Cruise economy added-value and benefit distribution: The precondition of institutional effectiveness

The question of cruise tourism’s economic value-added entails fore and foremost the financing models (Sugimura, Reference Sugimura2020) and investment returns for cruise- and tourism-related infrastructure, logistics and business services (Urbanyi-Popiołek, Reference Urbanyi-Popiołek2014; Artal-Tur et al., Reference Artal-Tur, Navarro-Azorín and Ramos-Parreño2019), especially in the context of the post-pandemic era (Ajagunna and Casanova, Reference Ajagunna and Casanova2022). A more equitable sharing of investment costs and risks could be achieved through private–public partnerships (PPP) (Sugimura, Reference Sugimura2020) and/or through regulating ownership and exercising control over tourist venues and attractions (Puriri and McIntosh, Reference Puriri and McIntosh2019). Besides the direct economic impacts related to cruise tourism, there is also an array of indirect costs involving the local residents’ quality of life (Jordan and Vogt, Reference Jordan, Vieira, Santos and Huang2017), the availability and access to food and water (MacNeill and Wozniak, Reference MacNeill and Wozniak2018), as well as their psychological well-being (McFarlane-Morris, Reference McFarlane-Morris2021). Whilst estimating and monitoring direct, indirect and induced economic impacts represents a methodological challenge (Artal-Tur et al., Reference Artal-Tur, Navarro-Azorín and Ramos-Parreño2019) at the destination level, facilitating a more equitable distribution between a local community’s social groups poses an additional challenge for policy-makers (Del Chiappa et al., Reference Del Chiappa, Lorenzo-Romero and Gallarza2018).

Taking all the above into account and considering the inconclusive and conditional nature of cruise tourism’s impact on coastal regions and communities, one can deduce that the presence of an appropriate regulatory architecture and the ability to uphold and control it is a key precondition. This, in turn, dictates institutional effectiveness and public authority competence.

Cruise destination competitiveness: A question of geography, infrastructure and regulatory framework

Destination competitiveness reflects the strategic dimension of cruise tourism’s economic development and aims at maximising demand by improving the source-market attractiveness and regional positioning of a port destination.

Home-porting (i.e., port of embarkation and disembarkation) is considered more favourable than serving as a port-of-call within an itinerary, as it is usually associated with higher cruise B2B-related income and visitor spending (Jordan, Reference Klein2013; Bagis and Dooms, Reference Bagis and Dooms2014; London and Lohmann, Reference London and Lohmann2014; Niavis and Vaggelas, Reference Niavis and Vaggelas2016; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Petrick, Papathanassis and Li2019). This can be mainly attributed to longer lengths of stay at port (Chen and Nijkamp, Reference Chen and Nijkamp2018), business and logistics services to cruise operators (Chen, Reference Chen2016), as well as revenue and employment generated via guest-transportation services and facilities, pre- and post-cruise overnight stays.

The main determinants of (port) destination competitiveness can be grouped under the following headings:

• • Geography: The geographical position within a given cruise itinerary, as well as the corresponding connectivity of ports with other destinations and their hinterlands (Tsiotas et al., Reference Tsiotas, Niavis and Sdrolias2018; Tseng and Yip, Reference Tseng and Yip2021; Yuksel et al., Reference Yuksel, Yuksel, Islek, Sahin and Ari Guner2021).

• • Infrastructure: The functionality and capacity of the available infrastructure (Sun et al., Reference Sun, Feng and Gauri2014; Lopes and Dredge, Reference Lopes and Dredge2018), along with the general degree of economic and tourism development in the area (London and Lohmann, Reference London and Lohmann2014; Niavis and Vaggelas, Reference Niavis and Vaggelas2016; da Luz et al., Reference da Luz, Antunes, Caldeirinha, Caballé-Valls and Garcia-Alonso202 Reference Ajagunna and Casanova2).

