ArticlePDF Available

Cruising through a pandemic: The impact of COVID-19 on intentions to cruise (2021)

February 2021
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

DOI:10.1016/j.trip.2021.100328

License
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authors:

Jennifer Holland

University of Suffolk

Tim Mazzarol

The University of Western Australia

Geoffrey Soutar

The University of Western Australia

Suellen Tapsall

University of Technology Sydney

Show all 5 authorsHide

The global coronavirus pandemic has devastated the cruise sector with widespread disruption and cancellations affecting millions of cruise passengers. The cruise industry was negatively affected due to the enclavic and confined environment onboard, the high infection rates among both crew and passengers, and widespread negative media coverage. This study explores the impact of COVID‐19 on willingness to cruise and attitudes towards cruising for both cruisers and non‐cruisers living in Australia and the United Kingdom. Data analysis of respondents’ comments was undertaken using both Leximancer text analytic software and manual content analysis. Findings indicate country of residence has a significant influence on risk perceptions for a cruise holiday and affects future intentions to cruise. Specific impacts for the cruise industry are discussed and recommendations proposed for policy and practice.

All respondents' intention to travel concept map.

…

All respondents' intention to cruise concept map.

…

Sample characteristics

…

Figures - uploaded by Jennifer Holland

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Jennifer Holland

Content may be subject to copyright.

Cruising through a pandemic: The impact of COVID-19 on intentions to

cruise

Jennifer Holland

⇑

, Tim Mazzarol

, Geoffrey N. Soutar

, Suellen Tapsall

, Wendy A. Elliott

Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom

Business School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

Division of Education and Students, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Cruise ship

COVID‐19

Risk

Health

Travel intentions

ABSTRACT

The global coronavirus pandemic has devastated the cruise sector with widespread disruption and cancella-

tions affecting millions of cruise passengers. The cruise industry was negatively affected due to the enclavic

and conﬁned environment onboard, the high infection rates among both crew and passengers, and widespread

negative media coverage. This study explores the impact of COVID‐19 on willingness to cruise and attitudes

towards cruising for both cruisers and non‐cruisers living in Australia and the United Kingdom. Data analysis

of respondents’comments was undertaken using both Leximancer text analytic software and manual content

analysis. Findings indicate country of residence has a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on risk perceptions for a cruise hol-

iday and affects future intentions to cruise. Speciﬁc impacts for the cruise industry are discussed and recom-

mendations proposed for policy and practice.

1. Introduction

Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the cruise ship sector was one

of the fastest growing segments in the global tourism industry

(Papathanassis, 2019). With an estimated annual value of more than

$USD150 billion, the cruise industry had been forecast to reach a

record level of 32 million passengers in 2020 (Cruise Lines

International Association, 2019b) [CLIA]. Cruise holidays became

increasingly popular during the ﬁrst two decades of the twenty‐

ﬁrst century and Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) were par-

ticularly signiﬁcant markets. For example, Australia exceeded expec-

tations in achieving one million passengers in 2014, six years earlier

than market predictions (Dowling and Weeden, 2017). Australia was

performing strongly in cruise travel, with cruising becoming the

country’s fastest growing tourism sector (CLIA Australasia, 2017;

CLIA Australasia n.d.). By 2018, Australia was the ﬁfth largest

source country for passengers, behind the USA, China, Germany,

and the UK (CLIA, 2019a) and had a higher market penetration than

anywhere else in the world. Signiﬁcantly, Australia was the only

market in which as many as 1‐in‐17 people had cruised (CLIA

Australasia, 2019). Industry reports estimated the contribution of

the cruise sector to the Australian economy was worth $AUD 5.2

billion in the 2018/19 ﬁnancial year (The Maritime Executive,

2019).

Similarly, prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the UK had seen sus-

tained growth, with increasing numbers of cruise lines operating out

of the UK as demand for cruising increased. In 2018, just over two mil-

lion passengers originated from the UK and Ireland, with the UK being

the second largest European market after Germany (CLIA, 2019a), rep-

resenting 28% of cruise passengers in Europe (Business Research &

Economic Advisors, 2019). Cruising generated €10.4 billion for the

UK economy in 2017 (Cruise Lines International Association, 2018).

However, there is little research on tourists’risk perceptions in these

two markets. Further, no research has explored the potential impacts

of the COVID‐19 pandemic on tourists’risk perceptions or future inten-

tions to cruise.

The COVID‐19 pandemic of 2020 has devastated the cruise sector,

with widespread disruption and cancellations affecting millions of pas-

sengers and people employed directly or indirectly through the cruise

industry. The cruise sector was particularly and immediately affected

due to high infection rates among crew and passengers (Mizumoto

and Chowell, 2020; Rocklöv et al., 2020). Thousands of passengers

were stranded onboard as cruise ships were held in quarantine or

refused entry to ports as borders closed. Over 700 people were infected

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100328

Received 6 November 2020; Revised 10 February 2021; Accepted 11 February 2021

Available online 20 February 2021

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

⇑

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: jenniholland@outlook.com (J. Holland).

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trip

onboard the cruise ship Diamond Princess, with 14 deaths (Lefﬂer and

Hogan, 2020). By the end of the ﬁrst quarter of 2020, over 50 cruise

ships had conﬁrmed cases of COVID‐19 documented, which was one

ﬁfth of the global ocean cruise ﬂeet (Dolven et al., 2020). Within these,

the Ruby Princess gained notoriety as some of the ﬁrst cases in Australia

were passengers disembarking the ship. There were 28 deaths linked

to the Ruby Princess (22 in Australia, the rest in the USA) (Walker,

2020), and controversy erupted over the management and handling

of the initial outbreak.

Given the pandemic’s devastating impact on the cruise industry, it

is important to understand the potential effect COVID‐19 has had on

how people think and feel about the riskiness of cruise holidays.

Understanding risk is essential, as perceptions of risk inﬂuence travel

decision‐making (Bowen et al., 2014; Floyd and Pennington‐Gray,

2004; Karl, 2018; Schroeder et al., 2013; Sönmez and Graefe, 1998).

Perceived risk has also been recognised as a signiﬁcant factor inﬂuenc-

ing destination choice (Floyd and Pennington‐Gray, 2004; Kim et al.,

2016; Sharifpour et al., 2014; Sönmez and Graefe, 1998). However, lit-

tle is known about how risk perceptions inﬂuence decision‐making for

cruise holidays. This is a signiﬁcant research gap, as the extent to

which the cruise industry understands how people feel about risk

and how risk perceptions affect choices to cruise or not, will be impor-

tant to the success (or otherwise) of the cruise industry’s post‐COVID

recovery strategies. There is limited research examining non‐cruisers’

(i.e., people who have never taken a cruise holiday) risk perceptions.

Such understanding may explain why some people reject a cruise as

a holiday choice, which would inform cruise operators about potential

barriers for new passengers.

This study’s objective was to address gaps in prior research and

investigate changes in people’s willingness to ocean cruise given the

COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition, our study explored how risk percep-

tions affected intentions to cruise. The study also compared responses

from Australian and UK consumers with and without prior cruise expe-

rience. In doing so, it offers insights into differences between these

groups. Research on non‐cruisers is scarce, with a few notable excep-

tions (see Holland, 2020; Lebrun, 2015; Park and Petrick, 2009).

Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by examining and

comparing risk perceptions between these groups to determine any

signiﬁcant differences, and to what extent cruise experience inﬂuences

risk perceptions and future cruise and travel intentions.

First, we situate the study within the COVID‐19 pandemic and

explore its impact on the cruise industry, particularly as it has affected

Australia and the UK. Second, we examine the risk perception litera-

ture and suggest a conceptual framework from this literature. Third,

we outline the methodology followed, including the sampling process,

data collection and data analysis. Fourth, we explain the ﬁndings and

discuss these with reference to the research gaps identiﬁed. Fifth, we

discuss the ﬁndings with reference to the conceptual framework that

guided the study and, ﬁnally, we conclude with some comments on

the study’s implications for policy and practice, directions for future

research, and limitations.

1.1. Research context

Early in the coronavirus outbreak, cruise ships featured promi-

nently. For example, the Diamond Princess was quarantined in Japan

for six weeks following conﬁrmation of an outbreak onboard. On

20th February 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO)

announced the Diamond Princess accounted for more than half of the

then 1000 cases of coronavirus outside the Chinese mainland (Belam

et al., 2020). By that time, there had been seven deaths associated with

the cruise ship (eventually there would be at least 14, including the

ﬁrst Australian, a 78‐year‐old man who died after repatriation from

Japan). As the coronavirus outbreak spread during February, more

ships in the Asia‐Paciﬁc region were quarantined or blocked from

entering ports. By mid‐March, many ports around the world were

closed to cruise ships and itineraries had been thrown into chaos.

Through that month cruise companies proactively shut down opera-

tions. As noted earlier, the COVID‐19 pandemic has been catastrophic

for the cruise industry, with the complete cessation of operations for

all brands. COVID‐19 has negatively impacted the cruise industry in

several ways. Economically, the pause in operations resulted in an esti-

mated $50 billion loss by September 2020 (CLIA, 2020). By October

2020, at least three cruise lines (Birka Cruises, Cruise & Maritime Voy-

ages and Pullmantur Cruises) had gone out of business because of the

pandemic (The Maritime Executive, 2020). Other brands were able to

secure funding (Oxford Analytica, 2020) and appeared to be surviving,

although there were ongoing concerns about their ability to ride out

the pandemic the longer it continued.

The outbreak of COVID‐19 onboard several cruise ships, as well as

the sudden termination of hundreds of voyages, signiﬁcantly affected

the perception and promotion of cruising as a ‘safe’holiday. While

cruises had traditionally been perceived and promoted as ‘safe’, the

COVID‐19 pandemic highlighted the critical importance of risk percep-

tions. This is signiﬁcant, as cruisers are generally thought to be risk‐

averse (Tarlow, 2006) and ensuring a safe and healthy cruise is of

the utmost importance for the cruise industry (Liu‐Lastres et al.,

2019). In the short term, tourists are fearful of traveling on cruise ships

and are worried about exposure to COVID‐19 in the conﬁned environ-

ment onboard.

The cruise industry has also been affected by a narrative in the

wider media of cruise ships as ‘petri‐dishes’(Awoniyi, 2020) and this

lasting negative image may be difﬁcult to overcome. Other impacts

include increased awareness, and media coverage, of industry prac-

tices around employee working conditions, environmental sustainabil-

ity, homeport optimisation (perceived as limiting tax liabilities and

government oversight) and the overall trustworthiness of the industry.

COVID‐19 has presented severe challenges to restarting operations,

including governments around the world continuing to ban cruising

operations and refusing entry to cruise ships into their ports and terri-

tories, and raising fears and anxieties about COVID‐19 that will affect

intentions to cruise in the future.

As of October 2020, there was no indication when most cruising

operations would resume. Some smaller, expedition‐type cruise ships

restarted cruising in August 2020, offering shorter cruises with mostly

one nationality of passenger onboard to minimise risk, including Costa

Cruises (Italian), Hurtigruten (Norwegian) and Paul Gauguin (French).

However, in all these ﬁrst, tentative voyages, conﬁrmed cases of

COVID‐19 were found to be onboard. As more than 32 million people

were expected to cruise in 2020, the pandemic has had a signiﬁcant

impact on the travel and holiday plans of millions of cruise passengers.

In Australia, risk perceptions were particularly affected by the

ongoing saga of the Ruby Princess. As Liu‐Lastres et al. (2018) noted,

when an outbreak is not managed effectively, the situation can become

a crisis and result in reputational damage, increased risk perceptions

and, ultimately, affect future purchase decisions (see also Le and

Arcodia, 2018). Indeed, the saga of the Ruby Princess reﬂects the need

to manage risk communication to lessen long‐term negative impacts.

The Ruby Princess debacle involved almost 2700 returning passen-

gers, some showing coronavirus‐type symptoms, who disembarked in

Sydney on 19 March 2020. A total of 900 of these passengers were

based internationally and ﬂew home with the risk of spreading the

virus, while the remainder travelled across almost every state in Aus-

tralia to their homes. The port and New South Wales (NSW) Health

authorities chose not to implement additional screening measures,

nor did Sydney airport undertake any screening or temperature tests

at that time. A special commission of inquiry was established by the

NSW State Government on 15th April 2020 to investigate the manage-

ment of these passengers.

Although the inquiry focused on the actions of the NSW State and

Australian Federal Government authorities, it also considered the

actions of the crew of the Ruby Princess, and the ship’s owner,

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Carnival Corporation. The inquiry found the ship’s medical team

contributed to the outcome by having too few swabs available for

testing prior to disembarking, an action described as a “woeful short-

coming”and noted “Carnival should have ensured that passengers and

crew aboard the Ruby Princess were informed that there were suspect

cases of COVID‐19 on board. Those persons meeting the deﬁnition of a

suspect case should have been required to isolate in their cabins”

(Walker, 2020, pp. 33). The lack of swabs (only six viral kits were

onboard at the time) was compounded by a poor response from

NSW health authorities when asked for help by the ship’s doctor.

Ultimately four passengers were swabbed onboard and tested nega-

tive and the ship was deemed medium risk and remaining passengers

could disembark (Walker, 2020). Ruby Princess would later be linked

to more than 1221 cases and 28 deaths (Davies et al., 2020; Walker,

2020). This debacle diminished the reputation of the Princess brand

in Australia and cruising in general.

