    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS
    COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

    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
    NOAA
    COASIAL SERVICES CENTER
    2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
    CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

    SOFI#    CPrpmzt~z of C.qC L.ba

    Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States
    VIRGIN ISLANDS PLANNING OFFICE

    NOVEMBER 1977

    This program is funded in part through
    financial assistance provided by the
    Coastal Managemenrt Act of 1972,
    administered by the Office of
    Coastal Zone Management,
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Printed in the U.S. Virgin Islands

    COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF
    Darlan Brin, Assistant Director of Planning and Program Director

    Edward H. Lindelof, CZM 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

    Proj ect lnte~rviewers

    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

    Acknowledgements ......................... 3
    List of Figures.........................VI
    List of Tables .........................V

    ABSTRACT............................. VIl

    CHAPTER ONE - OVERVIEW ..1...................
    Public Attitudes as an Input to Coastal Zone
    Management .....................3
    Purpose of the Surveys ...............3
    The Test Population: A Profile..........                    5

    CHAPTER TWO -SURVEY TECHNIQUES .................11

    Household Survey..................13
    Interview Format..................13
    Sampling Procedure .................14
    Interview Procedure ................18
    Data Analysis ...................19
    Problems EncoUntered................19

    Newspaper Survey..................20
    Survey Format and Procedures............20
    Data Analysis ................... 21
    Problems Encountered................21

    CHAPTER THREE - SURVEY RESULTS ..................23

    Household Survey Sample.................25
    Household Survey Responses................29

    Perceptions of Coastal Problems ..........29
    Shoreline Utilization ...............31
    Shoreline Protection................40
    The Location of Future.Development.........50
    Respondents' Comments ...............54
    Newspaper Survey Respondents ..............55
    Newspaper Survey Results ................55
    Shoreline Utilization ...............55
    Location of Future Development...........58
    Shoreline Protection................59

    CHAPTER FOUR - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..............61

    Survey Results.....................63
    Survey utility.....................70

    APPENDICES           .         ......................... ...73

    APPENDIX A - HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FORMAT..........75
    I-nterview Schedule ................77
    Photograph Panels.................78

    APPENDIX B - NEWSPAPER SURVEY FORMAT..........83
    Questionnaire ................ ...84
    iii

    TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont!.d)

    APPENDIX C r HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA .........85
    Selected Tabulations................86
    Selected Cross Tabulations.............93
    Availahle information ...............96

    APPENDIX D - NEWSPAPER SURVEY DATA ...........97
    Complete Tabulations................ ~97
    iv

    LIST OF TABLES

    Page
    Table I - Sample Composition by Sex .............26
    Table 2 - Sample Composition by Age..............26
    Table	3 - Sample Composition by. Length of Residency ....27
    Table	4 - Sample Composition by Education ..........28
    Table	5 - Sample Composition by Occupation..........28
    Table	6 - Sample Composition by Intent to Staty in the V.I. 29
    Table	7 - Perceptions of the Virgin Islands,' Three Most
    Important Coastal Problems............30
    Table  8 - Attitudes Towards Shoreline Development:  Uses to
    be Emphasized ...................31
    Table  9 - Shoreline Use to Emphasize rirst ..........32
    Table 10 - Attitudes Towards Economic Development: The
    Three Most Favored Industries ..........33
    Table 11 - The Most Favored Industry .............35
    Table 12 - Attitudes Towards Tourism: The Three Most Favored
    Modes ......................36
    Table 13 - The Most Favored Mode of Tourism ..........36
    Table 14 - Attitudes Towards Reckeational Development:, The
    Three Most Favored Types ..............38
    Table 15 - The Most Favored,Type of Recreational,Opportunity. 38
    Table 16 - Attitudes Towards Shoreline Protection From Over
    Development ...................40
    Table 17 - Rationale for Shoreline Protection .....  ...41
    Table 18 - Perceptions of the Virgin Islands' Three Main
    Tourist Attractions ..........:111142
    Table 19 - The Virgin Islands'Main Tourist Attraction.....43
    Table 20 - St. Croix Respondents' Perceptions of St. Croix
    Shoreline Visual Quality.............44
    Table 21 - St. John Respondents' Perceptions of St. John
    Shoreline Visual Quality.............44
    Table 22 - St. Thomas Respondents' Perceptions of St. Thomas
    Shoreline Visual Quality.............45
    Table 23 - Territory-Wide Perceptions of Territory Shoreline
    Visual Quality..................45
    Table 24 - Perceptions of the:Most and Least Scenic.Areas .   46
    Table 25 - Perceptions,of Relative Visual Quality by Shoretype47
    Table 26 - Shoretypes Which May Need Protection From Over
    Development ...................  49
    Table 27 - Shoretype Utilizatiorl... ............51
    Table 28 - Respondents' Comments ...............54
    Table 29 - Comparative Demographic Data ......I......55
    Table 30 - Use 6f the Coastal Areas..............56
    Table 31 - Beach Use ...................56
    Table 32 - Perceptions of the Obstacles to Greater Beach Use. 57
    Table 33 . Perceptions,of.the Three Most Important
    Shoreline uses...................57
    Table 34 -Perceptions of the Adequacy of Current Shoreline
    Uses........................58
    Table 35 -Shoretypes Most Suitable for Intensive Development 58
    Table 36 -Shoretypes Needing Protection From Overdevelopment 59
    Table 37 -Shoretypes Needing Protection from All development
    Table 38 -St. Croix Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype
    Protection and/or Utilization ...........86
    Table 39 -St. Thomas Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype
    Protection and/or Utilization ...........87
    Table 40 - St.-John Residents' Attitudes Towards Shoretype
    Protection and/or Utilization ...........88
    Table 41 - Attitudes Towards Shoreline Development by Survey
    Sub-areas .....................89
    Table 42 - Attitudes Towards Economic Development by Survey
    Sub-areas .....................89
    Table 43 - Attitudes Towards Coastal Recreation Opportunities
    by Survey Sub-areas ................90
    Table 44 - Perceptions of the V.I.'s Three Most Important
    Coastal Problems by Survey Sub-areas........90
    Table 45 - Complete Tabulation of Respondents' Comments.      ...91
    v

    LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)

    46 - Education as Associated With Length of Residency ...........
    47 - Age As Associated With Length of Residency .................
    48 - Attitudes Towards Over-all Shoreline Development
    By Educational Levels ....................................
    49 - Attitudes Towards Economic Development By
    Educational Levels .......................................
    50 - Attitudes Towards Shoreline Protection By
    Educational Levels .......................................
    51 - Perceptions of Coastal Problems By Educational Levels ......
    52 - Demographic Data For Newspaper Respondents ................
    53 - Coastal Activities ..........................................
    54 - Beach Activities .....................................
    55 - Beach Use .........................................
    56 - Existence of Unused but Desired Beaches ............
    57 - Reasons For Not Using Particular Beaches .................
    58 - Most Important Current Shoreline Uses ...........
    59 - Adequacy of Current Shoreline Uses ...............
    60 - Shoretypes Suited for Intensive Development ................
    61 - Shoretypes Needing Protection From Extensive Development...
    62 - Shoretypes Needing Protection From All Development .........

    LIST OF FIGURES

    Page
    Figure 1   -  Diagram of-the CZM Program
    Development Process                4
    Figure 2
    a & b	-	Shoreline Environments            6 & 8

    Figure 3	-	Map of St. Croix Survey Areas

    Figure 4	- Map of St. John Survey Areas	16

    Figure 5	-  Map of St. Thomas Survey Areas	17
    Page

    93
    93
    Table
    Table
    Table

    Table

    Table

    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    Table
    94

    94

    95
    95
    98
    99
    99
    100
    102
    102
    102
    102
    103
    103
    103
    I
    vi

    Abstract

    Of the eight studies undertaken in the development of the Virgin

    Islands Coastal ZPne 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 developmaent.

    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 nct appear to influence opinions. However,

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

    THE NEED FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION

    Se venty 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 akea's amenity qualities

    and concern about possible negative effects induced by development.

    When a'sked 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

    ..1W1%  NEEDl FORISHORELINE
    PROTECTION
    (Teritory VWide)
    -75

    -25

    YES   NO OPINION  NO
    Source: VICZM Household Survey
    vii

    is also given to the protection of some undeveloped salt ponds and

    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 development, 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 importance of economic development, there

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

    be encouraged.
    The extent of support for tourism7varies: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.

