A Descriptive Cross-sectional Research Study of the U.S. and British Virgin
Islands: a Closer Look at the Local Participation, Experiential Social Learning,
and Survey Participant Demographics Relating to Attitudes About Coral Reefs
and Nature After Visits to Coral Reefs with Local Ecotourism Businesses
by
Elena Kobrinski
A THESIS
submitted to the
University of the Virgin Islands
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented June 11, 2013
Commencement December, 2013
© by Elena Kobrinski
June 11, 2013
All Rights Reserved
Factors, i.e., groups of statements, within clusters showed significant differences
(Mann-Whitney U Test, p< .001) between mean scores in Factors One and Two
within Clusters One, Two and Three with significantly more positive answers to
statements phrased in terms of benefits than those phrased in terms of problems.
Means in answers to statements ranged from .71 to 1.41 for Factor One (Benefits)
and .20 to 1.30 for Factor Two (Problems) on a five-point Likert scale (-2
(strongly disagree), -1 (disagree), 0 (neutral), 1 (agree), 2 (strongly agree)).
Overall, most participants have strong environmental views. Increasing local
participation by encouraging trips out to the reefs with local businesses could
create an environment for experiential social learning, which could motivate the
community to become more involved in integrated coastal zone management,
encouraging a bottom-up approach and potentially strengthening social-ecological
resilience.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thesis Committee:
o Dr. Kostas Alexandridis
Assistant Professor of Marine and Environmental Science
Institute for Geocomputational Analysis and Statistics (GeoCAS)
Center for Marine and Environmental Studies
University of the Virgin Islands
2 John Brewers Bay, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
o Dr. Teresa Turner
Professor of Marine Biology
Center for Marine and Environmental Studies
University of the Virgin Islands
2 John Brewers Bay, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
o Dr. Kim Waddell
Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board
National Research Council
500 5th St. NW, Keck 649
Washington, DC 20001

With special thanks to:
o Ms. Leslie M. Henderson, Master of Marine and Environmental Science
Graduate, University of the Virgin Islands, 2012
o Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, ELITE Graduate Program

Funding opportunities provided by:

The National Science Foundation:
 The role of experiential social learning in achieving
semantic transformations in community attitudes, beliefs
and behaviors towards coral reef resilience.
October 2010 – December 2011.
 The Use of Creative Problem Solving as Curriculum
Enhancement to Improve Cognitive, Behavioral, and Social
Transformation in STEM retention.
January – July 2012.
 Living on Earth III: Social-Ecological Systems Workshop
2012. August – December 2012.

The Lana Vento Fund, 2011 – 2012.

Thank you to the following businesses of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands
that contributed to data collection:
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands:
Heavenly Days Catamaran Tours at Bolongo Bay
Castaway Girl
Coki Beach Dive Club
Coral World
Fury Sailing Charters
St. Thomas Diving Club
The Cat at Marriott Frenchman's Reef
Virgin Islands Ecotours
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands:
Calypso Charters
Cruz Bay Watersports
Kekoa Sailing Expeditions
Virgin Islands Environmental Resource Station (VIERS)
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands:
Cap'n Big Beards Adventure Tours
Jolly Roger Charters
St. Croix Ultimate Bluewater Adventures
St. Croix Water Sports Center
Tortola, British Virgin Islands:
Aristocat Day Sails
Blue Water Divers
Daysail Kuralu
We Be Divin’
Virgin Gorda, British Virgin Islands:
Dive BVI
Double 'D' Charters
National Parks Trust of the British Virgin Islands
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
1
Methods
14
Background of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands
14
The Study Site
16
Method of Data Collection
17
The Survey Instrument, Design and Analysis
23
Results
27
Description of the Sample: Demographics (Section (4))
27
Description of Survey Section (1): Attitudes about Corals
29
Description of the Survey Section (2): Attitudes about Nature
31
Description of the Survey Section (3): Importance Ranking
32
Research Question Part A: Local Participation
33
Research Question Part B: Experiential Social Learning
37
Research Question Part C: Demographics; Attitudes about
Coral and Nature
40
Cluster Analysis: Demographics
40
Factor Analysis: Section (1): Attitudes about Corals
43
Factor Analysis: Section (1): Attitudes about Corals: Factor
One: Benefits
44
Factor Analysis: Section (1): Attitudes about Corals: Factor
Two: Problems
45
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Factors within Clusters, Section (1), Attitudes about Corals
46
Clusters within Factors, Section (1), Attitudes about Corals
47
Comparison of the Total Means of Clusters One and Two,
One and Three, and Two and Three, Section (2): Attitudes
About Nature
48
Discussion
49
Description of the Sample: Demographics
49
Research Question Part A: Local Participation
50
Research Question Part B: Experiential Social Learning
52
Research Question Part C: Attitudes about Coral and Nature
52
Conclusion
54
Environmental Communication
56
The Potential for Future Studies
59
Bibliography
60
Appendices
69
Appendix A: Survey Form
70
Appendix B: Previous approaches to survey data collection,
Needham et al.
74
Appendix C: Data Collection Details
77
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5
14
16
18
32
Global locations of valued coral reef sites
Map of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands
Maps of business locations, U.S. and British Virgin Islands
Model of the Survey Data Collection Process
Importance ranking
Survey participant answers to statement: “We can do without big
tourism industry if that is what it takes to have a better marine
environment.” Section (1), Attitudes about Corals (all participants
response)
7. Survey participant answers to statement: “We can do without big
tourism industry if that is what it takes to have a better marine
environment.” Section (1), Attitudes about Corals (local response)
8. Survey participant answers to the statement: “I will enjoy the natural
environment in the island, even if not much is done to protect it.”
Section One, Attitudes about Corals (all participant response)
9. Survey participant answers to the statement: “I will enjoy the natural
environment in the island, even if not much is done to protect it.”
Section One, Attitudes about Corals (local response)
10. Survey participant answers to the statement: “The Earth’s resources,
such as minerals, forests, and fisheries, should be used as little as
possible.” Section Two, Attitudes about Nature (all participants
response)
11. Survey participant answers to the statement: “The Earth’s resources,
such as minerals, forests, and fisheries, should be used as little as
possible.” Section Two, Attitudes about Nature (local response)
12. Survey participants’ prior visits to a coral reef.
13. How often survey participants have visited a coral reef
14. Part B importance ranking
15. Density of survey participants and where they are from in the
United States
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
38
39
49
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Survey data collection summary, U.S. and British Virgin Islands,
August 13, 2011 – April 1, 2012
2. Businesses that Participated in the Study, U.S. and British Virgin
Islands, August 2011 – April 2012
3. Demographic information from the participant surveys (Section (4)
4. Means and standard deviations of the answers to variables in
participant survey Section (1): Attitudes about Coral,
in order of ranking
5. Means and standard deviations of the answers to variables in
participant survey Section (2): Attitudes about Nature,
in order of ranking
6. Cluster analysis using age, education and income survey instrument
results
7. Rotated factor matrix loadings - principal axis factoring, Section (1),
Attitudes about Corals
8. Statements identified in Factor One, benefits, Section (1), Attitudes
about Corals, including means and standard deviations
9. Statements identified in Factor Two, problems, Section (1),
Attitudes about Corals, including means and standard deviations
10. Difference in total mean scores, Factors One and Two within
Cluster One, Two and Three, Section (1), Attitudes about Corals
11. Difference in total mean scores, Clusters One and Two, Clusters Two
and Three, and Clusters One and Three within Factors One and Two,
Section (1), Attitudes about Corals
12. Difference in total mean scores between Clusters One and Two,
Clusters Two and Three, and Clusters One and Three. Section (2),
Attitudes about Nature
Page
19
20
27
30
31
40
43
44
45
46
47
48
DEDICATION
To Dr. Elinor Ostrom
August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012
A Descriptive Cross-sectional Research Study of the U.S. and British Virgin
Islands: a Closer Look at the Local Participation, Experiential Social Learning,
and Survey Participant Demographics Relating to Attitudes About Coral Reefs
and Nature After Visits to Coral Reefs with Local Ecotourism Businesses
INTRODUCTION
In the Spring of 2011, a group of college-aged students went out to snorkel
the coral reefs near St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on a boat hosted by the
University of the Virgin Islands. Some of them had never been in the water
before, nor had they ever been on a boat. Researchers made a concerted effort to
fill this free excursion. In the following Summer of the same year, another trip
went to the same coral reefs, and it was filled to over capacity days before the
event. The same method of advertisement was used for both excursions – simple
flyers posted on bulletin boards around campus.
What would cause this sudden interest and increase in attendance?
Somehow, a transformation happened that first day on the water to those that
participated. In simplest terms, they saw – some for the first time – what lies
below the surface of the ocean. Some of the participants were terrified to get in
the water, later to realize that they did not want to get out. The excitement
elevated to a higher level when the students were photographed and videotaped to
record impressions of their experience. One student even claimed that he was
going to switch his major from business to marine science. Afterward, they
shared their experiences with friends and family, prompting an over-booked
second trip.
To the researchers, this phenomenon was profound. Curiosity was piqued
and this research study followed shortly thereafter, designed to take a closer look
at local businesses hosting visits to the coral reefs in the U.S. (USVI) and British
Virgin Islands (BVI).
Of the many questions that arose from this first initial response, three
questions became the most prevalent, and are described in detail below. This
study then ensued, and after surveying almost 300 participants visiting the reefs,
the results are reported herein.
2
The first question addressed local participation (hereafter, Part A: Local
Participation). The two trips held in the Spring and Summer of 2011 were college
students that were almost all from the U.S. Virgin Islands, prompting this
question on a broader scale: Were there locals (those living in the Virgin Islands
more than 10 years) going out on boats with tourism operators elsewhere in the
community of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands? If so, would the same wordof-mouth phenomenon occur? The hypothesis was that there were little to no
locals going out on trips with local businesses. The second question addressed
experiential social learning, in relation to what appeared to be happening on the
initial trips (hereafter, Part B: Experiential Social Learning). Were the students
learning from others and from the coral reefs when they came to the surface,
clearly changed from the experience? Was this occurring elsewhere in the
islands? Third and finally, and to gain more insight into the demographics of
those that were visiting coral reefs of the Virgin Islands at the time of the study
(Fall, 2011 – Spring, 2012): The participants were asked to provide their gender,
age, education and income level. These demographics were then applied to two
sections of the survey measuring attitudes about coral and nature (hereinafter,
Part C: Demographics; Attitudes about Coral and Nature). This was a broadbased question designed to look at the demographics compared to the results of
the answers to statements in Sections (1) and (2). In light of the cross-sectional
research study approach, this question was open-ended and there was no
hypothesis.
But why would it matter if people were inspired by putting a mask on and
looking at coral reefs of the ocean? Why would experiencing this with others be
significant or beneficial, and to whom? Why would it be important to share the
outcome of this research with a larger audience? Why is social learning
important, especially in this coral reef environment?
These questions (along with many others) were inspired by observing the
initial reaction from the students in the ocean for the first time, and from the
researchers’ perspective were of high interest because of the steady decline of
3
coral reef health, locally and globally. To elaborate, Reed et al. (2010) described
social learning in the following passage:
…a change in understanding that goes beyond the individual to become
situated within wider social units or communities of practice through
social interactions between actors within social networks (Reed et al. p. 6).
Social experiential learning can often occur when people go snorkeling on
coral reefs in groups (personal observation, emphasis added). Settar and Turner
(2010) stated: “The more a person is in the water and physically experiencing a
coral reef environment, then the more curiosity is spurred, and this possibly even
induces concern, and therefore positive actions towards the reef” (p. 208). In
addition, there are conditions identified by social learning theory that can assist in
studying social learning collective behaviors. Albert Bandura (1971) proposed
that observational learning can occur in relation to models in three ways: (1) live
model, (2) verbal instruction and (3) symbolic. A live model is a person
performing the behavior, verbal instruction is teaching another individual a
behavior, and symbolic is when a fictional character describes the behavior. It is
important to look for all three of these conditions when studying social learning
collective behaviors.
Circling back to Settar and Turner’s (2010) emphasis of inspiring
“positive actions toward the reef” through “physically experiencing a coral reef
environment”, (p. 208), why coral reefs? Why would this type of human
interaction be so important to this delicate marine ecosystem? Because reefs are
an integral part of a thriving marine community, and many depend on their
survival, ecologically and economically, on a global scale. Any chance to allow
community members to experience them and see their beauty should be honed in
on, embraced, and promoted.
In 2006, Walker and Salt called the coral reefs of the Caribbean “the
jewel of the Caribbean crown”.
4
Threading their way along thousands of kilometers of coastline, the coral
ecosystems not only provide food for millions of people, they also protect
coastlines from the worst ravages of storms and create much of the sand
for the regions’s beautiful beaches. Possibly their most important role,
however, is their pulling power for a thriving tourism industry, the
region’s most important economic sector. It’s difficult to think how an
ecosystem could be of more direct value to its people. … And yet, for all
of its importance to the region’s prosperity and future, the coral reefs of
the Caribbean are in severe decline and most of the available evidence
suggests it is people that are killing them. (p. 64, emphasis added).
Globally, approximately 850 million people live within 100 km of the
reefs, and more than 275 million live in the direct vicinity of coral reefs. The
most reef-dependent areas are small-island states, especially those located in the
Pacific and Caribbean. Over 94 countries benefit from the tourism that is built on
reef visits, and more than 150,000 km of shoreline in approximately 100 countries
and territories are protected by the reefs (Burke et al. 2011). Given these
statistics, why does the evidence suggest (Walker and Salt 2006) that people are
killing the environment that supports them? Furthermore, the value of coral reefs
seems to elude policy and decision-makers. “If these decision makers were more
aware of the amount of capital that healthy reefs can bring to the economy in
terms of tourism, fisheries, coastal protection and biodiversity, a more concerted
and united management effort would be possible” (Cesar et al. 2003). The paper
goes on further to describe coral reef decline and the economic valuation of this
loss through tourism overuse, destructive fishing, runoff and land-based pollution,
and coral bleaching and climate change (Cesar et al. 2003).
To complete this picture, Cesar et al. (2003) totaled global coral reef net
benefit per year at $29.8 billion. Of this amount, tourism and recreation: $9.6
billion, and specifically to the Caribbean, between $3.1 and $4.6 billion through
fisheries, dive tourism, and shoreline protection. Dive tourism takes the largest
portion of this at $2.1 billion (Conservation International 2008). In a 2007 study,
Brander, Van Beukering and Cesar estimated $184.00 per visit (2000 prices) in
the average global value of coral reef recreation (Figure 1).
