Content uploaded by Jennifer Holland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Holland on Sep 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Special Issue Article
Tourism Economics
2022, Vol. 28(1) 248–271
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13548166211054591
journals.sagepub.com/home/teu
COVID-19’s impact on the
perceived risk of ocean cruising: A
best-worst scaling study of
Australian consumers
Suellen Tapsall
Division of Education and Students, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Geoffrey N Soutar, Wendy A Elliott and Tim Mazzarol
Business School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
Jennifer Holland
Suffolk Business School, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK
Abstract
This paper investigates aspects of cruising of most concern to Australian consumers during the
COVID-19 pandemic, following the shutdown of cruising globally. Using a mixed-method approach,
the study asked cruisers and non-cruisers which of the risks associated with cruising were of most
concern. The study found health was the most concerning risk for respondents, regardless of
cruising history and, contrary to previous research, cruisers were more concerned about health
risk than non-cruisers. Results indicated cruisers were also concerned about financial risk, while
safety and psychological risk were the next most concerning aspects for non-cruisers. Implications
for the cruise industry are discussed and areas for further research are identified. Findings suggest
the industry cannot take for granted repeat cruisers’return post-pandemic. As non-cruisers are
much less positive and less willing to cruise than before COVID-19, the continued future growth of
the cruise sector is also under threat.
Keywords
cruise ship, risk, health, COVID-19, best-worst scaling, Australia
Corresponding author:
Division of Education and Students, University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia.
Email: Suellen.Tapsall@uts.edu.au
Introduction
“Imagine the nightmare of being…stuck on that floating petri dish of infection.”
Channel 9 reporter talking about the crew on the Ruby Princess (7 April 2020) after the news announcer
had introduced a story on the “coronavirus-riddled ship”
The COVID-19 pandemic has grounded the decades-long ‘golden goose’of cruising, which had
enjoyed year on year growth and an unending narrative of cruising as the fastest growing tourism
and travel sector segment (Papathanassis, 2019;Radic et al., 2020). The impact was particularly
brutal in Australia, which had been enjoying a love affair with cruise ship travel. Despite its
relatively small population (almost 25.5 million in September 2019 (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2020)), cruising’s market penetration in Australia was the strongest globally, with the country the
industry’sfifth largest source of passengers (Cruise Lines International Association [CLIA]
Australasia
1
,2019). The impact was compounded by timing, as the pandemic hit at the height of the
cruising season in the Southern Hemisphere.
Like many other forms of non-essential activity, cruise ship travel ceased worldwide during the
pandemic, but not before there were confirmed cases of COVID-19 on more than 50 cruise ships
(Dolven et al., 2020). There were also widely-distributed images and stories of thousands of cruise
ship passengers and crew being unable to disembark, sometimes for weeks beyond their initial
cruise end date, as ships were denied entry to many countries.
While research into risk perceptions of cruising has been limited (Holland et al., 2021b;Radic
et al., 2020), prior research suggests travel decision-making is complex and risk is an important
aspect (Karl et al., 2015;Quintal et al., 2021). Quintal et al. (2010) used the Theory of Planned
Behaviour (TPB) to provide a contextual framework for explaining the relationship between
consumers’risk perceptions and their intentions and attitudes to travel. For this reason, the TPB
underpins the current study, which was undertaken to identify how COVID-19 had affected
consumers’perceptions of the risks of cruise travel and their willingness to cruise post-pandemic.
Thus, this paper addresses the specific research question ‘What aspects of cruise travel risk most
concern Australian consumers?’with a view to developing a list of concerns that might inform a
discussion within the cruise industry. Given the importance of repeat passengers to the cruising
sector (Coster, 2020;Deloitte Development LLC, 2018;Mahadevan, 2016;McDonald, 2021;
Petrick et al., 2006;Sun et al., 2018), respondents who had previously cruised were the primary
focus of the current study, although data were also gathered from non-cruisers.