• • Regulatory framework: Dawson et al. (Reference Dawson, Johnston and Stewart2017) adopt the example of the Canadian Arctic to highlight the negative effects of (over-)regulation and bureaucracy on destination attractiveness, and make a case for improved process- and organisational efficiency in the implementation of regulations.

The existence of a favourable institutional architecture, combined with a suitable strategy for improving competitiveness, is alone no guarantee for cruise-driven economic success unless the strategy is effectively managed and translated at the operational level.

Destination management: Professionalism imperative for attraction protection and visitor spending

The sustainable management of attractions (McLean, Reference McLean2022), critical tourism resources (Sun et al., Reference Sun, Kwortnik, Xu, Lau and Ni2021) and the protection of heritage sites (Marsh, Reference Marsh2012; Colavitti and Usai, Reference Colavitti and Usai2019) require seasonality control, crowd management, stakeholder coordination and business regulation (Castillo-Manzano et al., Reference Castillo-Manzano, Lopez-Valpuesta and Alanís2015). At the operational level, understanding and managing cruise-visitor movements in destination areas and attractions, their behaviours, spending-patterns and interaction-valence with the local community have been extensively studied (Weaver and Lawton, Reference Weaver and Lawton2017; Ferrante et al., Reference Ferrante, De Cantis and Shoval2018; Brandajs and Russo, Reference Brandajs and Russo2021; Casado-Díaz et al., Reference Chen2021), often in the context of the overtourism debate (Abbasian et al., Reference Abbasian, Onn and Arnautovic2020; Shoval et al., Reference Shoval, Kahani, De Cantis and Ferrante2020; Baumann, Reference Baumann2021; Ilori et al., Reference Ilori, Ajagunna, Oluseyi, Lawal-Are and Ogundipe2022). From this perspective, overtourism can be seen as the result of destination-operational and managerial failure.

Direct spending, word-of-mouth marketing and intention to return are the main value-contribution of cruise visitors to destinations (Parola et al., Reference Parola, Satta, Penco and Persico2014; Penco and Di Vaio, Reference Penco and Di Vaio2014; Sanz Blas and Carvajal-Trujillo, Reference Sanz Blas and Carvajal-Trujillo2014). The main driver of cruise visitor’s spending and their intentions to return is (not surprisingly) guest satisfaction, stemming from authentic, positive experiences and service interaction quality (Baumann, Reference Baumann2021; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Marshall, Gardiner and Kim2021). Other determinants of cruise destination visitor-satisfaction extracted from the literature include local prices (Brida et al., Reference Brida, Bukstein and Tealde2015), length of stay (Sanz-Blas et al., Reference Sanz-Blas, Buzova and Carvajal-Trujillo2019; Casado-Díaz et al., Reference Chen2021), visitor demographics (López-Marfil et al., Reference López-Marfil, Fernández-Gámez, Campos-Soria and Alaminos2021), destination image (Toudert and Bringas-Rábago, Reference Toudert and Bringas-Rábago2016), visit-excursion arrangements (Navarro-Ruiz et al., Reference Navarro-Ruiz, Casado-Díaz and Ivars-Baidal2020), travelling/excursion group size (Brida et al., Reference Brida, Pulina, Riaño and Zapata-Aguirre2012) and even weather conditions (Baños-Pino et al., Reference Baños-Pino, Boto-García, Valle and Zapico2022).

The multiplicity of institutional, regulatory, strategic and managerial challenges mentioned previously is evidently also moderated by a multi-variate set of behavioural patterns exhibited by the various stakeholders involved. This underlines the need for a systemic view of the cruise phenomenon. A simplistic focus on ship-call counts and cruise visitor volumes by tourism policy-makers and by the press, grossly fails to capture the development dynamics and conditional nature of cruise tourism’s economc potential. In the absence of a visible, or perceived for that matter, economic justification for cruise tourism, its negative impacts and risks for the environment and other socio-economic activities feature prominently in the public perception and political attention.

Evidence-based sustainability monitoring, regulation and management: ‘Measure it to control it!’