    -10                       . .;I POTN 'q(iriiF
    rt[ TI IrFr F:r^nN0MIr
    nflnv
    -IUU7        u tUfiC O 1O.MIUIC,                           *lUU/-UU  4I MOUST IMir.M IAl I OflURtLINEC
    DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES	ACTIVITIES
    (Territory Wide)         .                       ,	:	(Territory Wide)
    -25	.275

    _50

    AGRICULTURE       TOURISM            FISHING	,	RECREATION            COMMERCIAL
    LIGHT INDUSTRY     HEAVY MFG.           :	'	CONSERVATION                  INDUSTRIAL
    Source: VICZM Household Survey	Source: VICZM Household Survey
    vi1ii

    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 anA 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
    10%	Boating
    18%	2 nd Home

    28%	Cruise Ships

    36%	Hotel
    7%
    7% _
    13%

    33%

    40%
    6%     4%
    13%
    m4  30%
    24%
    12%

    24%

    33%           :30%
    TERRITORY
    St.
    Thomas

    Source: VICZM Household Surv'ey
    StCroix
    	JohnS

    Croix	John

    1

    INTRODUCTION
    AND
    OVERVIEW

    Public Attitudes as an Input to the Virgin Islands' CZM 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 I indicates, identifying the best use of scarce and fragile

    resources has involved a variety 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 liqht 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 oE 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
    3

    FIGURE I
    CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
    PROCESS

    OCZM PROGRAM ELEMENTS            STUDY PROCEDURES I
    (REQUIREMENTS) I
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~II
    I MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I
    I MPLEMENTATION
    HIH                 MECHANISMS
    I
    J	RECOMMENDED
    l	CCZM PROGRAM
    I

    I
    I
    TERRESTRIAL INVENTORY

    MARINE INVENTORY

    CAPABILITY ANALYSIS'

    *ATTITUDE SURVEYS/PUBLIC
    PARTICIPATION/GOVERNMENTAL

    AESTHETIC/VISUAL QUALITY
    ASSESSMENT

    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

    LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

    FEDERAL INTERACTION AND
    THE NATIONAL INTEREST
    COASTAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES,
    POLICIES

    MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY

    GENERAL LAND AND
    WATER USE PLANS

    ORGANIZATION AND
    AUTHORITIES REVISIONS
    REVISED ORGANIZATIONS
    AND AUTHORITIES

    ZONING

    PERMIT SYSTEM
    BOUNDARY

    PERMISSIBLE USES

    AREAS OF PARTICULAR
    CONCERN

    PUBLIC/GOVERNMENTAL
    INVOLVEMENT

    FEDERAL INTERACTION
    ANDTHE NATIONAL
    INTEREST

    SHORELINE ACCESS
    SITING OF ENERGY
    FACILITIES
    COASTAL EROSION
    Z
    T
    %

    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 Managemnent 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
    5

    I
    Figure 2a - Examples of shoreline environments (from top):  steep rocky shore; low relief
    shore, salt pond; mangrove stand; sand beach; developed shore.

    6

    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 *ith 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 intervieweets' 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.
    7

    Figure 2b - Exairples of shoretype sub-classes (fran top): developed - harbor; developed -
    industrial; beach.with sate development; salt pond with some development.
    THE SAMPLE POPULATION; A PROFTLE

    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 relati-ve 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, aIs anticipated, was relatively small (154 respondents) and more ref lec-
    8

    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.
    Therelis 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 can-
    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 Eleem to give less

    weight to economic considerations t,han 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 t.he 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 isl.and of
    residence. They are not associated with lehgth 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.
    . 9

    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.
    Recreational use of the shoreline, and particularlv sand beaches, has widespread suoprt
    10

    2

    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

    TNTERVTEW 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

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

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

    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 2�`x3�"~ color prints

    arranged in three columns of five prints each, and mounted on 16" x 11" 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 ok 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 StudyI 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 all parcels to be sampled.

    one drawback to this approach was noted and corrected. Single-family
    homes were as likely to be chosen as properties witb multiple units. While

    lWilbur Smith and Associetes in association with Design Collabor'ative,
    Virgin Islands Mass Transit Study: Final Draft Report, (February 1976)
    14

    MAP 1:
    ST.CROIX SURVEY AREAS

    rH          /Northside
     .  .I
    0

    MAP 2:
    ST JOHN SURVEY AREAS

    1~ ~~~~ {   /                |  ~~~~~~~Coral Bay & Outlying Are

    0       A4-*0'     .1000

    MAP 3:
    ST. THOMAS SURVEY AREAS

    West End
    Northside

    Charlotte A

    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 gt. Croix and St. Thomas.

    INTERVIEW PROCEDUR~ES

    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 bi as
    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 Cs) 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 aerived

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

    Social Sciences Manual.2 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 performea at the Virgin is lands 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 requirea

    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 consiaered "hybrid" rather than c'lear examples of a particular slhore-

    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 I11�") 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 mnaterial 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 designied 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

    DATA ANALYSIS

    A relatively small return rate made hand tabulation and visual inspection
    feasible. No statistical analyses other tha,n tabulation of frequencies and

    percentages were undertaken.

    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 weke 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

    SURVEY
    RESULTS

    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

    HiOUSEHOLD 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 t~he 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, kemales 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	Territor
    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 to

    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)	31.3% (38.3)	24.9% (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

    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 (Table 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  Territory
    N=40	N=25	N 290          N66
    N=663
    Yrs. Here
    0-5  Yrs.	14.7%	12.0%	9.7%	12.4%
    .6-10	a18.8	28.0	12.8	16.4
    11-15	9.7	20.0	13.1	11.6
    16-20	11.8	20.0	12.1	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 S
    SAMPLE COMPOSITION BY OCCUPATION

    St. Croix	St. John	St. Thomas	Territory
    N=348	N=52	N=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	(14.8) 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) 1.6	(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%	79.3%	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

    Beach Access
    Water Pollution
    Flooding
    Loss Natural Areas
    Sand Removal
    Decreasing Seafoods
    St. Croix**
    N=345

    55.7%
    67.0
    7.5
    67.9
    59.9
    41.0
    St. Thomas**St. John
    N=325	N=54

    32.9%	60.0%
    87.1	69.1
    31.8	25.5
    45.1	72.2
    57.6	46.3
    36.2	20.4
    Territory
    N=724

    45.7%
    76.3
    19.9
    57.8
    57.9
    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
    (X2=230.6; F' 0.01).
    _--_��__
    *q h
    _

    ii �-;

    _ PD:j
    _;n

    4tft         -;               11a W; T;  ::
    	,2 I; --S
    4	1
    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 residents. In sum, perceptions of

    coastal problems are probably most ttrongly 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 indicatesr when firsiat   ecand 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=333	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
    296.8%

    *   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 could equal
    300%; distribution of response would approximate 60% each
    if all uses were perceived to be of equal importance).
    **  Response patterns are significant (X2=68.6; P~0.01).
    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. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John   Territory
    N=346	N=333	N=5- N=734
    Industry	21.6%	23.4%	7.3%	21.4%
    Commerce	12.1	16.5	29.1	15.4
    Residential	12.4	17.1	25.5	15.7
    Recreation	33.5	15.3	14.5
    Conservation	20.5	27.6	23.6      23.9

    Question 99 - 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 (X2=71.3; Po0.01).

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

    industrial development is not widespread there is a consiAerable 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

    industrywas 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. Croix**	St. Thomas**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
    295.6%
    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 (X2m206.4; P10.01).

    Based on first choices only, Table 11 indicates that while agricultural
    development has general support Territory-wide, economic development priorities
    33

    Expansion of agriculture has strong suoport through-out the Territory.
    i
    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=--	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	27.8	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 ovet all. The pattern of responses in

    Tables 10 and 11 are quite consistent (in contrast to Tables 8 and 9), 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. Thomas** St. John	Territory
    N=345	N=325	N=54	N=724
    Condominium/2nd home	50.0%	41.1%	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).
     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	N=724
    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 100%).
    **  Response pattern is significant (X2=258.9; Pt0.01).
    36

    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 are aggregated, there appears to be wide consensus regarding

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

    both underwater 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**
    N=346
    Beach Access	67.5%
    Beach Facilities	59.8
    Boating Facilities	27.3
    Fishing Piers	43.7
    Underwater Parks	28.2
    Waterfront Parks	71.6
    St. Thomas**
    N=329

    55.0%
    58.7
    31.9
    51.1
    32.5
    64.1
    St. John
    N=53

    41.5%
    62.3
    47.2
    50.9
    22.6
    71.7
    Territory
    N=728

    60.0%
    59.3
    30.8
    47.5
    29.8
    68.3
    295.7%
    I
    *  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 (X2=1l95.6; 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 beach access may be in some

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

    years.
    TAB3LE 15

    THE MOST FAVORED TYPE OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY*

    St. Croix** St. Thomas** St. John	Terri
    N=346	N=329	N=53	N=7

    ess	47.1%	36.8%	35.5%	40.E
    ilities	17.8	20.7	5.1	17.E
    acilities	3.2	2.2	6.8	2.:
    iers	11.5	18.9	15.3	14.E
    r Parks	6.0	8.7	5.1	6.
    t Parks	14.4	12.7	32.2	14.!
    tory
    28

    6%
    6
    3
    8
    7
    9
    9%

    Beach Acce
    Beach Faci
    Boating Fa
    Fishing Pi
    Underwatex
    Waterfront
    v 9 . z
    96.!