5
Figure 1. Global locations of valued coral reef sites (Brander et al. 2007).
Clearly, there is a disconnect taking place. This information reflects the
importance of the reefs on a global scale, and specifically highlights the
importance of the quality of coral reefs for economic and ecologic survival
(Brander et al. 2007, Cesar, Burke and Pet-Soede 2003, Cesar and van Beukering
2004, Conservation International 2008, Laurans et al. 2013 Needham et al. 2011,
Pendleton 1995) yet coral reefs are declining at an alarmingly rapid rate (Baker et
al. 2008, Bellwood et al. 2004, Hughes et al. 2007, Hoegh-Guldberg 2011,
Pandolfi 2011, Smith et al. 2008, van Woesik and Jordan-Garza 2011).
Specific to the region, acute and chronic stressors have seriously affected
the coral reefs of the Virgin Islands over the past four decades. Information was
published by Smith et al. (2008) in regard to the Virgin Islands specifically. This
research discussed stressors from fishing pressure, high sedimentation rates, high
seawater temperatures, and hurricanes. To elaborate, sediment can accumulate on
coral reefs (via terrestrial run-off from unpaved road surfaces and road cut
slopes), furthering their decline (Nugues and Roberts 2003, Ramos-Scharròn,
2005; 2007). Run-off accumulation is more common in erosion-prone areas – a
common characteristic of the Virgin Islands (personal observation). Specifically,
Ramos-Scharròn (2005) linked unpaved roads as a dominant sediment source on
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. The study noted that an improved understanding of
road sediment production is needed to assist developments and erosion control
6
efforts (Ramos-Scharròn, 2005). Brooks (2007) also discussed this phenomenon
– sedimentary development due to anthropogenic influences - via analysis of
sediment cores, and showed a dramatic increase in terrigenous sediment input
dating from the 1950’s (Brooks, 2007). Furthermore, Weber (2006) determined
that silt-sized and nutrient rich sediments could stress corals after short exposure.
Fabricus’ (2005) review and synthesis stated that pollution is rated as a
threat to coral reefs similar in severity to that of bleaching and overfishing. On a
local scale, pollution can be the single most significant pressure on coastal and
inshore coral reefs (Fabricus, 2005). Szmant (2002) described evidence for coral
reefs’ sensitivity to nutrient enrichment, given the outbreak of algae in Hawaii
due to two major sewage outfalls. Carilli et al. (2009) found that chronic local
stress reduces coral fitness and resilience to episodic events, such as bleaching.
Over time, stressors reduce the resilience of a reef, especially after storms
and bleaching events (Folke et al. 2004, Hughes et al. 2003, Nystrom et al. 2008,
Obura 2009, Smith et al. 2008, Walker and Salt 2006). This phenomenon has also
become known as a ratcheting down of coral reef health (Birkeland 2004, Obura
2009, Smith et al. 2008).
Resilience is described as a buffering capacity, which is often applied to
coral reef systems, and is also used in a broader context in association to what
coral reef systems are able to provide in regard to ecological goods and services
(Holling 1973, Hughes et al. 2003, Moberg and Folke 1999). “Resilience
determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the
ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables, and
parameters, and still persist” (Holling 1973, p. 17). Holling (1973) also
distinguished ecosystem resilience from engineering resilience. “Engineering
resilience is a measure of the rate at which a system approaches steady state after
a perturbation, that is, the speed of return to equilibrium, which is also measured
as the inverse of return time” (Folke, et al. 2004, citing Holling 1973, p. 558). In
1996, Holling also pointed out that “engineering resilience is a less appropriate
measure in ecosystems that have multiple stable states or are driven toward
7
multiple stable states by human activities” (Folke et al. 2004 p. 558, citing
Holling 1996, Nystrom et al. 2000, Scheffer et al. 2001).
Further definitions of resilience include “the ability of a system to absorb
disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure” (Walker and Salt
2006, p. 1). Persistent human and environmental disturbances, or stressors, as
described previously, on coral reef ecosystems can further degrade the resilience
of the reef, slowing the recovery process or even reversing it when the reefs are
affected by natural or anthropogenic disturbances (Dudgeon et al. 2010, Folke et
al. 2004, Moberg and Folke 1999, Nystrom et al. 2000, Walker and Salt 2006).
In light of the anthropogenic influences that coral reefs withstand, there is
also the concept of social resilience. Defined by Adger (2000), social resilience is
“the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and
disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change” (p. 347).
Furthermore, Adger (2000) goes on to state that “[t]here is a clear link between
social and ecological resilience, particularly for social groups or communities that
are dependent on ecological and environmental resources for their livelihoods . . .
[b]ut it is not clear whether resilient ecosystems enable resilient communities in
such situations” (p. 347). Adger (2000) summarizes that social and ecological
resilience is an important part of resource utilization and sustainable development,
however, it is still indeterminate whether communities are more resilient when
they are dependent on coastal resources.
After Adger discussed the potential relation between the social and
ecological connection in 2000, he further discussed this in 2005 with colleagues,
relating social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters (Adger et al. 2005). In
2001, after his seminal paper published in 1973, Holling again discussed
resilience in his work in Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological,
and Social Systems, along with panarchy and sustainable development. He
elaborates that panarchy “describes how a healthy [social-ecological] system can
invent and experiment, benefiting from inventions that create opportunity while
being kept safe from those that destabilize because of their nature or excessive
exuberance. . . . The whole panarchy is therefore both creative and conserving”
8
and thus clarifies the meaning of “sustainable development” (p. 390).
Sustainability is the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive
capability. Development is the process of creating, testing, and
maintaining opportunity. The phrase that combines the two, “sustainable
development,” thus refers to the goal of fostering adaptive capabilities and
creating opportunities. It is therefore not an oxymoron but a term that
describes a logical partnership (p. 390).
Hughes and colleagues (2003) discussed managing coral reef resilience in
length in addition to research management and challenges. In 2004, Walker,
Holling and colleagues identified three complementary attributes of stability
dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature: resilience (“. . .the capacity
of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as
to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (p.
2)), adaptability (“. . . the capacity of actors in a system to influence resilience”
(p. 3)) and transformability (“[t]he capacity to create a fundamentally new system
when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the
existing system untenable” (p. 3)) when discussing a need for a better scientific
basis for sustainable development. They emphasized the importance of such
notions as robustness, vulnerability and risk. “It is these characteristics of socialecological systems . . . that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit
from change” (p. 1).
In 2004, Folke and colleagues published work on resilience, combining it
with regime shifts and ecosystem management, which included coral reefs
specifically. They discuss that “regime shifts imply shifts in ecosystem services
and consequent impacts on human societies. The theoretical basis for regime
shifts has been described by Beisner et al (2003), Carpenter (2003), Ludwig et al.
(1997), Scheffer and Carpenter (2003), and Scheffer et al. (2001)” (p. 558-559).
In addition, a discussion of vulnerability through “human-induced loss of
resilience” is covered (p. 567) and concludes with “managing resilience for
development” (p. 573), citing Walker et al. 2004. Walker et al. (2004) described
four critical aspects (attributes) of resilience: Latitude (maximum amount the
system can be changed), Resistance (ease or difficulty in changing the system),
9
Precariousness (how close the trajectory of a system is to a threshold) and CrossSectional Relations, i.e., panarchy, and that “ecosystem management of resilience,
biodiversity, and regime shifts needs to address those attributes” (p. 573).
Walker and Salt discussed resilience in length in 2006 (Resilience
Thinking) and again in 2012 with Resilience Practice. Also in 2006, Folke
published a document on emergence of resilience as a perspective for socialecological systems analysis. In 2008, Nystrom and colleagues presented
capturing cornerstones of coral reef resilience, linking the theory to practice, and
in 2009, Cinner and colleagues discussed linking social and ecological systems to
sustain coral reef fisheries.
In 2010, Folke and colleagues (including Walker) revisited the concepts of
resilience, adaptability and transformability in a publication titled: Resilience
Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability, concluding
with “. . . society must seriously consider ways to foster more flexible systems
that contribute to Earth System resilience and to explore options for the deliberate
transformation of systems that threaten Earth System resilience” (p. 6). The
concepts of resilience, vulnerability and adaptation were analyzed in length by
Janssen and colleagues (2006), and it was noted that there was a rapid increase in
the number of publications in the three knowledge domains between 1995 and
2005.
In addition to this vast amount of literature, hundreds of researchers,
practitioners, and others gathered in March of 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona for the
second international conference on resilience science and policy, focusing on
integrating understanding among three research communities: 1. The resilience
network, 2. The development of sustainability science, and 3. Innovation
(Gunderson and Folke 2011). They will meet again in 2014 in Montpellier,
France, to discuss Resilience and Development: Mobilizing for Transformation.
The passing of Nobel Memorial Prize winning Professor Elinor Ostrom
(Economic Science) generated more publications on her legacy that “. . .examined
how people collaborate and organize themselves to manage common resources
like forests and fisheries, even when governments are not involved. The research
10
overturned the conventional wisdom about the need for government regulation of
public resources” (The New York Times, June 12, 2012; Araral 2013, Lejano
2013).
Dr. Ostrom is known for her literary contribution on the commons and her
critique of Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin 1968). She (with
colleagues) defined panacea as “a blueprint for a single type of governance
system . . . that is applied to all environmental problems” (Ostrom et al. 2007, p.
15176). Also in 2007, A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas was
published as a Special Feature Perspective (Ostrom 2007), following her work
with colleagues in 2003 over the struggle to govern the commons (Dietz, et al.
2003). In 2009, she authored A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainabiliy
of Social-Ecological Systems, and presented an updated version of a multilevel,
nested framework for analyzing outcomes achieved in social-ecological systems
(SESs). This framework showed “relationships among four first-level core
subsystems of an SES that affect each other as well as linked social, economic,
and political settings and related ecosystems” (p. 420). The subsystems include:
(1) resource systems, (2) resource units, (3) governance systems and (4) users. To
illustrate the use of this new framework, she focused on the question: “When will
the users of a resource invest time and energy to avert ‘a tragedy of the
commons’?” (p. 420). She then discussed Hardin’s work, and stated: “A
theoretical answer to this question is that when expected benefits of managing a
resource exceed the perceived costs of investing in better rules and norms for
most users and their leaders, the probability of users’ self-organizing is high” (p.
420).
After this overview of the literature, let us return to the fundamental
question and the crux of this discussion: if so many people rely on coral reefs for
survival, and there is a tremendous amount of science to support their importance,
including hot topics such as social and ecological resilience, sustainability and
development, and the social-ecological system, then why do they continue to be
exploited and why are they still degrading?
11
Where is the missing link? Something is happening to disconnect
communication. No one wants reefs to degrade: plainly said in monetary terms,
they boast almost 30 billion in profit. The background exists as to why they need
protection and conservation and even suggestions about how to do so – but (1)
there is no transfer of information and (2) it seems the public (or the roughly 850
million living along the coasts) do not know how to implement these ideas, or
even understand them. There has to be environmental interpretation or
translation, otherwise, nothing will happen. There is virtually no information on
why someone would not want to sustain the environment that they live in –
because in a very basic and elemental way – no one purposely degrades their
living environment. Among the abundant literature on various subjects that could
easily turn this manuscript into volumes of information, the work of Paul C. Stern
stood out. In his work, the Psychology and the Science of Human-Environment
Interactions (2000), he states:
Global environmental problems are caused by human activity. Solving
these problems, though, requires more than well-meaning efforts to
change. Is also requires understanding – of which activities are most
responsible, what causes them, and the most effective ways to change
them. This is a task for a science of human – environment interactions
(Stern, 1993), and psychology can make an indispensable contribution (p.
523).
He goes on further to “identify several widely held beliefs about the
human causes of environmental problems and about how to change environmentally
destructive behavior” (p. 523), and this is not his only body of work: Stern cites to
numerous papers of his own in regard to the same topic: Information, incentives,
and proenvironmental consumer behavior (Stern 1999), Value orientations, gender,
and environmental concern (Stern et al. 1993), and The place of behavior change in
managing environmental problems (Stern and Gardner 1981) to name a few.
The word “exploited”, as previously mentioned… could very well be
claimed as an author’s opinion, but this scenario does appear to be a classic
tragedy of the commons, and could be applied not only to coral reefs – but to the
oceans at large. Most people of all walks of life – scientists, fishermen,
stakeholders, government, NGOs, the private sector, and the mass general public
12
– would probably agree on this tragedy occurring before our very eyes. If we rely
on the oceans for our own survival, then why do we – as participants in a global
community - allow this to go on?
I present that the fundamental problem and the missing link between
science and a rapidly degrading ecosystem is effective communication. This
communication, of course, can appear in a variety of ways, but fundamentally: if
people don’t know, then how can they care? Communication can be viewed as a
very broad term in this sense. Communication -- not in telling people what to do
or how to live their lives -- but by listening and providing information that is
useful so that they want to develop a sustainable existence, for themselves, for
their family, and for their future generations. In its simplest form, showing them
a healthy coral reef can start this process.
It is clear that the human population migrates to the sea. This can easily
be seen in any population map or statistics. In addition, the population is
growing, so one could only deduce that, moving forward, there is going to be
even more pressure on the coasts. (“World population is projected to grow from
6.1 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion in 2050, increasing therefore by 47 per cent”
(United Nations, 2004)). This lays the foundation of this literature review, the
meaning behind this study, and the sense of urgency behind addressing the
missing link of communication. This problem could take a lifetime to solve, but
we may not have that long. In the amount of research involved in supporting
work, it is obvious that this study is just one spoke in a very large wheel.
With this in mind, this descriptive research was an opportunity to expand
on the study of social resilience, and potential linkages to ecological coral reef
resilience and conservation. It was tailored as a descriptive cross-sectional study
because they are developed “. . . to provide a ‘picture’ of a phenomenon as it
naturally occurs. . . ” (Bickman and Rog 1998, p. 14) and can be “. . . designed to
answer questions . . . describing only one variable, comparing the variable to a
particular standard, or summarizing the relationship between two or more
variables” (Bickman and Rog 1998, p. 14). Collecting data to answer broad
questions is important, and this approach can be very informative (Bickman and
13
Rog, 1998). In addition, Settar and Turner (2010) noted that “. . . further multidisciplinary investigation which links social and ecological systems could be
useful in the USVI, not only in designing effective education and outreach
programs that parallel the changing resident populations, but also in maintaining
marine protected and un-protected areas. . .” (p. 209).