The measurement and quantification of cruise environmental impacts on coastal regions is an integral part of monitoring and controlling them. A proportion of research has invested in comparative quantitative analysis between regions and/or other forms of tourism/economic activity (Gössling et al., Reference Gössling, Scott and Hall2015, Reference Gössling, Lohmann, Grimm and Scott2017; Lin et al., Reference Lin, Yu and Chang2018; Lloret et al., Reference Lloret, Carreño, Carić, San and Fleming2021), underlining the detrimental environmental impacts of cruising and advocating its stricter regulation as a less preferable form of tourism.

In terms of measuring and monitoring emissions, researchers are faced with the difficulty of modelling and isolating the proportional impact of cruise ships in particular, and cruise tourism in general (Simonsen et al., Reference Simonsen, Gössling and Walnum2019; Stewart et al., Reference Stewart, Liggett, Lamers, Ljubicic, Dawson, Thoman, Haavisto and Carrasco2020). For example, Pagoni and Psaraki (Reference Pagoni and Psaraki2014) analysed and quantified the aircraft emissions produced by the aircraft system and assessed the impact of tourism demand volatility on air pollution. Departing from a ship-centric view of cruises, and taking into account the entire cruise-passenger journey (e.g., air and land transportation), restricting emission measurement to port areas does not provide a full picture (Gössling et al., Reference Gössling, Scott and Hall2015, Reference Gössling, Lohmann, Grimm and Scott2017; Grythe and Lopez-Aparicio, Reference Grythe and Lopez-Aparicio2021). Then there is the problem of isolating the proportion of emissions produced by different forms of shipping at a port. Here, comparing the level of emissions between peak and off-peak tourism seasons, to subsequently attribute the difference to cruise ships (Papaefthimiou et al., Reference Papaefthimiou, Maragkogianni and Andriosopoulos2016) is also questionable.

Moreover, a case can be argued against monitoring and controlling emissions as an isolated measure for managing the environmental impacts of cruise tourism. Various measurement/indicator improvements, along with existing model-/index-extensions, have been proposed to better address other aspects of cruise-induced environmental impacts (e.g., Vicente-Cera et al., Reference Vicente-Cera, Acevedo-Merino, López-Ramírez and Nebot2020). Others have argued for a wider scope, in conjunction with an incorporation of other sustainability dimensions (Carić and Mackelworth, Reference Carić, Klobučar and Štambuk2014; Carić, Reference Carić2016; Chen and Chen, Reference Chen and Chen2016; Pesce et al., Reference Pesce, Terzi, Al-Jawasreh, Bommarito, Calgaro, Fogarin, Russo, Marcomini and Linkov2018; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Chang, Cui, Qi and Li2020) and CSR in general (Papathanassis, Reference Papathanassis2017; Lin et al., Reference Lin, Yu and Chang2018; Nikčević, Reference Nikčević2019; Ramoa et al., Reference Ramoa, Flores and Herle2020).

Indeed, at the heart of cruises’ environmental impact lies the issue of understanding and measuring its magnitude in order to control and regulate it. A further question in this context refers to the actual capacity to do so. The sustainable management of tourism and general and cruise tourism in particular is a complex managerial undertaking, requiring the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups, at both the local and regional levels (Cajaiba-Santana et al., Reference Cajaiba-Santana, Faury and Ramadan2020). Aligning a network/cluster of diverse perceptions and competing private and public interests, whilst ensuring acceptable levels of community participation, is at the core of successful policy implementation (Viken and Aarsaether, Reference Viken and Aarsaether2013; Garay et al., Reference Garay, Cànoves and Prat2014; Harkison and Barðadóttir, Reference Harkison and Barðadóttir2019; Dimitrovski et al., Reference Dimitrovski, Lemmetyinen, Nieminen and Pohjola2021).