In Australia, the connection between cruise ships and coron-

avirus quickly gained prominence for several reasons, including

the widespread media coverage and social media presence of, and

engagement with, Australians ‘trapped’on board quarantined cruise

ships. Demand for the Australian Government to send a chartered

ﬂight to ‘rescue’its citizens from the Diamond Princess were headline

news, with regular updates from Australian travellers stranded

aboard cruise ships made during news broadcasts. The timing of

these events was particularly bad, as the outbreaks occurred at

the height of the southern hemisphere cruising season, which meant

more cruise ships than usual were in Australian waters, with many

locals onboard. The initial move of the Australian Government to

close Australian ports to all cruise ships except those sailing exclu-

sively in Australia and New Zealand waters, also afﬁrmed public

perceptions of cruise ships as potentially dangerous. The subsequent

decision to close Australian ports to all cruise ships in late March

and, ultimately, to expel cruise ships from Australian waters was

unprecedented. Indeed, an example of the scope and scale of the

shift in policy towards cruise travel was reﬂected in the expulsion

of the P&O ship Paciﬁc Explorer. P&O Australia had called Sydney

home for decades and it was the ﬁrst time in 88 years it had been

forced to leave Australia.

Further, not only was a cruise passenger the ﬁrst Australian COVID‐

19 related death; the ﬁrst deaths in at least four Australian states and

territories (Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, and ACT) were

cruise ship passengers. Indeed, Western Australia’sﬁrst ﬁve COVID‐

19 related deaths were cruise ship passengers –from four different

cruise ships. Tasmania’sﬁrst three cases were cruise ship passengers,

as were two out of the three initial deaths in Canberra. All four initial

deaths in Queensland were cruise ship passengers.

Continued media coverage of cruise ships seeking to disembark pas-

sengers and crew in Australia followed for months, with most requests

being refused. Frequent news stories prevailed of passengers and crew

being medically evacuated from these ships for hospitalisation due to

COVID‐19. Statements were released by the Australian Government

that if cruise ships were permitted to disembark passengers and crew

in Australia, the sick could overwhelm hospitals throughout the coun-

try (Kaur and Carmody, 2020). As a result of the link of COVID‐19 cases

to the Ruby Princess, a police criminal investigation and two govern-

ment inquiries were launched into the ship and its handling.Statements

were made that manslaughter charges might result, subsequently fol-

lowed by the labelling of the Ruby Princess deaths as ‘suspicious’and

possibly homicide. Several well‐covered police raids of the ship fol-

lowed, with ofﬁcials taking away documents and the ship’s‘black

box’. While reported deaths of cruise passengers slowed toward the

end of April, media coverage of the Ruby Princess enquiries and inves-

tigations picked up when hearings began in May 2020. Given the

heightened awareness of COVID‐19 onboard cruise ships and the par-

ticular signiﬁcance of deaths linked to COVID‐19 in Australia, this

study highlights how critical it is to understand the perception of risk.

2. Conceptual framework

The following section examines some extant literature relating to

risk perceptions and how it has been applied to consumer decision

making, particularly in relation to travel products such as ocean

cruises.

2.1. Risk perceptions

Understanding risk is complex, with little consensus over deﬁnition

regardless of many attempts to deﬁne, conceptualise and understand it

(Aven and Renn, 2009; Boholm et al., 2016; Renn, 2008; Sjoberg,

2000; Slovic and Weber, 2002). For this study’s purposes, risk is

deﬁned simply as the potential to lose something of value (Priest,

1990). A value may include “physical health, social status, emotional

well‐being or ﬁnancial wealth”(Kungwani, 2014, p. 83). Risk percep-

tions refer to how people judge, characterise, and evaluate uncertainty

(Slovic et al., 1980). Perceived risk may be deﬁned as “a consumer's

beliefs about the potential uncertainty associated with negative outcomes

in a purchase situation”(Kim et al., 2008, p. 546). It is the overall

amount of uncertainty perceived by a consumer about a speciﬁc pur-

chase (Cox and Rich, 1964).

There is a higher level of risk associated with travel products due to

their intangibility, high cost and complex decision‐making (Lin et al.,

2009) and a cruise is a high involvement travel decision. A potential

cruiser must think about many aspects of the holiday, including type

of cabin, where in the ship to select a cabin, which cruise line, trans-

portation to and from the ship, itinerary, size of ship, mix of fellow

passengers and reputation of the cruise line in addition to service ele-

ments, prevailing norms about giving gratuities and dress‐codes.

In the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic, would‐be cruisers also

need to consider health protocols, outbreak prevention plans, onboard

sanitation procedures, social distancing measures and the availability

of temperature checks and health screenings. Additionally, they need

to consider the possibility of being quarantined in a cabin for the dura-

tion of the trip if they or others become ill, or the cruise being termi-

nated should there be an outbreak on that ship or region the cruise

ship may be visiting. All of this adds to the uncertainty associated with

the decision to cruise and, as such, to overall perceptions of risk.

2.2. Theoretical foundations

Scholars have noted there is no comprehensive, unifying concep-

tual theory of risk, especially for tourism (see Schroeder et al., 2013;

Kasperson et al., 1988). Risk perceptions and decision‐making are

underpinned by cognitive processes and information integration theory

[IIT] provided a conceptual foundation for this study (Anderson,

1971, 1981). Situated in psychology, the theory suggests new informa-

tion is integrated into a person’s existing beliefs and inﬂuences how

attitudes are formed. Signiﬁcantly, each piece of information has

two qualities (value and weight). The value of information is its eval-

uation as being favourable or unfavourable and the weight is how

much this matters to the individual. This builds on Kahneman and

Tversky’s (1979) loss aversion suggestion that an event or outcome that

is perceived as negative is given more weight than positive outcomes.

Thus, in IIT, information is acquired and integrated into existing cog-

nitive frameworks, thereby inﬂuencing value judgments. New infor-

mation, once acquired, can modify value judgments about an event

and this can inﬂuence perceptions of alternatives prior to the ﬁnal

selection (Le and Arcodia, 2018).

Using this as a conceptual foundation, the discussion of the results

here draws on the social ampliﬁcation of risk framework (SARF). This

interdisciplinary framework assists in examining how risk perceptions

have been affected by COVID‐19 and how differing risk communica-

tion in Australia and the UK impacted on the way risk is perceived.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

SARF offers a way of understanding how social and individual factors

inﬂuence risk perceptions. The framework suggests risk events interact

with psychological, social, and cultural processes and helps explain

why some risks are attenuated or ampliﬁed for different groups

(Kasperson et al., 1988). The framework also identiﬁes how risk per-

ceptions affect behaviour patterns, which generate secondary social

or economic impacts. As risk is a multifaceted and complex construct,

risk communication and management often fail to recognise the social

context in which risks are perceived. With the COVID‐19 crisis, there

has been a failure to recognise differing risk perceptions, where there

may be differences between countries of residence and even differ-

ences within that country.

2.3. Risk in cruising

Risk perceptions about cruise holidays are not well understood,

with scholars calling for more research (Henthorne et al., 2013;

Holland, 2020; Le and Arcodia, 2018; Liu‐Lastres et al., 2019). There

has been little empirical research on exploring risk perception for

those with cruise experience or those who have not cruised. Notable

exceptions include Liu‐Lastres et al. (2019), who examined risk com-

munication and the importance of messaging during a crisis using

the risk perceptions attitude framework (RPA). Their study framed risk

communication within the RPA, exploring perceptual and behavioural

differences among RPA groups. This led to the development of a con-

ceptual model designed to understand the relationship between RPA

groups, cruise travel intentions and safety perceptions, with past cruise

travel experience mediating group and safety perceptions.

The cruise industry has managed other infectious illnesses, includ-

ing outbreaks of H1N1 and norovirus (see Klein et al., 2017; Liu et al.,

2016; Liu‐Lastres et al., 2019; Neri et al., 2008; Mileski et al., 2014),

measles (Lanini et al., 2014), inﬂuenza (Ferson et al., 2000) and

legionnaires’disease (Kura et al., 2006; Mouchtouri and Rudge,

2015). These outbreaks onboard cruise ships resulted in cancelled sail-

ings, limited passenger services and widespread illness. However, no

studies have explored tourists’perceptions of risk in relation to the

SARS or MERS pandemics, which would have been useful to compare

with the COVID‐19 pandemic.

2.4. Research questions

As much of the existing risk literature in tourism approaches risk

from a positivist and quantitative lens, this study sought to extend

our understanding by examining and exploring a deeper interpretation

of the perceived risk of cruising by adding a qualitative perspective. A

qualitative understanding is needed to fully explore what impact

COVID‐19 might have on risk perceptions for ocean cruising and

how this might inﬂuence tourist decision‐making. From this overview

of the literature, we identiﬁed two research questions, namely:

•How has the COVID‐19 pandemic inﬂuenced consumers’risk per-

ception in relation to ocean cruising?

•How has the COVID‐19 pandemic inﬂuenced consumers’future tra-

vel intensions in relation to ocean cruising?

3. Methodology

The methodology was exploratory in nature and made use of

responses to a questionnaire administered to people obtained through

a consumer research panel provider. Minimum targets were set for the

percentage of respondents who were Australian (75%) and who had

cruise experience (target 50%, actual 60% of the total sample).

Respondents in this latter group (cruisers) had to be 40 years and

above. The data collection agency sourced and managed the respon-

dents. A total of 613 participants responded in June 2020 (during

the COVID‐19 pandemic), at a time when many cities were in lock-

down and cruise ship operations were suspended or severely dis-

rupted. A range of questions were asked that included quantitative

and open‐ended items. Here, we have focused on the comments made

in the open‐ended questions that asked about risk perceptions and

future cruising intentions.

3.1. Sample characteristics

As can be seen in Table 1, most of the sample (76%) were from Aus-

tralia and the balance from the UK. Sixty percent of the sample were

cruiser, and the proportions of non‐cruisers within both country’s sam-

ples were roughly the same. The demographic statistics (e.g., gender,

age, household income, employment, and education) were similar,

and there were no statistically signiﬁcant differences between the

groups. The gender split of all groups was relatively balanced,

although the UK non‐cruiser group was more male dominated than

was the other three (56% compared to 47–50% for the other groups).

The average age of cruisers was higher than non‐cruisers; this was an

outcome of the survey design which targeted a minimum sample size

of cruisers aged 40 or older (given the average age of Australian cruis-

ers was 49, and 50 for UK passengers (CLIA, 2019a; CLIA Australasia,

2019. As already indicated, 60% of the sample had ocean cruised pre-

viously, compared to only 6% of Australians (3% UK) (CLIA

Australasia, 2018, 2019).

3.2. Data collection

Within the questionnaire, respondents were provided with infor-

mation about the nature of ocean cruising, which was deﬁned as “a trip

on a commercial cruise line that involves sleeping on board in a cabin, as a

paying passenger.”It was also explained that cruisers eat, sleep and are

entertained onboard the ship and that trips generally last from three to

more than 100 days (for around the world cruises). Information was

also provided as to what an ocean cruise was not (e.g., day trips on

harbours, seas, or rivers; ferry trips or travel in private or public ves-

sels, such as yachts, naval ships, ﬁshing boats or merchant ships).

Respondents were asked about the impact the COVID‐19 pandemic

had on their perceptions of ocean cruising through a list of 20 items

asking whether they agreed or disagreed with statements relating to

the perceived risk of ocean cruising in the wake of the pandemic.

These data are not discussed in this paper but are described here to

provide the context within which the qualitative data was collected.

Respondents were then asked two questions, namely:

Table 1

Sample characteristics.

Background Variable TOTAL Aus Cruiser Aus Non-cruiser UK Cruiser UK Non-cruiser

n = 613 283 181 86 63

Gender % Male 49% Female (51%) Male 48% Female 52% Male 50% Female 50% Male 47% Female 53% Male 56% Female 44%

Age (Median) 53 years (54) 55 years (54) 48 years (48) 55 years (57) 49 years (49)

Annual Household income

Median Household Income 52,000 to 90,999 AUD 52,000 to 90,999 AUD 25,000 to 51,999 GBP 25,000 to 51,999 GBP

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

1. Thinking about the issues raised in the previous section, please

comment on how you feel about travelling now?

2. Is there anything that would impact your future intention to cruise?

3.3. Data analysis

Responses to the open‐ended questions were analysed using the

Leximancer program. Leximancer is a text mining and content analysis

tool that uses mathematical algorithms to examine text and identify, in

a grounded manner, the main concepts and themes that occur within

it. The software not only identiﬁes the frequency with which terms

occur, but also how they relate to each other. Leximancer’s content

analysis can be undertaken using a conceptual (thematic) or relational

(semantic) approach. Word frequency and co‐occurrence counts are

used as the basic data within Leximancer (Smith and Humphreys,

2006; Angus et al., 2013). Leximancer provides a robust analysis of

qualitative data due to the machine supported investigation (Braun

and Clarke, 2006; Liesch, et al., 2011; Lemon and Hayes, 2020) and

has become a well‐regarded research tool within market research,

marketing, and tourism studies (Biroscak et al., 2017; Sotiriadou

et al., 2014).