    *   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).

    **  Response pattern is significant (X2=247.6: P10.01).
    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
    I
    38

    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.
    --
    Some respondents also expressed interest in developing beach facilities
    ....and waterfront parks.
    I
    I
    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
    ~3
    9

    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�.0 -	19.4	7.3	21.3
    I55.0%
    *  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 Vark 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=17	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	5.2	5.9
    Like as is	0.0	23.1	21.1	11.1
    Already too developed	0.0	9.1	5.2	4.3
    1u-65 %

    *  Question #16 - "Why do you feel these areas should be pro-
    tected?"  (Response distribution would approximate 17% if
    all viewed equally).
    ** Response pattern is significant (X2=374.5; P50.01).
    41

    Respondents on St, Croix, whQ fAvored both recreation And cqnservation

    more than those on either St, Thomag Or St, JohA, 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%	68.2%	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; P0.01).

    Perceptions of the single greatest asset (Table 19) tend to discount
    beaches somewhat but emphasize scenery. They also vary conasiderably betweer

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

    assets of each island.
    42

    TABLE 19
    THE VIRGIN ISLANDS' MAIN TOURIST ATTRACTION*
    Attraction

    Duty-free shops
    Scenery
    Hotel/restaurants
    Weather
    Beaches
    People
    St. Croix** St. Thomas**
    N=348	N=330
    26.7%	35.2%
    12.1	26.1
    1.4	0.3
    41.4	18.8
    10.6	14.2
    7.8	5.8
    St. John
    N=54

    19.6%
    35.7
    0.0
    23.2
    18.2
    3.8
    Territory
    N=732
    29.9%
    20.2
    0.8
    29.8
    12.9
    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; Pm0.01).
    {~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~    -  ,S,e,
    :~~~~~~~~~~IZ~     ~,~
    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*
    S.D.    Rank Order (X)
    X
    Photo**   Shoretvype
    1
    2
    3  (10)
    4
    5
    6 (5)
    7
    8 (12)
    9 (1)
    10
    11
    12 (9)
    13
    14 (2)
    15

    N=348
    Steep Rocky (Undev.)
    Developed:  Harbor
    Rocky Beach (Undev.)
    Developed:	Industrial
    Mangroves	(Undev.)
    Developed:	Harbor
    Low Relief	(Undev.)
    Dead Mangroves
    Steep Rocky (Dev.
    Sand Beach  (Undev.)
    Steep Rocky (Undev.)
    Sand Beach	(Dev.  )
    Salt Pond	(Undev.)
    Low Relief	(Undev.)
    Low Relief	(Undev.)
    3.05
    2.50
    3.00
    3.43
    2.80
    2.62
    3.12
    4.47
    3.17
    2.02
    2.77
    2.44
    3.80
    2.88
    0.81
    0.82
    0.80
    0.77
    0.75
    0.88
    0.72
    0.79
    0.69
    0.96
    0.79
    0.76
    0.71
    0.77
    10
    3
    9
    13
    6
    4
    11
    15
    12
    1
    5
    2
    14
    7
    8
    2.92    0.67
    TABLE 21
    ST. JOHN RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF
    ST. JOHN SHORELINE VISUAL QUALITY*
    X      D n   Rank Order (X)
    Photo**    Shoretype
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6 (7)
    7
    8
    9 (15)
    10
    11
    12
    13 (6)
    14
    15

    N=56
    Steep Rocky
    Steep Rocky
    Salt Pond
    Mangroves
    Sand Beach
    Salt Pond
    Mangroves
    Rocky Beach
    Salt Pond
    Sand Beach
    Steep Rocky
    Developed:
    Sand Beach
    Developed:
    Steep Rocky
    (Undev.)
    (Dev.  )
    (Dev. )
    (Dev.	)
    (Dev.	)
    (Undev.)
    (Undev.)
    (Undev.)
    (Dev.)
    (Undev.)
    (Undev.)
    Harbor
    (Undev.)
    Harbor
    (Undev.)
    2.91
    3.46
    3.32
    3.30
    2.32
    3.77
    3.13
    3.84
    3.27
    2.16
    3.36
    2.73
    1.75
    2.88
    2.32
    0.67
    0.63
    0.77
    0.71
    0.69
    0.93
    0.60
    1.07
    0.80
    0.68
    0.77
    0.62
    0.90
    0.43
    0.61
    7
    13
    11
    10
    3
    14
    8
    15
    9
    2
    12
    5
    1
    6
    3
    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	2.80	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	9
    13	Salt Pond	(Undev.)	4.00	0.90	15
    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 (X9)	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 (J13)	Sand Beach	(Undev.)	1.85	0.87	1
    7 (J6)	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 (T7)	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 (J9)	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.
    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. Sardbeaches, 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 rankingexamples -- 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 is probably attributable to variations in the types and quality of the

    examples to be ranked in each photo set.

    TABLE 24

    PERCEPTIONS OF THE MOST AND LEAST SCENIC AREAS*

    RANK	PANEL B                                  PANEL A

    St. Croix	St. John          St. Thomas
    Sand Beach
    (Undev.)

    Sand Beach
    (Undev.)

    Steep Rocky
    (Undev.)

    Sand Beach
    (Dev. )

    Steep Rocky
    (Undev.)
    Steep Rocky
    (Dev. )
    Salt Pond
    (Undev.)
    Rocky Beach
    (Undev.)
    he four photos
    Highest
    Sand Beach
    (Undev.)

    Mangroves
    (Undev.)

    Sand Beach
    (Dev. )

    Steep Rocky
    (Dev. )

    Rocky Beach
    (Undev.)

    Developed:
    Industrial

    Salt Pond
    (Undev.)
    Dead Mangroves
    1
    Sand Beach
    (Undev.)

    Sand Beach
    (Dev. )

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Steep Rocky
    (Dev. )
    Developed:
    Industrial
    -Salt Pond
    (Undev.)
    Dead Mangroves
    Sand Beach
    (Dev. )

    Sand Beach
    (Undev.)
    Sand Beach
    (Dev. )

    Mangrove
    (Undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Rocky Beach
    (Undev.)
    Developed
    Harbor-
    Salt Pond
    (Undev.)
    2

    3

    4

    12

    13

    14
    Lowest   15

    * Question #1-8 - Considering tl
    ranking lowest on each panel.
    ranking highest and the four photos
    46

    TABLE 25
    PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIVE VISUAL QUALITY BY SHORETYPE*

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

    St. Croix	St. Thomas	St. John   A
    Sand Beach	(Undev.)	5	1	2	1/1, 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, 11
    Rocky Beach	5	9 /9	13 /12	15
    Salt Pond   (Dev.  )	6	14	11, 15/4	14 /11
    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 /4	7, 13
    Dev:	Harbor	10	3, 4/5	5, 10, 12/6, 14	5, 6

    *	Questions #1-B  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
    "Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal ZOnte".
    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.  3	11.5
    Developed:	Harbor	8.5
    Mangroves	(Undev.)	7.4
    Rocky Beach(Undev.)	6.0
    Steep Rocky(Undev.)	6.0
    Low Relief (undev.)	5.9
    Salt Pond	(undev.)	3.7
    Mangroves	(Dev. )	3.4
    Steep Rocky(Dev.  )	2.1
    Developed:	Industrial	2.1
    Salt Pond	(Dev.              )	1.8
    Dead Mangroves	1.6
    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 DEVELOPM~ENT
    After expressing attitudes towards coastal aevelopment 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 aeve-
    lopment should follow existing development patterns and that undeveloped

    areas should be kept for recreation and conservation.

    Respondents perceived new industry as best accomodatea in areas already
    aeveloped 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 developmenit. Apparenit 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 were vi-ewed 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

    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%	0.6%
    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	(Bev.  )	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 917 - "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 frequentll,

    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
    I . 4, 1
    i

    4
    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

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

    beaches, low relief arfd steep rocky shores. While there is some support for

    conservation, a variety of uses particularly residential or recreation are

    also viewed as suitable. ReBsponses 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.
    Conservation or industrial development?
    53

    RESPONDENTST 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

    c5f 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 developmnent 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. Comiments 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

    RESPONDOENTS' COMM4ENTS

    Conmients	St. Croix St. Thomas St. John Territory

    Good idea	29	24	-	53 (51.0%)
    Bev. Controls	-	19	4	23 (22.1%)
    Dev. Opportunities	4	10	2	16 (15.4%)
    Beach Utilization	4    a	-	12 (11.5%)4

    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

    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%	37.8%	49.8%
    Female	41.6	62.2	50.2

    Occupation
    White collar	66.7%	28.8%	22.9%
    Blue Collar	4.7	10.9	23.3
    Services	11.3	17.7	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.z

    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
    To the waterfront	26.5	4.5

    Question #5 - "How many of the following activities do
    you engage in? ...indicate how ofter you,do 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 and

    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

    I
    56

    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

    Poor road access
    Exclusively private
    Lack of facilities
    Safety
    Lack of transportation
    Expense
    Percent of reasons given