The research was exploratory in nature and commenced when it became apparent that COVID-
19 was causing unparalleled disruption to cruise travel. At the time, while it was not clear how long
the pandemic would last, it seemed likely the industry would be confronted with significant
challenges on resumption (Holland et al., 2021a;Pan et al., 2021;Radic et al., 2020). The emergence
of an overwhelming media and government narrative that cruising was a risk to personal health and
the Australian community at large was also unprecedented (Holland et al., 2021a).
Background and context
COVID-19 and cruise ship travel in Australia and beyond
Cruise ships featured prominently in the early days of the pandemic after the Diamond Princess was
quarantined in Japan for more than a month following a COVID-19 outbreak onboard. By 20
February 2020, the Diamond Princess officially accounted for more than half the cases of
Tapsall et al. 249
coronavirus outside China and at least 14 passengers would die, including the first Australian
COVID-19 related fatality (Belam et al., 2020;Holland et al., 2021a). More ports closed and ships
were quarantined as the outbreak spread.
In the Australian region, cruise ships became synonymous with COVID-19 infections and
deaths. The initial increase in ships coming to Australia (considered a safe destination in the early
days of the pandemic), brought with it increasing numbers of COVID infections and, ultimately,
deaths, with cruise passengers and crew making up most pandemic fatalities in Australia throughout
the first-half of 2020. The deaths were linked to at least eight ships with the highest profile being the
Ruby Princess, which was the nucleus of Australia’sfirst super-spreader transmission event,
spawning government and criminal investigations. Almost 2700 passengers disembarked from the
ship in Sydney on 19 March 2020 without any requirement to quarantine or be tested, despite some
showing coronavirus-type symptoms. These Ruby Princess passengers were allowed to travel on
within Australia and overseas. By May 2020, at least 10% of Australia’s confirmed COVID-19
cases were related to the ship and 28 people had died (20 in Australia and eight in the USA)
(Moriarty et al., 2020).
While the reported deaths of cruise passengers slowed in April 2020, coverage related to Ruby
Princess was ongoing, initially as the ship and crew remained in Australia and then when hearings
began in May. While this first enquiry cleared the ship from deliberately misleading authorities
about the health of the returning passengers, the Commission identified contributing factors on the
part of various Australian authorities and some things the cruise company could have done better
(Walker, 2020).
Media coverage suggested cruise ships and passengers were somehow subversive or acting
against Australian interests (e.g. “One of the Ruby Princess cruise ship passengers who snuck into
Australia while infected with the coronavirus has today died from the sickness”and authorities
telling foreign ships to “go home…there are thousands of people, potentially, in cruise ships off our
coasts that are not members of our state, and …could well flood our system unnecessarily”
(news.com.au, 2020;Trask, 2020).
Beyond the deaths, the travel plans of millions were disrupted and consumers’financial losses
were considerable, particularly for those holding bookings at what was the height of the local
cruising season. The cruise sector lost an estimated $USD50 billion by September 2020 (CLIA,
2020).
Following the initial closure of Australian ports to cruise ships, the 2020/21 and 2021/22
Australian cruising seasons were cancelled, with indications as late as August 2021 that cruise ships
might not return until 2023 at the earliest (Day, 2021;McGowan, 2021).
Literature review
The cruising industry in Australia and globally
For more than two decades, cruising had been the fastest growing sector in tourism (Papathanassis,
2019). Worth more than $USD150 billion annually, the pre-COVID-19 global cruise industry
sustained almost 1.2 million full-time equivalent (FTE) employees and more than 32 million
passengers were expected to ocean cruise in 2020 (CLIA, 2019a). The Australian cruise sector grew
by 11% in the 2018–19 financial year (Smith, 2019), continuing the trend of double-digit growth
experienced across the preceding decade. These strong performances had been expected to continue
in 2020 and beyond, fuelled by new ships, increased capacity and increasing numbers of new and
younger cruise travellers (CLIA, 2018a,2018b).