The advantages of using Leximancer rather than alternative quali-

tative data analysis tools, such as NVivo, are that it is machine sup-

ported, thereby increasing reliability, while reducing the risk of

researcher bias and lethargy during coding. It also allows a much faster

examination of large quantities of textual data and ensures adherence

to a more standardised and streamlined coding system. In addition, it

can be applied to more positivistic analysis (Sotiriadou et al., 2014).

However, it does not fully replace the need for manual examination

of the source data, or the need for researcher judgement in interpreting

the results.

Leximancer generates “concept maps”that illustrate the output

from the identiﬁcation of words that occur within a text corpus, which

are tagged and grouped into concepts labelled with a term that best

represents the text commentary. This requires sufﬁcient accumulated

evidence within the text data before a distinct concept is validated

and tagged. In this way, sentences and groups of sentences are tagged

and grouped around a given concept when sufﬁcient accumulated evi-

dence emerges above a given threshold, to justify the identiﬁcation of

that concept.

Following the examination of the data and the identiﬁcation of all

possible concepts, Leximancer generates a visual ‘concept map’that

shows the concepts found, how they are interconnected within the text

and how they cluster around given ‘themes’, which are displayed as

bubbles. The size and importance (displayed by the ‘hotness’of each

theme, with those themes identiﬁed as most important displayed with

“hotter”colours, and those of less importance in “cooler”colours. In

this paper we have displayed the Leximancer concept maps in mono-

chrome to aid readability. This shows the darker shades as the “hotter”

more important themes, and the lighter and eventually blank theme

bubbles as representing the less important ones. Figs. 1 and 2 show

the concept maps generated from this analysis.

In addition to the concept maps, Leximancer generates a table of

associated data that provides a list of each theme, the number of ‘hits’

found within the text (which is an indication of the overall importance

of the theme), the concepts that are associated with the theme and a

list of indicative text from the text corpus.

Two separate Leximancer analyses were undertaken. The ﬁrst

focused on the initial question relating to how respondents felt about

travelling in the aftermath of the COVID‐19 pandemic. This was a gen-

eral question about their intention to travel whether on a cruise or

other journey. The second analysis examined responses to the next

question that asked about their perception of the desirability of cruis-

ing in the future. Some grouping of concepts that represented the same

thing (e.g., COVID, coronavirus, virus) was undertaken to generate the

most efﬁcient output. The analysis of each question was undertaken by

country and by sub‐group (e.g., cruiser versus non‐cruiser). Sufﬁcient

differentiation was found between the four sub‐groups (e.g., UK cruis-

ers, UK non‐cruisers, Australian cruisers, Australian non‐cruisers) to

permit a single whole cohort analysis for each of the two questions.

However, each of the four sub‐groups was tagged to allow their rela-

tive differences to be identiﬁed. The ﬁndings are displayed and dis-

cussed in the following section.

4. Findings

As already noted, two Leximancer analyses were undertaken to

examine responses to the two open‐ended questions. In the following

sub‐sections, the ﬁndings from these analyses are outlined.

4.1. Question 1 - travel intentions

The analysis of question one identiﬁed nine distinct themes and 19

concepts. As listed in Table 2, the most important theme was ‘TRA-

VEL’, which received 368 hits and included the concepts travel,

moment, internationally, home, COVID and risk. This reﬂected respon-

dents’concerns about travelling during the COVID‐19 pandemic. As

shown in the associated indicative text, many people were concerned

not just about travelling on a cruise ship but also about travelling

locally. While some (e.g., Australian cruisers) felt safe enough to take

local trips within their own country but not trips overseas, others (e.g.,

UK cruisers and UK non‐cruisers) were less conﬁdent about domestic

or international travel. This appeared to be based on their concerns

about the health risk or government‐imposed travel restrictions.

The second most important theme was ‘RISKY’, which received 134

hits and included the concepts risky, time, safe and cruise. This theme

reﬂected respondents’concerns about the risk COVID‐19 posed to their

health. International travel by air or sea was viewed as a potential risk

to health and there were concerns the time was not right due to the

many travel restrictions in place when the data were collected. Some

people felt travel to some countries might pose less risks than others

and there was concern among older people, who felt particularly vul-

nerable to the coronavirus.

The third most important theme was ‘AUSTRALIA’, with 100 hits,

which included the concepts Australia,overseas and international. This

reﬂected the views of Australian respondents, mainly Australian cruis-

ers, who felt that, if they could not travel overseas, they could at least

enjoy travel within their own country or home state. It should be noted

Australia was able to halt the spread of the COVID‐19 virus more

quickly than many other countries. State and territory governments

closed their borders and travel restrictions within some jurisdictions

were imposed, but across most of the country, the combination of

banned international travel and swift control of rates of infection

resulted in a mini‐boom for local tourism.

The fourth most important theme was ‘FEEL’, with 87 hits, which

included the concepts feel and country. This theme reﬂected respon-

dents’feelings about travel, domestically and internationally. Again,

Australian respondents felt conﬁdent to travel within their own coun-

try, but not overseas. This view was also held by some UK respondents,

although with some caveats about how they might travel safely.

The remaining ﬁve themes were all identiﬁed with modest hits and

had single concepts of the same name. The theme ‘COVID’reﬂected

the fear respondents had about the COVID‐19 virus and the impact this

had on their travel intentions. The theme ‘NERVOUS’related to con-

cerns about travel in the wake of the coronavirus and its likely impact

on health. The theme ‘WAIT’reﬂected respondents’view that it was

better to wait until the threat of the coronavirus was removed, either

through eradication or the invention of a vaccine. The theme

‘ABROAD’focused on respondents’concerns about overseas travel

and the ﬁnal theme (‘INTERNATIONAL & INTERNATIONALLY’) was

a similar concept.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Fig. 1 shows the concept map for the ﬁrst question, where each of

the nine themes and their related concepts are displayed. Also shown

are the relative positions of the four sub‐groups (e.g., Australian cruis-

ers Australian non‐cruisers, UK cruisers, UK non‐cruisers). The concept

map highlights several important results. First, the proximity and asso-

ciation between the themes and concepts. Second, the proximity and

association of the four sub‐groups to the themes and concepts. As

can be seen, the theme TRAVEL was at the epicentre of the text, with

connections to RISKY ﬂowing through the concept health. The themes

AUSTRALIA and FEEL were linked to TRAVEL through the concepts

overseas and anywhere,feel, and health. These associations show the

inﬂuence COVID‐19 has had on travel generally and the perceived risk

and feelings of concern this provokes. The peripheral, and less impor-

tant theme associations, other than that of INTERNATIONAL & INTER-

NATIONALLY, were more distant from TRAVEL, although COVID was

directly connected to RISKY, as might be expected.

The relative proximity of the four sub‐groups within the concept

map is more interesting. The Australian cruisers (Aust cruisers) were

distinctly different from their counterparts in the other three groups.

As already noted, being dedicated travellers, while affected by the

impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic restricting international travel, they

focused on seeking alternatives within Australia where there were

many good opportunities that were perceived as accessible and safe

from the threat of the coronavirus. By contrast, UK cruisers and non‐

cruisers, while equally concerned about the threat of the virus, were

waiting to travel locally and abroad due to the travel restrictions in

the UK and overseas. The position of the Australian non‐cruisers

within the concept map suggests they were also concerned about trav-

eling during the pandemic and were nervous as a result. However, like

their counterparts in the Australian cruiser community, they were also

able to consider local domestic travel.

4.2. Question 2 - intentions to cruise

The Leximancer analysis of question two identiﬁed 10 themes com-

prising 17 concepts. As listed in Table 3, the most important theme

was ‘CRUISE’, which attracted 216 hits and included the concepts

cruise, ships, future, ship, and people. This theme reﬂected respondents’

perceptions about the idea of taking an ocean cruise in the future. As

can be seen from the indicative text displayed in Table 3, there was a

mixture of responses, mostly negative, about the risk ocean cruising

posed during the COVID‐19 pandemic and other concerns about the

Fig. 1. All respondents’intention to travel concept map.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

potential for cruise ships to serve as a transfer point for illnesses. In

some cases, there were also concerns about the way cruise ship compa-

nies treated their employees and the negative impact cruise ships can

have on the environment (e.g., UK non‐cruiser).

The second most important theme was ‘COVID’, which attracted

155 hits and included the concepts, COVID, vaccine, safe and need. This

theme was related to respondents’desire to see a vaccine or other con-

trol brought over the coronavirus before they would feel safe travelling

on cruise ships. Others expressed a desire to only travel to ‘safe’places.

For non‐cruisers, the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic was viewed as

simply reinforcing their existing negative views of ocean cruising (e.g.,

Australian non‐cruisers).

The remaining eight themes all had signiﬁcantly fewer hits and

were single concept in nature. The theme ‘TRAVEL’related to the

impact of travel bans restricting cruising, which appeared to be of par-

ticular concern to Australian cruisers. The theme ‘RISK’focused on the

perceived risk respondents felt ocean cruising posed to themselves and

their families. The theme ‘HEALTH’was associated with general con-

cerns about health that might impact their ability to cruise, with many

referring to their age and/or pre‐existing health conditions. The theme

‘PANDEMIC’encompassed respondents’concerns over a second‐wave

of the COVID‐19 pandemic, as well as the need to wait until the pan-

demic was over before taking a cruise. Some were also worried about

booking a cruise only to have the virus force the cancelation of the

trip; creating problems in securing refunds (e.g., Australian non‐

cruisers). The theme ‘INTENTION’reﬂected respondents’intentions

to take a cruise in the future and, as shown, this was largely negative

for many from all four groups.

The theme ‘DISEASE’addressed concerns people held about getting

ill onboard a cruise ship or having cruised and contracted a disease as a

result (e.g., Australian cruisers). Overall, this theme reﬂected concern

over the ability of cruise ships, which keep many people within a con-

ﬁned space for lengthy periods, to become transmission systems for dis-

ease. The theme ‘COST’focused on the cost of travel aboard ocean cruise

ships and the cost of travel insurance, which for people with pre‐

existing illnesses, or those of an advanced age, can be very expensive.

As illustrated in the comments of one Australian cruiser, this cost

included restrictions on their ability to bring and consume alcohol

onboard that was not supplied by the vessel, and the high cost of on‐

board medical treatment. Finally, the theme ‘OUTBREAK’reﬂected con-

cerns about the risk of an outbreak of coronavirus or some other illness,

including food poisoning from onboard catering (e.g., UK cruiser).

Fig. 2. All respondents’intention to cruise concept map.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Table 2

Key themes and concepts –Travel intentions.

THEMES HITS CONCEPTS INDICATIVE TEXT

TRAVEL 368 Travel, moment,

internationally, home,

COVID, risk

I feel fairly comfortable travelling locally now but wouldn’t venture too far from home unless absolutely unavoidable.

I respect the fact that if I travel, I risk infecting others by not knowing if I suffer from COVID-19, or not. (Aust Cruiser).

I do not think it is right to risk travelling any distance at the moment - so I will drive a short distance to walk

somewhere nicer than my local streets, but I will not travel to the coast or the city, for example. I have not travelled

internationally for nine years, but I would certainly not consider it at the moment. I would not consider going on a

cruise again. (UK cruiser).

I would travel if I knew for certain of the level of risk of catching COVID-19 and able to take appropriate precautions

to prevent it. (UK non-cruiser).

I would feel really uncomfortable travelling right now both domestically and internationally because of the ongoing

COVID-19 pandemic. Am afraid I or anyone of my close family members may get affected during the travel. (UK

cruiser).

My age group appears to be very susceptible to COVID-19 and because of this I will not be travelling internationally

again until there is a proven vaccine available. (Aust Cruiser).

I will not travel at the moment as the UK Government says it is not safe. (UK non-cruiser).

RISKY 134 Risky, time, safe, cruise Would only even reconsider a cruise on small ships with exceptional service and hygiene. Travelling international

passing through Asia or Middle East or US too risky travelling domestically to start with would be but car and then

ﬂights to safe destinations. (Aust Cruiser).

Travelling internationally could be risky. A cruise that didn't go anywhere other than my country would be ok

travelling within my country seem safe and I would be keen as I know it would also help the local businesses. (Aust

non-cruiser).

Solely because of age risk (I'm 78) I am for now avoiding any travel that involves being close to people other than in

my own household. I'd like to go on a cruise one day, preferably a low-cost no-frills one with a low carbon footprint.

(UK non-cruiser).

I am concerned about the health risks of travelling at this time because of the coronavirus, but also it wouldn't be

possible as so many borders are closed and there are restrictions in place. (Aust non-cruiser).

Depends where you go in current environment of coronavirus. (Aust non-cruiser).

I would never go on a cruise as I believe that they are an unhealthy situation at any time. (Aust non-cruiser).

I would feel a little scared to travel in regard to Coronavirus. (Aust non-cruiser).

It is too risky to travel now due to COVID-19. (UK non-cruiser).

Deﬁnitely something I would not do at this time, very risky and dangerous to my health, would cause a lot of

problems. (Aust non-cruiser).

I don’t think anyone should be travelling right now it’s way too risky. (Aust non-cruiser).

Air travel worries me, and I will avoid at the moment. Will not travel overseas (with exception of NZ and Paciﬁc

Islands). Will not cruise for some time I don't think. (Aust cruiser).

AUSTRALIA 100 Australia, overseas,

international

To be honest I have no desire to travel international. Australia has so much to see. (Aust cruiser).