    29.5%
    27.3
    15.2
    12.9
    8.3
    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
    St. Croix	St. Thomas	St. John

    63.1%	84.8%	100.0%
    67.7	75.9	100.0
    30.8	36.7	33.3
    18.5	38.0	0.0
    33.8	22.8	0.0
    29.2	2.5	0.0
    13.8	11.4	0.0
    3.0	7.6	0.0
    4.6	2.5	0.0
    Use

    Public beaches
    Conservation/parks
    Marinas
    Cruiseship docks
    Hotels/condominiums
    Industry
    Freight docks
    Public utilities
    Shops & restaurants
    Territory

    75.5%
    72.7
    34.0
    28.6
    27.2
    14.3
    12.2
    5.4
    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 facilitieswas 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
    Too Much	Enough	Too Little No Opir

    rvation/park	0.7%	8.7%	89.2%	1.41
    beach	0.0	37.1	62.1	0.8
    as	6.0	51.2	35.3	7.5
    eship docks	6.0	60.6	30.8	2.6
    ht docks	7.5	53.4	25.8	13.3
    ties	11.2	52.0	17.6	19.2
    try	31.3	47.8	14.9	6.0
    /condominiums	30.8	52.4	13.3	3.5
    /restaurants	13.6	64.0	14.4	8.0
    Use

    Conser
    Public
    Marina
    Cruise
    Freigh
    Utilit
    Indust
    Hotel/
    Shops/
    nion

    I

    N
    I
    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*
    Percent of Total Nominations

    21.0%
    18.5
    17.5
    14.7
    11.8
    9.0
    7.5
    100.0%
    Shoretype

    Developed areas
    Low relief
    Steep rocky shores
    Rocky and gravel beaches
    Salt ponds
    Mangroves
    Sand beaches
    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

    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 pwd 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%

    *Quiestion #16 - "~Are there any types of shoreline you feel
    should be protected from all development?"~
    59

    SUMMARY
    AND
    CONCLUS IONS

    RTS I:
    R _i;�
    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 lik e to see conservation and recreational

    de-velopment 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. Di fferences 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 sh6uld be emphasized first.
    The extent d 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.

     ................	.......	.....

    ..........~Z.7Z'�Z	Z7�LT 7?-        Z    ;''"::::
    �.'-    ,'?               ---'._~ =-,,.
    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 hSt. Croix tan 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 was 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 aifferent 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 --onsiderable 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 somae 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 caAise problems, whereas

    conservation, which would preclude further development, is considered justified

    in areas where intensive activity is inappropriate.
    6
    7

    Substantial consensus appears to exist reqarding 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 patternsk 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:

    1. Sand beaches (undeveloped)

    *High recreational and scenic value

    *Recreational use and either conservation or protection measures

    are widely supported.

    2. Sand beaches (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
    a

    4. Mangroves (undeveloped)

    *Moderately high scenic value; some recreational value

    *Conservation has very broad suapport, the most of any shoretype

    5. 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.

    6. Salt Ponds (undeveloped)

    *Low scenic and recreational value.

    Attitudes regarding appropriate use are divided between those
    favoring conservation and those favoring industrial development.

    7. 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.

    8. Developed: Harbors

    Moderately high to moderately low scenic value: low recreational

    value.

    Perceived as the most suitable of all shoretypes for corimercial

    activities, although many respondents feel industry is appropriate.

    Protection from over-development has' quite broad support.
    9. Developed: industrial

    *Low scenic and recreational value.
    *Continued industrial use is widely considered the most appropriate.
    Little concern abouttover-development.

    10. 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.
    11. 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 Cund,evel,oped)

    *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.

    1RESPONDENTS '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

    wealth of informa.tion 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.
    7:
    '-

    5
    APPENDICES

    Appendix A
    l
    1
    HOUSEHOLD SURVEY:  Interview Schedule
    Photograph Panels

    4

    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?

    -     2     3      4    5    6      7     8     9      10    11    12    13
    14     1
    2.	Which is the most beautiful ?

    3.	Looking et the rest of the photos, which four shorelines do you find least
    beautiful ?

    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13   14   15

    4. Which of those is the least beautiful?

    II. Panel A

    5. Looking at this panel, which four shorelines are the most beautiful?

    1    2    3    4    5   6    7    8    9    10    11    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    11    12    13    14    15

    8.  Which of those is the least beautiful?

    III. 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)	recreatinnal (4

    4)

    conservation/
    open space (5)
    10. If economic growth does occur, and you could choose, which three of the following
    types would you favor first? second? third?

    heavy manufacturing ( such as oil refineries, alumina
    processing plants, utilities or rum distilleries )   (O)

    light industry ( such as prefume, texiles or electrical
    equipment (2)

    agriculture and food processing (3)
    75

    tourist industry ( hotels, condominiums or cruise ship
    ship docks )  (4)

    fishing industry ( including culture, processing )(5)

    other ( please specify )                                  (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?	(first?  second?  third?)

    duty-free shops (1)	weather (4)

    scenery (2)	beaches

    hotels & restaurants (3)	friendly people (6)

    other ( please specify )                                         (7)
    1
    13.  If more opportunities for recreation and relaxation were being prosided, bhich of
    the following would you favor first ? second? third ?

    improved public access to beaches (1i)	unde.rwater 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 general. 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 do 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	10	11	12	13	14

    commerce	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14

    residential	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	30	11	12	13   14	15
    76

    recreation  1    2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14    15

    conservation/parkland	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	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   -s)
    dredging or removing beach sand needed for cor-
    struction (5)
    decreaing catch of seafoods (6)

    other (specify

    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)

    undecid1                          (3)

    21. fow mar  grades or classes of school have you completed?

    grade school                              college

    high school

    22. What Ls 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. Conmnents?
    77

    i
    I

    I

    i
    I
    6
    4
    1
    -7
    12
    f
    i
    iO

    (originals 2.5'X 3.5"color prints)
    -ito
    PANEL A-Territory
    A

    L; f:                    , :\    ::2:0:Sl 0 0
    I A
    i'
    z

    PANEL B  St	: (originals 2.5X 3.5        prints
    PANEL B -St Croix	(originals 2.5"X 3.57color prints)

    i

    I

    I
    I
    z
    4
    5
    -7
    Io
    I I
    12
    14
    PANEL B St John
    ( originals 2.5X
    3.5 r prints )
    (originals 2.5"X 3.5" color prints)
    13
    I

    I :
     z
    3
    I
    8
    q
    ilI II
    12
    13                                14-
    PANEL B- St Th
    15
    "omas  (originals 2.5"X3.5"color prints)

    INOiVtPY'(
    q EcgG4000

    ~ OPFj 5/Icf
    INEL C- Shoreline Uses
    ginals 3.5X 5 B&W prints)
    I

    Appendix B

    NEWPAPER SURVEY: Questionnaire

    I

    THlE DAILY NEWS, MONDAY, MAY 24,1t976

    ;,%'.
    ., _E);
    ,
    .1 P
    ,,,,     " I i ... . ..
    ij.
    'A

    to ,,    11 ' of

    .,cl~~~stctiocog a  VitotloO     e=.o
    The 'u  ee
    otU 0Vho Uves	Wde	ito    0otot Used.

    4'elp dete,'no	'etoly it	r ~i.z oa0

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~tone	teoOt
    .ddstto	0,tt
    ,,~ ~ ~~~~t %o-O
    eoc~	tevs
    "THE V. 1. COAST -WHAT DO-'YOU THINK?'0
    lift V.1. Plinsitng Office is deiretoping a program for mman*&g the islants'
    citimlc hlnd and water msoureas. The Intetnt of Sthe Coastal Zone Managemet
    Pl'ogwm is to baac   osoainand development in 4 fashionw that best meets
    Virgin Islandels needs. fayr tis reason, lhe Palsn(sg office is vary, much
    iffterestied in yowt views regarding presernt and futurse meet of sisoreline areas.
    The~~~~~~~~~O qu"inieIeo	s	1
    	is  fmsycase   o    il have iD WANSh
    PlaningOffce  nowIso	yo	fii. ustoutit ut,fold at directod ams  Buil..
    letalrasi  sempd ad adrsse. Te Paning Offie hopes ftha yiu'll tokt
    adoatag ofthi aw  offutre pposuntie  tomake your feeilings  nwn~!1.1
    FILl..~ ~ ~~~~~01-E INBELO - CU  U    ODONDTE  ,
    to it.         :          to sortialt X
    to ran or walk 0X
    .Are thew a.V beache,yo feteo not Use, bat
    wouold lk- to?    0 esg 1 no
    ID. Ifto, lift no nroom heeeseee.

    I11 MhY duet yoium ate thm?

