 (LBJ Gardens) 31 90.3 83.9 6.5 19.4 9.7 90.3 Central 40 65.0 65.0 35.0 50.0 17.5 57.5 Charlotte Amalie 143 44.1 51.0 31.5 70.6 31.5 67.1 (Kirwin Terrace) 29 89.7 86.2 17.2 24.1 17.2 51.7 West End 36 55.6 58.3 33.3 55.6 30.6 58.3 Northside 29 51.7 75.9 51.7 34.6 44.8 41.4 New Quarter 41 56.1 58.5 39.0 36.6 31.7 75.6 East End 23 87.0 52.2 13.0 21.7 43.5 69.6 Frenchman's Bay 27 51.9 55.6 33.3 33.3 37.0 70.4 Cruz Bay 42 38.1 64.3 45.2 52.4 28.6 71.4 Coral Bay/country 10 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 20.0 TOTALS* 726 60.1 59.4 30.7 47.5 29.8 68.3 * Up to three uses could be emphasized, thus maximum total percentages could equal 3008. TABLE 44 PERCEPTIONS OF THE V.I.'s THREE MOST IMPORTANT COASTAL PROBLEMS BY SURVEY SUB-AREA (Question #18) Beach Water Loss of Sand Sub-island N Access | Pollution] Flooding Natural Areas} Removal Less Fish Planning Area % considering important* Freceriksted 51 33.3 80.4 13.7 72.5 56.9 43.1 (Harrigan Court) | 25 24.0 76.0 4.0 84.0 56.0 66.0 Northside 4 75.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 Grove Place 21 42.9 76.2 0.90 81.0 61.9 38.1 Southside 23 60.9 65.2 4.3 54.5 59.1 54.5 East End 22 27.3 72.7 4.5 47.6 90.9 45.5 Christiansted 128 74.2 49.6 3.9 72.1 58.3 42.6 (LBJ Gardens) 30 80.0 76.7 13.3 46.7 73.3 10.0 Central 40 42.5 90.0 20.0 67.5 40.0 40.0 Charlotte Amalie [37 25.5 86.2 62.0 23.2 59.9 34.1 (Kirwin Terrace) | 29 69.0 96.6 3.4 48.3 69.0 13.8 West End 38 42.1 94,7 8.1 40.5 55.6 47.2 ' Northside 29 27.6 79.3 6.9 65.5 58.6 58.6 New Quarter 41 29.3 90.2 19.5 63.4 53.7 : 39.0 East End 23 39.1 69.6 8.7 78.3 26.1 43.5 Frenchman's Bay 27 25.9 88.9 7.4 77.8 66.7 25.9 Cruz Bay 42 69.0 67.4 23.3 78.5 36.5 23.8 Coral Bay/country} 12 25.0 75.0 41.7 50.0 . 83.3 8.3 TOTAL* [722 45.8 76.3 20.2 57.6 57.9 37.6 * Up to three problems could be mentionned, thus maximum total percentages could equal 3008. ONS TABLE 45 COMPLETE TABULATION OF RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS* St. Thomas Issue-oriented comments: 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.. 41. 42. There should be no private ownership of beaches. All shoreline areas should be protected. Development is the Territory's biggest coastal problem. Protect Magens Bay! Sailing is a major tourist attraction. Restrict new development in areas which are already highly developed. Destruction of historic and archaeological resources is a major problem, Shorelines should be protected by requiring develop- ment (especially industry) to be set back from the water. The Virgin Islands has the potential to be the under- water capital of the world. Camping facilities would be a good coastal recreational development. Providing for one's family is the most important problem in the Territory. Protect the shoreline for the people! Our coastal waters are our greatest resource; and provide the basis for our economy. All coastal areas should be protected from over- development. Promote the rum industry. Free the beaches. Over-development in Cowpet Bay. Keep the beaches clean. Industrial or residential use of the coast should not be encouraged. ; No more industry. No more conservation. Our waters are beautiful -~- prevent pollution. Develop watersports programs: swimming, snorkeling, sailing & waterskiing. Clean up the beaches. People are the coast's worst enemy. No more coastal industry; don't overdo coastal