Tourism portfolio management and diversification: ‘Tourism-monocultures’ are not sustainable

Juxtaposing the environmental and social risks of cruise tourism against the economic livelihood dependence of some communities, renders the aspiration to regulate and control environmental risks somewhat of a theoretical exercise. This is the point where the power balances and economic dependencies in the cruise supply chain, mentioned before, supress the readiness to mitigate and control sustainability-related risks. Over-dependence on a particular tourism form and/or segment is the equivalent of an ‘economic monoculture’, which is arguably a risky and crisis-prone option as it is subject to seasonality, economic cycles and corporate exploitation (James et al., Reference James, Olsen and Karlsdóttir2020; Renaud, Reference Renaud2020). Diversification and a balanced tourism portfolio enable improved capacity risk management (Jeevan et al., Reference Jeevan, Othman, Abu Hasan, Pham and Park2019; Jordan et al., Reference Jordan2020) and investment steering (Pulina et al., Reference Pulina, Meleddu and Del Chiappa2013).

Whilst the case for economic diversity and a seasonally-balanced tourism portfolio is straightforward and self-evident, particularly in the aftermath of the pandemic on tourism activity, the very persistence and emergence of tourism monocultures indicate its evasiveness in practice. The structural aspects of tourism system (i.e., international supply chains, predominance of small–medium enterprises, market-share concentration) subject it to corruption, which simultaneously echoes and disrupts economic-development and sustainability-related progress (Papathanassis, Reference Papathanassis2019b). Systemic corruption in the context of preventing sustainable tourism development (in all dimensions) can be attributed to institutional failure, and affects the ability of coastal regions to strategically manage their tourism activities and resources. Institutional effectiveness, as mentioned earlier, is a precondition for destination competitiveness, both of which constitute the framework for sustainable tourism development.

Sustainable technologies and best practices: Underrated potential and adoption timing

Improvements in propulsion technology and energy efficiency have consistently played a major role in shipbuilding, particularly over the past years, due to stricter regulations and rising energy costs (Amaya-Vías et al., Reference Amaya-Vías, Nebot and López-Ramírez2018; Eikeland et al., Reference Eikeland, Apostoleris, Santos, Ingebrigtsen, Boström and Chiesa2020). Technological innovations in shipbuilding, concerning waste-treatment and management also imply cost reductions (Paiano et al., Reference Paiano, Crovella and Lagioia2020), whilst improving environmental sustainability (Carić et al., Reference Casado-Díaz, Navarro-Ruiz, Nicolau and Ivars-Baidal2016). Technological innovation is often a domain where profit maximisation and ecology coincide. From the approximately 100 new builds planned up to 2027, one-fifth are LNG powered, corresponding to 39% of the new tonnage and 41% of the added capacity (Papathanassis, Reference Papathanassis2021, p. 17). This and a closer view of the current cruise ship order book reveals that LNG-powered vessels tend to be larger in terms of tonnage and passenger capacity and thus more expensive (+59%), in part due to their size. As older vessels are decommissioned and newer, more technologically advanced, vessels join the global cruise fleet, cleaner fuels and energy-saving technologies will gradually displace other, older and less-sustainable technologies. The reason, why the technological aspect has assumed a rather secondary role in scientific research and public debate is probably because it is in fact a delayed evolution, a reaction to the overdue revolution dictated by the zeitgeist-action-urgency of climate change.