Depends on where I was going. Travel within Australia ok but not overseas. (Aust cruiser).

Still would not travel overseas & unsure about travel within Australia. (Aust cruiser).

I am still okay to do some travelling within my own state and country of Australia. However, I would not want to be

doing any international travel anytime soon. (Aust cruiser).

Safe in Australia provided you social distance. It is too hard to social distance on planes and ships so international

travel is risky. (Aust cruiser).

FEEL 87 Feel, country I feel nervous about travelling internationally or around the country. Cruise is out of the question for at least 2 years.

(Aust cruiser).

I feel ok travelling in my country but would not go overseas at the moment. (Aust cruiser).

I would be ﬁne regarding travel in my own country right now, providing hygiene precautions are observed. I am on

the fence regarding overseas trips, because I feel there could be another COVID outbreak, and from what I have seen

in the last few months I would not like to be caught overseas in such a situation. (Aust non-cruiser).

I wouldn't leave the country (just in case of emergency) but would feel ok traveling withing the country as soon as

state borders are open. (Aust non-cruiser).

I feel that travelling internationally involves too many risks and too many points of contact with other people who

may or may not be carriers of the Coronavirus. I feel that travelling within my own country is a safer option as I can

use my own transport (car) and stay in rather isolated accommodation if I so choose, and only visit rather isolated

spots, in order to be careful. (UK non-cruiser).

COVID 27 COVID Bit scared with COVID. (UK cruiser).

COVID-19. (UK non-cruiser).

Due to COVID the worry would cause me a lot of concern. (Aust cruiser).

All this COVID-19 stuff is really turning me off travelling. (Aust cruiser).

I would prefer to wait until COVID-19 has a vaccine. (Aust cruiser).

NERVOUS 14 Nervous Nervous about travelling because of the virus. (Aust cruiser).

Nervous but eagerly awaiting being able to travel somewhere soon. (Aust cruiser).

Nervous, it is too soon. (UK non-cruiser).

Nervous and unsafe because of virus. (Aust cruiser).

Very nervous because of COVID-19. (UK non-cruiser).

Nervous and uncertain as to quarantine rules. (UK non-cruiser).

Domestic is OK, but nervous about internationally. (Aust non-cruiser).

I would be very nervous about travelling right now as the virus is still out there and there is a potential risk of catching

and spreading the virus to other people and places so it's just too risky. (UK non-cruiser).

It is risky to travel anywhere right now. I would feel nervous about contracting COVID-19 if I travelled. I may travel in

the future, but I will be cautious as to where and when. (Aust non-cruiser).

WAIT 14 Wait I think certain parts of the world would be safer than others, but it is too soon, better to wait until the medical

professionals give the go ahead. (Aust cruiser).

I would be ﬁne regarding travel in my own country right now, providing hygiene precautions are observed. I am on

the fence regarding overseas trips, because I feel there could be another COVID outbreak, and from what I have seen

in the last few months I would not like to be caught overseas in such a situation. I would rather wait until times are

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Fig. 2 shows the concept map for the second question relating to

intentions to take an ocean cruise. As can be seen, the 10 themes are

clustered around the two most important, CRUISE and COVID. It should

be noted that CRUISE is linked to the sub‐themes TRAVEL, INTENTION,

HEALTH, DISEASE, PANDEMIC and COST, while the theme COVID is

more associated with RISK and, through the concept safe, TRAVEL.

The connection between COST and OUTBREAK suggests there was an

association between the anticipated impact on costs of ocean cruising

and insurance premiums in the event of fresh outbreaks, as well as wor-

ries that an outbreak on a cruise ship might result in the passenger being

unable to recover their deposit if a cruise was cancelled.

As with question one (shown in Fig. 1), there was a clear separation

between the Australian and UK respondents, with Australian cruisers

distinctly different from their counterparts (e.g., UK cruisers), as well

as Australian non‐cruisers. Australian cruisers were directly associated

with the themes COVID and TRAVEL, as well the concepts COVID, vac-

cine, safe, feel, and travel. This appears to reﬂect their focus on not

being able to cruise due to the impact of the coronavirus and the

restrictions this imposes and the risk to health. The location of the Aus-

tralian non‐cruisers indicates their less intimate knowledge of the

ocean cruising experience and their focus on the effect of the coron-

avirus on cruise ships. For the UK cruisers and non‐cruisers, their prox-

imity within the map and adjacency to COST suggests they are less

engaged with the broader range of issues associated with the impact

the COVID‐19 pandemic has had on ocean cruising. Australian respon-

dents were generally more negative about ocean cruise travel, with

cruisers less likely to want to cruise again and non‐cruisers even more

strongly opposed, with one respondent stating: “I have no intention to

ever go on a cruise again.”Many responses revealed anxiety, with most

Australians stating they would avoid all travel and cruises during the

pandemic. Phrases commonly shared across all groups included

“risky”,“scared”,“anxious”, and that any travel is “dangerous”.

4.3. Differences between Australian cruisers and non-cruisers

The analysis revealed differences between cruiser and non‐cruisers.

The cruisers who had previous experience were generally willing to

return to cruising once the COVID virus was defeated with a vaccine

or had been brought under control in any destination countries.

“Until there is a vaccine available, I would not consider ever going

on a cruise. I just wouldn't take the risk.”(AU cruiser)

“I would need to feel 100% secure that Coronavirus has been elim-

inated or a vaccine has been found for it before I would go on

another ocean cruise.”(AU cruiser)

“I won’t travel unless COVID 19 is gone or there is a vaccine”(AU

cruiser)

This sentiment was repeated by others throughout the open‐ended

questions. Indeed, several comments indicate the signiﬁcant inﬂuence

of the pandemic on cruise intentions. This is reﬂected in comments

such as:

“COVID has deeply impacted my intention to cruise.”(AU cruiser)

“I didn’t like cruises before, but now after all the issues with

COVID‐19, this way of travelling is totally out of my thoughts”

(AU cruiser)

However, thematic analysis revealed some cruisers noted that, once

the pandemic was under control, they would consider resuming

cruising:

“I will cruise as soon as restrictions lift”,“nothing would impact my

intention to cruise”,“I would love to go in the future when COVID‐

19 is completely lifted.”(AU cruisers)

By contrast, non‐cruisers were concerned over the risk of getting

sick on the cruise ships which were described by many as a “petri dish”

serving to help grow and spread disease. For example,

“many people died from COVID going on cruise ships. Seems like a

petri dish

where the virus grows and grows on the ship.”(AU non‐cruiser)

The data suggested Australians were more likely to perceive cruise

ships as unhealthy than were their counterparts in the UK:

“full of sickness and disease”,“always illnesses on cruise ships even

before Covid‐19”,“ships are a health hazard”, with cruise ships

called “cesspools of ﬁlth”,“giant incubators”and “petri‐dishes”.

(AU non‐cruiser)

“I was very unhappy with how easy it was for people on the cruise

ships to catch and transmit and disease including covid‐19. I am

afraid that if I were to go on a cruise, I would catch something

awful from other passengers”(AU non‐cruiser)

Thematic analysis also revealed a relationship between cleanliness

and hygiene and future intentions to cruise. The map shows an empha-

sis where the themes RISK and COVID overlapped with the concepts

‘feel’and ‘safe’. This was also found in the thematic analysis and in

comments, where several participants stated they expected and

wanted more stringent health measures:

“The hygiene issues on cruises have now been highlighted for me. If

one person gets sick, I would be worried about everyone getting

sick. I would expect that cruise advertising would now include reas-

suring me of cleaning practices.”(AU non‐cruiser)

4.4. Differences between UK cruisers and non-cruisers

UK respondents were also concerned about the risk of contracting

the COVID‐19 virus during a cruise. The impact of the virus on their

future cruising intentions was also raised along with the desire to

Table 2 (continued)

THEMES HITS CONCEPTS INDICATIVE TEXT

more certain. (Aust non-cruiser).

Fine in own country, will wait a while before traveling abroad. UK non-cruiser).

I would rather wait out the troubles happening currently rather than risking unnecessarily, not just my own health,

but those of others. I foresee my travelling prospects to happen next year. (UK cruiser).

I would rather wait until either the coronavirus has been eradicated and / or a vaccine has been manufactured at scale

and rolled out. (UK non-cruiser).

I would prefer to wait until COVID-19 has a vaccine. (Aust cruiser).

ABROAD 13 Abroad I’m not feeling comfortable about travelling abroad right now. (UK cruiser).

I feel worried and feel like it is unnecessary to travel abroad. There is no real reason, we can all live in our homes if

required. (Aust non-cruiser).

Wouldn’t even consider any form of travel abroad. Am prepared to go on short day trips in my home area to places I

feel won’t be crowded and will be properly managed e.g., National Trust. (UK cruiser).

I’d be reluctant to travel abroad or on a plane at the moment. (UK non-cruiser).

INTERNATIONAL &

INTERNATIONALLY

1International &

Internationally

I would be anxious about travelling internationally at the moment. So, I have cancelled all international plans and we

are planning to take a break domestically in the UK in the next few months instead. (UK cruiser).

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Table 3

Key themes and concepts –all respondents cruise intentions.

THEMES HITS CONCEPTS INDICATIVE TEXT

CRUISE 216 Cruise, ships, future,

ship, people

Deﬁnitely, because many people died from COVID going on cruise ships. Seems like a petri dish where the virus grows and grows on

the ship. (Aust non-cruiser).

Greater safety and control of the epidemic because a single patient is enough to make an outbreak of the virus on a cruise. (UK cruiser).

The fact that all those people got locked down on a cruise ship is very frightening and I would hate to be on a cruise that does that.

(Aust cruiser).

Seeing people stuck on their cruises has really put me off and highlighted future problems. (UK cruiser).

I would be more like to go on a cruise once the risk of the virus is lessened. I would also need to research cruises and their locations to

ﬁnd one that would suit me. (UK non-cruiser).

I was very unhappy with how easy it was for people on the cruise ships to catch and transmit and disease including covid-19. I am

afraid that if I ere to go on a cruise, I would catch something awful from other passengers. (Aust non-cruiser).

I only ever seem to hear bad things about cruise liners, be it the impact they have on the environment (e.g. the dangerously rising sea

levels around Venice; coral reef; pollutants they throw out which harms aquatic life and the ecosystem therein), the working

conditions, the ability they have to spread illness in conﬁned conditions, the dangers if they approach too close to a coastline (e.g. Costa

Concordia), the way travellers may treat local environments when they make stop-off visits to quietly populated. (UK non-cruiser).

Yes, I think if the cruise takes more precaution measures then I would be more likely to go on a cruise very soon. (UK cruiser).

I don’t like cruise ship travel for the reason if people get sick it travels throughout the ship just as what’s happening now. (Aust non-

cruiser).

COVID 155 COVID, vaccine,

safe, need

No, I think after Covid-19 cruise ships are fully aware of everything they need to do to keep the passengers safe. (Aust cruiser).

If COVID was cleared up and there was a safe, proven vaccine etc. (Aust cruiser).

A cure for COVID-19. (UK non-cruiser).

Complete eradication of COVID-19 and no new cases for months. (UK cruiser).

I would need to feel 100% secure that Coronavirus has been eliminated or a vaccine has been found for it before I would go on another

ocean cruise. (Aust cruiser).

A vaccine or cure for COVID would make a difference. (UK non-cruiser).

There are always illnesses on cruises even before COVID-19 and top of that staff are often exploited. (Aust non-cruiser).

A COVID-19 vaccine would need to be available prior to taking another cruise. (Aust cruiser).

I won’t cruise until a vaccine is found for COVID. (UK cruiser).

As I mentioned before I didn't like cruises before, but now after all the issues with COVID-19, this way of travelling is totally out of my

thoughts. (Aust non-cruiser).

Unless we get a vaccine for coronavirus, I’m not sure I will go on a cruise again. Nothing would stop me from going on a cruise, but I

would probably cruise to safe places. (Aust cruiser).

TRAVEL 22 Travel If it’s OK to travel if travel ban is lifted. (Aust cruiser).

Travel bans and COVID-19. (Aust cruiser).

Other travel options, past experience. (Aust cruiser).

I depends on how the virus is where I would travel. (Aust cruiser).

Security of impact with others, although we do travel to enjoy people’s company? (UK cruiser).

rISK 20 Risk Even without COVID I would not want to be exposed to the risk of gastro etc. (Aust cruiser).

My high-risk status. (Aust cruiser).

Not really –I am too old to risk it and have cruised enough. (Aust cruiser).

Yes, a husband who wouldn’t consider cruising again. (Aust cruiser).

COVID risk and new legislation to protect passengers. (UK cruiser).

I will not be cruising if the virus is still around. (Aust cruiser).

No cruising. (Aust cruiser).

If a vaccine for COVID-19 is not found and therefore community transmission remains in countries posing an ongoing risk to myself

and my family. (Aust cruiser).

health 19 Health Health concerns. (Aust cruiser).

Old age and my health. (Aust cruiser).

My health. (Aust cruiser).

My health would cause me concern. (Aust cruiser).

My failing health. (Aust non-cruiser).

pandemic 15 Pandemic Whether this pandemic disappears or not and the risk of quarantine which was greatly publicised back in March. (UK non-cruiser).