commerce and locate residential development inland. I hate to see hotels restrict beach access to native Virgin Islanders. New industrial development should go inland. Development of coastal resources should be directed towards the creation of jobs. We need to encourage the shipping industry. No more industry along the shoreline. Above all else, preserve the mangrove lagoon. Mariculture and fish hatcheries should be developed. There is too much boating on the East End; this is causing water pollution. Preserve natural areas and beach access. Keep our waters beautiful! Create waterfront parks ~- old people need a place to relax too! Commercial and industrial development should be encouraged at Red Hook. Free the beaches -- too many are privately owned. Keep our waters pretty. All of the shoreline is beautiful -- and should be protected from over development. Develop picnic facilities on the cays. 91 Comments on the survey: 10. il. 12. 13. 14-27. St. Croix Going to the people is an excellent idea. I am glad to see that coastal planning is being done. Action! Make survey findings public. We need to study the long-range implications of growth. The survey is a good idea, but the questions beat around the bush. The islands are small and time is short. I hope the survey is fruitful and the results will be made available. The Legislature does not show enough interest in this kind of thing. Publish the results. It is about time we start protecting the Territory’ s natural resources and beauty. There is a lot of work to be done. Surveys! Do something! The survey is a good idea. Issue-oriented comments: 8. 10, li. 12. Create a shoreline drive from Christiansted to the East End. The shoreline should be developed. I am very concerned about coastal ecology. Marinas and coastal industry should be encouraged. Many residents have no means of getting to the beach. Public transportation should be improved. Shoreline protection from over development is needed to preserve public access. Shoreline areas should be protected so natives and .tourists both can enjoy them. Littering of beaches is a major problem. Encourage marine research, I hope something will be done with waterfront areas. Safety is a major coastal problem. Protecting shoreline areas from over development is for the good of the community. Comments on the survey: 1. 2-28. 29&390. St. John This survey is a very good idea The survey is very interesting and/or informational. I hope the program materializes. Issue-oriented comments: i. 2. 3. Protect Mary Point Protect all shorelines from over development. Second home development is acceptable, but no condominiums! 92 re k CROSS-TABULATIONS RELATED TO CHANGES IN TERRITORIAL POPULATION COMPOSITION TABLE 46 EDUCATION AS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCY* Education 0-5 Yrs. Here 6-15 Yrs. Here 16+ Yrs. Here Elementary 1.83 (14.5) 6.8% (24.0) 18.7% (31.7) High School 4.5 (34.9) 10.1 (36.1) 24.9 (42,1) Advanced 6.5 (50.6) 11.2 (39.9) 15.5 (26.2) Totals 12.8 (100.0) 28.1 (100.0) 59.1 (100.0) TABLE 47 AGE AS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCY* Age 0-5 Yrs. Here 6-15 Yrs. Here 16+ Yrs. Here 18-39 Yrs. 4.3% (33.7) 16.2% (57.1) 27.9% (47.5) 40-59 Yrs. 7.7 (60.3) 9.7 (34.2) 23.2 (39.4) 60+ Yrs. 0.8 ( 6.0) 2.5 ( 8.7) 7.7 (13.1) Totals 12.8 (100.0) 28.4 (100.0) 58.8 (100.0) * Figures are frequency percentages of the total sample. Parenthesés indicate frequency percentages of each residency category. 