250 Tourism Economics 28(1)
While tourism was considered a ‘super growth industry’by the Australian Government and had
traditionally been seen as an important economic contributor (Tourism Australia, n.d.), Australia is a
small player globally in terms of tourism, ranking anywhere between 12
th
and 33
rd
on six major
measures, including contribution to GDP, employment, investment and visitor export (World Travel
and Tourism Council, 2018). However, Australia had performed strongly in the cruise travel
segment, being the fifth largest source country for passengers, behind the USA, China, Germany and
the UK (CLIA, 2018a). Australia was the only market in which almost one in 17 people had cruised
(5.8% in 2018), compared to 4% or less in all other regions (CLIA Australasia, 2019a,2018a,
2018b). Industry reports measured the cruise sector’s contribution to the Australian economy at $5.2
billion in 2018-19, with ocean cruise ships stopping at more than 40 ports nationally and the sector
directly and indirectly supporting more than 18,000 FTE jobs (CLIA Australasia, 2019a).
The sector’s strong global performance was being challenged by growing external and internal
developments, including a consolidation of cruise operators and ship-builders, new technologies,
ever-increasing management complexities, a spiralling cost base and a growing negative narrative
(Cruise Lines International Association, 2019;Douglas et al., 2010;Dowling and Weeden, 2017;
Papathanassis, 2012;Papathanassis and Beckmann, 2011;PR Newswire, 2014;Weaver, 2005;Wild
and Dearing, 2000). Negative publicity around cruising had escalated sharply in 2019 following
river and ocean cruise ship accidents and mishaps resulting in loss of life (Chua, 2019;Elfrink and
Horton, 2019), damage to iconic sites and ships (BBC 2019;The Maritime Executive, 2019) and the
critical reporting of cruise line behaviour, including breaches of environmental sanctions and
dramatic rescues at sea (Anderson, 2019;Otte, 2019).
Against this backdrop, CLIA’s State of the Industry Report in late 2019 suggested the issues of
most concern prior to the pandemic were associated with ‘responsible tourism’, with a twin focus on
‘environmental sustainability’and ‘destination stewardship’. There was no mention of needing to
pay attention to, or remedy, passenger health or safety issues or concerns (CLIA, 2019b).
As industry attention turned to post-pandemic resumption, various cruise operators highlighted
the importance of repeat passengers to the sector’s recovery (Coster, 2020;McDonald, 2021). Past
cruisers who make repeat cruising purchases, also known as ‘repeaters’, are an acknowledged
strength of the sector and can comprise 50% or more of passengers (Deloitte Development LLC,
2018;Mahadevan, 2016;Petrick et al., 2006;Sun et al., 2018). While the numbers of first-time
cruisers have increased in recent years, published research indicates repeaters are more involved in
their cruising experience and more likely to demonstrate higher rates of brand loyalty and satis-
faction, and lower levels of perceived risk (Chua et al., 2017;Petrick et al., 2006;Sun et al., 2018).
Recent cruising-related Australian research
Published research into Australian cruising is limited, and none address consumers’perceptions of
cruise travel risk. Recent works explore aspects related to sector performance (Dowling 2016),
cruising intentions (Cooper et al., 2019;Mahadevan, 2016) and community response to cruise
tourism development (McCaughey et al., 2018). The limited published research on cruising in an
Australian context was seen as a gap in the literature, providing another compelling reason for this
study.
Tapsall et al. 251
Consumer decision-making
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and its extension, The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB),
are among the most prominent frameworks for considering consumer decision-making (Perugini
and Bagozzi, 2001;Quintal et al., 2010;Trafimow, 2009;Xie et al., 2013).
Developed by Fishbein and Ajzen in the 1970s, the TRA links beliefs, attitudes, intentions,
norms and behaviours (Ajzen, 2006). The TPB adds a third factor (perceived behaviour control
(PBC)) to the fundamental tenets of the TRA that behaviour is determined by a person’s intent to act,
with intentions impacted by personal attitudes or beliefs and social or normative beliefs (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 1976). The PBC refers to an individual’s view about how difficult it will be to carry out a
behaviour (Ajzen, 2014;Wang et al., 2010). Various studies have tested the core TPB tenets that
people are likely to behave in a certain way if they believe that behaviour will lead to a desired
outcome, if they think others will endorse or approve the behaviour and if they believe they can
perform the behaviour. Quintal et al. (2010) found the TPB explained people’s attitudes and
willingness to travel and that perceived risk was negatively influenced by these attitudes. These
researchers also called for further exploration into how perceived risk impacts consumers’travel
decisions.