Cruise-eco tourism and conservation: Fostering responsibility

Besides the fairly intuitive popularised proposal of tourism tax for conservation purposes (Verbitsky, Reference Verbitsky2015; Sanches et al., Reference Sanches, Aguiar, de Freitas and Pacheco2020), Storrie et al. (Reference Storrie, Lydersen, Andersen, Wynn and Kovacs2018) and Taylor et al. (Reference Taylor, Barðadóttir, Auffret, Bombosch, Cusick, Falk and Lynnes2020) highlight the potential of environmental citizen science by utilising data collected by cruise passengers, particularly those who participate in expedition cruises. Furthermore, in a number of regions, cruise tourism may be the ‘least-worst-alternative’ when it comes to sustainability. Dependence on eco-tourism may act as an economic/political counterweight (or moderator) against other, less sustainable economic activities such as oil drilling (Gould, Reference Gould2017), dredging (Lester et al., Reference Lester, White, Mayall and Walter2016), electricity production (Paoli et al., Reference Paoli, Vassallo, Dapueto, Fanciulli, Massa, Venturini and Povero2017; Callejas-Jiménez et al., Reference Callejas-Jiménez, Alcérreca-Huerta and Carrillo2021) and fishing (Lasso and Dahles, Reference Lasso and Dahles2018). Another indirect, but yet mention-worthy positive effect of expedition cruise tourism is its educational and awareness-creation potential for sustainability values and issues (Walker and Moscardo, Reference Walker and Moscardo2014; Ardoin et al., Reference Ardoin, Wheaton, Hunt, Schuh and Durham2016; Zander et al., Reference Zander, Saeteros, Orellana, Granda, Wegner, Izurietah and Garnett2016; Warmouth et al., Reference Warmouth, Skibins, Storie and Schuler2021). Tourism can transform a ‘sense of place’ to a ‘care of place’ encouraging tourists and locals to assume more responsibility (Walker and Moscardo, Reference Walker and Moscardo2016) and play a more active role with regards to conservation (Hillmer-Pegram, Reference Hillmer-Pegram2016).

Sustainability dimension trade-offs: Beyond sensationalism and populism

Thus far, the literature reviewed for this paper makes it rather clear that the topic of sustainability and the impact of cruise tourism on coastal regions does not yield simple answers and necessitates a critical yet panoptic approach. Failure to consider the spill-over effects between the sustainability dimensions can result in misplaced actions and measures, addressing one problem whilst triggering several others (Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Newman and Stead2019; Ren et al., Reference Ren, James, Pashkevich and Hoarau-Heemstra2021). A systemic understanding of sustainability and the trade-offs between its dimensions is a precondition for effectively managing it. In addition, there is a need to differentiate between the impacts and potential of various sub-segments of (cruise) tourism (Cheung et al., Reference Cheung, Wai, Bauer and Deng2019; Wahnschafft and Wolter, Reference Wahnschafft and Wolter2022) and understand their interaction with the destination context (Tin et al., Reference Tin, Summerson and Yang2016; Panzer-Krause, Reference Panzer-Krause2020).

Despite, highlighting its relevance and inter-disciplinary potential, deriving and synthesising knowledge from the scientific literature, enables a multi-faceted view of sustainability in the (cruise) tourism context. This can reduce the risk of exploiting tourism and its significance for media-sensationalism (Nagel, Reference Nagel2020), and worse even for political and/or corporate interests, particularly for the developing economies of the global south.

Cruise image and sustainability awareness: Slow but steady!

A casual view of the press coverage regarding tourism in general and cruises in particular constructs the picture of a few ‘green-washing’, exploitative cruise operators, serving hedonistic and environmentally insensitive customers. Despite cases and practices reinforcing this view, this is only part of the picture. For one, the ‘business’ of cruising entails a larger set of actors and stakeholders, ranging from cruise operators, industry associations and NGOs to local public authorities, businesses and independent small vendors. Indirectly, ‘producing holiday experiences’ involves entire communities and is subject to a multiplicity of motives, interests and perspectives. In other words, the cruise business does not merely consist of cruise corporations, but an entire network of institutional and business actors, who set the stage and participate in (un-)sustainable practices.

Secondly, the notion of ‘hedonistic’, environmentally-insensitive cruise tourists is also contestable. As eco-awareness increases amongst the population at large, sustainability considerations are playing an increasingly important role in the booking decisions of cruisers (Roura, Reference Roura2012; Han et al., Reference Han, Yu, Koo and Kim2019), which in turn increases pressures on the sector to review and adapt their business models and practices. A transformation driven by shifts in (cruise) tourist attitudes and booking behaviour, resembles a bottom-up, organic evolution. This may well be the key for effective and lasting change towards more sustainable forms of coastal tourism, but nonetheless a Sisyphean challenge with delayed results. Therefore, it needs to be complemented by top-down regulation at multiple levels, ranging from international to local.