93 ATTITUDES TOWARD OVER-ALL SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS* TABLE 48 CROSS-TABULATION OF NON-PHOTO QUESTIONS WITH EDUCATIONAL DATA Ist Priority Ed. Level St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Industry Elementary 42.7% 43.83% 50.0% High School 40.0 39.7 25.0 Advanced 17.3 16.4 25.0 N= 75 12 4 x25 11.86** 2.72 Commerce Elementary 41.5% 28.63 26.7% High School 36.6 46.9 53.3 © Advanced 22.0 24.5 20.0 r= N= 41 49 15 x2 4.40 1.30 Residential Elementary 33.3% 24.5% 28.6% High School 40.0 62.3 57.1 Advanced 26.7 13.2 14.3 N= 45 53 14 X2= 1.13 10.22** Recreation Elementary 19.7% 19.6% 16.7% High School 38.5 39.1 50.0 Advanced 41.9 41.3 33.3 N= 117 45 6 x2= 6. 66** 1.88 Conservation | Elementary 16.9% 11.1% 38.5% . High School 36.6 34.4 30.8 Advanced 46.5 54.4 30.8 N= 721 90 13 Kee 6.66** 22.53** * Question #9, first choice responses only, by question #21. ** Indicates x? values for which p# 0.05 TABLE 49 ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL* lst. Priority Ed. Level St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Heavy Man. Elementary 37.5% 31.0% 50.0% High School 48.2 44.8 25.0 Advanced 14.3 24.1 25.0 N= 56 29 2 x2= 9.43%* 1.04 Light Industry] Elementary 28.4% 27.3% 14.3% High School 33.6 45.5 85.7 Advanced 37.9 27.3 0.0 N= 116 66 7 X2= 1.37 0.70 Agriculture Elementary 22.4% 26.4% 41.7% High School 39.3 44,2 33.3 Advanced 38.3 29.5 25.0 N= 107 129 12 x2= 1.88 0.42 Tourism Elementary 28.9% 18.2% 26.7% High School 28.9 38.2 40.0 Advanced 42.2. 43.6 33.3 N= 45 55 15 x2= 2.08 3.60 Fishing Elementary 29.2% 16.7% 33.3% High School 50.0 43.3 40.0 Advanced 20.8 40.0 26.7 N= 24 30 15 x25 2.01 1.38 * Question #10, first ‘choice responses only, by Question #21. ** Indicates x2 values for which P£ 0.05. TABLE 50 ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORELINE PROTECTION - BY. EDUCATIONAL LEVELS* Response Ed. Level St. Croix st. Thomas St. John Yes 16.2% 27.7% Elementary 16.0% High School 38.5 42.9 48.9 45.5 40.9 23.4 N= Advanced 231 198 47 No 32.1% 33 3% 0.0% Elementary High School 53.6 33 0.0 Advanced | 14,3 33 100.0 N= 28 21 1 Elementary 58.6 22 100.0 No opinion High. School 32.2 64 0.0 9.2 12 0.0 Advanced . N= 87 48 4 yee F1.67%** 17 15** 12.17** * Question #14 by question #21. ** Indicates X2 values for which p¥ 0.05 TABLE 51 PERCEPTIONS OF COASTAL PROBLEMS BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS* Problem Ed.. Level St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Beach Access Elementary 26.0% 26.5% 23.3% High School 40.6 39.2, 60.0 Advanced 33.3 34.3 16.7 192 102 30 0.47 0.72 Water Pollution Elementary 26.7% 21.9% 33.3% 40.1 43.4 38.9 High School Advanced 33.2 34.7 27.8 232 265 36 2a 0.29 1.44 Flooding Elementary 10.7% 36.2% 42.9% 64.3 46.8 42.9 High School Advanced 25 17.0 14.3 N= 28 94 14 xX 2 = = 43%* 11.89** Loss of Natural areas 28 1% 17.3% 18.9% Elementary High School 34 38.8 56.8 Advanced 37 43.9 24.3 231 139 37 wn 1.81 9.91** Sand Removal Elementary 30.2% 22.9 32.0 High School 36.1 46.3 40.0 Advanced 33.7 30.9 28.0 N= 205 175 25 x2= 0.70 0.63 Less Fish Elementary 33.1 22.0 45.5 High School 37.3 45.9 27.3 Advanced 29.6 32.1 27.3 142 109 il 2.11 0.48 * Question #18 by question #21 kk 0.05. Indicates x values for which p= 95 DATA AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS PLANNING OFFICE Computer print-outs’ of survey data may be inpected at the St. Thomas (Sub-base) office of the Virgin Islands Planning Office. Available area: 1. A complete compilation of responses (sample and substantive questions) by island and by Territory. 