    ElOtexmse	0ex]hrtuicOly
    use road Aceess	pyinet

    C. TypeS Of SJhoreline devteloPment
    tecatme  deeoloprnos  eresoanee  are  lest
    joSeese in crastil arose, it it vital Shot we
    deteteels, howr the As, yet U.doaofo,peej
    ihoitlindO Can bes be used.
    12. Which of ithe folloenies. do OUs th,nh .r.
    currently the Most important UlS" of the
    gmtmtitto? Icheck ithe fetseeoaut itOpOortant
    Elindustry	Ci m6niat
    aul sie shipl	c1chaot and
    dockS	rems"JAIeOt
    Lipublic beachts	Elcooseeatiseil
    El hotes and	park lands
    cenodenieiut,	EeUbti tlitwWies
    I
    I

    as

    I0

    "
    I
    Ii
    I
    I
    a

    I

    I
    I
    I
    I

    So.s  pois'e f theioi saee Min  ae suiritale, f.r de oootN theothers. Ic Is irmportime, tb
    seed to *Ccconsmodoto neeeded davelinart                                       d-	obe,mec
    14. Volc  sysof  SthowliOes. do yous feel nsiGht best he OU"  (oe i,leessr odroolst,see	(s...ch
    as ldrte. hotels.,4,9 letela.clth, pOWer, water or OMagov tsosfmenot plantel- ClUclsi ijoomre shoot.

    O	ued	ehelesEl Satotrseswamps	gave prow  &ocitry	shoretiee       Q dna,r.-.
    i]low risdr	r	AnI	ods sed	tivehis	developed
    clay kiattI'	fled	O~~steep tochl'	watrfront,

    '11am thou, threel	eh c)bat
    El Volt poinds And    EleroVel	-	k	cimbhs
    fia0teehs	IX bsdsMgteep entty
    CIdeselosod ~	ater-garove Swam%shps	oereline
    waterfront,	lowm   rocky or	El icd beaches
    16  Ame them 61*, tYPs 05 shoreline YOUs leol elseld be peusecte  frnm all doieestwment?
    El~~~~~~to Ma~ rch	X ee	Jy or
    beaches	cl	iulqs
    lstee  rocky	maneneetote ewarmpo           lOe......
    thOeelhees	soft Pneds&
    Cl deselossad	floss
    Waterfreons	Elsod beaches
    A. Batkground 14foensadon
    To holp us better understost) how difl.eret
    se5meonts Of the psoeslatis fool ahoul coastal
    davaloinnaet. the Plantning Of fine ...Id like
    a little lefonrmx0aouto  ol o",pas Your .ase is
    not seeded, all inforeo"tioe and Opinions Will
    hr trained masroonp inloan0nsie.
    iMeeE teinryamle 0
    2. L.ocation of hoa"----.---.-

    ,20515,29 0     overO  so
    33 10390
    4. What is yer saptis
    Are ymou eploYed in thit ercspations?
    Oyes Ono
    Are You employed in some oithor way'?

    S. Whast thse coast tstens to you.
    whOile ;Tis Is mPOrsoe to wteigh the nemds for
    Pusblic foilitim. for ocelsomic development
    aod   for  tlsviruitoeteelol  otassia    is
    trust not folnet the pmonaol plalum'soe,h
    Phyosical And niaetal well being that cot also
    be derived from their 5u50. The Planning
    Office nemch Is kbowmwhet value the coset ha,
    for you.
    6. How stony of the folleiowln activities do
    YOU engagte is	(pu an X cext to those you
    da anti then	loiceten .0ow	elton you  do
    thems).	i       f	pot, how many
    Vines, an the
    tsp	yet	average per month?
    go torthe bewcs	El
    00tlOhing          EJ	E
    go bamtiea	E3
    nonseeookeingat    l	E
    the waterfront
    other--.-          E      El

    6. Wfhics beathes did ynv to to in the past
    yeam?

    _mmmmm"Immftog
    Pi FA S.EFOLD ON 7-ISiMe-lsM R,N   -*WmMVANWMm

    I     reno 14 5  1
    iOteOhleAO,Oti
    L_J

    13.   DO  wet   h oe    ersoues,    or    do    -a    sneed   m ore
    Of the tlsllwing shorelo oses'icheck the
    position   th t    oot   closely	reflects	Yoo	a	r	u
    OllielOel ~ ~	~	~	~	Z        I	USINEBSSRIEPLY   MAIL.

    ttoo	oo	no	1*1s% Pi P Ov t	S?	i c S c , I M & "d .5 l i.  e r l A

    tescfs ~ ~	~       ~       ~	~	~	W G WIMsa	GitE	Opilel  W

    hoftls&	E	COASTAL ZONE
    condormioin"os
    cossor  auos e,of          El        E         E
    park (sods	MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    booeahat	0l	E	X	X	V.I.	Planll'ing Office
    tltht	Csii	, l	X	l	0~	P.O.	Box	26506

    IX]	El	IX]	E	St.	Thomas.	V.I.	00801

    t er ocks..~.      aX	El	X]	El.fAe' E	O R	IAPE   HeRE

    7. Which beach do you 9TO tomust ofteef

    a. ool is, yost mole. eoeoe Sac '301s9 thoe?
    (put an ?X "ees to aesty aevI

    to   wist,   El                          s o "limon" 0

    I
    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

    I
    ST. CROIX RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE
    PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION
    Protection*

    f (%)
    USE**
    Shoretype

    Conserv.
    f (%)

    29(4.4)

    103(15.7)

    36(5.5)

    11(1.7)

    97(14.7)

    99(15.1)

    39(5.9)

    20(3.0)

    13(2.0)

    22(3.3)

    35(5.3)

    9(1.4)

    72(10.9)

    30(4.6)

    43(6.5)
    Photo #
    Residential
    f (%)
    Ind.
    f (%)
    I
    Recr.
    f (%)
    Comm.
    f (%)
    53(8.1)

    23(3.5)

    72(11.0)

    4(0.6)

    8(1.2)

    13(2.0)

    17(2.6)

    8(1.2)
    9(1.4)

    43(6.5)

    56(8.5)

    10(1.5)

    49(7.4)

    16(2.4)

    70(10.6)

    8(1.2)
    12(1.9)

    179 (27.7)

    19(2.9)

    23(3.5)

    .12(1.9)

    202(31.3)

    37(5.8)

    30(4.6)

    13(2.0)

    12(1.9)

    16(2.5)

    15(2.3)

    52(8.0)

    17(2.6)

    9(1.4)
    24(3.7)

    12(1.8)

    13(2.0)

    235(36.0)

    13(2.0)

    11(1..)

    25(3.8)

    210(32.2)

    8(1.2)

    8(1.2)

    13(2.0)

    8(1.2)

    46(7.1)

    14(2.1)

    13(2.0)
    Steep Rocky
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor w/park

    Rocky Beach
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Industrial

    Mangroves
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor w/park

    Low Relief
    (undev.)

    Mangroves
    (dead)

    Steep Rocky
    (dev.)

    Sand Beach
    (undev.)

    Steep Rocky
    (undev.)

    Sand Beach
    (dev.)

    Salt Pond
    (undev.)

    Low Relief
    (undev.)

    Low Relief
    (undev.)
    24(3.4)

    75(10.8)

    69(9.9)

    15(2.1)

    49(7.0)

    65(9.3)

    27(3.9)

    11(1.6)

    11(1.6)

    117(16.8)

    39(5.6)

    90(12.9)

    10(1.4)

    49(7.0)

    47(6.7)
    1

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    6.

    7.

    8.

    9.

    10.

    11.

    12.

    13.

    14.

    15.
    201(30.9)

    23(3.5)

    53(8.1)

    121(18.6)

    8(1.2)

    21(3.2)

    28(4.3)
    5(0.8)

    215(32.5)

    15(2.3)

    98(14.9)

    14(2.1)

    19(2.9)

    32(5.1)
    653
    Totals   697
    (100.0)
    658
    659	648	651
    (100.0)	(100.0)	(100.0)
    (100.0)      (100.0)
    * 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).
    ** Question #17 - "Which types of areas might best be used for each of the following
    types of development?" (indicate up to two)

    86
    I

    TABLE 39
    ST. THOMAS RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION
    Photo #  Shoretype       Protection*                    USE**

    Conserv.	Recr.	Resi.	Comm.	Ind.
    f (%)       f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	. f (%)

    Developed:
    Herbor

    Rocky Beach
    (undev.)

    Salt Pond
    (undev.)

    Sand Beach
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Sand Beach
    (dev.)

    Steep Rocky
    (dev.)

    Mangroves
    (undev.)
    Sand Beach
    (dev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Steep Rocky
    (dev.)

    Steep Rocky
    (undev.)

    Salt Pond
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Mangroves
    (dev.)