More recently, researchers have begun to explore cruise consumers’decision-making through the
lens of TRA and TPB. Radic et al. (2021) applied TRA and Prospect Theory to better understand
behavioural intentions of female cruise passengers during the pandemic, finding perceived health
risk negatively affected onboard dining behaviours as a result of COVID-19.
Risk perceptions in cruising
Recent research suggests cruisers’risk perceptions have changed as a result of COVID-19 (Holland
et al., 2021a;Radic et al., 2020). Cruise passengers have been affected in myriad ways, with no
certainty their holiday would occur, deposits and non-refundable fares lost, cruises cancelled,
itineraries changed as promised ports denied them entry, onboard quarantines and an increased
likelihood of illness and death.
Research on travel risk has increased in response to global crises (Pennington-Gray, 2018;Yang
and Nair, 2014;Yang et al., 2017), with many scholars and tourists recognising risk as an inherent
part of travel (Ritchie and Jiang, 2019;Williams and Bal´
aˇ
z, 2013). Whether real or perceived, risk
changes travel decisions (Bowen et al., 2014;Karl et al., 2015;Morakabati and Kapuscinski, 2016;
Schroeder et al., 2013;S¨
onmez and Graefe, 1998). Indeed, perceived risk has long been recognised
as a significant factor influencing destination choices, travel intentions, information search and pre-
purchase behaviours (Floyd et al., 2004;Floyd and Pennington-Gray, 2004;Fuchs and Reichel,
2011;Karl, 2018;Kim et al., 2016;Kozak et al., 2007;Quintal et al., 2010;Reisinger and Mavondo,
2005;Sharifpour et al., 2014;S¨
onmez and Graefe, 1998;Yang and Nair, 2014).
Risk is particularly relevant when considering a cruise because of the complex decision-making
involved (Petrick et al., 2007;Xie et al., 2016) and the multi-faceted nature of risk in the
cruise context. A cruise is a complex tourist experience and deciding to take one is an involved
and emotive process, with many aspects of the holiday needing to be considered (Petrick et al.,
2007). For example, a would-be cruiser needs to select from many different brands offering
different onboard experiences; choose where to go with varying destinations and itineraries, some
of which have limited availability (e.g. Alaska and Antarctica have short cruising seasons) and
select from an array of cabin types of different sizes, amenities and locations. Potential cruisers
252 Tourism Economics 28(1)
also need to consider fares, onboard spending, gratuities, shore excursions and transportation to
the ship.
In addition to the negative COVID-19 narrative mentioned previously, events impacting on risk
perceptions about cruising prior to the pandemic included incidents on the Costa Concordia in 2012
(Alexander, 2012) and the Sea Diamond in 2007 (Mileski et al., 2014). There have also been
outbreaks of norovirus on cruise ships, resulting in cancellations and cruises with widespread illness
and limited services onboard (Wikswo et al., 2011). An outbreak of norovirus on P&O Aurora in
2003 led to more than 600 passengers and crew falling ill and the ship being refused permission to
dock in Greece (Elliot et al., 2005;Mileski et al., 2014), while coverage in Australia of sickness on
the Sea Princess saw the ship repeatedly dubbed the ‘Sick Princess’(9News, 2018;Ironside, 2014).
Examinations of consumers’risk perceptions about ocean cruising have included studies in-
vestigating terrorism (Bowen et al., 2014;Brosnan, 2011;Greenberg et al., 2006), safety (Ahola
et al., 2014;Baker and Stockton, 2013), polar cruising (Lück et al., 2010;Maher et al., 2011;Stewart
et al., 2007;Stewart and Draper, 2008), food safety (Baker and Stockton, 2013) and illness
outbreaks (Klein et al., 2017;Liu et al., 2016). While there are some notable explorations of tourists’
risk perceptions of cruising (Holland, 2020;Holland et al., 2021a;Le and Arcodia, 2018), these
investigations are limited and further research is needed, particularly in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Much of the travel risk literature has drawn, at least in part, on Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) and
Roselius (1971) seminal research on consumer risk. Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) identified five types
of perceived risk (financial; performance; physical; psychological and social), while Roselius
(1971) identified ‘time-loss’as a risk, referring to the potential for a product to fail and the time and
effort consumers incur in addressing that failure. Opportunity-loss was suggested much later by Lee
et al. (2001) as a risk explaining potential regret when purchases failed to meet expectations.