2. Cross-tabulations of responses to non-photo questions (#9-14, 16, 18) with demographic variables by island. 3. Cross-tabulation of selected demographic variables: Years here X education ) Years here X age ) by island Sex X age ) Education X occupation for the Territory OTHER DATA OBTAINABLE Further analysis of coded survey responses is possible using the Standard Statistical Package for the Social Sciences which is on line at the Department of Finance Com- puter Center. Those most likely to be of interest include: 1. A complete compilation of responses by island survey sub-area, 2. Cross-tabulation of responses to photo questions (#1-8, 15, 17) with demographic variables. 3. Cross-tabulations of other demographic variables by island or for the Territory. 4. A variety of statistical analyses including correlation and regression. 96 on ae eS Se re Tr aT | vlUlU 'TCOUOUCOCrTCVrTUCUCGELCUCUD gr wr ae rr Se eee er eer Appendix D - NEWSPAPER SURVEY DATA: Tabulations for all Questions 97 TABLE 52 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR NEWSPAPER RESPONDENTS * St. Croix St. Thomas St. John j{ Territory Total Respondents 69 82 3 154 Question 1. Sex Male 39 49 2 90 (58.4%) female 30 33 1 64(41.6) 2. Age 7 up to 19 yrs. L 3 i) 4(2.78) 20-29 yrs. ll 18 1 30(20.0) 30-39 yrs. 22 25 0 47 (31.3) 40-49 yrs. 16 14 1 31 (20.7) 50= yrs. 18 20 1 38(25.3) 3. Location of home - Response specificity varied so much that coding was impractical. 4. Occupation white collar blue collar Service housewife student retired none * Data are response frequencies, with frequency for the total sample in parenthesis. NEO BBR ONNNWOWD 98 Ooooroeon 100 (66.73%) 7(4.7) 17(11.3) 6 (4.0) 15(10.0) 3(2.0) 2(1.3) percentages fh Ms a a ae ee ai mm i. kg. NN. dt ih — =r ee ee ee +. PERSONAL USE OF COASTAL AREAS TABLE 53 ] COASTAL ACTIVITIES (Question #5) Activity Number of Users aver. times ' St. Croix St. Thomas St. John| Territory | per month go to the beach 67 72 3 139 7 , go fishing 25 24 3 49 3-4 go boating 34 50 3 84 4-5 waterfront b marketing 16 24 2 40 - 4-5 % responding 98.6 100.0 100.0 99.4 TABLE 54 BEACH ACTIVITIES (Question #8) Activity Number of Participants } St. Croix St. Thomas St. John~ | Territory swim 48 58 2 108 snorkle 20 15 2 37 picnic 14 17 1 32 run 13 9 0} 22 lime 8 13 0 21 fish 7 2 0 9 % responding 98.6 98.8 100.0 98.7 F 99 TABLE. 55 BEACH USE (Questions 6, 7, 10) St. Croix Used most Beach _ Used by often by Not ‘used by Davis Bay 22 Cramer Park 22 Sandy Point 17 Tague Bay/reef/yacht club 11 Green Cay il Buck Island 10 Cane Bay 10 Frederiksted Jack Bay Pelican Cove Hapenny Bay Beach Hotel Tamarind Reef Butler Bay Sprat Hall Target Wall Boiler Bay LaGrange Sugar Beach Manchenil Bay Grapetree Bay East End Bay Southgate Gentle Winds Salt River Rust-up-Twist LaVallee . St. Croix Country Club Williams Beach Stoney Ground Hope & Carlton Rod/Robin Bays Great Pond Bay Isaacs Bay 1 Pull Point Buccaneer Hotel St. Croix by the Sea Mill Harbor Protestant Cay Altona Lagoon Prune Bay Smugglers Cove Sunset Beach Coakley Bay Anally Bay Limetree/Virco Colombus Bay Gallows Bay Solitude Bay saOw PERN UO PR NUWD Ww Prep tw Pow a PN WENW NEE BPE ERE EB HNN ONNNNNNNNUNWWWWWWW EB DUUUD BPN mle Hb WwW be % responding 85.5 87.0 an 100 Beaches Used: St. Thomas Beach Used by Used most by Not used by Magens Bay 67 27 1 Coki Point 36 — 6 7 4 Sapphire Bay 26 5 Lindberg Bay 22 Brewers Bay : 20 Hull Bay 19 Vessup Bay 16 Secret Harbor 16 Limetree Bay 14 Morning Star Beach 14 Cowpet Bay/yacht club . 