    TOTALS
    18(3.5)

    24(4.7)

    32(6.3)

    85(16.8)

    20(3.9)

    65(12.8'

    14(2.8)

    68(13.5)

    50(9.8)

    18(3.5)

    23(4.5)

    19(3.7)

    26(5.1)

    30(5.8)

    17(3.3)

    j
    81(20.4)

    13(3.3)

    10(2.5)

    9(2.3)

    3(0.8)

    24(6.0)

    23(5.7)

    2(0.5)

    71(17.8)

    2(0.5)

    41(10.3)

    17(4.3)

    8(2.0)

    2(0.5)

    92(23.1)
    25(6.7)

    4(1.1)

    17(4.5)

    4(1.1)

    73(19.5)

    12(3.2)

    9(2.4)

    9(2.4)

    5(1.3)

    108 (28.9)

    22(5.9)

    7(1.9)

    12(3.2)

    51(13.6)

    7(1.9)
    11(3.6)

    13(4.2)

    36(11.9)

    4(1.3)

    66(21.9)

    11(3.6)

    12(4.0)

    5(1.7)

    8(2.6)

    29(9.6)

    2(0.7)

    18(5.9)

    41(13.5)

    46(15.2)

    1(0.3)
    2(0.6)

    37(10.3)

    37(10.3)

    59(16.5)

    23(6.4)

    8(2.2)

    8(2.2)

    73(20.4)

    7(1.9)

    13(3.6)

    15(4.2)

    39(10.9)

    34(8.5)

    2(0.6)

    3(0.8)
    9(2.3)

    22(5.8)

    18(4.7)

    112 (29.2)

    11(2.8)

    101(26.4)

    9(2.3)

    11(2.8)

    40(10.6)

    4(1.0)

    10(2.6)

    11(2.8)

    9(2.3)

    13(3.4)

    4(1.0)
    1

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    6.

    7.

    8.

    9.

    10.

    11.

    12.

    13.

    14.

    15.
    374
    303
    360
    386
    398
    509
    (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
    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)
    87

    TABLE 40

    ST. JOHN RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORETYPE

    I
    PROTECTION AND/OR UTILIZATION

    Photo #  Shoretype     Protection*	USE**

    Conserv.	Recr.	Resi.	C
    f (%)       f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f

    'omm. It
    - (%)       f

    1(2.1)

    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    1(2.1)

    29(60.3)

    0(0.0)

    1(2.1)

    o(0.0)

    2(4.2)

    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    8(16.7)

    2(4.2)

    4(8.3)

    o(o.0)

    nd.
    (%)
    o(o.0)

    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    1(2.3)

    0(0.0)

    2(4.7)

    12(27.8)

    o(o. 0)

    1(2.3)

    10(23.2)

    3(7.0)

    2(4.7)

    4(9.3)

    6(14.0)

    2(4.7)
    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    1(2.0)

    1(2.0)

    9 (18.0)

    1(2.0)

    3(6.0)

    1(2.0)

    1(2.0)

    20(40.0)

    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    11(22.0)

    0(0.0)

    2(4.0)
    0(0.0)

    1(1.8)

    0(0.0)

    2(3.5)

    6(10.5)

    1(1.8)

    1(1.8)

    2(3.5)

    2(3.5)

    12(21.1)

    0(0.0)

    18(31.5)

    2(3.5)

    0(0.0)

    10(17.5)
    12(23.5)

    5(9.8)

    4(7.8)

    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    1(2.0)

    1(2.0)

    2(3.9)

    17(33.3)

    0(0.0)

    0(0.0)

    2(3.9)

    0(0.0)

    6(11.8)

    1(2.0)

    a I
    2(4.4)

    3(6.6)

    7(15.6)

    2(4.4)

    5(11.2)

    3(6.6)

    3(6.6)

    9(20.2)

    2(4.4)

    0(0.0)

    2(4.4)

    7(15.6)

    0(0.0)

    o(.o0)

    0(0.0)
    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    6.

    7.

    8.

    9.

    10.

    11.

    12.

    13.

    14.

    15.
    Steep Rocky
    (dev.)

    Steep Rocky
    (dev.)

    Salt Pond
    (dev.)

    Mangroves
    (dev.)

    Sand Beach
    (dev.)

    Salt Pond
    (undev.)

    Mangroves
    (undev.)

    Rocky Beach
    (undev.)
    Salt Pond
    (dev.)

    Sand Beach
    (undev.)

    Steep Rocky
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Sand Beach
    (undev.)

    Developed:
    Harbor

    Steep Rocky
    (undev.)

    TOTALS
    50
    48
    45
    57
    (100.0)
    43
    51
    (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

    I
    4

    TABLE 41
    ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT
    BY SURVEY SUB-AREA (Question #9)

    Sub-island           N       Indust. j  Comm._          Resi.       Recreat.      onserv.

    Planning Area                    a emphacizina   (% emDhasizina 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(20.0)	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)	52.4(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)
    East 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 Bay	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 tQuestion #10)

    Sub-island            N	Hvy. Mfgj  Light Mfg.  Agricul. jTourism    IFishing
    Planning  Area	% emphasizing	(% emphasizin  first)
    Planning Area	% emphasizing	(% emphasizing first)*
    44.2(5.8)
    60.0(12.0)
    25.0(25.0)
    71.4(4.8)
    58.2(12.5)
    47.6(4.8)
    56.7(7.1)
    83.9 (6.5)
    45.0(2.5)
    59.3(32.7)
    72.0(44.0)
    50.0(0.0)
    71.4(52.4)
    45.8(16.7)
    77.3(36.4)
    72.7(27.3)
    67.7(61.3)
    65.0(27.5)

    74.3 (28.5)
    62.1(17.2)
    61.0(17.9)
    65.4(17.2)
    54.8(19.0)
    56.5(8.7)
    55.6(11.1)

    32.9(16.7)
    45.5(9.1)

    63.8(26.6)
    88.5(23.1)
    96.0(32,.0)
    100.0(25.0)
    81.0 (23.8)
    70.8(12.5)
    68.2(18.2)
    93.8(47.3)'
    87.1(12.9)
    80.0(22.5)

    94.4(47.2)
    86.2(44.8)
    82.1(43.6)
    79.3(31.0)
    73.8(14.3)
    100.0(56.5)
    81.5(44.4)

    79.1(16.3)
    90.9 (54.5)

    86.9(35.1)
    Frederiksted
    (Harrigan Court.)
    Northside
    Grove Place
    Southside
    East End
    Christiansted
    (LBJ Gardens)
    Central

    Charlotte Amalie
    (Kirwin Terrace)
    West End
    Northside
    New Quarter
    East End
    Frenchman's Bay

    Cruz Bay
    Coral Bay/country
    TOTALS*
    52
    25
    4
    21
    24
    22
    129
    31
    40

    144
    29
    39
    29
    42
    23
    27

    43
    11
    38.5(25.0)
    52.0(8.0)
    50.0 (50.0)
    61.9 (19.0)
    50.0 (33.3)
    22.7(13.6)
    26.4(5. 4)
    22.6(16.1)
    47.5(30.0)

    22.9 (13.2)
    41.4(6.9)
    25.6(10.3)
    13.8(10,3)
    16.7 (2.4)
    34.8 (8.7)
    7.4(0.0)

    14.0(4.7)
    9.1(0.0)

    28.3 (12.1)
    69.2 (13.5)
    20.0(4.0)
    75.0(0.0)
    14.3(0.0)
    75.0(25.0)
    77.3 (27.3)
    50.4(13.2)
    38.7(3.2)
    62.5(17.5)

    43.7(6.9)
    75.9(27.6)
    71.8(17.9)
    62.1(20.7)
    73.8(31.0)
    72.7 (13.6)
    77.8 (40.7)

    76.7(32.6)
    81.8(27.3)

    57.9(16.3)
    60.4(3.5)
    27.6(0.0)
    59.0(10.3)
    75.9(20.7)
    78.4(33.3)
    31.8(13.6)
    66.7(0.0)

    71.4 (33.3)
    63.6(9.1)

    58.8(9.7)
    735

    * Up to three Uses could be emphasized, thus ma:
    300%. First priorities, however, total 100%.
    ximum total percentages could equal

    TABLE 43
    ATTITUDES TOWARDS COASTAL RECREATIONAL
    OPPORTUNITIES BY SURVEY SUB-AREA (Question #13)
    Public	IPublic	Boating	Fishing	Underwater	Waterfront
    Sub-island           N    Beach Ac	Beach Fac	Fac.	Piers	Park	Park

    Planning Area	% emDhasizina*

    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	81.0	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	80.0

    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
    300%.
    TABLE 44

    PERCEPTIONS OF THE V.I.'s THREE MOST IMPORTANT
    COASTAL PROBLEMS BY SURVEY SUB-AREA (Question #18)

    Beach   Water	Loss of    I	Sand
    Sub-island         N   Access Pollution  Flooding	Natural Areas	Removal  Less Fish

    Planning Area                 % considering important*

    l
    72.5
    84.0
    0.0
    81.0
    54.5
    47.6
    72.1
    46.7
    67.5