Coronavirus case numbers and maybe a guarantee of a refund if a booked cruise had to be cancelled due to a pandemic/ coronavirus.

(Aust non-cruiser).

A second wave of the pandemic would probably deter me from going on a cruise next year. (UK cruiser).

The pandemic would have to ease right off. (Aust non-cruiser).

Not really, once pandemic over it will be ﬁne. (UK cruiser).

The pandemic status. (UK non-cruiser).

intention 14 Intention COVID-19 has deeply impacted my intention to cruise. (Aust cruiser).

No. I have no intention of ever cruising, couldn’t imaging much worse things to do! (Aust non-cruiser).

I have no intention to ever go on a cruise again. (Aust cruiser).

I have not future intention to cruise. (UK cruiser).

I don’t have any future intention to cruise. I don’t like it. (Aust cruiser).

No. I have no intention of going on a cruise. (UK non-cruiser).

disease 8 Disease Most cruises have made me ill, and I have been hospitalized as soon as back in Australia. I have had Legionnaires disease and also

Pseudomonas, both presumably caused from their air-conditioning systems. (Aust cruiser).

I don't particularly like the idea of being trapped on a boat and I always thought they would be perfect disease hubs. I was right. Unless

cruises became more entertaining or had more environmentally friendly activities then I would do it. (Aust non-cruiser).

I was very unhappy with how easy it was for people on the cruise ships to catch and transmit and disease including COVID-19. I am

afraid that if I were to go on a cruise, I would catch something awful from other passengers. (Aust non-cruiser).

Yes, the threat of disease. (Aust cruiser).

Sea sickness, full of sickness and disease. (Aust non-cruiser).

Disease. Lots of people, unhygienic. (Aust cruiser).

The risk of infectious disease. (Aust cruiser).

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

see a vaccine to protect against the virus, and the hope that the pan-

demic eases. However, there were calls to see cruise ship operators

enhance the level of safety for passengers, and the cleanliness of the

ships. There were comments highlighting the perception that it is easy

to get sick onboard:

“Cruising has always seemed to carry a higher risk of illness –or

virus, food poisoning etc.”(UK cruiser)

However, the data suggested UK cruisers were slightly more eager

to resume travelling, with an underlying feeling that if everyone fol-

lowed the rules, life could return to normal:

“I would be more likely to go on a cruise once the risk of the virus is

lessened. I would also need to research cruises and their locations

to ﬁnd one that would suit me.”(UK cruiser)

“The risk of disease…won't stop me, but I would be cautious about

the size of the ship I choose to cruise on.”(UK cruiser)

Yet more shared their feelings of desiring a return to cruising:

“Once pandemic over it will be ﬁne”(UK cruiser)

“Not really ‐having been on cruises 45 years ago ‐I really want to

do another.”(UK cruiser)

“Yes, I think if the cruise takes more precaution measures then I

would be more likely to go on a cruise very soon”(UK Cruiser)

Analysis revealed several references to the increased likelihood

that respondents might be encouraged to return to cruising if cost or

price was attractive:

“I would like to see more offers/promotions to entice me. I would

like to see that cleaning practices are being regularly held.”(UK

cruiser)

“Only the price [would affect my cruise intentions] –hopefully

going down”(UK cruiser)

UK participants also wanted reassurance that ships were safe and

clean and wanted to see evidence of improved hygiene and cleaning

measures.

“I would expect them to be more thorough with hygiene.”(UK

cruiser)

By contrast, thematic analysis revealed UK non‐cruisers did not

have as much opposition to cruising as AU non‐cruisers. Many of the

responses from the UK non‐cruisers pointed to the little impact COVID

has had on their intentions to cruise, as they had little desire to cruise

before the pandemic. Thematic analysis also revealed that, for some of

the non‐cruisers, COVID‐19 has had little impact on intention to cruise,

as they rejected cruise holidays for other reasons. Participants stated

they “would never cruise”and had “no interest”in cruising:

“Not a cruise person”,“don’t like cruises”,“Never ever wanted to

cruise. Not my kind of holiday”

“Never fancied anyway”,“there is nothing that would convince me

to go on a cruise”.(UK non‐cruisers)

For these people, the emergence of COVID‐19 and risk perceptions

that may have changed as result of the pandemic appear to have had

little impact on intentions to cruise. However, other non‐cruisers sug-

gested once the pandemic was under control, they might try cruising:

“It’s something I would like to do when it is 100% safe to do so”

(UK non‐cruiser)

4.5. Assessment of all groups

Australian and UK non‐cruisers appeared to associate ocean

cruising with disease. However, as noted, the concept maps and

thematic analysis revealed signiﬁcant differences between the Aus-

tralian and UK groups. Given that the groups were very similar in

terms of socio‐demographic factors (such as age, average household

income and gender), this suggests country of residence had a signiﬁ-

cant inﬂuence on cruise intentions and willingness to cruise for this

sample.

The Australian cruisers’comments point to a connection between

the availability of a vaccine and their feelings of safety when cruising.

Both Australian and UK cruiser groups showed a relationship between

cruise ships and the spread of COVID‐19, suggesting cruisers, with

their direct experience, were more aware than non‐cruisers of the ease

of spreading infectious illnesses onboard. Thematic analysis also

revealed COVID‐19 had brought to the surface wider concerns about

trust. Australian and UK respondents had little faith cruise operators

would look after them if something went wrong. Australian respon-

dents especially perceived that cruise operators would not look after

them.

Nearly half of all respondents had less belief that cruise lines would

be transparent and honest about any safety or health issues. Almost

half of Australians, both cruisers and non‐cruisers, believed cruise

operators were less transparent and honest, compared to the UK cruis-

ers, who did not have strong feelings about this. In other words, both

Australian groups were much more likely to hold less trust in cruise

operators, whereas this did not emerge as signiﬁcant for the UK

groups. An Australian respondent said they felt the cruise lines were

“greedy trying to restart too soon”, while another stated:

“The cruise ship industry will need to be more accountable, have

strict procedures especially in areas of health and potential dis-

eases, food safety, safety & securities and transparent in all things

in regard to this.”(Aust cruiser).

Table 3 (continued)

THEMES HITS CONCEPTS INDICATIVE TEXT

cost 7 Cost Yes, as a person who has 10 or so ocean cruises which I have enjoyed and seen parts of the world I never thought I'd see. Over these

cruises, I feel that ocean cruises have become very authoritative, you could once bring alcohol on board, to have a drink in your own

cabin, you cannot do this now, alcohol is expensive. In one of our 1st cruises one of our group became sick, ﬂu symptoms, to visit the

ship’s doctor cost around $250 for a consultation. Whenever we have travelled on a cruise, we now take our own. (Aust cruiser).

Cost and insurance. (UK cruiser).

The cost. (UK non-cruiser).

Cost and insurance. (Aust non-cruiser).

Extra cost. (UK cruiser).

Yes, virus, impacts on climate and costs. (Aust non-cruiser).

outbreak 7 Outbreak Cruising has always seemed to carry a higher risk of illness - norovirus, food poisoning etc. I would like some proper reassurances from

the industry re compensation, refunds etc in case of an illness outbreak. (UK cruiser).Bigger outbreaks of COVID-19 on cruise ships

however we would still love to cruise again and hope that things can be learnt from what has happened and different measures put into

place. (Aust cruiser).

Another outbreak anywhere in the world would be disastrous. (Aust non-cruiser).

Length of time since corona outbreak. (Aust cruiser).

Further outbreak of COVID-19. (UK cruiser).

COVID outbreak. (UK non-cruiser).

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

By comparison, a UK non‐cruiser commented:

“I only ever seem to hear bad things about cruise liners, be it the

impact they have on the environment (e.g., the dangerously rising

sea levels around Venice; coral reef; pollutants they throw out

which harms aquatic life and the ecosystem therein), the working

conditions, the ability they have to spread illness in conﬁned con-

ditions, the dangers if they approach too close to a coastline”(UK

non‐cruiser).

5. Discussion

As noted in the introduction, this study was undertaken to address

speciﬁc research gaps to better understand the effects of COVID‐19 on

risk perceptions for Australian and UK cruise markets. Further, the

study sought to determine the effect of the pandemic on how people

think and feel about cruises, how risk may potentially inﬂuence

decision‐making for a cruise holiday and to explore how non‐

cruisers perceive risk in cruising. Findings suggested three main contri-

butions to deepening understanding of Australian and UK participants’

perceptions of risk in ocean cruising in relation to the COVID‐19

pandemic.

First, signiﬁcant differences were found between Australian and UK

participants, suggesting that, for this sample, country of residence

inﬂuenced risk perceptions. Australians were much less positive about

a cruise holiday and appeared to be angrier and more anxious than the

UK respondents. The heightened anxiety of Australian participants

when compared to their UK counterparts may be explained by the

social context/media portrayal of cruising and ampliﬁed risk percep-

tions about cruising. This study supports previous research that found

media coverage can deﬁne and shape risk perceptions (Mazur, 1994).

Drawing on the conceptual framework of the social ampliﬁcation of

risk (Kasperson et al., 1988), risk may be ampliﬁed through opinion

leaders, cultural and social groups, government agencies, information

ofﬁces (i.e., public relations ofﬁces of a cruise line) and the news

media.

Here, risk perceptions were ampliﬁed through the widespread and

greater volume of publicly conveyed information about COVID‐19 on

cruise ships. This was particularly evident in comments by Australian

respondents, suggesting a relationship between the media’s response

and the ampliﬁcation of the risk and fear of becoming infected with

COVID‐19, but also reminding the public of previous illnesses and out-

breaks onboard cruise ships. SARF suggests that, when a risk is feared,

rumours and the spreading of incorrect information inﬂuences public

perceptions and attitudes. Indeed, even after the Ruby Princess commis-

sion report was released, which absolved the cruise line of misleading

authorities or acting inappropriately, many people appeared resistant

to this new, conﬂicting information.

Second, cruise experience did not appear to have a positive effect

on cruise intentions in the same way previous studies have found.

The ﬁndings highlighted anxieties about cruise holidays among cruis-

ers and non‐cruisers and both were negative towards taking a cruise in

the future. Many said they would not travel until there was a vaccine.

This is signiﬁcantly different to previous studies, which found infec-

tious illness outbreaks did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence cruisers’inten-

tions (Baker and Stockton, 2013; Liu et al., 2016). Liu et al. (2016)

found cruise passengers perceived self‐efﬁcacy moderated the relation-

ship between the perceived risk of contracting norovirus and the per-

ceived overall safety of cruising. In other words, more cruise

experience led to passengers taking more steps to protect themselves,

which increased conﬁdence in not getting sick. Similarly, Holland

(2020) found although non‐cruisers overwhelmingly felt cruise ships

were places of infection and that it was common to get sick, cruisers

felt safe and trusted the health measures implemented to look after

them. Liu‐Lastres et al. (2019) also found effective and accurate infor-

mation helps passengers feel safer and more able to cope with poten-

tial outbreaks. These studies primarily were concerned with norovirus,

which while distressing, is rarely, if ever fatal. This may account, at

least in part, for some of the differences in study ﬁndings, given that

COVID‐19 has a much higher mortality rate, and accompanying dread

factor. This study contributed to the literature by ﬁnding COVID‐19

has had a negative impact on intentions to cruise for those who have

previous cruise experience, which is fundamentally different to other

studies.

Third, the impacts of a risk event may be seen in speciﬁc ways

(Kasperson et al., 1988), which is indicative of what has occurred

for COVID‐19 and the cruise industry, as is outlined in Table 4. The

impacts of COVID‐19 on the cruise industry can be seen in the table

and reﬂect what often happens after a risk event. The table serves as

a starting point to move forward with identiﬁable recommendations

Table 4

Framing impacts of COVID-19 on cruise industry.

Loss of business Drop in demand for future cruises / no one is booking

Drop in consumer conﬁdence for cruises and all forms of

travel

Reputational damage to Princess

Reputation of industry damaged, cruising no longer

considered ‘safe’

Financial losses Cruise lines - all revenue ceases

Passengers demand refunds

Contracts for both shoreside and crew staff are

terminated with hundreds of thousands of cruise line

employees out of work

Tertiary businesses providing services such as hotels,

airlines, ground transportation, shore excursions and

port services suffer major losses

Both Alaska and Australia encounter entire season

closure resulting in unprecedented job losses and loss of

revenue

Installation of extra health measures onboard requires

funding i.e., installation and adoption of modiﬁed HVAC

systems

Regulatory constraints Port entry dictated by national governments

Many countries close borders and port of entry

International travel restrictions jeopardising ﬂy-cruise

options as many countries closed to any tourist arrivals

CDC no sail order for American ports

Ban on cruise ship arrivals in the US, Canada, and

Australia

Organizational changes Consolidation and restructuring of brands

Selling ships

Restructuring ﬁnancial terms and

Re-organising itineraries

New health measures developed to minimize risk in the

future

Inability to get crew and passengers home during crisis /

rise in suicide rate will change mental health supports

Litigation Many passengers are taking legal action for perceived

negligence and exposure to COVID-19

Legal action to get monies returned and compensation

for holiday plans ruined

Class action lawsuit from ofﬁcers and crew for having

been placed in harm and company failing to take

appropriate prevention/action

Increase or decrease in

physical risk

More effective and extensive health measures onboard

resulting in safer onboard environments

New HVAC systems will change air quality and decrease

risk for all airborne infections

Better ﬁltration and monitoring of environment onboard

decrease risks for Legionnaires’disease

Loss of conﬁdence in

institutions

Australians especially have lost trust in cruise lines and

the wider industry as they perceive the cruise lines to be

dishonest and untrustworthy

Increased focus on ﬂags of convenience business

practices

Consumer pressure to re-examine environmental and tax

Brings attention to stateless multi-national companies

(Adapted from Kasperson et al., 1988)

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

for policy and practice. These speciﬁc areas can inform policy and pro-

vide avenues to foster a more positive image of the cruise industry and

to assist in rebuilding the sector, post pandemic.