Equipment risk also has been mentioned in tourism (Roehl and Fesenmaier, 1992), and though not
widely included, may be relevant to cruise holidays, given the importance of ships and facilities
functioning correctly.
Some argue that the growth of cruising has been largely due to a perception it is ‘safe’
(Cordesmeyer and Papathanassis, 2011;Dowling, 2006;Holland, 2020), with cruise tourists being
described as risk-averse (Tarlow, 2006). Research suggests most people felt cruising was safer than
flying (GP Wild (International) Limited, 2017) and the industry has accentuated this concept,
promoting cruises as the ‘safest way to travel’(CLIA, 2017). Trust is particularly important when
examining risk perceptions, as trust decreases perceived anxiety and concern and assists in decision-
making (Forgas-Coll et al., 2014;Li and Petrick, 2008). Cruisers may view familiarity with a ship as
a way to minimise uncertainty and feel at home and comfortable onboard. Indeed, Weaver (2005)
argued cruise ships were standardised and controlled consumption environments that satisfied
consumers’needs for predictability and safety. Clearly, perceived risk is a significant issue for the
cruising industry, particularly in the uncertain times of a pandemic. This concern provided further
impetus for the present study, which is discussed in subsequent sections.
The current study
The study sought to examine the impact COVID-19 has had on consumers’travel intentions and
perceptions of risk in ocean cruising. Specific research questions included:
1. What ocean cruising risks were of most concern to consumers during the COVID-19
pandemic?
Tapsall et al. 253
2. Were there differences between non-cruisers and those who had previously cruised, in terms
of the risks of most concern?
3. How had the pandemic influenced consumers’future ocean cruising intentions?
The study was mixed method, with an online questionnaire that included items drawn from
relevant scales, as well as questions that asked about socio-demographic backgrounds and cruise
experiences. Qualitative data was also gathered through the inclusion of open-ended text questions.
The data were obtained from members of a professional online consumer panel. Responses were
obtained in the last week of June 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic and at a time when many
cities were in lockdown and cruise operations were indefinitely suspended). This paper reports on
data obtained from Australian respondents, including responses to:
1. A Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) question set that explored ocean cruising aspects that were of
most and least concern to respondents.
2. Socio-demographic and cruising history/experience questions, as well as questions about
attitudes towards cruising and willingness to cruise.
3. Open-ended free-text questions that were used to better understand responses to the
quantitative aspects.
Unlike ratings scales, BWS forces respondents to make trade-offs between items, which mimics
real life choice behaviour. Respondents are provided with an appropriate group of subsets of
attributes of interest and are asked to indicate which of these attributes are ‘best’and which are
‘worst’within each subgroup, which results in respondents providing two answers for each of the
presented subsets. In the current study, ‘best’indicated of most concern and ‘worst’, of least
concern
2
. The BWS approach does not suggest least concern is of no concern or inconsequential.
Rather, respondents were asked to consider which of the aspects in each set (all of which might be
concerning) was most important (and least important).
BWS overcomes some of the problems associated with ratings scales (e.g. bias, skewness, cross-
cultural concerns and a lack of differentiation), enabling the importance of the items to be compared
and differences better substantiated. Additionally, as BWS provides information about the lowest
ranked items as well as the highest, the overall importance of items can be better approximated.
A best-worst score can be obtained from the data (often computed as the total times an item is
chosen ‘best’minus total times chosen ‘worst’) and more complex statistical applications can be
applied to these scores. Louviere et al. (2013) suggested BWS was uncomplicated to use and, with a
straightforward design and simple methods of analysis, could be used in many contexts. Not
surprisingly, BWS is now widely used in various disciplines, including health, marketing, edu-
cation, economics and tourism. Consequently, the BWS method was considered suitable to use in
the present study.