The following pages takes a closer look at ecotourism in the U.S. and
British Virgin Islands, and the results are highlighted in three parts: Part A: A
review of local participation in visits to coral reefs, Part B: An examination of
experiential social learning, and Part C: Participant demographics, and their
relationship to attitudes about corals and nature.
14
METHODS
Background about the U.S. and British Virgin Islands:
The Virgin Islands are located in the Caribbean between the Atlantic
Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, extending from west to east approximately 96.5
km. They consist of two groups of islands within the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)
and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The U.S. Virgin Islands are an
unincorporated United States Territory. They are made up of four large islands
(St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix and Water Island) and approximately 50 smaller
islands and cays, covering over 344 km². The BVI are an internal self-governing
British Overseas Territory, and are made up of four large islands (Tortola, Virgin
Gorda, Jost van Dyke and Anegada) and 32 smaller islands and cays, covering
about 153 km². The BVI lie east of the USVI (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Maps of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands (NOAA).
The population of the USVI is 106,405 with approximately 51,000 on St.
Thomas, 4,100 St. John and 50,000 St. Croix (2010 U.S. Census). The population
of the BVI is estimated at 31,148 (CIA World Factbook 2012) with approximately
23,000 living on Tortola, which is the island that hosts Road Town as the capital.
The population of Virgin Gorda is approximately 4,000.
In the USVI, the most abundant group is Black (76.2%), with English as
most common language (74.7%). The remaining 23.8% of the population is
White, Asian or Hispanic, with less than 30% of the population speaking Spanish
15
or Spanish Creole, or French and French Creole (2010 U.S. Census). In the BVI,
the dominant language is English with the population being predominantly Black
(82%) and White and other races constituting the remainder (18%) (CIA World
Factbook 2012).
There are a number of marine protected areas in the U.S. and British
Virgin Islands. The National Park Service manages four areas within the USVI.
(1) St. John is home to 2,833 plus ha of National Park hills, valleys, beaches and
hiking trails. Also on St. John is the (2) Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
Monument, which includes federal submerged lands within three miles of the
shore. This area supports a complex system of coral reefs, in addition to shoreline
mangrove forests and seagrass beds. On St. Croix, there is a (3) National Historic
Park and Ecological Preserve known as Salt River Bay. (4) Buck Island Reef on
St. Croix is a National Monument.
The Nature Conservancy works in collaboration with the Coastal Zone
Management office (a Division of the Department of Planning and Natural
Resources) to protect other areas. Two of these include the St. Croix East End
Marine Park and the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER). Each one has a
corresponding management plan (St. Thomas East End Reserves Management
Plan, May 2011, St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan, 2002). In
addition, the Coastal Zone Management office manages numerous Areas of
Particular Concern (APC) on all three islands, as required by the National Coastal
Zone Management Act. There are a total of 18 APCs on all three U.S. Virgin
Islands: six on St. Thomas, three on St. John, and nine on St. Croix.
The British Virgin Islands National Park Trust manages more than 809 ha
of property and wildlife habitats. There are 21 areas in total, including terrestrial
and marine sites. A Protected Area System Plan (2007 – 2017) was put in place
in 2008 to define the existing and proposed network of protected areas, which
details philosophy, management objectives and approach. (British Virgin Islands
Protected Areas System Plan 2007 – 2017).
The area of the coral reefs of the Virgin Islands totals more than twice the
total landmass of the territories – which is almost 1000 km² of reefs within these
16
waters. There are also barrier reefs around the Virgin Islands, and Buck Island
just off of St. Croix, also a National Monument, is surrounded by over 80 km² of
barrier reef. Shelf edge reefs are also found in this region, which have some of
the highest coral cover in the area (Hubbard, et al. 2008).
The Study Site:
Participants that were visiting the coral reefs in the U.S. and British Virgin
Islands with local business operators were surveyed from August 13, 2011-April
1, 2012 (Survey Form, Appendix A). There were two hundred and ninety (290)
surveys distributed and collected on five islands in the USVI and BVI. (Figure 3;
Table 1).
Figure 3. Regional Map of business locations, U.S. and British Virgin Islands.
(The location of the business does not necessarily indicate the trip destinations.)
17
The trips include some of the most popular snorkeling and SCUBA diving
destinations in the region. A total of twenty-three businesses contributed to the
study: sixteen in the USVI (nine on St. Thomas, four on St. John and three on St.
Croix) and seven in the BVI (four on Tortola and three on Virgin Gorda) (Figure
3, Table 1).
Method of Data Collection:
The collection and analysis of survey data can be extremely informative
when examining recreational and tourism value orientations toward coral reefs
(Cinner and Pollnac 2004, Grimm and Needham 2012, Mozumder et al. 2011,
Needham 2010, Needham and Little 2013, Needham and Rollins 2005, Needham
and Szuster 2011, Needham et al. 2011, Rosenberger 2012, Settar and Turner
2010) (See Appendix B: Previous approaches to survey data collection, Needham
et al.).
In addition, Tourangeau and Rasinski (1988) and Presser and Blair (1994)
suggested a model approach for survey research design (Figure 4.) In the model,
the researcher develops the survey question and specifies analytic use. The
respondent only has to do four things: interpret the question, recall relevant
information, decide on an answer, and report the answer to the interviewer (Czaja
and Blair 2005).
18
Researcher/analyst
Researcher: Specifies:

Researcher:
analyzes response
Subject of a
question

Analytic use of a
question

Interviewer
Respondent
Respondent’s task
Interviewer:
Interviewer:
Interviewer/coder:
Administers questions
Records
Enters data into
answer
data set
Respondent:
Respondent:
Respondent:
Comprehends question
Recalls
gives answer
(interprets subject and task)
information,
forms
judgment
Figure 4. Model of the Survey Data Collection Process. (Tourangeau and
Rasinski 1988; Presser and Blair 1994, Czaja and Blair 2005).
The process of determining the number of businesses was facilitated by
conducting a Google search using various search terms related to snorkeling and
the Virgin Islands. This search was performed between June 2011 and March
2012 (Table 1). Businesses were then contacted by phone (cold calling) and
asked if they would like to participate in the study. The businesses that
participated were approximately 25% of the total estimated businesses (Table 1).
During the calls, a few business owners made suggestions to contact another
business or owner to inquire as to whether they would like to participate as well.
This initiated a snowball method of sampling (Data Collection Details, Appendix
C).
The Google search and cold calling method determined that businesses of
this nature did not exist on Water Island, USVI or Jost van Dyke, BVI. It was
19
brought to attention that businesses advertising on Jost van Dyke during this time
period were actually located on Tortola, BVI.
Table 1. Survey data collection summary: U.S. and British Virgin Islands. Data
collection dates: August 13, 2011 to April 1, 2012.
Island:
Estimated
Businesses
Businesses
Surveys
number of
that did not
Participating:
Completed:
Businesses:
participate:
U.S. Virgin Islands:
St. Thomas
35
1
9
97
St. John
33
2
4
56
St. Croix
13
0
3
28
Water Island
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
USVI Total:
81
3
16
181
Tortola
11
2
4
36
Virgin Gorda
5
0
3
73
Jost van Dyke
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BVI Total:
16
2
7
109
TOTALS:
97
5
23
290
British Virgin Islands:
The businesses provided snorkel tours from a boat, except for the Virgin
Islands Environmental Resource Station (VIERS), which is an educational nonprofit facility (a part of the Center for Marine and Environmental Studies at the
University of the Virgin Islands Marine Science Program). In addition, the Baths
on Virgin Gorda (operated by the National Parks Trust of the British Virgin
Islands) led off-beach snorkeling excursions. There were also a few SCUBA
divers surveyed. These divers were from Blue Island Divers (St. Thomas, USVI),
Blue Water Divers and We Be Divin’ (Tortola, BVI), and Dive BVI (Virgin
Gorda, BVI) (Table 2). Trips were either half-day or full-day excursions to
various coral reef destinations.
20
Table 2. Businesses that Participated in the Study, U.S. and British Virgin
Islands, August 2011 – April 2012, including the business name, the type of trip
hosted, the frequented destinations, and by whom the survey was distributed.
(The location of the business does not necessarily indicate where tourists are
taken out onto the reefs. Yellow indicates researcher attended trip.)
Business
Types of trips:
Name:
Destinations: (Note: Survey
may vary with
distributed by:
weather conditions)
St. Thomas, USVI
Blue Island
Divers
SCUBA
The Cat,
Marriott
Frenchman’s
Reef Resort
Castaway Girl
Snorkeling
Coki Beach
Dive Club
Coral World
SCUBA and
snorkeling
SCUBA,
snorkeling,
SNUBA and Sea
Trek
Snorkeling
Fury Sailing
Charters
Heavenly
Days, Bolongo
Bay Resort
Snorkeling
Snorkeling
St. Thomas
Diving Club
SCUBA and
snorkeling
Virgin Islands
Ecotours
Snorkeling
Reefs and wrecks on
the south side of St.
Thomas
Charlotte Amalie
Harbor, Turtle Cove,
Buck Islands, St.
Thomas
Buck Island, St.
Thomas and various
St. John locations
Coki Beach, St.
Thomas
Coki Beach, St.
Thomas
Staff members
Buck Island, St.
Thomas
Charlotte Amalie
Harbor, Turtle Cove,
St. Thomas; various
St. John locations
Reefs and wrecks on
the south side of St.
Thomas
St. Thomas and St.
John kayak and
snorkel tours
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Staff members
Staff members
Staff members
Researcher
Staff members
21
Business
Types of trips:
Name:
Destinations: (Note: Survey
may vary with
distributed by:
weather conditions)
St. John, USVI
Calypso
Snorkeling
Charters
Cruz Bay
Snorkeling
St. Thomas, St. John
Researcher
and BVI locations
Snorkeling
Expeditions
Virgin Islands
Staff members
and BVI locations
Watersports
Kekoa Sailing
St. Thomas, St. John
St. Thomas, St. John
Researcher
and BVI locations
Snorkeling
Greater and Little
Environmental
Lameshur Bay, St.
Resource
John
Staff members
Station
(VIERS)
(Educational
non-profit)
St. Croix, USVI
Big Beard’s
Adventure
Tours
Jolly Roger
Snorkeling
Various locations on
St. Croix
Researcher
Snorkeling
Researcher
St. Croix
Water Sports
Snorkeling
Various locations on
St. Croix
Various locations on
St. Croix
Staff members
22
Business
Types of trips:
Name:
Destinations: (Note: Survey
may vary with
distributed by:
weather conditions)
Tortola, BVI
Aristocat
Charters
Blue Water
Divers
Kuralu Private
Catamaran
Charters
We Be Divin’
Snorkeling
Staff members
SCUBA
All BVI locations,
including the Indians,
Norman Island,
Cooper, Salt and
Peter Islands
All BVI locations
Snorkeling
All BVI locations
Staff members
SCUBA
All BVI locations
Staff members
Staff members
and attended
trip
Staff members
Staff members
Virgin Gorda, BVI
Dive BVI
SCUBA
All BVI locations
Double D
Charters
BVI National
Parks Trust,
location: The
Baths
(Educational
non-profit)
Snorkeling
All BVI locations
Snorkeling
The Baths, Virgin
Gorda
Researcher
23
The Survey Instrument, Design and Analysis:
The Survey Instrument:
The Survey Form had four sections with forty variables: Section (1)
Attitudes about Corals (18 variables), and Section (2) Attitudes about Nature (6
variables) Section (3) Importance Ranking (7 variables) and Section (4)
Demographics (9 variables) in addition to a welcome message (front page)
(Appendix A). The surveys were distributed after the snorkeling excursion or
SCUBA dive took place, and required approximately ten minutes for the
participants to complete. I distributed the survey myself if I was invited on the
trip, or the surveys were given out by staff members (staff members were briefed
for the method procedures and data collection processes (Table 2)). I was invited
on nine of the trips to distribute surveys and observe interactions (Table 2,
highlighted in yellow). The total number of trips is unknown, because businesses
that distributed surveys themselves did not keep track of how many trips and
collection.
Design: Sections (1) and (2)
Both Sections (1) Attitudes about Coral and (2) Attitudes about Nature
used a five-point Likert scale: +2 (strongly agree) +1 agree 0 (neutral) -1
(disagree) -2 (strongly disagree), which were available responses to statements in
both sections (Likert 1932, Tables 4, 5; Appendix A). Cronbach’s Alpha (a
coefficient of internal consistency) tested the reliability of each section. A score
of 0.7 – 0.8 is considered acceptable for surveys. (0.8 – 0.9 is good, > 0.9 is
excellent) (See Results) (Cronbach 1951).
Variables such as ‘attitudes towards coral reefs’ and ‘attitudes about
nature’ are difficult to measure and are termed ‘latent’. A latent variable, a
construct, is an unmeasurable entity believed to underlie observed variables. The
process of the measurement of latent variables is iterative and sequential (Dunn et
al. 1994).
The measurement process usually starts when the researcher identifies the
construct. At that point, items (statements) which are believed to measure
(indirectly) the construct of interest are developed. This procedure helps in
24
establishing content validity, the degree that the extent of the construct is reflected
by the items as a whole. This measure is the scale (a group of items that represent
one variable). The researcher then uses exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to
identify what items agree with one another. The fundamental assumption of
factor analysis is that some underlying factors are responsible for how the
observed variables vary together (Dunn et al. 1994, Kim and Mueller 1978).
After the scale is identified, the reliability of the scale is estimated.
(Reliability, as discussed previously, is a measure of internal consistency of the
items that are used to measure a latent construct.) The Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha is commonly used to access reliability. An alpha of at least 0.70 is
considered an acceptable level of internal consistency among the items of a scale
(Cronbach 1951, Dunn et al. 1994, Nunnally 1978).
If appropriate, construct validity of the scale is examined. Construct
validity is defined as how well the construct scale measures the construct. One
study cannot establish construct validity (Peter 1981). Construct validity is
ongoing, a function of previous studies, current research, and future research
(Cronbach 1951, Dunn et al. 1994).
Finally, two additional validities may be examined. Although not often
possible, criterion-related validity may be examined. Criterion-related validity is
defined by how well a scale correlates with the criterion it is trying to predict.
Nomological validity is defined as how well the construct relates to the other
research constructs, consistent with an underlying theory (Dunn et al. 1994, Peter
1981).
Design: Section (3):
Section (3) was an importance ranking scale of the participants’
assessment of environmental conservation behaviors related to social learning.
The instrument contains seven (7) propositions for which participants were asked
to provide rankings. An importance ranking develops a relationship between a set
of items (in this case, 7) where the items become ranked higher than or lower than
the others. It can be used to examine relationships, and also is used to rank
certain activities in order of importance (Cinner and Pollnac 2004; Appendix A).