For much of the ﬁrst half of 2020, the cruise industry was pre‐

occupied with dealing with the immediate impacts of the crisis;

responding to the initial outbreaks, repatriating passengers, and crew

and, progressively, shutting down operations. Subsequently, the indus-

try began addressing more of the identiﬁed impacts, developing more

robust systems to prevent and manage infections onboard through

technical aspects, such as the HVAC systems, and new approaches to

managing the spread of community transmission. The industry has

also collaborated to develop 74 recommendations to prevent and man-

age COVID‐19 (Healthy Sail Panel, 2020), with speciﬁc guidelines for

more testing, screening, reducing exposure, ventilation, sanitation,

responses should there be an outbreak and reducing transmission dur-

ing shore excursions and among crew. Several cruise lines have intro-

duced extensive contact tracing onboard using wearable devices. New

cancellation and refund schemes have been established to manage con-

sumer anxiety about the possible loss of deposits and cruise fares. Ini-

tial test sailings in late 2020 saw the industry trialling some of these

measures, including controlled shore excursions, reduced passenger

numbers, increased testing pre‐and during the cruise, onboard isola-

tion once positives cases were registered onboard, and termination

of the cruise (see Hunter and Oppmann, 2020).

6. Conclusions, implications, and recommendations

This study contributes to the current body of literature by exploring

perceived risk in relation to the impact of the 2020 coronavirus pan-

demic on future travel intentions in general, and towards ocean cruis-

ing speciﬁcally. The media plays a role in attenuating and amplifying

risk perceptions, as was seen in Australia with the Ruby Princess. The

cruise industry must develop policies and strategies to overcome an

enduring image of cruise holidays as dangerous. There now appears

to be a stigmatisation of cruise holidays, where cruise ships are nega-

tively perceived as risky, while cruise lines are dishonest, corrupt,

untrustworthy, and valuing economic gain above human life.

The results have implications for policy and practice. Ultimately, it

is critical that cruise lines and the industry disseminate information

and educate consumers about risk mitigation. One prior example lies

with the actions of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention

[CDC] in the USA. This organisation worked in tandem with the cruise

industry to create and develop the Vessel Sanitation Program to edu-

cate the public about health measures in place to prevent and control

the introduction, transmission and spread of gastro‐intestinal disease

(see CDC, 2019). While the CDC developed an excellent reporting

and inspection system in that regard, COVID‐19 has revealed its limi-

tations, given the program only examined gastro‐intestinal diseases

and missed the opportunity to learn from other disease outbreaks such

as SARS and MERS. Similarly, outbreaks of Legionnaires’disease have

been minimised through policy changes and regulations, in addition to

tighter measures and controls onboard all passenger ships (Garrison

et al., 2016).

While extensive health procedures have been developed for the

reporting and monitoring of illnesses, this information will need to

be disseminated much more widely to improve consumer conﬁdence.

Most cruise ships have developed a brand‐speciﬁc outbreak prevention

plan based on CDC guidelines and industry best practice. It is also

essential for transparent and clear messaging, as this will reduce risk

perceptions and encourage consumer conﬁdence. This also highlights

the importance of tailoring messaging to different audiences and the

signiﬁcance of emotion in affecting how messages are interpreted

(Liu‐Lastres et al., 2019). Our study indicates that, for cruising to suc-

cessfully resume, the industry will need to ensure that consumers feel

safe physically (in terms of their health) and that their investment in

choosing a cruise holiday is also ‘safe’(i.e., ﬁnancially, in terms of time

expended in the choice and commitment and that the cruise holiday is

unlikely to be cancelled or changed). The cruise industry must

acknowledge COVID‐19 has signiﬁcantly changed people’s perceptions

of the risks of cruising. By implementing the measures already men-

tioned, the cruise industry would be able to mitigate this risk percep-

tion. These ﬁndings support this, as respondents mentioned such

measures would help them feel safe. Combined with the rollout of vac-

cines within the broader community, the industry is potentially well‐

placed to resume operations.

Future research should use the SARF model to determine the extent

to which social ampliﬁcation affects risk perceptions for cruising in

relation to COVID‐19. This study found signiﬁcant differences between

Australian and UK consumers and SARF may help explain why Aus-

tralians were more negative towards cruise holidays, despite similar

socio‐demographic characteristics. The model could be applied in

future research to examine relationships of interest. SARF could also

help explain the roles affect and emotion have on risk perceptions.

Future research should also compare how risk perceptions and the per-

ceived threats of COVID‐19 compare to other onboard health and

safety risks, and how this may inﬂuence cruise decision‐making.

Future studies should examine individual risk perceptions in rela-

tion to factors such as cruise history or preference for cruise length,

including examining differences between ﬁrst‐time and repeat cruisers

to see if there is any relationship between risk perceptions and inten-

tions to cruise based on how many cruises a participant has gone on.

Further, future research could explore the extent to which pre‐

existing health conditions and other vulnerabilities affect consumers’

perceptions of risks in cruising. Finally, future research might consider

market segmentation to determine how factors such as family status,

age, education level or income affect risk perceptions, as this would

help marketers better understand their potential customers.

To build a sustainable future for the sector, the industry must

understand the extent to which COVID‐19 has fundamentally changed

cruising and the cruise industry, not just in terms of risk perceptions

but also such aspects as the complete cruising experience and the bal-

ance between self‐determination and institutional direction. Failure to

recognise and understand the inherent changes to cruising wrought by

the pandemic puts at risk the future viability of ocean cruising. This

will be a signiﬁcant area of future research for both industry and

academia.

The cruise sector has been devastated by the pandemic and more

research is needed to better understand the impact of COVID‐19. It is

imperative to understand how the pandemic is affecting people’s will-

ingness to cruise and attitudes towards cruising that will, in turn, affect

future cruise and travel intentions. While the global tourism industry

has been negatively affected by the pandemic, no other sector has been

as widely impacted as the cruise sector, with a return to the robust

growth enjoyed prior to COVID‐19 not likely for many years, if ever.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jennifer Holland: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing ‐

original draft, Writing –review & editing. Tim Mazzarol: Conceptual-

ization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing ‐

original draft, Writing –review & editing. Geoffrey N. Soutar: Con-

ceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing –review & edit-

ing. Suellen Tapsall: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing ‐

original draft, Writing –review & editing. Wendy A. Elliott: Concep-

tualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing ‐original

draft, Writing –review & editing.

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by the University of Western Australia.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

References

Oxford Analytica, 2020. US and other cruise lines will innovate over COVID-19.

DOI:10.1108/OXAN-DB252921.

Anderson, N.H., 1971. Integration theory and attitude change.. Psychol. Rev. 78 (3),

171–206.

Anderson, N., 1981. Foundations of Information Integration Theory. Academic Press,

New York, NY.

Angus, D., Rintel, S., Wiles, J., 2013. Making sense of big text: a visual-ﬁrst approach for

analysing text data using Leximancer and Discursis. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 16

(3), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.774186.

Aven, T., Renn, O., 2009. On risk deﬁned as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J.

Risk Res. 12 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883.

Awoniyi, O., 2020. The petri-dish effect. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 14 (3), 1–2.

https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.67.

Baker, D., Stockton, S., 2013. Smooth Sailing! Cruise passengers demographics and

health perceptions while cruising the Eastern Caribbean. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4 (7),

7–17.

Belam, M., Quinn, B., Rourke, A., 2020, February 21. Cruise ship accounts for more

than half of virus cases outside China –as it happened. The Guardian.

Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/feb/20/

coronavirus-live-updates-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-japan-deaths-latest-news-

china-infections.

Biroscak, B.J., Scott, J.E., Lindenberger, J.H., Bryant, C.A., 2017. Leximancer software as

a research tool for social marketers: application to a content analysis. Soc. Mark. Q.

23 (3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500417700826.

Boholm, M., Möller, N., Hansson, S.O., 2016. The concepts of risk, safety, and security:

applications in everyday language: the concepts of risk, safety, and security. Risk

Anal. 36 (2), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa:12464.

Bowen, C., Fidgeon, P., Page, S.J., 2014. Maritime tourism and terrorism: customer

perceptions of the potential terrorist threat to cruise shipping. Curr. Issues Tour. 17

(7), 610–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.743973.

Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualit. Res. Psychol.

3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Business Research & Economic Advisors, 2019. The Contribution of the International

Cruise Industry to the Global Economy in 2018. Retrieved from: https://cruising.

org/-/media/research-updates/research/global-cruise-impact-analysis—2019–

ﬁnal.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019. CDC and Cruise Ship Sanitation:

Protecting the Public’s Health. Online Factsheet: US Department of Health and

Human Services.

Cox, D.F., Rich, S.U., 1964. Perceived risk and consumer decision-making—the case of

telephone shopping. J. Mark. Res. 1 (4), 32–39.

Cruise Lines International Association Australasia, 2017. Cruise Industry Source Market

Report: Ocean Cruise Passengers Australia 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.

cruising.org.au/Tenant/C0000003/5090_CLIA_Market_Report_AUS_Final_LR.pdf.

Cruise Lines International Association Australasia, 2018. Cruise Industry Ocean Source

Market Report - Australia 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.cruising.org.au/

Tenant/Industry%20Source%20Market%20Report%20(1).pdf.

Cruise Lines International Association Australasia, 2019. 2018 Australia Ocean Source

Market. Retrieved from: https://cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/

research/clia_2019-source-market-reports_australia.pdf.

Cruise Lines International Association Australasia, n.d.. Cruise Tourism's Contribution to

the Australian Economy 2016-17. Retrieved from: https://www.cruising.org.au/

Tenant/C0000003/5677_CLIA_Economic_Impact_Statement_Web.pdf.

Cruise Lines International Association, 2018. Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the

Economies of Europe 2017. Retrieved from: https://cruising.org/-/media/research-

updates/research/economic-impact-studies/contribution-of-cruise-tourism-to-the-

economies-of-europe-2017.pdf.

Cruise Lines International Association, 2019. 2018 Global Passenger Report. Retrieved

from: https://cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/research/clia-global-

passenger-report-2018.ashx.

Cruise Lines International Association, 2019. 2020 State of the Cruise Industry Outlook.

Retrieved from: https://cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/research/state-of-

the-cruise-industry.ashx.

Cruise Lines International Association, 2020. FAQs: The Cruise Community and COVID-

19. Retrieved from: https://cruising.org/-/media/Facts-and-Resources/Cruise-

Industry-COVID-19-FAQs_August-13-2020.

Davies, A., Hurst, D., Zhou, N., 2020, Medical team boards Ruby Princess off Sydney

coast to assess health of 1,100 crew. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.

theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/02/medical-teams-to-be-ﬂown-to-

cruise-ships-off-australian-coast-to-treat-sick-crew.

Dolven, T., Blaskey, S., Nehamas, N., Harris, A., 2020, Cruise ships sailed on despite the

coronavirus. Thousands paid the price. Miami Herald. Retrieved from: https://

www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article241640166.html.

Dowling, R., Weeden, C., 2017. In: Cruise ship tourism. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 1–39.

https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780646084.0001.

Ferson, M., Paraskevopoulos, P., Hatzi, S., Yankos, P., Fennell, M., Condylios, A., 2000.

Presumptive summer inﬂuenza A: an outbreak on a trans-Tasman cruise. Virology

24 (3), 45–47.

Floyd, M.F., Pennington-Gray, L., 2004. Proﬁling risk perceptions of tourists. Ann. Tour.

Res. 31 (4), 1051–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.03.011.

Garrison, L., Kunz, J., Cooley, L., Moore, M., Lucas, C., Schrag, S., Whitney, C., 2016.

Vital signs: deﬁciencies in environmental control identiﬁed in outbreaks of

Legionnaires’disease—North America. Am. J. Transplant. 16 (10), 3049–3058.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14024.

Healthy Sail Panel, 2020. Recommendations from the Healthy Sail Panel. Retrieved

from https://nclhltdcorp.gcs-web.com/static-ﬁles/5492d5db-6745-4b21-b952-

49d3639f6e79.

Henthorne, T.L., George, B.P., Smith, W.C., 2013. Risk perception and buying behavior:

an examination of some relationships in the context of cruise Tourism in Jamaica.

Int. J. Hospitality Tour. Admin. 14 (1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/

15256480.2013.753808.

Holland, J., 2020. Risk perceptions of health and safety in cruising. AIMS Geosci. 6 (4),

422–436. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2020023.

Hunter, M., Oppmann, P., 2020. ‘SeaDream cancels remaining 2020 cruises following

Covid outbreak’, CNN Travel, 17 November. Retrieved from: https://edition.

cnn.com/travel/article/caribbean-cruises-canceled-seadream-covid/index.html.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.