The attributes used in the BWS exercise were identified through a literature review examining
different types of risk, resulting in eight initial risk categories (financial, performance, physical,
psychological, social, time-loss, opportunity-loss and equipment/functional). Given the immediate
changes happening in the cruising/travel industry during the initial stages of the COVID-19
outbreak, and the ‘umbrella’status of some of the attributes, a process of expanding or ‘breaking
apart’some of the attributes was undertaken. ‘Physical risk’therefore became ‘health risk’and
‘safety risk’, and ‘performance risk’became ‘a cruise not meeting expectations’and ‘changes to a
ship’s itinerary’. This additional differentiation of risks in a cruise context is not inconsistent with
recent developments in the field, including Gong and Liang (2019) identification of three additional
254 Tourism Economics 28(1)
cruise-specific risks for service, facility, and communication and Panko and Henthorne (2019) study
of criminal activity, which introduced environmental risk in relation to air and water pollution.
However, the latter does not go so far as to explain potential risks perceived by the consumer in
Table 1. BWS attributes and descriptions.
BWs attribute Risk category Attribute description
Mechanical/Functional issues Functional Things not working as they should or being unavailable
(e.g. broken lifts; not being able to use pool, spa or
gym)
What others think Social Other’s opinions of you if you go on a cruise (e.g.
family/friends will worry, or people will think I am
self-indulgent)
Negative impact of cruising on
environment, ports, destinations
Environmental (E.g. pollution, fuel consumption and over-tourism)
Time and effort involved in cruising Time-loss
(convenience)
(E.g. organising and going on the cruise; queueing, the
possibility of delays or getting stranded or
quarantined)
I could be doing something better
for a holiday
Opportunity-loss I could be doing something better for a holiday
Cruise not meeting expectations Performance 1 Not having the cruise experience you wanted
Safety Physical 1 Concerns that you will be in danger onboard (e.g. crime
onboard, fire and ship sinking)
I’m not the cruising type Psychological You do not see yourself as a cruiser (e.g. older people
cruise, or I’ll feel trapped or bored)
Changes to the ship itinerary Performance 2 Port visits cancelled or changed
Health Physical 2 Getting sick onboard (e.g. flu, gastroenteritis and virus)
Financial issues Finance Total cost of cruising, value for money (e.g. ticket costs,
tips, cost of onboard extras and potential to lose
money if cruise cancelled)
Figure 1. The best-worst task (an example).
Tapsall et al. 255
relation to the negative impact of cruising on environment, ports and destinations. As there is a
strong and topical narrative around the negative impact of cruising on the environment, peoples and
destinations, this aspect was added as an 11th attribute. As can be seen in Table 1, the attributes were
given more descriptive names to clarify their meaning for respondents.
Following Louviere et al. (2015) suggestions, a balanced incomplete block design (BIBD) was
used to create the required subsets. In this case, the BIBD design led to 11 subsets, each containing
six items (see Figure 1 for an example of a BW choice block). Respondents saw each aspect six
times and each combination of aspects, three times (Lee et al., 2008).
Data analysis
Each respondent’s individual BW scores for each attribute were initially calculated in Excel, by
subtracting the number of times that factor was of Least concern from the number chosen as Most
concerning, with higher scores implying greater concern (Lee et al., 2008). Standardised scores
were obtained by dividing the individual BW means for each attribute by the number of times that
attribute appeared in the BW question set and averaging the individual means, as suggested by Lee
et al. (2008). A ratio-type score was also computed from the BWS data (Lee et al., 2008), termed
‘sqrt (B/W)’here, and this score was used to calculate the relative importance of each attribute
(Mueller and Rungie, 2009). Descriptive statistics were computed and the data were analysed in
SPSS to understand sample characteristics (e.g. in terms of socio-demographic variables and
cruising history). A thematic analysis was conducted of the respondents’free-text responses where
the iterative process identified patterns within the data based on themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
Thematic analysis provides a logical process for organising and analysing qualitative data.
The sample
The questionnaire was administered online by an experienced global panel company, PureProfile, to
a subset of its panel of more than one million consumers. Several stages of consultation, adjustment,
pre-testing and refinement occurred, leading to a sample that included 464 Australian consumers.