25
Design: Section (4):
The Demographics Section (4) asked if they live in the Virgin Islands, and
if not, where they live. If they do live in the Virgin Islands, the question of how
long was asked. It also asked whether they have ever been snorkeling on a coral
reef with others, and if so, how often (once before or more than once). In
addition, this section asked their age (range), gender, education level (range) and
income level (range) (9 variables) (See Survey Form, Appendix A).
The survey also included six identifier variables, used for research
recording purposes only. This section (to be filled out by the researcher only)
included: the date of the excursion, the location (what island the excursion left
from), the researcher, the vessel, the business name and a quality flag variable
(simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’, referring to whether the participant understood the
importance rankings section) (See Survey Form, Appendix A).
Analysis: Part A, Local Participation
To evaluate local participation, the demographic Section (4) was used
regarding where participants are from, and if from the Virgin Islands, how long
they have resided there. As a second part to this analysis, differences in answers
were reviewed comparing Sections (1) Attitudes about Coral and Sections (2)
Attitudes about Nature: all participants versus local participant answers (See
Survey Form, Appendix A).
Analysis: Part B, Experiential Social Learning
To evaluate experiential social learning, the demographics Section (4) was
reviewed in regard to answers about prior visits to a coral reef with others, and
how often participants have visited a coral reef. Section (3) the importance
ranking was also reviewed in terms of how different the answers were, comparing
all participants to those that had never experienced a coral reef before (See Survey
Form, Appendix A).
26
Analysis: Part C, Demographics; Attitudes about Coral and Nature
A method of analysis was used for Part C combining clustering
characteristics within demographics and factor analysis in responses to statements
regarding Section (1) Attitudes about Coral and Section (2) Attitudes about
Nature, and whether differences were demonstrated in the total mean scores
within clusters and factors (See Survey Form, Appendix A).
Clustering analysis is often applied to survey data and is a practical
approach because, instead of analyzing individual elements, it samples by groups
of elements (Lee and Forthhofer 2006). In this study, cluster analysis was applied
to four variables in the demographics: gender, age, education and income. These
clusters were then compared to factored Sections (1) and (2) of the survey
instrument: Attitudes about Coral, and Attitudes about Nature. The cluster and
factor analysis revealed a descriptive view of the common demographics of
participants, and how these profiled clusters viewed statements regarding attitudes
about coral and nature via factor comparison.
The cluster and factor analysis was performed using IBM® SPSS®
statistical software (2012). For cluster analysis (a way of grouping on the basis
of similarities or distances), Hierarchical Cluster Analysis was used with Ward
Method (Ward, 1963). In order to decide which clusters should be combined or
split, a measure of dissimilarity between sets of observations is required. This
procedure attempts to identify homogeneous groups of variables based on certain
characteristics. Ward’s method minimizes the increase in total with-in cluster
error at each stage.
For factor analysis methodology, principal axis factoring was used to
analyze interrelationships within the groups and to explore common dimensions.
The factors were rotated using Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Varimax
orthogonal rotation was used to maximize the sum of the variances, thus
producing multiple group factors. Kaiser normalization, which is commonly used
with Varimax rotation, provides equal weight to all variables when determining
the rotations (Kaiser, 1958).
27
RESULTS
The following results describe the outcome of the survey data collection
by first describing the results of each survey section individually, then an analysis
described in Parts A (local participation) Part B (experiential social learning) and
Part C (demographics related to attitudes about coral and nature).
Description of the Sample: Demographics (Section (4)) (Described first for
clarity of the population.)
The total sample size (surveyed) was two hundred and ninety (290)
people. The sample was not a random sample of U.S. residents or U.S. Virgin
Islanders. Most of the people that completed the surveys did not live in the Virgin
Islands (73%). Of those that did live in the Virgin Islands (23%) most had lived
there less than one year (34%) and only 16% had lived in the Virgin Islands more
than 10 years. Most of the participants were from the United States (62%), and
7% were from other countries around the world. There were slightly more
females (53%) than males (42%) surveyed. The highest age range was 25 – 34
(24%) and 37% (the highest) were college graduates. Approximately 45% of the
participants surveyed were in an income bracket of over $90,000 (Table 3).
Table 3. Demographic information from the participant surveys (Section (4)).
N=290.
Demographic
Factor
Living in the
Virgin Islands:
For how long:
Category
% of Sample
No
73.1
Yes
22.8
Did not answer
4.1
Less than one year
33.7
Lives in VI, but did not
answer
2-5 years
22.9
More than 10 years
15.7
5-10 years
9.6
18.1
28
Demographic
Factor
If not, where live:
Gender:
Age (years):
Education level:
Income bracket:
Category
% of Sample
United States
61.8
Did not answer or
indicated lived in Virgin
Islands
Global
31.0
Female
52.8
Male
41.7
Did not answer
5.5
25-34
24.1
45-54
20.7
35-44
16.6
18-24
14.8
55-64
13.5
65+
5.9
Did not answer
4.4
College graduate
36.9
Post college
24.8
Some college
20.7
High school graduate
7.2
Did not answer
4.8
Trade/tech school
3.5
Some high school
2.1
Over $90,000
45.2
Did not answer
15.9
$60,000-$89,999
12.0
$50,000-$59,999
7.2
$30,000-$39,999
6.6
$20,000-$29,999
5.9
$40,000-$49,999
3.8
Below $20,000
3.4
7.2
29
Description of Survey Section (1): Attitudes about Corals
The Attitudes about Corals item scale (18 items) demonstrated a high
Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of .820 (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s
Alpha is a coefficient of internal consistency. A score of 0.7 – 0.8 is considered
acceptable for surveys (0.8 – 0.9 is good, > 0.9 is excellent). The reliability
coefficient was measured by reversing the sign of variable items 02, 04, 06, 09,
12, 13, 14, and 17 and is identified by an “r” after the variable instrument number.
Table 4 below identifies the mean and standard deviation (in order of the average
mean score on the -2 to + 2 scale, respectively) for each statement in Section (1):
Attitudes about Corals (Table 4; Appendix A).
30
Table 4. Means and standard deviations of the answers to variables in participant
survey Section (1): Attitudes about Coral, in order of ranking: average mean
score on the -2 to + 2 scale. The “r” indicates variable items that are reversed. N
= 202.
Variable: Statement:
Mean:
SD:
q-10
q-05
Environmental conservation benefits everyone.
A clean environment provides me with better
opportunities for recreation.
Environmental conservation will provide a better
world for my family and me.
We don’t need to worry much about the corals,
because future generations will be better able to deal
with these problems than we are.
Environmental conservation has benefits for my
health.
Environmental conservation will help people
achieve a better quality of life.
Over the next several decades, thousands of corals
will be destroyed, become extinct, or diseased.
While some local plants and animals may have been
harmed by environmental degradation, over the
whole Earth, there has been little effect.
Tourism and livelihoods are more important than
protecting our environment.
Laws to protect the environment limit my choices
and personal freedom.
We have too many other social and economic
problems to solve in the Virgin Islands.
Environmental conservation shouldn't be our top
priority.
The environmental effects on public health are
worse than we realize.
Too much concern is shown for corals and not
enough for humans, so I would rather see the
resources used to help communities with their
problems.
Conserving the environment will threaten jobs for
people like me, or people I know.
Corals need protection because they have a right to
life, which cannot be traded against economic
considerations.
1.41
1.39
.749
.864
1.31
.724
1.30
.773
1.15
.731
1.13
.806
1.12
.965
1.04
.977
.88
.828
.87
1.009
.86
.957
.80
.889
.77
.875
.71
.896
.62
.971
Protection of corals must be weighed against
economic considerations, but in this case, the corals
should come first.
I will enjoy the natural environment in the island,
even if not much is done to protect it.
.58
.862
.20
1.071
We can do without big tourism industry if that is
what it takes to have a better marine environment.
-.16
.924
.887
.923
q-16
q-17r
q-15
q-18
q-01
q-09r
q-14r
q-06r
q-04r
q-03
q-02r
q-12r
q-11
q-07
q-13r
q-08
Total mean/SD:
31
Description of Survey Section (2): Attitudes about Nature
The Attitudes about Nature item scale (6 items) demonstrated a fair
Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of .604 (Cronbach, 1951). The reliability
coefficient was measured by reversing the sign of items 2-01, 2-02 and 2-03 and
is identified by an “r” after the variable instrument number. Table 6 below
identifies the mean and standard deviation for each statement in Section (2):
Attitudes about Nature (in order of the average mean score on the -2 to + 2 scale,
respectively) (Table 6; Appendix A).
Table 5. Means and standard deviations of the answers to variables in participant
survey Section (2): Attitudes about Nature, in order of ranking: average mean
score on the -2 to + 2 scale. The “r” indicates variable items that are reversed. N
= 202.
Variable: Statement:
Natural things must only be valued for
q2-03r
what humans get out of them.
I expect to see more dramatic changes in
q2-06
our natural and marine environment in the
future.
Conservation and economic development
q2-02r
don’t go together.
Enough is being done to protect and
q2-01r
enhance the marine environment already.
I am concerned about climate change and
q2-04
its effects on the Virgin Island’s
environment.
The Earth’s resources, such as minerals,
q2-05
forests, and fisheries, should be used as
little as possible.
Total Mean/SD:
Mean:
1.14
SD:
.893
.91
.714
.87
.894
.83
.799
.79
.935
.04
.940
.763
.863
32
Description of the Survey Section (3): Importance Ranking
All participants ranked “The condition of the coral reef I visit is very
important for my snorkeling experience” as the most important item. “Combining
recreation with education is important for me” and “It is important to learn new
things during my snorkeling trip” were second highest in importance, and
“Choosing this activity was an easy choice for me” was ranked in third place
(Figure 5).
Importance Ranking
Interacting with others is an important part of
my snorkeling experience.
Having access to information and scientific
knowledge about the coral reefs I visit is
important to me.
Statement
Supporting local ecotourism enterprises is
important for me.
Choosing this activity was an easy choice for
me.
Combining recreation with education is
important for me.
It is important to learn new things during my
snorkeling trip.
The condition of the coral reef I visit is very
important for my snorkeling experience.
1
3
5
7
Mean Score: 1=Most Important, 7=Least Important
Figure 5. Importance ranking. Mean values for each statement. 1=most
important, 7= least important. All Participants, N=206.
33
Research Question Part A: Local Participation
This study aims to take a closer look at whether locals (living in the Virgin
Islands more than 10 years for purposes of this research) are visiting the coral
reefs with local ecotourism businesses, and what the differences are in three
highlighted statements from Sections (1) and (2) of the survey instrument, that
were markedly different in answers between all participants and locals (Figures 6
– 11).
A percentage (23%) of participants surveyed lived in the Virgin Islands
(Table 3). The hypothesis was incorrect – there were Virgin Islanders
participating in these trips. Of those 23%, 16% have lived in the Virgin Islands
more than 10 years, and for the purpose of this study, will be considered local. Of
the 16% local participation (N=12), only one participant had never been out on a
coral reef before. All others had visited a coral reef more than once. Most were
female (N=8), and most were in the age cohort of 35-54 (N=7). Education level
was college educated (N=9), and the predominant income bracket was $30,000 –
$59,999 (N=6).
It is interesting to note the differences in the answers to statements that
were split by the total group of participants (Figures 6, 8 and 10), compared to the
response by locals (Figures 7, 9 and 11), as noted in the following six figures
(Figures 6-11). Figures 6, 8, and 10 are the responses to statements (N = 278) in
Section (1), Attitudes about Coral (Figures 7, 9; Variables 8, 13) and Section (2)
Attitudes about Nature (Figure 10; Variable 5). Figures 7, 9 and 11 depict the
local response to the same statements. Figures 6 shows a difference from Figure
7: locals are neutral or disagree that we can do without big tourism industry here.
The local response (Figure 9) describes the predominant response as “agree”, that
they will enjoy the natural environment on the island, even if not much is done to
protect it (different form Figure 8). The third statement about using the Earth’s
resources as little as possible is, for the most part, the same between all
participants and the locals. However; “neutral” is slightly higher for all
participants, and “agree” and “disagree” are slightly higher than “neutral” for
local answers (Figures 10, 11).
34
We can do without big tourism industry if that is what
it takes to have a better marine environment.
35
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Did not
answer
Participant Answers (Percent)
Figure 6. Survey participant answers to statement: “We can do without big
tourism industry if that is what it takes to have a better marine environment.”
Section One, Attitudes about Corals. Answers were split between agree (22%),
neutral (33%), and disagree (32%). N=278.
We can do without big tourism industry if that is what
it takes to have a better marine environment.
12
Number
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly Disagree
disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
Did not
answer
Participant Answers (Number)
Figure 7. Local survey participant answers to statement: “We can do without big
tourism industry if that is what it takes to have a better marine environment.”
Section One, Attitudes about Corals. Answers were split between neutral (7), and
disagree (3) and strongly disagree (2). N=12.
35
Percentage
I will enjoy the natural environment in the island,
even if not much is done to protect it.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Did not
answer
Participant Answers (Percent)
Figure 8. Survey participant answers to the statement: “I will enjoy the natural
environment in the island, even if not much is done to protect it.” Section One,
Attitudes about Corals. Answers were split between agree (28%), neutral (23%)
and disagree (32%). N=278.
I will enjoy the natural environment in the island, even
if not much is done to protect it.
12
Number
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly Disagree
disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
Did not
answer
Participant Answers (Number)
Figure 9. Local survey participant answers to the statement: “I will enjoy the
natural environment in the island, even if not much is done to protect it.” Section
One, Attitudes about Corals. Answers were mostly agree (7). N=12.
36
Percentage
The Earth's resources, such as minerals, forests, and
fisheries, should be used as little as possible.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Did not
answer
Participant Answers (Percent)
Figure 10. Survey participant answers to the statement: “The Earth’s resources,
such as minerals, forests, and fisheries, should be used as little as possible.”
Section Two, Attitudes about Nature. Answers were split between agree (24%),
neutral (33%) and disagree (31%). N=278.
The Earth's resources, such as minerals, forests, and
fisheries, should be used as little as possible.
12
Number
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
Strongly
disagree
Did not
answer
Participant Answers (Number)
Figure 11. Local survey participant answers to the statement: “The Earth’s
resources, such as minerals, forests, and fisheries, should be used as little as
possible.” Section Two, Attitudes about Nature. Answers were split between
agree (4), neutral (3) and disagree (4). N=12.
37
Research Question Part B: Experiential Social Learning
The second question looked at experiential social learning and whether it
occurred during the trips out to the coral reefs with local ecotourism businesses.