    23.2
    48.3
    40.5
    65.5
    63.4
    78.3
    77.8

    78.5
    50.0

    57.6
    Frederiksted
    (Harrigan Conrt)
    No'rthside
    Grove Place
    Southside
    East End
    Christiansted
    (LBJ Gardens)
    Central

    Charlotte Amalie
    (Kirwin Terrace)
    West End
    Northside
    New Quarter
    East End
    Frenchman's Bay
    51
    25
    4
    21
    23
    22
    L28
    30
    40

    !37
    29
    38
    29
    41
    23
    27
    33.3
    24.0
    75.0
    42.9
    60.9
    27 .3
    74.2
    80.0
    42.5

    25.5
    69.0
    42.1
    27.6
    29.3
    39.1
    25.9

    69.0
    25.0

    45.8
    80.4
    76.0
    50.0
    76.2
    65.2
    72.7
    49.6
    76.7
    90.0

    86.2
    96.6
    94.7
    79.3
    90.2
    69.6
    88.9

    67.4
    75.0
    13.7
    4.0
    25.0
    0.0
    4.3
    4.5
    3.9
    13.3
    20.0

    62.0
    3.4
    8.1
    6.9
    19.5
    8.7
    7.4

    23.3
    41.7

    20.2
    56.9
    56.0
    100.0
    61.9
    59.1
    90. 9
    58.3
    73.3
    40.0

    59.9
    69.0
    55.6
    58.6
    53.7
    26.1
    66.7

    36.5
    83.3

    57.9
    43.1
    66.0
    50.0
    38.1
    54.5
    45.5
    42.6
    10.0
    40.0

    34.1
    13.8
    47.2
    58.6
    39.0
    43.5
    25.9

    23.8
    8.3

    37.6
    Cruz Bay           42
    Coral Bay/country 12
    TOTAL*
    722
    76.3
    could be mentionned, thus maximum total percentages could
    * Up to three problems
    equal 3002.

    TABLE 45
    COMPLETE TABULATION OF RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS-

    St. Thomas

    Issue-oriented comments:

    1. There should be no private ownership of beaches.
    2. All shoreline areas should be protected.
    3. Development is the Territory's biggest coastal
    problem.
    4. Protect Magens Bay!
    S. Sailing is a major tourist attraction.
    6. Restrict new development in areas which are already
    highly developed.
    7. Destruction of historic and archaeological resources
    is a major problem.
    8. Shorelines should be protected by requiring develop-
    ment (especially industry) to be set back from the
    water.
    9. The Virgin Islands has the potential to be the under-
    water capital of the world.
    10. Camping facilities would be a good coastal recreational
    development.
    11. Providing for one's family is the most important problem
    in the Territory.
    12. Protect the shoreline for the people!
    13. Our coastal waters are our greatest resource, and
    provide the basis for our economy.
    14. All coastal areas should be protected from over-
    development'
    15. Promote the rum industry.
    16. Free the beaches.
    17. Over-development in Cowpet Bay.
    18. Keep the beaches clean.
    19. Industrial or residential use of the coast should not
    be encouraged.
    20. No more industry.
    21. No more conservation.
    22. Our waters are beautiful -- prevent pollution.
    23. Develop watersports programs: swimming,
    snorkeling, sailing & waterskiing.
    24. Clean up the beaches.
    25. People are the coast's worst enemy.
    26. No more coastal industry; don't overdo coastal
    commerce and locate residential development
    inland.
    27. I hate to see hotels restrict beach access to
    native Virgin islanders.
    28. New industrial development should go inland.
    29. Development of coastal resources should be directed
    towards the creation of jobs.
    30. We need to encourage the shipping industry.
    31. No more industry along the shoreline.
    32. Above all else, preserve the mangrove lagoon.
    33. Mariculture and fish hatcheries should be
    developed.
    34. There is too much boating on the East End; this is
    ca~using water pollution.
    35. Preserve natural areas and beach access.
    36. Keep our waters beautiful!
    37. Create waterfront parks -- old people need a place
    to relax too!
    38. Commercial and industrial development should be
    encouraged at Red Hook.
    39. Free the beaches -- too many are privately owned.
    40.. Keep our waters pretty.
    41. All of the shoreline is beautiful -- and should be
    protected from over development.
    42. Develop picnic facilities on the cays.
    I

    I

    I
    91

    Comments on the survey:

    1.	Going to the people is an excellent idea.
    2.	I amn glad to see that coastal planning is being done.
    3.	Action!
    4.	Make survey findings public.
    S.	We need to study the long-range implications of
    growth.
    6.  The survey is a good idea, but the questions beat
    around the bush.
    7.	The islands are small and time is short.
    8.	I hope the survey is fruitful and the results will
    be made available.
    9.  The Legislature does not show enough interest in
    this kind of thing.
    10.	Publish the results.
    11.	It is about time we start protecting the Territory's
    natural resources and beauty.
    12.	There is a lot of work to be done.
    13.	Surveys!  Do something!
    14-27. The survey is a good idea.
    I

    I
    St. Croix

    Issue-oriented comments:
    1. Create a shoreline drive from Christiansted to
    the East End.
    2. The shoreline should be developed.
    3. I am very concerned about coastal ecology.
    4. Marinas and coastal industry should be encouraged.
    5. Many residents have no means of getting to the beach.
    Public transportation should be improved.
    6. Shoreline protection from over development is needed
    to preserve public access.
    7. Shoreline areas should be protected so natives and
    .touri,sts both can enjoy them.
    B. Littering of beaches is a major problem.
    9. Encourage marine research.
    10. I hope something will be done with waterfront areas.
    11. Safety is a major coastal problem.
    12. Protecting shoreline areas from over development is
    for the good of the community.

    Comments on the survey:
    I1

    2- 28

    29&30 .
    This survey is a very good idea
    The survey is very interesting and/or informational.
    I hope the program materializes.
    St. John

    Issue-oriented comments:
    I. Protect Mary Point
    2. Protect all shorelines from over development.
    3. Second home development is acceptable, but no
    condominiums!

    92
    I

    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
    High School
    Advanced
    Totals
    1.8%
    4.5
    6.5
    12.8
    (14.5)
    (34.9)
    (50.6)
    (100.0)
    6.8%	(24.0)
    10.1	(36.1)
    11.2	(39.9)
    28.1 (100.0)
    18.7%
    24.9
    15.5
    59.1
    (31.7)
    (42.1)
    (26.2)
    (100.0)
    TABLE 47
    AGE AS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCY*
    0-5 Yrs. Here
    6-15 Yrs. Here
    Age
    16+ Yrs. Here
    18-39 Yrs.
    40-59 Yrs.
    60+ Yrs.
    Totals
    4.3%	(33.7)
    7.7	(60.3)
    0.8	( 6.0)
    12.8 (100.0)
    16.2% (57.1)
    9.7	(34.2)
    2.5	( 8.7)
    28.4 (100.0)
    27.9% (47.5)
    23.2	(39.4)
    7.7	(13.1)
    58.8 (100.0)
    * Figures are
    Parentheses
    category.
    frequency percentages of the total sample.
    indicate frequency percentages of each residency
    93

    CROSS-TABULATION OF NON-PHOTO QUESTIONS
    WITH EDUCATIONAL DATA
    TABLE 49
    TABLE 48
    ATTITUDES TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
    BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL*
    ATTITUDES TOWARD OVER-ALL SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT
    BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS*
    St. Croix St. Thomas
    1st. Priority
    Ed. Level
    St. John
    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	393	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
    X2=	2.01	1.38
    1st Priority
    Ed. Level
    St. Croix St. Thomas

    Industry        Elementary	42.7%	43.8%	50.0%
    High School	40.0	39.7	25.0
    Advanced	17.3	16.4	25.0
    N=	75	12	4
    X2=	11.86**	2.72
    Commerce        Elementary	41.5%	28.6%	26.7%
    High School	36.6	46.9	53.3
    Advanced	22.0	24.5	20.0
    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=	71	90	13
    X2=	6.66**	22.53**
    * Question #10, first choice responses only, by Question
    #21.
    ** Indicates x2 values for which PI 0.05.
    * Question #9, first choice responses only, by question
    #21.
    ** Indicates X2 values for which p- 0.05
    ..... _    -      m     w L
    1 __.            ---

    TABLE 50
    ATTITUDES TOWARDS SHORELINE PROTECTION
    -BY EDUCATIONAL LEVELS*
    Response
    Ed. Level   St. Croix
    St. Thomas
    St. John

    Yes          Elementary.	16.0%	16.2%	27.7%
    High School	38.5	42.9	48.9
    Advanced	45.5	40.9	23.4
    N=                ,231	198	47
    No           Elementary	32.1%	33.3%	0.0%
    High School	53.6	33.3	0.0
    Advanced	14.3	33.3	100.0
    N=	28	21	1
    No opinion   Elementary	58.6	22.9	100.0
    High School	32.2	6A4.6	0.0
    Advanced	9.2	12.5	0.0
    N=	87	48	4
    X2=	71.67**	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
    N=               ,	192	102	30
    X2=	0.47	0.72
    Water Pollution  Elementary	26.7%	21.9%	33.3%
    High School	40.1	43.4	38.9
    Advanced	33.2	34.7	27.8
    N=	232	265	36
    X2=	0.29	1.44
    Flooding          Elementary	10.7%	36.2%	42.9%
    High School	64.3	46.8	42.9
    Advanced	25.0	17.0	14.3
    N=	28	94	14
    x2=	8.43**	11.89**
    Loss of
    Natural areas    Elementary	28.1%	17.3%	18.9%
    High School	34.6	38.8	56.8
    Advanced	37.2	43.9	24.3
    N=	231	139	37
    X2=	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
    N=	142	109	11
    X2=	2.11	0.48
    * Question #18 by question #21
    ** Indicates x2 values for which p! 0.05.