While the sample was not representative of the general population, some parameters were set.
Reflecting the significance of repeat passengers to the sector, at least 50% of respondents had to have
previously cruised and these respondents had to be at least 40 years old, to approximate the average
age of Australian cruisers (CLIA, 2018b). The remainder of the sample was split evenly between
those aged 18–39 years and those over 40 years. Some of this group had also cruised. Ultimately the
sample included 75% of respondents aged over 40, with 60% having previously cruised.
Table 2 provides some personal characteristics of the sample. The sample’s gender split was
almost equal (51% female and 49% male). The oldest respondents were in their 80s, while the
youngest were born in 2001 (the minimum age for panel membership is 18 years). The average age
was 52 years, with the average age for the cruiser sample being 55 years, and a considerably lower
48 years for the non-cruiser group. Just over half (55%) reported their highest level of education was
vocational (Certificate, Diploma or Advanced Diploma) or secondary school level, while 44% held
a university degree. Almost 60% reported annual household incomes of less than $100,000, with the
two most frequently reported cluster bands being $52,000–$90,999 (28% of the total sample) and
$91,000–$155,999 (24%).
Most respondents were in a relationship (67%), with 52% married and the rest in de-facto
relationships or with a new partner after divorce or being widowed. Cruisers were more likely to be
in a relationship (72%) than non-cruisers (59%). Almost three in 10 (28%) were single, widowed or
256 Tourism Economics 28(1)
Table 2. Sample characteristics: highlights (selected results included).
Background variable Total Cruisers Non-cruisers
n=464 283 181
Gender % Female 51%
Male 49%
Female 52%
Male 48%
Female 50%
Male 50%
Age (median) 52 years (53) 55 years (56) 48 years (48)
Cruise history
Cruised previously 61%
Not a cruiser 39%
Average number
of prior cruises
31% = 1 cruise
22% = 2 cruises
29% = 3–4 cruises
11% = 5–9 cruises
7% = 10+ cruises
When expect to
cruise again?
When it’s safe 39%
Don’t know 36%
Never 20%
6% as soon as
cruising resumes
Attitude towards, and
willingness to, cruise
Changed attitude
to cruising?
72% less positive
than before
(36% MUCH less
positive)
20% no change
68% less positive
than before
(33% MUCH less
positive) 22%
no change
70% less positive than
before
(46% MUCH less positive)
22% no
change
Changed willingness
to cruise?
69% less willing than
before
(38% MUCH less willing)
22% no change
69% less willing
than before
(30% MUCH less
willing) 23%
no change
77% less willing than
before
(45% MUCH less willing)
16% no change
Annual household
income
Household income 29% under $52,000
28% $52,000–90,999
24% $91,000–155,999
9% over $156,000
27% under $52,000
28% $52,000–
90,999
24% $91,000–
155,999
10% over $156,000
31% under $52,000
30% $52,000–90,999
25% $91,000–155,999
8% over $156,000
Work status
% full-time 29% 30% 29%
% Self-Employed/Part-
time
27% 27% 25%
(continued)
Tapsall et al. 257
divorced. Two-thirds did not have children or grandchildren at home (empty nesters (34%) or
childless (33%)), with non-cruisers more likely to be childless (43%) than cruisers (27%).
Cruise history. Six out of 10 respondents had cruised previously (61%). Of the respondents who had
cruised, more than half had cruised only once (31%) or twice (22%). A further 29% had cruised
three or four times, with 11% having cruised between five and nine times and 7% completing 10 or
more cruises. Less than half of the cruiser respondents indicated they would definitely cruise again
(39% when it was safe to do so and 6% as soon as cruising resumed). More than one-third (36%)
indicated they did not know when they would cruise again, and 20% stated they would never take
another cruise.
Post-pandemic changes in attitudes to cruising and willingness to cruise. More than 70% of respondents
indicated their attitude to cruising was less positive than it had been prior to the pandemic, with
almost half the non-cruiser group (46%) saying they were much less positive, compared to 33% of
the cruiser sample. Almost eight out of 10 non-cruisers indicated they were less willing to take a
cruise than they had been pre-COVID-19, with 45% much less willing, compared to 30% of the
cruiser group being much less willing.