The majority of participants had been snorkeling out on a reef with others (75%)
(Figure 12), and 11% (Figure 13) had been out on a reef only once before. More
than half of the participants (63%) have been out more than once (Figure 13).
Only 20% had never been snorkeling out on a reef with others (Figure 12). Of
those that live in the Virgin Islands (N=202) only 7% had never been out on a reef
before. The majority of these participants (93%) had been out to visit a reef. Of
those participants that do not live in the Virgin Islands, 74% had been out to a
coral reef while 24% had not.
During fieldwork and observational study, the hypothesis was correct there was experiential social learning that occurred in all settings (personal
observation). Mostly among the participants and less with the interaction with the
crew; however, most participants seemed hesitant at first to get in the water, and
relied on staff for support and confidence. Participants paid attention to safety,
their surroundings and what they learned while in the water. There was definitely
a higher level of excitement about what they had learned when they got out of the
water compared to before (personal observation).
Survey Participants' Prior Visits
to a Coral Reef with Others
Have visited
reef before
Have never
visited a coral
reef
a coral 20%
Have never visited a
coral reef
Did not answer
Did not answer
5%
Have visited a
coral reef
before
75%
Figure 12. Survey participants’ prior visits to a coral reef. N=290.
38
How Often Survey Participants
Have Visited a Coral Reef
Did not
answer
7%
Once before
11%
More than once
Never before
Once before
More than
once
63%
Did not answer
Never before
19%
Figure 13. How often survey participants have visited a coral reef. N=290.
Importance rankings differed depending on participants’ prior visits to a
coral reef. Participants were asked to rank the following statements (Figure 14) in
order of importance, 1 being most important, and 7 being least important. The
following figure shows the results of the importance ranking of most participants
(in red, N = 206), and those that have never been out to a coral reef before (in
blue, N = 37).
Interestingly, the condition of the coral reefs was the most important
statement to most of the participants, while interacting with others was the most
important to those that had never been out to a coral reef. In addition, this item
was ranked in last place by most of the participants. For most of the participants,
the second and third highest ranked items were learning through experience, and
combining recreation with education. For those that have never experienced a
coral reef before, the second and third highest scored items were combining
education and recreation, and that choosing the activity was an easy choice for
39
them to make. The least important statement to those that had never been to a
coral reef was that scientific knowledge about the reef is important.
Importance Ranking
Interacting with others is an important part of
my snorkeling experience.
Having access to information and scientific
knowledge about the coral reefs I visit is
important to me.
Statement
Supporting local ecotourism enterprises is
important for me.
Choosing this activity was an easy choice for
me.
Combining recreation with education is
important for me.
It is important to learn new things during my
snorkeling trip.
The condition of the coral reef I visit is very
important for my snorkeling experience.
1
3
5
7
Mean Score: 1=Most Important, 7=Least Important
Figure 14. Part B importance ranking. Mean values for each statement. 1=most
important, 7= least important. Red (top bar): All Participants, N=206. Blue
(bottom bar): Those that have never experienced a coral reef before, N=37.
40
Research Question Part C: Demographics; Attitudes about Coral and
Nature
Part C discusses the third research question: what is the gender, age,
education level and income of those visiting the coral reefs of the Virgin Islands,
and how do these profiled groups compare to answers to statements in Attitudes
about Corals and Nature (Sections (1), (2) of the survey instrument? The
following sections describe how the participant surveys clustered, and how the
answers to the statements factored from Sections (1) and (2), Attitudes about
Coral and Nature.
Cluster analysis: Demographics
The cluster groupings using demographic variables of age, education and
income responses, created the most robust clusters. Gender, although initially
analyzed, did not become a strong clustering variable (Table 6).
Table 6. Cluster analysis (identified using 1=yellow, 2=pink, 3=blue) using age,
education and income survey instrument results. N=202. Numbers indicate the
number of surveyed participants within each category. Strong clustering groups
are identified in bold. Numbered groups indicate ranges below. SH = Some
High School, HSG = High School Graduate, TTS = Trade/Technical School, SC =
Some College, CG = College Graduate, PC – Post College.
Age Range
Group
Range
Cluster
One
Cluster
Two
Cluster
Three
1
2
Education Level
3
Ages Ages Ages
Income Level
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
SH
TTS
CG
$20
$40
$60
$90
K+
18-
35-
55-
-
–
-
K
K
K
34
54
65+
HSG
SC
PC
-
-
-
$39
$59
$89
K
K
K
41
11
2
6
20
28
0
0
13
41
0
48
27
0
0
75
0
0
9
66
42
22
9
13
29
31
23
44
6
0
41
The cluster analysis was most robust grouping participants into three
categories. The first cluster (yellow) holds most participants within the age range
of 18-34, trade or technical school or some college to post-college graduate, and
mostly over $90,000 income bracket (hereafter defined as young, high income).
The second cluster (pink) holds most participants in the 35-54 age range, all
college and post-college graduates, and an income level of over $90,000
(hereafter defined as middle age, college and post, high income). The third
cluster (blue) holds participants within the 18-34 age range, trade or technical
school to post college graduates, and a mostly low income bracket (below 20,000
to $59,999) (hereafter defined as young, low income) (Table 6; Appendix A).
Although there were six available boxes to check for age range on the
survey instrument ((1) 18-24, (2) 25-34, (3) 35-44, (4) 45-54, (5) 55-64, and (6)
65+) (See Appendix A)) these ranges were put into three groups: (1) 18-34, (2)
35-54 and (3) 55 – 65+ (See columns 1, 2 and 3 under Age Range, Table 6).
Reducing the groupings from six to three increased the number of participants
within each group (Table 6; Appendix A).
Education was similar, as there were six possible boxes to check on the
survey instrument ((1) some high school, (2) high school graduate, (3)
trade/technical school, (4) some college, (5) college graduate, and (6) postcollege) (See Appendix A)). For purposes of the clustering analysis, and to
increase the number of participants within each group, these ranges were reduced
to three range groups: (1) some high school (SHS) to high school graduate
(HSG), (2) trade/technical school (TTS) to some college (SC), and (3) college
graduate (CG) to post-college (PC) (See columns 1, 2 and 3 under Education
Level, Table 6).
There were seven boxes available to check on the survey instrument for
income, ranging from below $20,000 to over $90,000. ((1) Below $20,000, (2)
$20,000 - $29,999, (3) $30,000 - $39,999, (4) $40,000 – $49,999, (5) $50,000 $59,999, (6) $60,000 - $69,999, and (7) over $90,000 (See Appendix A)). The
seven groups were reduced to the following four groups (to increase the number
of participants within each group) for purposes of the cluster analysis: (1) below
42
$20,000 - $39,999 ($20K – $39K), (2) $40,000 - $59,999 ($40K – $59K), (3)
60,000 – 89,999 ($60K – $89K), and over (4) 90,000 ($90K+) (See columns 1, 2,
3 and 4 under Income Level, Table 6).
After the cluster analysis was performed, these results were compared to
Sections (1) and (2) of the participant survey: Attitudes about Coral (Section (1))
and Attitudes about Nature (Section (2)) (See Appendix A). Two factor groups
were determined within Section One (See below, Table 7, 8, 9), one relating to
statements regarding benefits, the other regarding problems. Factor analysis was
also performed on Section (2), Attitudes about Nature, but the reliability
coefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) was low (factor one a=.501, factor two a=.527,
respectively) (Cronbach, 1951). Due to this outcome, the three clusters (See
Table 6) were compared to Section (2) (Attitudes about Nature) as a whole (6
variables; Table 10).
43
Factor analysis: Section (1): Attitudes about Corals
The rotated factor matrix for Section One of the survey instrument:
Attitudes about Corals shows that the questions grouped into two factors (Table
7). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Section One, Factor One
(Attitudes about Corals) is adequate (a= .786) (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient for Section One, Factor Two (Attitudes about Corals)
is also adequate (a= .753) (Cronbach, 1951). All but three questions grouped
with either factor one or two because these variables factored above 0.25 (Table
9).
Table 7. Rotated factor matrix loadings - principal axis factoring, Section (1),
Attitudes about Corals. Bold indicates the factor placement (whether the
statement categorized into Factors (1) or (2)). Variables factoring below .25
were not placed in either group. N=202, “r” indicates the variable was reversed.
Variable:
Factor One
Factor Two
q-01
-.039
.098
q-02r
.164
.643
q-03
.392
.074
q-04r
.269
.527
q-05
.520
.095
q-06r
.328
.245
q-07
.357
.371
q-08
.199
.189
q-09r
.314
.493
q-10
.661
.251
q-11
.174
.094
q-12r
.355
.254
q-13r
.118
.387
q-14r
.262
.500
q-15
.712
.194
q-16
.742
.232
q-17r
.408
.523
q-18
.703
.071
44
Factor analysis: Section (1): Attitudes about Corals: Factor One: Benefits
The statements below categorized within Factor One, Section (1):
Attitudes about Corals. All relate to benefits, such as effects on public health,
cleanliness and recreation, laws to protect the environment and whether that limits
choices of personal freedom, and conservation in regard to jobs, personal health,
family, and a better quality of life (Hereinafter described as “benefits”) (Table 8).
Interestingly, a couple of these statements are reversed (6, 12). The total mean
score of 1.10 is between “agree” and “strongly agree” for these statements on the
-2 to + 2 Likert scale.
Table 8. Statements identified in Factor One, benefits (emphasis in bold), Section
(1), Attitudes about Corals, including means and standard deviations. The “r”
indicates variable items that are reversed average mean scores on the -2 - +2
Likert scale. N=202.
Variable: Statement:
q-10
q-05
q-16
q-15
q-18
q-06r
q-03
q-12r
Environmental conservation benefits everyone.
A clean environment provides me with better
opportunities for recreation.
Environmental conservation will provide a
better world for my family and me.
Environmental conservation has benefits for my
health.
Environmental conservation will help people
achieve a better quality of life.
Laws to protect the environment limit my
choices and personal freedom.
The environmental effects on public health are
worse than we realize.
Conserving the environment will threaten jobs
for people like me, or people I know.
Total mean/SD:
Mean:
SD:
1.41
1.39
.749
.864
1.31
.724
1.15
.731
1.13
.806
.87
1.009
.80
.889
.71
.896
1.10
.833
45
Factor analysis: Section (1): Attitudes about Corals: Factor Two:
Problems
The statements within Factor Two, Section (1): Attitudes about Corals.
Focus on social and economic problems in regard to corals, environmental
degradation, and enjoyment of the natural environment without doing much to
protect it (Hereafter described as “problems”) (Table 9). Interestingly, all but one
of these statements is reversed.
Table 9. Statements identified in Factor Two, problems (emphasis in bold)
Section (1), Attitudes about Corals, including means and standard deviations. The
“r” indicates variable items that are reversed means scores on a -2 to +2 Likert
scale. N=202.
Variable: Statement:
We don’t need to worry much about the corals,
q-17r
because future generations will be better able to
deal with these problems than we are.
While some local plants and animals may have
q-09r
been harmed by environmental degradation,
over the whole Earth, there has been little effect.
Tourism and livelihoods are more important
q-14r
than protecting our environment.
q-04r
q-02r
q-07
q-13r
We have too many other social and economic
problems to solve in the Virgin Islands.
Environmental conservation shouldn't be our top
priority.
Too much concern is shown for corals and not
enough for humans, so I would rather see the
resources used to help communities with their
problems.
Protection of corals must be weighed against
economic considerations, but in this case, the
corals should come first.
I will enjoy the natural environment in the
island, even if not much is done to protect it.
Total mean/SD:
Mean:
SD:
1.30
.773
1.04
.977
.88
.828
.86
.957
.77
.875
.58
.862
.20
1.071
.804
.906
46
Factors within Clusters, Section (1), Attitudes about Corals:
The three clustering groups displayed more positive views toward the
Factor One statements (benefits). This can be supported by the highly significant
higher mean scores of their answers for Factor One statements compared to Factor
Two statements (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, Table 10) (Table 4). The scale of
measurement of the dependent variable was assumed to be ordinal. Therefore, the
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze
within and between group differences. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and the
Mann-Whitney U test are assumption free statistical techniques that assisted in
answering the research questions and avoided the scaling debate about whether it
is or it is not appropriate to use a t-test when analyzing Likert scale data.
Table 10. Difference in total mean scores, Factors One and Two within Cluster
One, Two and Three, Section (1), Attitudes about Corals. N=54 Cluster One,
N=75 Cluster Two, N=73, Cluster Three. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.
Cluster One:
young, highincome
(N=54)
Factor One: Benefits
1.1366
Cluster Two:
middle age,
college and
post, highincome
(N=75)
1.1250
Factor Two: Problems
.7646
.9067
.7260
.2183
<.001
.3100
<.001
Difference: .3720
p < .001
Cluster
Three:
young, low
income
(N=73)
1.0360
All three clustered groups scored higher when asked about Factor One
(benefits). The total mean score for Factor One within all three cluster groupings
falls between 1 and 2, which is between agree and strongly agree on the survey
instrument five-point Likert scale (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, respectively). The total mean
score for Factor Two (problems) within all three cluster groupings falls between 0
and 1, which is between neutral and agree on the file point scale (Table 10).
47
Clusters within Factors, Section (1), Attitudes about Corals:
The Mann-Whitney U Test was used to examine differences between
clusters by factor. There is no significant difference in total means between
clusters and factors. Total mean scores are between 1 (agree) and 2 (strongly
agree) in Factor One relating to environmental issues. Scores in Factor Two
(regarding corals) ranged between 0 (neutral) and 1 (agree) on the survey
instrument five-point scale (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, respectively) (Table 11).
Table 11. Difference in total mean scores, Clusters One and Two, Clusters Two
and Three, and Clusters One and Three within Factors One and Two, Section (1),
Attitudes about Corals. N=54 Cluster One, N=75 Cluster Two, N=73, Cluster
Three. Mann-Whitney U Test.