    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
    I
    I
    I
    OTHER DATA OBTAINABLE
    1
    4
    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. These 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.

    9 6
    I
    4
    4
    4

    Appendix D

    NEWSPAPER SURVEY DATA: Tabulations for all Questions

    p
    97

    4
    TABLE 52

    DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR NEWSPAPER RESPONDENTS*
    St. Croix St. Thomas St. John
    Territory

    154
    Total Respondents
    69
    82
    3
    Question
    1.  Sex

    male
    female
    39
    30
    49
    33
    2
    1
    90(58.4%)
    64(41.6)

    4(2.7%)
    30(20.0)
    47(31.3)
    31(20.7)
    38(25.3)
    2. Age

    up to 19 yrs.
    20-29 yrS.
    30-39 yrs.
    40-49 yrs.
    50= yrs.
    3
    18
    25
    14
    20
    0
    1
    0
    1
    1
    11
    22
    16
    18
    A
    I
    3. Location of home -

    4. Occupation

    white collar
    blue collar
    Service
    housewife
    student
    retired
    none
    Response specificity varied so much
    that coding was impractical.

    42	56	2	100(66.7%)
    4	3	0	7(4.7)
    7	9	1	17(11.3)
    4	2	0	6(4.0)
    8	7	0	15(10.0)
    1	2	0	3(2.0)
    2	0	0	2(1.3)
    A
    * Data are response frequencies, with frequency
    for the total sample in parenthesis.
    percentages
    98

    PERSONAL USE OF COASTAL AREAS

    TABLE,53
    COASTAL ACTIVITIES (Question #5)

    Number of Users
    Activity
    aver. times
    per month
    St. Croix St. Thomas St. John
    Territory
    go to the
    beach

    go fishing

    go boating

    waterfront
    marketing
    67

    25

    34

    16
    72

    24

    50
    3

    3

    3
    139

    49

    84

    40
    7

    3-4

    4-5

    4-5
    24
    2
    % responding
    98.6
    100.0
    100.0
    99.4
    TABLE 54
    BEACH ACTIVITIES (Question #8)

    Number of Participants
    Activity

    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
    99

    TABLE 55

    BEACH USE (Questions 6, 7, 10)
    St. Croix
    Used most
    often by
    Not used by

    6
    3
    9
    1

    2

    2

    1

    2
    2
    1

    1

    1
    Used bV
    Beach
    4
    Davis Bay
    Cramer Park
    Sandy Point
    Tague Bay/reef/yacht club
    Green Cay
    Buck Island
    Cane Bay
    Frederikstee
    Jack Bay
    Pelican Cove
    Hgpenny 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
    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
    % responding
    22
    22
    17
    11
    11
    10
    10
    9
    8
    7
    6
    5
    5
    5
    4
    4
    4
    3
    .3
    3
    3
    3
    3
    3
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    2
    10
    2
    2
    2
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    3
    2
    3
    5
    2
    4
    4
    5

    2
    4
    2
    1

    3
    2
    1
    3
    2
    1
    I
    .4
    I
    i
    1
    1
    2
    2
    2
    1
    1
    2

    1
    1

    3

    2
    1
    I
    1
    1
    1
    3
    3
    3
    2
    1
    1
    1

    I
    1
    1
    85.5
    87.0
    65.2
    100

    Beaches Used: St. Thomas
    Beach
    Used by

    67
    36
    26
    22
    20
    19
    16
    16
    14
    14
    12
    10
    10
    8
    7
    6
    5
    5
    4
    3
    3
    2
    2
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    Used most by
    Not used by

    1
    4
    5

    1
    4

    3
    1
    8
    1
    10
    10
    8

    3
    4
    6
    1
    1
    2
    1
    3

    4

    1
    1
    1
    1
    Magens Bay
    Coki Point
    Sapphire Bay
    Lindberg Bay
    Brewers Bay
    Hull Bay
    Vessup Bay
    Secret Harbor
    Limetree Bay
    Morning Star Beach
    Cowpet Bay/yacht club
    Mandal Bay
    Stumpy Bay
    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
    Perseverence Bay
    Nazareth Bay
    27
    6

    4
    4
    6
    6

    5
    4
    7

    3
    %responding
    98.8
    62.2
    92.7
    Beaches Used: St. John
    Beach	Used by   Used most By  Not used by

    Trunk Bay	3	1
    Hawksnest Bay	1	1
    Cinnamon Bay	1
    Chocolate Hole	1
    Lameshur Bay	1
    Salt Pond Bay	1
    Rendez-vous Bay	1
    Magens Bay, St. Thomas	1
    Coki Point  " ."	1
    Bluebeard's Beach, St. Thomas	1
    Maho Bay	1
    Peter Bay	1
    Denis Bay	1

    % responding                    66.7          66.7	100.0
    101

    TABLE 56
    EXISTENCE OF UNUSED, BUT DESIRED BEACHES (Question #9)
    St. Thomas    St. John  1
    Territory
    St. Croix

    I1
    97
    53
    45
    23
    51
    29
    yes
    no
    66.7     1     97.4
    % responding 98.6
    97.6
    TABLE 57
    NOT USING PARTICULAR BEACHES (Question #11)
    REASONS FOR

    Reason                 St. Croix  St. Thomas  St. John  Territory

    no road access	14	25	0	39
    exclusively private	13	22	1	36
    no facilities	8	12	0	20
    safety	12	5	0	17
    transportation	5	6	0	11
    expense	4	5	0	9
    % 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	0	21
    Cruise ships	12	30	0	42
    Public beaches	41	67	3	111
    Hotels/condominium	22	18	0	40
    Freight docks	9	9	0	18
    Marinas	20	29	1	50
    Shops/restaurant	3	2	0	5
    Conservation/parks	44	60	3	107
    Public utilities	2	6	0	8

    % 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
    8
    43
    1
    42
    0
    9
    17
    14
    7
    68
    75
    12
    64
    49
    64
    80
    65
    71
    47
    19
    123
    20
    82
    31
    18
    22
    36
    10
    15
    2
    8
    -1
    14
    10
    24
    3
    Marinas
    Hotel/condominiums
    Conservation/park
    Industry
    Public beaches
    Freight docks
    Shops/restaurants
    Utilities
    Cruiseship docks
    % responding territory wide = 95.5
    102

    ~fPOPELINE U'TILIZATION'

    TABLE 60

    ISHORETYPES SUITE FOR INTENS IV'E DEVELOPME'N'T (Question. #14)

    St. Croix :St. Thomas

    St4 John~ Territory
    ShoretIype~
    Sana beache's
    Low rocky relief
    IMangroves
    Salt ponds
    IGravel & rock-y beaches
    Steep rc6ky shote's
    DevelopeOd shores

    % resp~onding
    1 4	7
    24	27
    12	13
    1 6	17
    1 2	29
    22	25
    25	3 3
    0
    1
    0
    0
    0
    2
    0
    21
    52
    25
    33
    41
    49
    58
    82.6
    89.0
    66 .7
    85 .7
    TABLE 61

    SHORETYPES NEEtDING PROTECTIO'N FROM INTENqSIVE DEVELOPMENT (Questi6n #15)

    Shoret4ype  -~St, Cti    t   hotR   t ohn  Terrtr
    Satfd bieacrhe
    Magk'roe sU~

    G4l& roeky be&te
    DevOoped shorees
    % re6pondin
    51	61	3
    42	42	3
    43	33	3
    12	15	1
    11       .	.	I I 1
    13	13	~ I     0
    ~-    :.
    115

    28
    21
    26
    8-5
    .5
    so. 0      106. 0
    87.47
    '

    SEORSTYPE~~~ NEDN   RTCINFOMALDVLPET(ustion.,#1)

    S::.~t .- Croix   St.  lYoifa   St4Jo hn  Territorcy

    Shoretype
    11.~
    II _: - - _-- ---- I.
    45            5

    114                          0
    99
    -20Q
    7 8
    7 6
    25
    i't
    Sand beaiches,
    Lbrto5  rea li'ef

    M~~~~atgrpes

    DeVeloped shrs

    % respbt6ihYq
    fb0o.o
    85 . 7
     2'.-6'
    "ib