[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