Factor One: Benefits
Factor Two: Problems
Cluster One:
young, high-income
(N=54)
1.1366
.7646
Cluster Two:
middle age, college
and post, high-income
(N=75)
Difference:
1.1250
.9067
.0116
-.1421
.800
.184
1.1250
.9067
1.0360
.7260
.0890
.1807
.151
.092
Cluster One:
young, high-income
(N=54)
1.1366
.7646
Cluster Three:
young, low income
(N=73)
1.0360
.7260
.1006
.0386
.289
. 704
p
Cluster Two:
middle age, college
and post, high-income
(N=75)
Cluster Three:
young, low income
(N=73)
Difference:
p
Difference:
p
48
Comparison of the Total Means of Clusters One and Two, One and Three,
and Two and Three, Section (2): Attitudes about Nature:
All clusters seemed to have the same attitudes about nature. The MannWhitney U Test was used to examine differences in total mean scores between
clusters, Section Two, Attitudes about Nature. There was no significant
difference in total mean scores between Clusters One and Two, Clusters Two and
Three, and Clusters One and Three. Total mean scores for all cluster pairs in
Section Two, Attitudes about Nature ranged between 0 (neutral) and 1 (agree) on
the survey instrument five-point scale (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, respectively) (Table 12).
Table 12. Difference in total mean scores between Clusters One and Two,
Clusters Two and Three, and Clusters One and Three. Section (2), Attitudes about
Nature. N=54 Cluster One, N=75 Cluster Two, and N=73 Cluster Three.
Section Two: Attitudes about Nature
.7130
Cluster One:
young, high-income (N=54)
.7867
Cluster Two:
middle age, college and post, highincome (N=75)
Difference: -.0737
p .257
.7867
Cluster Two:
middle age, college and post, highincome (N=75)
.7763
Cluster Three:
young, low income (N=73)
Difference: .0104
p .963
Cluster One:
young, high-income (N=54)
Cluster Three:
young, low income (N=73)
.7130
.7763
Difference: -.0633
p .271
49
DISCUSSION
The objective of the study was to collect data to answer broad questions,
and a descriptive cross-sectional approach was used. Local participation
(Research Question Part A), experiential social learning (Research Question Part
B), and characteristics in demographics related to attitudes about corals and nature
(Research Question Part C) were the areas of interest, in addition to observations
in all facets of the experience. The survey was determined reliable (Cronbach
1951, Survey Form, Appendix A).
Description of the Sample: Demographics
Figure 15 describes the density of participants that are from the United
States. Most of them are from the coasts, and only 7% were from other countries
around the world, including Africa, Australia and Europe. Most visitors to the
U.S. Virgin Islands are from the United States, other Caribbean Islands and
Europe (primarily Denmark) (U.S. Virgin Islands Hotel & Tourism Association).
Figure 15. Density of survey participants and where they are from in the United
States (ESRI).
50
Most of the survey participants were college educated and were at an
income bracket of above 90,000 per year. The 2011 graduation rate at 4-year
degree-granting institutions was 59% (U.S. Department of Education, National
Center of Education Statistics (2013)), and the national average wage index in
2012 was approximately 44,000 per year (Social Security National Average Wage
Index 2011). It seems that the visitors that are coming to the Virgin Islands are of
the 59% of educated individuals and in the upper echelon of income. These
demographics could explain the ease and which the participants filled out the
surveys and their understanding and concern for coral reef conservation. It is
expensive to come to the Virgin Islands: this demographic clearly shows that
upper income is predominant in tourism.
Research Question Part A: Local Participation
It was thought that there would be perhaps 1 – 2% local involvement in
this study, but the survey responses showed a considerable amount over that
number (23%; 16% of this over 10 years). With more promotion, would even
more locals participate in the trips? If so, what type of initiatives could be put in
place to connect their experiences to the marine environment with support of local
community conservation? Coral reef visitation on St. Thomas is thought to be
over-run with tourists by the local population, even with many businesses
providing a discounted local rate (personal observation). The 20% local
involvement was unexpected. This could be partially due to local pricing
discounts, and also, due to the timing of the trip during the year. In addition (and
as a note from personal experience) many locals take family or friends that are
visiting out with them on these trips. A question could be asked in the future that
addresses why the survey participant decided to embark on the excursion, whether
they were with others (local or non-local) and whether they met others while
participating. To get more definitive answers about local involvement, asking if
they were born in the Virgin Islands and what their cultural heritage is would be
great additions to the survey questions.
51
In this study, differences between locals and tourists were found in three
answers to statements (Figures 6 – 11). The first related to big tourism industry
(Figures 6, 7; i.e., cruise ship arrival to port on island), which is an integral part of
the economic survival of the inhabitants of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands.
Due to this, it is not surprising that the local response with either “neutral” or
“disagree” when asked about the exclusion of big industry. Eliminating big
business tourism (e.g., the cruise ship industry) could decimate economic
livelihoods on most islands, and the Virgin Islands are not immune to this. In
fact, this has already occurred on the island of St. Croix, USVI. This statement
had the lowest mean score of -.16 (Table 4).
It is not surprising that local participants mostly agreed that they would
enjoy the natural environment on the island, even if not much is done to protect it
(Figures 8, 9).
It would be interesting to find out what people know of the
current conservation and protection initiatives. (Mean score for this statement:
.20, listed second from last in Section One. It is also the only question in the first
section that is framed in first person (Table 4).
However, in regard to the third statement (Figures 10, 11), there were no
major differences between local responses and the rest of the participants. The
answers to the statement regarding using Earth’s resources as little as possible
were split almost evenly between “disagree”, “neutral” and “agree”, whether it
was all participants or locals. It seems this is the most controversial question of
all. It also had the lowest mean score within Section Two of .04 (Table 4). The
highest mean score within this section was 1.14 for “Natural things must only be
valued for what humans get out of them” (Table 4). It would be interesting to ask
more specific questions regarding ecosystem services on the island in response to
this statement, such as: “What do you think are the most important uses of the
marine resources are on the island?” and “What uses do you feel are important to
your personal and family livelihood?”
52
Research Question Part B: Experiential Social Learning
Experiential social learning was observed during the initial study (personal
observation). During this study, experiential social learning also occurred, but it
was not as pronounced as it was initially (personal observation). This could be
for two reasons: (1) that most of the participants had been out on a coral reef
before (75%), and (2) that they were not interviewed or photographed. (Audio
and video interviews that took place in the initial study revealed many
perspectives that would not have been gleaned otherwise.)
It was interesting to note that, in the importance ranking (Figure 14),
“Interacting with others is an important part of my snorkeling experience” was the
statement that was least important to the majority of participants (N=206) but
most important to those that had never been out on a coral reef (N=37). This
could be because the experience can be enhanced when others are around, in
addition to a heightened level of security and safety, especially when experiencing
being in the ocean for the first time. The result that all participants (N=206)
ranked the condition of the coral reef as most important is an indicator that
protection of the coral reefs is important to tourism.
Research Question Part C: Demographics; Attitudes about Coral and
Nature
The demographic clustered groups were not predicted. Each trip provided
a different clientele. However, there was a lot of interaction among the groups in
each excursion, even if they did not know each other in advance. I expected that
the first section of the survey would factor (based on the higher score of
reliability) and also expected that the second section would not factor as well, due
to the second section of statements being more general than the first.
Factor One statements (relating to benefits) had a generally higher mean
score than those in Factor Two (relating to problems) (.71 – 1.41 vs. .20 – 1.30)
(Tables 8, 9). This suggests that people react more positively when environmental
statements are represented as benefits than as problems. I conclude that this is
from participants (that are predominantly tourists) who are more likely to score
53
higher about positive statements (benefits) than about the problems. It should
also be noted, that Factor One statements are all about the environment generally
and do not mention corals specifically, whereas several Factor Two statements
mention corals specifically (and problems related to them). This could also be
because the participants do not know about coral health or degradation
specifically. On most questions, all the demographic groups agreed with
environmental positions. The differences in the factors one and two (benefits,
problems) were significant for all three cluster groupings. All three clusters
showed a higher score (1.03 – 1.13) for issues relating to benefits, and a lower
score for those relating to problems (.7260-.7646) (Table 10). However, the three
cluster combinations were not significantly different from each other in factors
one and two (benefits and problems) and Section (2) Attitudes about Nature
(Clusters One, Two; Two, Three; One, Three) (Table 11, 12). This suggests that
age, education and income were not related to attitudes when clusters were
compared to factors.
54
CONCLUSION
Local involvement in experiencing a coral reef is important in the Virgin
Islands, and could be a way to generate interest and concern about marine issues
along the coastal zone. Coral reef conservation means different things to different
people, and how people rank these experiences matters greatly. The analysis of
complex interactions between attitudes and participant characteristics helps to
better understand the nature of participation and conservation or management
intervention potential. Local analyses and studies can help scientists and
managers target management solutions and customize better experiences,
potentially enhancing conservation and natural resource management efforts.
The study contributed to these suggestions by providing insight into broad
research questions, derived from data that was collected on a small, local scale.
The data revealed that local participation does exist in a small number with local
tourism operators, and there were clear differences in answers to statements from
locals on important conservation issues. Experiential social learning did occur on
an observational level, and there were noted differences in importance rankings
from those whom had never visited a coral reef. The most important results were
from those whom had never experienced a coral reef, rating that visiting one with
others as their highest ranked item. In addition, all involved in the study ranked
the condition of the reef as their most important item – also telling and refreshing.
Demographics related to attitudes about coral and nature revealed strong
environmental views, and there were clear differences in answers to statements
related to problems and benefits.
Conservation and tourism can be linked and work synergistically, and this
can begin with sound management practices (Chapin et al. 2009). There are many
suggestions for management approaches. Olsson & Folke (2004) discussed
adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems.
They define adaptive comanagement systems as “flexible community-based
systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations
supported by, and working with, various organizations at different levels” (p. 75).
Birkeland (2004) identified three management approaches to assist with reversing
55
the deterioration of coral reef resources: (1) develop interventions proactive
rather than reactive (focus on prevention, not just restoration), (2) deal with
ultimate causes (human population growth) as well as proximate causes of coral
reef decline, and (3) promote responsible human behavior.
Hughes and colleagues (2005) also discussed a “new framework for
adaptive governance” (p. 383) and propose the following attributes for successful
approaches to SES management: “(1) embracing uncertainty and change, (2)
building knowledge and understanding of resource and ecosystem dynamics, (3)
developing management practices that measure, interpret and respond to
ecological feedback, and (4) supporting flexible institutions and social networks
in multi-level governance systems” (p. 383-384). They conclude with an
important statement: “the key element in SES resilience-based management is the
recognition of the linkages between the environment and people” (p. 384)
(emphasis added). Carilli et al. (2009) also stated that reducing chronic stress
through local coral reef management efforts might increase coral resilience to
global climate change.
Hughes and colleagues (2010) again addressed the issue of management,
with Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. They made an
important point about “moving beyond the gloom and doom” (p.638) and how to
become more proactive in the process of coral reef management. They
highlighted “coral reef governanace” (p. 639), and emphasized empowering and
educating local people, augmenting the traditional focus, integrating the science
of coral reef resilience with decision making, creating new legal frameworks, and
confronting climate change as the single most important issue for coral reef
management (Hughes et al. 2010) (emphasis added).
Burke et al. (2011) recommend “mitigat[ing] threats from local human
activities” (p. 8), “managing for climate change locally, develop[ing] integrated
management efforts at ecosystem scales, scal[ing] up efforts through international
collaboration, support[ing] climate change efforts, build[ing] consensus and
capacity” (p. 9), and “individual action” p. 10.
56
Environmental Communication
Make diligent efforts to involve the public…
-
U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (1970).
Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned
citizens . . . Each individual shall have appropriate access to information
concerning the environment that is held by public authorities . . . and the
opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.
-
Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development (1992).
All of these management approaches, in addition to words from the U.S.
National Environmental Policy Act and the Rio Declaration of 1992, can be
applied to linkages in communication in science, ecology, and social learning.
This study is a contribution to that promising link. This study can assist us in the
process of learning more about social dimensions of coral reef conservation,
social learning and resilience, and most importantly, how to communicate.
Environmental communication must be built up stronger in the
management arena. To empower and educate local people (Hughes et al. 2010),
communication is vital. However, communication is not as easy as it seems.
There can be cultural differences, language barriers, legal and governmental
issues, distance and poverty - to name a few challenges – that can inhibit the
communication process.
I encountered many of these challenges and barriers as I went through the
data collection process, and somehow managed to overcome them (See Data
Collection Details, Appendix C). I think this was partly due to people responding
to excitement and passion about their business, in an effort to bring more
information to the table (i.e., information from their participants in their
excursions) and personally, their own curiosity in wanting to know the results.
Often, though, reaching this point required breaking down many barriers –
culturally, politically, socially, environmentally. The quest became one of
57
wanting them to believe in the study and what I was doing, and to quote a famous
photographer – “by being yourself”. The relationship must become grounded in
trust. “The more authentic you are, the more authentic you can be with others. It
has to come from an intention not to manipulate” (Lynn Johnson, National
Geographic, July, 2012).
It is important to have a plan, and there are many resources to develop
them. Cox (2013) covered this in length and described in detail media and the
environment, and science and risk communication. He even discusses landmark
legal cases on environmental standing where the U.S. Supreme Court has
provided guidance in controversies over environmental issues (citing Sierra Club
v. Morton (1972), Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), Friends of the Earth,
Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000)).
Jurin et al. (2010) developed an approach to communication planning,
which includes analyzing the audience, evaluating message effects, characterizing
mass media, and highlighting useful media. They even include an “outline for
writing a communication plan” (p. 80), which includes specifics such as “goals
and objectives, target[ed] audiences, and implementation” (p. 81). They conclude
with a case study from Cairo, Egypt, stating: “Egypt’s national policies for facing
its environmental challenges include an environmental communications plan. The
strategy, covering 2005-2010, is extraordinary as a guide for an entire government
in a developing country” (p. 81, citing Hassan et al. 2005).
To conclude, it is hoped that vast efforts will be put forth to share the
beauty of the ocean. Perhaps then people will realize the importance of
sustainable development and conservation, especially along the coastal zone, and
begin a plan for a sustainable future. Building strong, engaged and empowered
communities is an important component to strengthening social resilience, and if
nothing else, perhaps this strength will increase by visiting the coral reefs of the
Caribbean. “Humans make decisions on a daily basis that directly and indirectly
affect the present and future environment on a local and global scale” (Settar and
Turner 2010, p. 197, citing Alessa et al. 2003). “We need to better understand the
58
basis of human actions, how decisions are made, and what makes culture change”
(Settar and Turner 2010, p. 197).
When Dr. Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic
Science, she caused quite a stir, because she was not actually an economist, and
her work rebutted fundamental economic beliefs. However, and perhaps what
made her unique, is that she “studied cases around the world in which
communities successfully regulated resource use through cooperation” (New
York Times, June 12, 2012).
“She would go and actually talk to Indonesian fishermen, or Maine
lobstermen, and ask, ‘How did you come to establish this limit on the fish catch?