Econometrica 47 (2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.

Karl, M., 2018. Risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making: tourist and destination

perspective. J. Travel Res. 57 (1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0047287516678337.

Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al, 1988. The

social ampliﬁcation of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8 (2), 177–187.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.

Kaur, H., Carmody, J., 2020, April 2. Coronavirus cruise ship Artania could swamp WA

hospitals with COVID-19 cases, WA Premier fears. Retrieved from: https://www.

abc.net.au/news/2020-04-02/fears-artania-cruise-ship-coronavirus-cases-may-

swamp-wa-system/12113690.

Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., Rao, H.R., 2008. A trust-based consumer decision-making model

in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.

Decis. Support Syst. 44 (2), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001.

Kim, H., Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., 2016. Does culture inﬂuence risk

perceptions? Tour. Rev. Int. 20 (1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.3727/

154427216X14581596798942.

Klein, R.A., Lück, M., Poulston, J., 2017. Passengers and risk: Health, wellbeing and

liability. In: Dowling, R., Weeden, C. (Eds.), Cruise Ship Tourism. 2nd ed.

CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1079/

9781780646084.0106.

Kungwani, M.P., 2014. Risk management-an analytical study. IOSRJBM 16 (3), 83–89.

Kura, F., Amemura-Maekawa, J., Yagita, K., Endo, T., Ikeno, M., Tsuji, H., et al., 2006.

Outbreak of Legionnaires' disease on a cruise ship linked to spa-bath ﬁlter stones

contaminated with Legionella pneumophila serogroup 5. Epidemiology and

Infection, 134(2), 385-391. DOI:10.1017/S095026880500508X.

Lanini, S., Capobianchi, M., Puro, V., Filia, A., M, D. M., Karki, T., et al., 2014. Measles

outbreak on a cruise ship in the western Mediterranean. Eurosurveillance, 19(10),

1-5.

Le, T., Arcodia, C., 2018. Risk perceptions on cruise ships among young people:

concepts, approaches and directions. Int. J. Hospit. Manage. 69, 102–112. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.016.

Lebrun, A.-M., 2015. Representation of cruise: cruisers and noncruisers cross views:

representation of cruise. Int. J. Tourism Res. 17 (5), 511–520. https://doi.org/

10.1002/jtr.2021.

Lefﬂer, C., Hogan, M., 2020. Age-dependence of mortality from novel coronavirus

disease (COVID-19) in highly exposed populations: New York transit workers and

residents and Diamond Princess passengers DOI:10.1101/2020.05.14.20094847.

Retrieved 12 October 2020, from medRxiv.

Lemon, L., Hayes, J., 2020. Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative ﬁndings: using

Leximancer for qualitative data analysis triangulation Retrieved from Qualit. Rep.

25 (3), 604–614 https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss3/3.

Liesch, P., HÔkanson, L., McGaughey, S., Middleton, S., Cretchley, J., 2011. The

evolution of the international business ﬁeld: a scientometric investigation of articles

published in its premier journal. Scientometrics 88 (1), 17–42. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s11192-011-0372-3.

Lin, P., Jones, E., Westwood, S., 2009. Perceived risk and risk-relievers in online travel

purchase intentions. J. Hospit. Mark. Manage. 18 (8), 782–810. https://doi.org/

10.1080/19368620903235803.

Liu, B., Pennington-Gray, L., Krieger, J., 2016. Tourism crisis management: can the

extended parallel process model be used to understand crisis responses in the cruise

industry? Tour. Manage. 55, 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.tourman.2016.02.021.

Liu-Lastres, B., Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., 2019. Cruise line customers’

responses to risk and crisis communication messages: an application of the risk

perception attitude framework. J. Travel Res. 58 (5), 849–865. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0047287518778148.

Mazur, A., 1994. Technical Risk in the Mass Media: Introduction. RISK: Health, Safety &

Environment (1990-2002), 5(3), 189-192.

Mileski, J.P., Wang, G., Lamar Beacham IV, L., 2014. Understanding the causes of recent

cruise ship mishaps and disasters. Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 13, 65–70. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.12.001.

Mizumoto, K., Chowell, G., 2020. Transmission potential of the novel coronavirus

(COVID-19) onboard the diamond Princess Cruises Ship, 2020. Infectious Dis.

Modelling 5, 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2020.02.003.

Mouchtouri, V.A., Rudge, J.W., 2015. Legionnaires' disease in hotels and passenger

ships: a systematic review of evidence, sources, and contributing factors. J. Travel

Med. 22 (5), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtm.12225.

Neri, A., Cramer, E., Vaughan, G., Vinje, J., Mainzer, H., 2008. Passenger behaviors

during norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships. J. Travel Med. 15 (3), 172–176. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2008.00199.

Papathanassis, A., 2019. The growth and development of the cruise sector: a perspective

article. TR 75 (1), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2019-0037.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Park, S.-Y., Petrick, J.F., 2009. Examining current non-customers: a cruise vacation case.

J. Vacation Mark. 15 (3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766709104272.

Priest, G., 1990. The new legal structure of risk control. Daedalus 119 (4), 207–227.

Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World.

Earthscan, London.

Rocklöv, J., Sjodin, H., Wilder-Smith, A., 2020. COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond

Princess cruise ship: Estimating the epidemic potential and effectiveness of public

health countermeasures. Journal of Travel Medicine, 27(3). DOI:10.1093/

jtm/taaa030.

Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K., Zhan, F., 2013. Destination risk

perceptions among U.S. residents for London as the host city of the 2012 Summer

Olympic Games. Tour. Manage. 38, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.tourman.2013.03.001.

Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B.W., Winter, C., 2014. Investigating the role of

prior knowledge in tourist decision making: a structural equation model of risk

perceptions and information search. J. Travel Res. 53 (3), 307–322. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0047287513500390.

Sjoberg, L., 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 20 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/

10.1111/0272-4332.00001.

Slovic, P., Weber, E., 2002. Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Paper presented

at the Risk Management strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York.

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/pdf/

roundtable_exec_ﬁnal.pdf.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., 1980. Fact vs. fears: understanding perceived

risk. In: Schwing, R., Albers, W. (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment. Springer, Boston,

MA, pp. 181–216.

Smith, A.E., Humphreys, M.S., 2006. Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of

natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behav. Res. Methods 38 (2),

262–279. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192778.

Sönmez, S.F., Graefe, A.R., 1998. Determining future travel behavior from past travel

experience and perceptions of risk and safety. J. Travel Res. 37 (2), 171–177.

https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759803700209.

Sotiriadou, P., Brouwers, J., Le, T.-A., 2014. Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool: a

comparison of NVivo and Leximancer. Ann. Leisure Res. 17 (2), 218–234. https://

doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2014.902292.

Tarlow, P., 2006. Terrorism and tourism. In: Wilkes, J., Pendergast, D., Leggat, P. (Eds.),

Tourism in Turbulent Times: Towards Safe Experiences for Visitors (Advances in

Tourism Research). Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 79–92.

The Maritime Executive, 2019. Australian Cruise Sector Contributes A$5.2 Billion to

Economy. Retrieved from: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/

australian-cruise-sector-contributes-a-5-2-billion-to-economy.

The Maritime Executive, 2020. CMV becomes third cruise line to go out of business in a

month. Retrieved from https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/cmv-

becomes-the-third-cruise-line-to-go-out-of-business-in-a-month.

Walker, B., 2020. Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess. Retrieved from

https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/special-commission-of-inquiry-ruby-princess.

J. Holland et al. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9 (2021) 100328

Which trust layer better counterbalances the risk impact on travel intentions in a crisis scenario?

Article

Jun 2024
J Retailing Consum Serv

The severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism industry has revived academic interest in evaluating the strategic role of trust in crises. As a force able to mitigate uncertainty and vulnerability, trust can influence people's travel decision-making process. Extant tourism crisis literature concentrates on individual trust levels in isolation, neglecting its multi-faceted nature. Therefore, a research gap emerges in identifying trust layers that most effectively enhance the intention to travel. In order to address this gap, this study adopts a multi-layered trust perspective rooted in the protection motivation theory (PMT). This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of multi-layer trust as a coping mechanism to enhance intention to travel in the cruise industry. This study uses survey data from 661 cruisers and applies structural equation modeling to test hypotheses empirically. Results highlight that trust in the company and interpersonal trust are the most effective antecedents of the intention to travel, effectively mitigating the perceived health risk. Conversely, trust in the vaccine and trust in the certification show no significant influence on the intention to travel. Therefore, in times of crisis, cruise lines should leverage trust in the company and interpersonal trust as strategic tools to counterbalance the perceived health risks and stimulate travel intentions.

Satisfacción laboral y COVID-19: el caso del sector de los cruceros

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

ABSTRACT. Tourism sector labour market is normally a subject of discussion due to the characteristics of the sector, which involves long hours of work and low wages, resulting in unsatisfied workers and a high level of turnover. The main objective of this work is to know the level of approval of the employee experience in the cruise sector and how it has changed after the pandemic of COVID-19. It also looks at the motivations of cruise ship employees. In addition, it is aimed to know the existence in this sense of differences between employees based on their origin, job position, salary and other relevant variables. The methodology used in the research combines quantitative analysis statistics based on a survey to employees who work on cruise ships for long periods, and qualitative analysis through semi-structured face to face interviews to workers at the time of disembarking at the port. Results show that, in general, employees are satisfied, including satisfaction towards the pandemics management. However, there are some elements that need to be improved, as they highlight the low wages and the difficult working conditions on cruise ships, since 70.36% of workers remain on board for more than 7 months, 93.21% work 7 days per week and 87.14% work more than 9 hours a day. It is concluded that the cruise industry needs to implement reforms in the working conditions in order to improve and optimize the employee experience. It’s relevant that, especially because of the COVID-19 pandemic, procedures and protocols have been implemented and have been useful to improve this situation. RESUMEN. El empleo en el sector turístico es habitualmente objeto de debate, ya que se caracteriza por una elevada intensidad horaria y bajas remuneraciones, lo que, a menudo, origina empleados insatisfechos y una alta rotación. El principal objetivo de este trabajo es conocer el nivel de satisfacción de la experiencia de empleado en el sector cruceros y cómo se ha modificado tras la pandemia de COVID-19. También analiza las motivaciones que tienen los empleados de cruceros. Además, se pretende conocer la existencia en este sentido de diferencias entre empleados en función de su origen, puesto de trabajo, nivel salarial y otras variables relevantes. La metodología empleada combina análisis cuantitativo, a partir de una encuesta a empleados a bordo de cruceros durante largas temporadas, y análisis cualitativo, realizado sobre los resultados de entrevistas semiestructuradas a trabajadores de forma presencial en el momento de desembarcar en puerto. Los resultados indican que, en general, los empleados del sector se muestran satisfechos, incluida la gestión de la pandemia. No obstante, existen elementos a mejorar, pues advierten de los bajos salarios y de la dureza de las condiciones laborales en los cruceros, ya que el 70,36% de los trabajadores permanecen embarcados más de 7 meses, el 93,21% trabajan los 7 días de la semana y el 87,14% realizan jornadas de más de 9 horas. Se concluye que el sector debería realizar reformas en las condiciones laborales para mejorar la experiencia de empleado. Resulta relevante que, precisamente a causa de la pandemia de COVID-19, se han implementado procedimientos y protocolos que han servido para mejorarla.

Revisiting Resiliency and Sustainability of the Tourism and Built Environment Nexus: Macroeconomic and Microlevel Evidence From the Philippines Toward the “Next Normal”

Chapter

Sep 2024

As the Philippines navigates into the era of the "next normal", that is, from the pandemic era called the "new normal", we look into how the Philippines' state of tourism and built environment sectors. We also revisit its situation having the "longest lockdown in the world", and look into iterations of socioeconomic models, business platforms, and other elements that lead to the dream of a post-pandemic sustainable tourism industry. In this inquiry, we highlight the importance of elements of the built environment, both at the macroeconomic level, and at the micro units of business, civil society, and the tourism sector at large. While there has been a substantive discussion on the nexus of the tourism and built environment sectors, little has been devoted to the challenges these intertwined sectors faced during the Covid-19 pandemic. We suggest complementation of practices from the macro-scale to the micro-level tourism and built environment sectors, and vice-versa, which will ensure the full complementation of the sectors.. These proposals are in full contextualization of the objective towards the post-pandemic continued recovery, growth, and sustainability, from the local, national, and the regional economy of Southeast Asia, and also to various parts of the world.

Factors Influencing the Cruisers in Recommending Onshore Excursions in Gran Canaria.

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

This paper investigates which elements are the ones that most influence the cruise passenger to recommend the onshore excursions, offering relevant information that could help all stakeholders (cruise firms, local operators, politicians, etc.) to better design/adapt shore excursions to the expectations of the cruise passengers, increasing the positive impact of this activity in the destination. The latter is essential for the existence of a good harmony between the cruise ships visiting a destination and the population living there. To this aim, an ordered logit model was estimated using a sample of 1,059 questionnaires obtained during the period 2018–2020. The results have shown that cruise passengers are more likely to recommend the onshore excursions if their expectations regarding the excursion have been covered, they have perceived a good quality/price ratio and have had a satisfactory tour guide service. Moreover, the fact that the cruisers aged between 45 and 55 are less likely to recommend excursions could suggest that the design of existing excursions could be improved by being tailored by demographic characteristics (i.e., aged-oriented) or even by offering different alternatives for each group during the shore excursion when possible. The results could be useful to all stakeholders when designing excursions to increase the positive impact of this activity on the destination.