12 Mandal Bay aie) Stumpy Bay 10 Bolongo Bay. Bluebeards Beach Trunk Bay, St. John Scott Beach Bordeaux Bay Neltjeberg Dorothea ; Skinny Beach Smith Bay Pineapple Beach Caneel Bay, St. John Tutu Bay Sunsi Bay Botany Bay St. James Cinnamon Bay, St. John Francis Bay " " Honeymoon Bay," " Fortuna Bay Santa Maria Bay ~s bu DAanbr aa he NODOr Mr WwW BPRRPRPEPE NN WW bUU MA oO Be WHNYOHPEOABW Perseverence Bay Nazareth Bay Lo ee ll yresponding 98.8 92.7 62.2 Beaches Used: St. John Beach _ . Used by Used most By Not used by Trunk Bay Hawksnest Bay Cinnamon Bay Chocolate Hole Lameshur Bay Salt Pond Bay Rendez-vous Bay > Magens Bay, St. Thomas Coki Point " . " Bluebeard's Beach, St. Thomas Maho Bay ‘ Peter Bay Denis Bay PRPPPRPRPEREEW ee % responding : 66.7 66.7 . 100.0 101 TABLE 56 EXISTENCE OF UNUSED, BUT DESIRED BEACHES (Question #9) St. Croix St. John Territory St. Thomas yes 45 51 1 97 no 23 29 1 53 9 2 G responding 98.6 97.6 66.7 97.4 TABLE 57 REASONS FOR NOT USING PARTICULAR BEACHES (Question #11) Reason St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory no road access 14 25 39 exiclusively private 13 22 36 no facilities 8 12 20 safety 12 17 transportation 5 il expense 4 f) 2. cs) responding 65.2 62.2 33.3 63.0 . COASTAL DEVELOPMENT TABLE 58 MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT SHORELINE USES (Question #12) Use St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory Industry 19 2 21 Cruise ships 12 30 42 Public beaches 41 67 111 22 Hotels/condominium 18 40 Freight docks 9 18 Marinas 20 29 50 Sheps/restaurant 2 Conservation/parks 44 60 107 Public utilities 6 9. 2. 3 responding 94.2 96.3 100.0 95.5 TABLE 59 ADEQUACY OF CURRENT SHORELINE USES (Question #13) Use St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory Marinas 8 68 47 10 Hotel/condominiums 43 75 19 15 Conservation/park 1 12 123 42 64 20 Industry Public beaches 0 49 82 Freight. docks 9 64 31 14 17 80 18 10 Shops/restaurants 24 Utilities 14 65 22 Cruiseship docks 7 71 36 2. 2 = = 6 responding territory wide 95.5 102 SHORELINE UTTLIZATION TABLE 60 -SHORETYPES. SUITED FOR INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT (Question, #14) Shoretype St. Croix. St. Thomas St. John Territory 14 Sand beachés 21 Low rocky relief 24 27 52 Mangroves 12 13 25 Salt ponds 16 17 33 12 29 41 Gravel & rocky béaches 22 25 49 Steép focky Shores Dévelopéd shores 25 33 58 % responding 89.0 85.7 ABLE 61 : a Dy a . wh ., 5 GRE TYPES NEEDING. PROTECTION FROM INTENSTVE. DEVELOPMENT (Question $15). Se shorétype - .. St: ¥OLK--S hones. Sts, John | territory Sand 51 61 115 8 7 16 ky Peliet 42 42 87 abt 43 33 89 ock aches L2 a5 28 OG ist rl 3 21 Developed shorés 13 13 28 % responding 3.0 TABLE 63 E. NEEDING. PROTE io PROM ADL DEVE OPMENT (Quéstion. #16) Sh EYpS: Luo a Sta Croix Ste thomas. John. f Territory. hes 45 51 99 Li 20 relief Man 41 34 78 pond 45 28 i6 cky beaches i rn ia 25 16 12 29 15 Deve Lop 82.6 8758 100.0 % pesbdnding 103