How did you deal with the fact that people might try to get around it?’” (New
York Times, June 12, 2012, quoting Nancy Folbre, an economics professor at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst).
Perhaps this is why she won the Nobel prize, and perhaps this should
remind us that, at the base of all communication, lies listening.
59
The Potential for Future Studies
The outcome of this study has shown that there is a potential link between
local environmental livelihoods and coral reef preservation and conservation,
through local involvement in coral reef exploration endeavors, and local
businesses providing one avenue for this experience. The local ecotourism
businesses of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands share the coral reefs with those
that may otherwise never have the experience, and for this we should commend
them.
In the future, developing initiatives to bring more local people out to the
coral reefs may be a progressive approach, and one that is deemed to be
successful with the goal of increasing marine conservation awareness. Moreover,
harnessing the transformation that occurs after experiencing a coral reef is still
elusive, and one that should be studied further to possibly enhance best natural
resource management practices. “Future outreach and education programs should
probably be designed around snorkeling and SCUBA diving activities whenever
possible” (Settar and Turner 2010).
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2010 U.S. Census. Online at: http://www.census.gov/2010census/
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related?
Progress in Human Geography, 24, 3, 347-364.
Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Rockstrom, J. (2005).
Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309, 1036-1039.
Alessa, L., Bennett, S. M., Kliskey, A. D. (2003). Effects of knowledge, personal
attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviors in the
intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve. Journal of
Environmental Management, 68, 207-218.
Araral, E. (2013). Ostrom, Hardin and the commons: A critical appreciation and
a revisionist view. Environmental Science & Policy, Article in Press.
Baker, A. C., Glynn, P. W., Riegl, B. (2008). Climate change and coral reef
bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and
future outlook. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 80, 435-471.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press.
Beisner, B.E., Haydon, D.T., Cuddington, K. 2003. Alternative stable states in
ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 376-382.
Bellwood, D.R., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Nystrom, M. (2004). Confronting the
coral reef crisis. Nature, 429, 827-833.
Bickman, L., and Rog, D., eds. (1998). Handbook of applied social research
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Birkeland, C. (2004). Ratcheting down the coral reefs. Bioscience, 54(11),
1021-1027.
Brander, L., Van Beukering, P., Cesar, H.S.J. (2007). The recreational value of
coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 63, 209-218.
British Virgin Islands Protected Areas System Plan 2007 – 2017. January, 2008.
Conservation and Fisheries Department, National Parks Trust, British Virgin
Islands.
Brooks, G.R., Devine, B., Larson, R.A., Rood, Bryan P. (2007). Sedimentary
development of Coral Bay, St. John, USVI: A shift from natural to anthropogenic
influences. Caribbean Journal of Science, 43, 226-243.
61
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., Perry, A. (2011). Reefs at risk revisited.
World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC.
Carilli, J.E., Norris, R.D., Black, B.A., Walsh, S.M., McField, M. (2009). Local
stressors reduce coral resilience to bleaching. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6324.
Carpenter, S.R. (2003). Regime shifts in lake ecosystems: pattern and variation.
Excellence in Ecology Series, 15, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: Ecol. Inst.
Cesar, H., Burke, L., Pet-Soede, L., (2003). The economics of worldwide coral
reef degradation. WWF and ICRAN.
Cesar, H.S.J., van Beukering, P. (2004). Economic valuation of coral reefs of
Hawai’i. Pacific Science, 58, 231-242.
Chapin, F.S. III, Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C. (2009). Principles of ecosystem
stewardship. Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing
world. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009.
Cinner, J.E., Pollnac, R.B. (2004). Poverty, perceptions and planning: why
socioeconomics matter in the management of Mexican reefs. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 47, 479-493.
Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., Daw, T.M., Graham, N.A.J., Wilson, S.K.,
Hughes, T.P. (2009). Linking social and ecological systems to sustain coral reef
fisheries. Current Biology, 19, 206-212.
CIA World Factbook 2012.
Conservation International. 2008. Economic Values of Coral Reefs, Mangroves,
and Seagrasses: A Global Compilation. Center for Applied Biodiversity
Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA.
Cox, R. (2013). Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Czaja, R., Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and
procedures. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press A Sage Publications
Company.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons.
Science, 302, 1907-1912.
62
Dudgeon, S. R., Aronson, R. B., Bruno, J. F., Precht, W. F. (2010). Phase shifts
and stable states on coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 413, 201-216.
Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F., Waller, M. A. (1994). Latent variables in business
logistic research: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistic,
15(2), 145-172.
Fabricius, K.E. (2005). Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and
coral reefs: review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 125-146.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L.,
Holling, C.S. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem
management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 35, 557581.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockstrom, J.
(2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and
transformability. Ecology and Society, 15, 1-9.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. 528 U.S. 167
(2000).
Grimm, K.E., Needham, M.D. (2012). Internet promotional material and
conservation volunteer tourist motivations: A case study of selecting
organizations and projects. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1, 17 – 27.
Gunderson, L., Folke, C. (2011). Resilience 2011: Leading transformational
change. Ecology and Society Editorial, 16, 30.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hassan H, Nasr, E., Al Gazar, N. (2005). National strategy for environmental
communication. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Ministry of State for
Environmental Affairs, Cairo.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2011). Coral reef ecosystems and anthropogenic climate
change. Regional Environmental Change, 11 (Suppl 1), S215-S227.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Holling, C.S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In
Engineering within Ecological Constraints, ed. PC Schulze, pp. 31-44.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
63
Holling, C.S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological,
and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390-405.
Hubbard, D.K., Burke, R.B., Gill, I.P., Ramirez, W.R., Sherman, C. Coral reef
geology: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (2008). Coral Reefs of the
World I. P. 263-261. Coral Reefs of the USA. (Bernhard M. Riegl, Richard E.
Dodge, Editors.) Springer
Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D.R., Card, M., Connolly, S.R., Folke, C.,
Grosberg, R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J.B.C., Kleypas, J., Lough, J.M.,
Marshall, P., Nystrom, M., Palumbi, S.R., Pandolfi, J.M., Rosen, B.,
Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of
coral reefs. Science, 301, 929-933.
Hughes, T.P., Bellwood, D.R., Folke, C., Steneck, R.S., Wilson, J. (2005). New
paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 20, 380-386.
Hughes, T.P., Graham, A.J., Jackson, J.B.C., Mumby, P.J., Steneck, R.S. (2010).
Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 25, 633-642.
Hughes, T. P., Rodrigues, M. J., Bellwood, D. R., Ceccarelli, D., HoeghGuldberg, O., McCook, L., Moltechaniwskyj, N., Prachett, M. S., Steneck, R. S.,
Willis, B. (2007). Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs to
climate change. Current Biology, 17, 360-365.
Janssen, M.A., Schoon, M.L., Weimao, Ke, Borner, K. (2006). Social networks
on resiience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global
environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 16, 240-252.
Johnson, L. (2012, July). Editor’s Note: The power of voice. National
Geographic, 222 (1), 4.
Jurin, R.R., Roush, D., Danter, J. (2010). Environmental Communication, 2nd Ed.
New York: Springer.
Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika 23(3), 187- 200.
Kim, J., Mueller, C. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical
issues. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences, 07-014, 12.
64
Laurans, Y., Pascal, N., Binet, T., Brander, L., Clua, E., David, G., Rojat, D.,
Seidl, A. (2013). Economic valuation of ecosystem services from coral reefs in
the South Pacific: Taking stock of recent experience. Journal of Environmental
Management, 116, 135-144.
Lejano, R.P. (2013). Reflecting on a legacy. Environmental Science & Policy,
Article in Press.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives in
Psychology, 140, 1-55.
Lee, E.S., Forthhofer, R.N. (2006). Analyzing Complex Survey Data. Second
Edition. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage
Publications.
Ludwig, D., Walker, B., Holling, C.S. (1997). Sustainability, stability, and
resilience. Conservation Ecology 1:7. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art7/
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
Moberg, F., Folke, C. (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef
systems. Ecological Economics, 29, 215-233.
Mozumder, P., Flugman, E., Randhir, T. (2011). Adaptation behavior in the face
of global climate change: Survey responses from experts and decision makers
serving the Florida Keys. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54, 37-44.
Needham, M.D. (2010). Value orientations toward coral reefs in recreation and
tourism settings: a conceptual and measurement approach. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18, 757-772.
Needham, M.D., Little, C.M. (2013). Voluntary environmental programs at an
alpine ski area: Visitor perceptions, attachment, value orientations, and
specialization. Tourism Management, 35, 70 – 81.
Needham, M.D., Rollins, R.B. (2005). Interest group standards for recreation
and tourism impacts at ski areas in the summer. Tourism Management, 26, 1-13.
Needham, M.D., Szuster, B.W. (2011). Situational influences on normative
evaluations of coastal tourism and recreation management strategies in Hawai’i.
Tourism Management, 32, 732-740.
Needham, M.D., Szuster, B.W., Bell, C.M. (2011). Encounter norms, social
carrying capacity indicators, and standards of quality at a marine protected area.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 54, 633-641.
65
Nugues, M.M., Roberts, C.M. Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an
indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs. Marine pollution bulletin, 46, 314323.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrom, M., Folke, C., Moberg, F. (2000). Coral reef disturbance and resilience
in a human-dominated environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 413417.
Nystrom, M., Graham, N.A.J., Lokrantz, J., Norstrom, A.V. (2008). Capturing
the cornerstones of coral reef resilience: linking theory to practice. Coral Reefs,
27, 795-809.
Obura, D.O. (2009). Reef corals bleach to resist stress. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 58, 206-212.
Olsson, P., Folke, C. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in
social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34, 75-90.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS,
104, 39, 15181-15187.
Ostrom, E., Janssen, M.A. Anderies, J.M. (2007). Going beyond panaceas.
PNAS, 104, 39, 15176-15178.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A generalized framework for analyzing sustainability of
social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419-422.
Pandolfi, J.M., Connolly, S.R., Marshall, D.J., Cohen, A.L. (2011). Projecting
coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification. Science, 22,
418-422.
Pendelton, L.H. (1995). Valuing coral reef protection. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 26, 119-131.
Peter, J. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing
Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133-145.
Presser, S., Blair, J. (1994). Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce
different results? Sociological Methodology, 24, 73-104.
Ramos-Scharròn C.E., MacDonald, L.H. (2005). Measurement and prediction of
sediment production from unpaved roads, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 30, 1283-1304.
66
Ramos-Scharròn, C.E., MacDonald, L.H. (2007). Measurement and prediction of
natural and anthropogenic sediment sources, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Catena, 71, 250-266.
Rampell, C. (2012, June 13). Elinor Ostrom, Winner of Nobel in Economics,
Dies at 78. The New York Times, B20. Online version: 2012, June 12.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/business/elinor-ostrom-winner-of-nobel-ineconomics-dies-at-78.html?_r=0
Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J.,
Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., Stringer, L. C. (2010). What is social
learning? Ecology and Society. XX(YY): rZZ. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/volXX /issYY/artZZ/
Resilience 2014 Resilience and Development: Mobilizing for Transformation
Conference, Le Corum, Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992).
Rosenberger, R.S., Needham, M.D., Morzillo, A.T., Moehrke, C. (2012).
Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban
proximate forest. Journal of Forest Economics, 18, 271 – 281.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R. (2003). Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems:
linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 648-656.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter S.R., Foley, J., Folke, C., Walker, B.C. (2001).
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591-596.
Settar, C., Turner, T. (2010). Coral reefs and residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands:
A relationship of knowledge, outdoor activities and stewardship. Revista de
Biologica Tropical, 58, 197-212.
Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
Smith, T. B., Nemeth, R. S., Blondeau, J., Calnan, J. M., Kadison, E., Herzlieb, S.
(2008). Assessing coral reef health across onshore to offshore stress gradients in
the US Virgin Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 1983-1991.
Social Security National Average Wage Index 2011.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan, 2002. Division of Coastal
Zone Management, U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural
Resources.
67
St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER) Management Plan, May 2011. Division
of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and
Natural Resources.
Stern, P.C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461-478.
Stern, P.C. (2000). Psychology and the science of human-environment
interactions. American Psychologist, 55, 523-530.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
Stern, P.C., Gardner, G.T. (1981). The place of behavior change in managing
environmental problems. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik, 2, 213-239.
Szmant, A.M. (2002). Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of
coral reef decline? Estuaries, 25, 743-766.
Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K.A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context
effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299-314.
United Nations. (2004). World Population to 2300. United Nations Economic &
Social Affairs, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,
New York, New York, USA.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics (2013).
U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (1970).
U.S. Virgin Islands Hotel & Tourism Association. http://usvihta.com/
van Woesik, R., Gordan-Garza, A.G. (2011). Coral populations in a rapidly
changing environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,
408, 11-20.
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience,
adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology & Society
9(2): 5, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5
Walker, B., Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and
people in a changing world. Island Press.
Walker, B., Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb
disturbance and maintain function. Island Press.
68
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.
Journal of American Statistical Association, 58 (301), 236-244.
Weber, M., Lott, C., Fabricius, K.E. (2006). Sedimentation stress in a
scleractinian coral exposed to terrestrial and marine sediments with contrasting
physical, organic and geochemical properties. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, 336, 18-32.
69
APPENDICES
70
APPENDIX A - Survey Form
Under IRB approval, University of the Virgin Islands
71
1. Please check the appropriate box whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
Agree Strongly
Disagree
agree or
agree
disagree
Over the next several decades, thousands of corals
will be destroyed, become extinct, or diseased.
Too much concern is shown for corals and not
enough for humans, so I would rather see the
resources used to help communities with their
problems.
The environmental effects on public health are
worse than we realize.
We have too many other social and economic
problems to solve in the Virgin Islands.
Environmental conservation shouldn’t be our top
priority.
A clean environment provides me with better
opportunities for recreation.
Laws to protect the environment limit my choices
and personal freedom.
Protection of corals must be weighed against
economic considerations, but in this case, the
corals should come first.
We can do without big tourism industry if that is
what it takes to have a better marine environment.
While some local plants and animals may have
been harmed by environmental degradation, over
the whole Earth, there has been little effect.
Environmental conservation benefits everyone.
Corals need protection because they have a right
to life, which cannot be traded against economic
considerations.
Conserving the environment will threaten jobs for
people like me, or people I know.
I will enjoy the natural environment in the island,
even if not much is done to protect it.
Tourism and livelihoods are more important than
protecting our environment.
Environmental conservation has benefits for my
health.
Environmental conservation will provide a better
world for my family and me.
We don’t need to worry much about the corals,
because future generations will be better able to
deal with these problems than we are.