Cruise tourism research: a horizon 2050 paper

Article

Feb 2024
Tourism Rev

Alexis Papathanassis

Purpose This study aims to empower cruise academia to assert their role as enablers, and potentially drivers, of sustainable, responsible and resilient cruise futures. Design/methodology/approach This contribution represents a synthesis and a critical reflection of cruise-related research-review literature over the last four decades, assessing its impact and potential in terms of influencing the evolution and future developments of cruise tourism. Findings Cruise research between the 1980s and the first decade of this century could be characterised as “ship-centric” and managerially focused. Over the last decade and up to the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, cruise research has become increasingly “cruise-destination centric”, with sustainability emerging as a dominant theme. Diverging somewhat from the public and media emphasis on environmental concerns and risks, academic research tends to focus on the economic aspects of sustainability. Nonetheless, and despite aiming for practical relevance, cruise research tends to remain reactive and lags behind industry trends. Research limitations/implications This paper proposes a shift from a “applied” to an “applicable” research paradigm, inspiring researchers to proactively shape the industry‘s future by embracing “what-ifs” in their thematic scope. Such a paradigm calls for a normativity-enriched methodological diversity, as well as the inclusion of transformational relevance as an indicator of research impact. Originality/value Public perceptions of cruise tourism have changed over the years, evolving from that of a promising holiday niche to a symbol of unsustainable mass tourism. In this context, cruise scholars are offered guidance for transcending the polarising debate of growth versus de-growth/limits while increasing the relevance and transformational impact of cruise scholarship.

Enhancing tourist safety and security in South Africa

Chapter

Full-text available

Oct 2024

COVID-19 experiences and cruise booking behavior: Insights from YouTube viewers applying revised protection motivation theory

Article

May 2024

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between risk perceptions (crowding risk perception, health risk perception) and self-protective behavioral intentions and booking intention for COVID-19 using the theory of protection motivation previously verified in the study and to analyze the structural relationship between all variables. In particular, it was intended to investigate the specific impact relationship between COVID-19 risk perception, including crowding risk perception and health risk perception, and self-protective behavior and cruise booking intention. The survey was conducted on subscribers of travel YouTube channels with cruise video content, and the respondents actively responded by providing convenience store beverage coupons. In an online survey conducted for a month from January 15, 2023, 312 samples were collected from travelers who have experienced cruises in the past five years. SPSS and AMOS statistical programs were used, and first, frequency analysis and discriminant validity analysis were verified. In addition, the verification of structural relevance between variables was analyzed by the covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM). Demographic characteristics, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and structural model analysis verified the hypothesis. Based on the results of the analysis, this study presents basic evidence useful for establishing management strategies for cruise companies.

Integrated safety for sea and air transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2024

Climate change and COVID-19 have disrupted food supply chains and exacerbated food security challenges (Rasul, 2021). The safety of sea and air transportation in food delivery is also a disruption that impacts logistics in the food value chain (Singh et al., 2021). Integration of sea and air transportation safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on the impact of climate change on food supplies and the rapid spread of viruses through air travel, is essential to ensure that food distribution is not disrupted. The research investigates the response of countries and major international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The methodology used in the study was a systematic literature review (SLR) by identifying 875 journals in the first stage. Then, through strict screening, 50 articles were selected and further analyzed. Covering continents, specific countries, and important ports, the research uses quantitative databases such as the Scopus journal index. The study results reveal the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the aviation and maritime sectors and its influence on global passenger and goods transportation. SLR’s findings also bring together insights from diverse research on safety integration across different modes of transportation during the pandemic. Research provides recommendations — climate-related changes for safe transportation, applicable in normal and pandemic circumstances. In conclusion, this article comprehensively explains maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network amidst complex challenges.

Cruise Industry Crisis Risk Management and Recovery Strategies Utilizing Crowdsourcing Data

Chapter

Feb 2024

With 30 million passengers in 2019, cruise tourism was considered a growing part of world tourism. However, the pandemic has proved disastrous for the sector. According to the Cruise Lines International Association 2020 report, the cruise industry suffered a financial loss of $50 billion. As the cruise industry transitions from response to recovery, strategic decisions about building resilience and resetting for a sustainable future are critical. As a result, developing a sustainable recovery strategy and an adaptive mechanism to adjust as the “new normal” arises is critical. This study utilized crowdsourced data from a cruise-sector representative sample and suggests that cruise firms can assess the performance of their recovery approach and prepare themselves with effective risk management plans by using data-driven monitoring and analysis to change business operations in favor of brand optimization.

Vulnerability analysis of cruise shipping in ASEAN countries facing COVID-19 pandemic

Article

Feb 2024
OCEAN COAST MANAGE

Risk perceptions of health and safety in cruising

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2020

Jennifer Holland

Cruise holidays have become increasingly popular in the past two decades, with passenger numbers increasing every year. The global COVID-19 pandemic resulted in several cruise ships being held in quarantine or stranded at sea with mass disruption and cancelled holidays for millions of vacationers. The pandemic highlights the significance of risk perceptions as risk influences travel decision-making. Little research exists on risk perceptions in ocean cruising, or how risk potentially influences tourists' decision-making for a cruise as a holiday. Findings revealed a cruise is perceived as a safe holiday, but health risks are a significant concern. Non-cruisers perceive more risk in getting sick onboard, and cruisers develop strategies to minimize risks, and both groups acknowledge risk is inherent in travel. Findings reveal critical insight into how both cruisers and non-cruisers interpret health and safety risks in cruising, and is a significant empirical contribution to understanding risk in relation to cruising.

Age-dependence of mortality from novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in highly exposed populations: New York transit workers and residents and Diamond Princess passengers

Preprint

Full-text available

May 2020

Background. Populations heavily exposed to the novel coronavirus provide an opportunity to estimate the mortality from COVID-19 in different age groups. Methods. The mortality reported by May 13 from COVID-19 among Diamond Princess cruise ship passengers, and New York residents and Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) workers was estimated based on publicly available information. Results. The mortality among children (age 0 to 17 yrs) in New York City was 1 in 172,692. The mortality in New York state was 1 in 322,217 for ages 10-19 yrs., and 1 in 36,725 for ages 20-29 yrs. The mortality among New York transit workers was estimated to be 1 in 7,329 for ages 30-39 years; 1 in 1,075 for ages 40-49 yrs.; 1 in 343 for ages 50-59 yrs.; and 1 in 178 for ages 60-69 yrs. Among Diamond Princess passengers, the mortality was estimated to be 1 in 145 for ages 70-79, and 1 in 54 for ages 80-89. Conclusions: Mortality among populations exposed to the novel coronavirus increases with age, ranging from about 1 in 170,000 below the age of 18 years, to 1 in 54 above the age of 80 years.

The Petri-Dish Effect

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2020

Oluwafunbi Awoniyi

The Qualitative Report The Qualitative Report Enhancing Trustworthiness of Qualitative Findings: Using Enhancing Triangulation

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2020

This paper offers an approach to enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings through data analysis triangulation using Leximancer, a text mining software that uses co-occurrence to conduct semantic and relational analyses of text corpuses to identify concepts, themes, and how they relate to one another. This study explores the usefulness of Leximancer for triangulation by examining 309 pages of previously analyzed interview data that resulted in a conceptual model. Findings show Leximancer to be an ideal tool for refining a priori conceptual models. The Leximancer analysis provided missing nuance from the a priori model, depicting the value of and connection between emergent themes. Dependability was also added to the findings by facilitating a better understanding of how participant quotes represent particular themes.

Transmission potential of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) onboard the Diamond Princess Cruises Ship, 2020

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2020

An outbreak of COVID-19 developed aboard the Princess Cruises Ship during January-February 2020. Using mathematical modeling and time-series incidence data describing the trajectory of the outbreak among passengers and crew members, we characterize how the transmission potential varied over the course of the outbreak. Our estimate of the mean reproduction number in the confined setting reached values as high as ∼11, which is higher than mean estimates reported from community-level transmission dynamics in China and Singapore (approximate range: 1.1-7). Our findings suggest that Rt decreased substantially compared to values during the early phase after the Japanese government implemented an enhanced quarantine control. Most recent estimates of Rt reached values largely below the epidemic threshold, indicating that a secondary outbreak of the novel coronavirus was unlikely to occur aboard the Diamond Princess Ship.

COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: estimating the epidemic potential and effectiveness of public health countermeasures

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2020

Background Cruise ships carry a large number of people in confined spaces with relative homogeneous mixing. On 3 February, 2020, an outbreak of COVID-19 on cruise ship Diamond Princess was reported with 10 initial cases, following an index case on board around 21-25 January. By 4 February, public health measures such as removal and isolation of ill passengers and quarantine of non-ill passengers were implemented. By 20 February, 619 of 3,700 passengers and crew (17%) were tested positive. Methods We estimated the basic reproduction number from the initial period of the outbreak using (SEIR) models. We calibrated the models with transient functions of countermeasures to incidence data. We additionally estimated a counterfactual scenario in absence of countermeasures, and established a model stratified by crew and guests to study the impact of differential contact rates among the groups. We also compared scenarios of an earlier versus later evacuation of the ship. Results The basic reproduction rate was initially 4 times higher on-board compared to the

{R}_0

in the epicentre in Wuhan, but the countermeasures lowered it substantially. Based on the modeled initial

{R}_0

of 14.8, we estimated that without any interventions within the time period of 21 January to 19 February, 2920 out of the 3700 (79%) would have been infected. Isolation and quarantine therefore prevented 2307 cases, and lowered the

{R}_0

to 1.78. We showed that an early evacuation of all passengers on 3 February would have been associated with 76 infected persons in their incubation time. Conclusions The cruise ship conditions clearly amplified an already highly transmissible disease. The public health measures prevented more than 2000 additional cases compared to no interventions. However, evacuating all passengers and crew early on in the outbreak would have prevented many more passengers and crew from infection.

The world of cruising.

Chapter

Jan 2017

This book provides an overview of the cruise industry covering a broad range of topics and issues. It has been written for a broad audience including students pursuing university and training programmes, tourism industry professionals, planners and managers in the cruise industry, and finally government agency employees. The book is organized into seven parts. Part 1 introduces the industry and some of its fundamental principles including economics, corporate social responsibility, passengers' health and wellbeing, and the relationship between academic research and professional practice on the subject. Part 2 focuses on the cruise experience, that is, cruise passengers and crew. Part 3 explores markets, marketing and the motivations for cruising. In Part 4, the impacts of cruise ship tourism are investigated through the examination of the social and natural environments. This is complemented by Part 5, which looks at the planning and management for sustainable cruising. Part 6 investigates ports, destinations and infrastructure development including the recent, rapid emergence of cruising in China. Part 7 consists of a single chapter, which brings the topic to a close whilst providing a brief discussion on the future of the industry. The book has 35 chapters and a subject index.

A review of research on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management: Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management

Article

Nov 2019
ANN TOURISM RES

This article reviews 142 papers published between 1960 and 2018 on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management. The article (1) takes a thematic approach to synthesise past research focus and identifies gaps, (2) examines research methodologies employed, and (3) suggests future research and methodological approaches to help progress the field. The article also launches the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management, which contains past and hot off the press work on the topic and will continue to grow as new articles on the topic appear in Annals.

The growth and development of the cruise sector: a perspective article

Article

May 2019
Tourism Rev

Alexis Papathanassis

Purpose The cruise sector has undergone a significant transformation over the past decades, rendering it amongst the fastest growing tourism segments. Nevertheless, cruise holidays represent a relatively small fraction of the entire tourism sector; and so do their economic impacts and externalities. The cruise business has emerged as a result of technological developments in passenger air-transportation and the resulting decline of passenger-shipping. While the increased visibility and over-exposure of its market and product developments may have enabled the re-invention and growth of the cruise sector, they are also amplifiers for its economic and sustainability risks. The purpose of this paper is to relativise both the potential risks and benefits to contribute to more pragmatism in future destination development investments and policies. Design/methodology/approach Based on a brief historical analysis of cruising and current trends, a realistic future is painted where the passenger and capacity growth rates of cruise tourism gradually level out. Findings Moreover, the cruise business becomes increasingly technologically driven to maintain profitability and establish its position in the wider experience portfolio of holiday consumers. Originality/value Traditionally, the relevance argument for cruise tourism research is based on the reported sector's growth rates and corresponding impacts, positive and negative, on destinations. Yet, the mere reproduction of growth rates and passenger numbers in isolation may well foster a misconception and even an overstatement of the cruise sector's significance and role within the wider tourism context. Arguably, the historical analysis and the comparative statistics contained in this paper paint a much-needed realistic picture and contribute to a deeper understanding of the sector's current dynamics.

Constraints to domestic ocean cruise participation among higher income Chinese adults

Article

May 2019

Cruising through a pandemic: The impact of COVID-19 on intentions to cruise (2021)

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Cruise passengers’ risk reduction strategies in the wake of COVID-19

Cruise passengers' risk reduction strategies in the wake of COVID-19

Risk perceptions of health and safety in cruising

COVID-19’s impact on the perceived risk of ocean cruising: A best-worst scaling study of Australian...