Environmental conservation will help people
achieve a better quality of life.
72
2. Please check the appropriate box whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Enough is being done to protect and enhance the
marine environment already.
Conservation and economic development don’t go
together.
Natural things must only be valued for what
humans get out of them.
I am concerned about climate change and its
effects on the Virgin Island’s environment.
The Earth’s resources, such as minerals, forests,
and fisheries, should be used as little as possible.
I expect to see more dramatic changes in our
natural and marine environment in the future.
3. Importance Ranking: Please rank from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important) in order of importance the
following propositions. You can only use each rank once.
Importance:
It is important to learn new things during my snorkeling trip.
Supporting local eco-tourism enterprises is important for me.
Choosing this activity was an easy choice for me.
Combining recreation with education is important for me.
Having access to information and scientific knowledge about the coral reefs I visit is
important to me.
Interacting with others is an important part of my snorkeling experience.
The condition of the coral reef I visit is very important for my snorkeling experience.
73
4. General demographic questions:
Do you live in
the Virgin
Islands?
Yes/No?
If you don’t live in the Virgin Islands, where do you live?
If you live in the Virgin
Islands, for how long?
< 1 year
Have you ever been snorkeling on a
coral reef before with others?
What is your
gender?
Gender?
What level of education have
you completed?
What is your annual
household income?
2-5 years
Yes/No?
5-10 years
10+ years
If yes, how often?
Once before
More than once
What is your age?
18-24
Some high
school
Below
$20,000
High school
graduate
$20,000$29,999
25-34
Trade/Technical
School
$30,000$39,999
$40,000$49,999
35-44
45-54
Some
college
$50,000$59,999
55-64
College
graduate
$60,00089,999
Do not write inside this box
DATE: ______________ LOC: ____________________________ RES: ____________________________
VESSEL: ___________________ BUSINESS: ___________________________ QFLAG: ______________
65+
Postcollege
Over
$90,000
74
Appendix B: Previous approaches to survey data collection, Needham et al.
Name of Study:
Year:
Author:
Data Collection Methods:
Results:
Interest group
standards for
recreation and
tourism impacts at
ski areas in the
summer
Value orientations
toward coral reefs in
recreation and
tourism settings: a
conceptual and
measurement
approach
Encounter norms,
social carrying
capacity indicators,
and standards of
quality at a marine
protected area
Situational
influences on
normative
evaluations of
coastal tourism and
recreation
management
strategies in Hawai’i
2005
Needham, M.D.
Rollins, R.B.
Results showed that standards for each indicator differed among
the groups. The importance of each indicator (i.e., norm intensity)
was high among the groups, but was highest for the density of
hikers/sightseers, suggesting that it may be a more important
indicator for this tourism-oriented setting.
2010
Needham, M.D.
Surveys conducted with 432 visitors and 21
representatives of 12 companies, government
agencies, and recreation and environmental interest
groups. Respondents evaluated photographs of
impacts for the density of hikers/sightseers and
amount of bare ground at a campsite indicators.
Surveys of 2821 users at three coastal and marine
sites in Hawai’i. Belief statements about reefs were
used to measure value orientations. Surveys were
four pages, addressed a variety of concepts and took
15 minutes to complete, distributed in specific time
intervals for two-week time periods.
2011
Needham, M.D.
Szuster, B.W.
Bell, C.M.
Data were obtained from a survey of 439 people
visiting Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation
District in Hawai’i, and photographs depicting four
levels of boat use and three proportions of boat size
measured encounter norms.
Number of boats most strongly influenced encounter norms, boat
size was less influential, and the size of boats on which
respondents were traveling had little influence.
2011
Needham, M.D.
Szuster, B.W.
This article measures normative acceptance of
management strategies and how situational factors
differentially influence acceptance. Surveys of 1399
tourists and residents at coastal sites in Hawai’i
included eight hypothetical scenarios describing
impacts to four factors: use level/density, presence
of litter, damage to reefs, and condition of facilities.
Respondents rated their acceptance of improving
awareness/education, restricting use, increasing
facilities, and improving maintenance for each
scenario.
Factors differentially influenced acceptance of these actions.
Damage to reefs was the most important factor influencing
acceptance of improving awareness. Use level was most important
when rating acceptance of restricting people, and facility
conditions were most important in acceptance of increasing
maintenance and facilities.
Users agreed with protectionist and disagreed with use-oriented
beliefs. The largest number of users had strong protectionist
orientations toward reefs, and there was no group possessing only
use orientations. Most respondents had protectionist orientations.
75
Name of Study:
Year:
Author:
Data Collection Methods:
Results:
Attitudes,
willingness to pay,
and stated values for
recreation use fees
at an urban
proximate forest
2012
Rosenberger, R.S.
Needham, M.D.
Morzillo, A.T.
Moehrke, C.
Attitudes toward paying an annual fee at this forest were directly
associated with WTP and were among the strongest predictors of
WTP. Respondents with supportive attitudes toward paying the
annual fee were more willing to pay than those who were opposed.
The strength of attitudes also influenced WTP, with those
respondents having stronger opposition being least likely to pay.
Internet promotional
material and
conservation
volunteer tourist
motivations: A case
study of selecting
organizations and
projects
2012
Grimm, K.E.
Needham, M.D.
Studies have combined contingent valuation and
attitude theory in models directly predicting
willingness to pay recreation fees. Little
research, however, has modeled predictions of
attitudes toward fees on both the intention to pay
(WTP) and stated payment amount ($WTP)
simultaneously. This article addresses that
knowledge gap using onsite survey data from 1068
recreationists at the McDonald- Dunn forest in
Oregon.
To collect data, we engaged in participant
observation and conducted interviews at a
conservation volunteer project in Ecuador with 36
volunteer tourists, 2 managers, and 3 volunteer
coordinators.
Findings revealed that volunteers almost exclusively used the
internet to search for volunteer tourism opportunities. Volunteer
decisions to select the organization or project were influenced by
both website appearance (e.g., organized, professional) and
specific content (e.g., photographs, volunteer comments, project
descriptions, buzzwords).
76
Name of Study:
Year:
Author:
Data Collection Methods:
Results:
Voluntary
environmental
programs at an
alpine ski area:
Visitor perceptions,
attachment, value
orientations, and
specialization
2013
Needham, M.D.
Little, C.M.
Data were collected at the Mt. Bachelor ski area in
central Oregon, using questionnaires administered
from the middle of January to end of March 2010
during which sampling days were randomly selected.
Sampling occurred from 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in
restaurant facilities on the mountain and at its base.
On each sampling day, one of the three dining
facilities was randomly selected for sampling and
potential respondents were approached at these
facilities using a systematic random sampling
method where every fifth table was systematically
selected after randomly choosing a starting table. At
each table, the person in each household with the
most recent birthday was asked to complete a
questionnaire. If all individuals were from different
households, they were each asked to complete
questionnaires. If a person refused to participate, was
under 18 years of age or an employee, or had already
answered a questionnaire, a person at the next table
was selected. Questionnaires took approximately 1015 minutes to complete and after an onsite pilot test
of this instrument, the final sample size was n = 429
(n = 303 skiers, n = 126 snowboarders) with an
overall response rate of 89.7%.
Data showed that few were knowledgeable of VEPs at this ski area
or motivated to visit on their current trip because of these
programs, but many intended to visit more often in the future if
this area increases and promotes its VEPs. Respondents who were
motivated to visit because of VEPs were more attached to this area
and biocentric or environmentally oriented.
77
APPENDIX C
Data Collection Details
August 2011 – April 2012
Data collection began on August 13, 2011 by a business connection on St.
Thomas, going out on a catamaran named The Cat, hosted by Marriott
Frenchman’s Reef. This was the first trip that began the data collection process,
and I was also invited to attend the trip. The trip went to Buck Island off of St.
Thomas, and 21 participant surveys were collected. The next trip was with Cruz
Bay Watersports on September 15, 2011, arranged by a cold call to the manager,
and I was invited on a boat out of the Westin on St. John. The trip went to
Hawksnest and Waterlemon Cay. There were 10 participant surveys collected
from this location.
The Captain from Cruz Bay Watersports introduced me to one of the crew
members on the catamaran Castaway Girl out of St. Thomas, so that became the
third excursion. I was invited on this trip. The excursion went to Buck Island off
of St. Thomas. Fifteen participant surveys were collected. Eleven participant
surveys were distributed and collected from Virgin Islands Ecotours (cold call
manager contact). I did not go out on this tour.
During the month of October 2011, the manager of Coki Beach Dive Club
distributed and collected 5 participant surveys. Coki Beach is a beach located on
the northeast side of St. Thomas with off shore snorkeling takes place. Coki
Beach Dive Club is located adjacent to Coral World Ocean Park, and because of
the proximity, it was easy to visit this location as well. My first interaction was
with the manager through an informal business connection, and 6 participant
surveys were distributed and collected by the manager during the month of
October 2011.
In November of 2011, I began to recruit businesses on Tortola. After
spending a day cold calling various businesses, I spent every weekend there for a
month, getting an idea of the business culture and developing relationships. I
came in touch (via walk-in) with the Blue Water Divers manager, who then
agreed to distribute surveys for me to her new divers upon return from their
78
SCUBA dive trip. Ten participant surveys were eventually collected from this
location. On November 18, 2011, I talked with the owner of Kuralu Sailing
Charters. He was willing to distribute surveys and later provided five completed.
Aristocat sailing charters were very receptive to participating, and surveys were
given to them for distribution. The Captain provided 11 participant surveys.
Although I did not attend the trip, he invited me to return as his guest for the day
at my convenience.
I was invited aboard White Squall II, and although the owner did not
participate in the study, he introduced me to the staff at We Be Divin’, also
located on Tortola and close to his boat business. A We Be Divin’ staff member
agreed to distribute surveys to their new divers, and 10 participant surveys were
eventually collected from this location.
Traveling all over Tortola, I visited Cane Garden Bay, Brewer’s Bay,
Josiah Bay, Long Bay, Beef Island, and Trellis Bay in search of more businesses
that may be interested. I networked with the local community who told me about
more businesses, some that did not participate, but that knew others who may.
Due to the holiday season in 2011, the ability to distribute and collect
surveys tapered off. I resumed my data collection on January 6, 2011, with
Calypso Charters. This business had been recruited via cold calls to a tourism
center on St. John, and both managers were very receptive. The agreed to
distribute surveys, and eventually I collected 14 completed surveys from this
location.
On January 17, 2012, I met with the manger of St. Thomas Diving Club,
introduced through a mutual friend. I eventually collected four surveys from
them. They were hesitant to distribute the surveys themselves, so I met the new
divers or snorkeling participants after their trip and assisted with the process.
Through this connection, I was introduced to the general manager of Bolongo Bay
Beach Resort, located next door to St. Thomas Diving Club, and they agreed to
participate immediately. I eventually collected 11 participant surveys from the
Beach Hut, where off-shore snorkeling takes place, and 15 participant surveys
79
from their catamaran, Heavenly Days. This exchange required coordination with
their excursion manager over a three-month period.
On February 5 – 7, 2012, I traveled to St. Croix to attend previously
arranged meetings with the manager of St. Croix Ultimate Bluewater Adventures
(SCUBA), the manager of Big Beard’s Adventure Tours, the manager of St. Croix
Watersports, and the owner of the catamaran Jolly Roger. Networking for this
trip began with travel to St. Croix for the Agriculture Fair in January 2011.
Following up for more than a year, I was able to secure meetings and attendance
on two trips within a three-day period. On February 6, 2012, I was invited on Big
Beard’s Tour ½ day tour to Buck Island National Monument off of St. Croix, and
I was also able to distribute and collect 10 participant surveys.
On February 7, 2012, I was invited out on Jolly Roger with the Captain.
This was a light trip and I was only able to collect 4 participant surveys. We
again went to Buck Island National Monument off of St. Croix.
Shortly after returning from St. Croix, I was invited out on Kekoa
Catamaran Sailing Expeditions on February 10, 2012. I was able to connect with
the Captain by cold calling the trip planning coordinator, and he was very
receptive, inviting me out on the trip in addition to suggesting additional help if I
may need it. The excursion went to Lavongo Cay and Christmas Cove for
snorkeling. I distributed and collected 10 participant surveys.
On February 15, 2012, via cold calling, I was invited by the Captain to go
out with Fury Sailing Charters on St. Thomas to Buck Island off of St. Thomas,
and I collected eight participant surveys. I also took many photos and video
footage.
Following up on previous phone calls and e-mails to businesses on Virgin
Gorda from the previous Fall, in mid-February of 2011, I set up a visit to Virgin
Gorda to take place on February 19th and 20th, 2012. On February 19th upon
arrival, I met the manager of Little Dix Bay Dive Shop, managed by DIVE BVI.
She was friendly and immediately receptive. I gave her many surveys, and I
eventually collected 11 surveys from the Little Dix Bay and Yacht Harbor
locations. She gave me the names of two more individuals to contact in regard to
80
my surveys, which later became great networking connections. During this initial
meeting, she invited me to come out on the Island Hopper, their full day tour of
the BVI that goes to two different snorkeling locations (The Caves and The
Indians) then on to Jost van Dyke for lunch. I had an immediate connection to her
and the owner of DIVE BVI as well, so I arranged a return trip on March 5 – 8,
2012, when I was able to attend this Island Hopper excursion and collected 13
participant surveys.
Circling back to the evening of February 19th, I was able to meet with the
owner and manager of Double D Charters, previously contacted and arranged in
the Fall of 2010. He was receptive and open to distributing my surveys, of which
I gave him many, along with a return stamped envelope for mailing back to me.
(I did this quite frequently at numerous locations to avoid the business having to
pay for postage.) We met for about an hour. He later sent me 16 completed
surveys through the mail.
On February 24th and 25th, I spent the day at the Virgin Islands
Environmental Resource Station, where I was able to discuss the surveys with the
manager. He eventually provided 17 completed surveys. On February 29th I made
my last trip to St. John and collected 6 more surveys from Cruz Bay Watersports,
not attending the trip, but meeting the boat upon arrival back to the dock.
The two trips to Virgin Gorda in February and March of 2012 generated
interest in the popular tourist destination known as The Baths. This is a National
Parks Trust managed location, and I had to go through many avenues of
networking to secure survey distribution at this location. After visiting and
meeting the manager, I requested survey distribution by me off the beach, where
they provide snorkeling gear to tourists. I eventually received permission from
the director of the National Parks Trust, and made arrangements to distribute and
collected completed participant surveys on April 1, 2012, concluding my data
collection. I was able to collect 33 completed surveys on this last day of data
collection.