Findings
Attribute importance
As can be seen in Table 3, health risk (‘health’) was overwhelmingly the attribute of most concern,
being chosen 1919 times as most concerning across the sample (the highest ‘Most’score). It was
also chosen as least concerning, least often (85 times). Just two people (both cruisers) never chose
health as one of the most concerning attributes, with only 5% of the total sample choosing health as
being of least concern more often than of most concern. By contrast, 44% of the sample always
Table 2. (continued)
Background variable Total Cruisers Non-cruisers
% Retired 28% 32% 23%
Unemployed/stood down
because of COVID-19
15% 11% 23%
Relationship and family status
% With partner (%married) 67% (52%) 72% (59%) 59% (42%)
%no children in house
(%childless)
67% (33%) 68% (27%) 65% (43%)
%Adult child/grandchildren
in house
9% 9% 9%
Education
Highest education level Vocational
35%
Bachelor’s degree
24%
Vocational
39%
Bachelor’s degree
24%
Vocational
30%
Bachelor’s degree 24%
% With university
qualification
44% 46% 42%
258 Tourism Economics 28(1)
chose health as being the most concerning risk. Cruisers were more likely to always choose the
health attribute as of most concern (51%) than were non-cruisers (34%).
Financial risk was chosen as most concerning 567 times and least concerning 196 times while
safety risk was selected of most concern 487 times and least concern 292 times. Rounding out the
top four, and the only other attribute to be chosen more times as most rather than least concern, was
‘convenience risk’(i.e. ‘Time and effort’), with scores of 415 (Most) and 254 (Least). Social risk
(‘what other people will think of me for cruising’) was chosen of least concern more often than any
other attribute (1343) and also had the smallest number of most concern scores (87). The top and
bottom attributes were clearly distinguishable from the rest of the attributes, suggesting most
respondents agreed about these aspects of risk.
The ratio-type score (the ‘sqrt [B/W]’)and relative importance of each attribute are also shown in
Table 3. As can be seen in the last column of Table 3, health was more than twice the concern of the
next three highest ranked attributes (finance, safety and convenience risk) and three times as
concerning as the next six risks, which were in a virtually indistinguishable clump (lost opportunity
to do something better, mechanical risk, the cruise failing expectations, not being the cruising type,
environmental risk and the likelihood that itineraries or destinations would change). Health was five
times more concerning than worries about what others would think (social risk).
Tables 4 and 5indicate that, while health was the most concerning risk for all respondents, the
relative importance of other risks vary for the cruiser and non-cruiser samples. For cruisers, financial
risk was the second most concerning aspect of cruising, while safety and psychological risks (being
bored or not the cruising type) were more concerning for non-cruisers.
The thematic analysis of the free-text responses supported the quantitative outcomes, with
concern about health risk predominant. For some respondents, the health risks were so concerning,
they reported they would never cruise again post-COVID-19 (‘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 non-
cruiser] and ‘I’ll never go on a cruise, they are petri dishes of infection’[AU non-cruiser]).
Table 3. Total Sample: BWS Aspects of Most concern.
Attribute
Best
(most)
Worst
(least)
Aggregate B-
W
Mean ind.
B-W/
attribute req
Stdev ind.
B-W/
attribute
Sqrt
B/W
Sqrt B/W
stand
Health risk 1919 85 1834 0.66 0.42 4.18 100
Financial risk 567 196 371 0.13 0.32 1.89 45
Safety risk 487 292 195 0.07 0.36 1.73 41
Convenience risk (time
and effort)
415 254 161 0.06 0.26 1.62 39
Doing something better 318 556 238 0.09 0.35 1.37 33
Mechanical risk 275 313 38 0.01 0.26 1.37 33
Performance risk (fails
expectations)
274 485 211 0.08 0.29 1.31 31
Psychological risk (bored/
not cruising type)
310 748 438 0.16 0.44 1.30 31
Environmental risk 244 392 148 0.05 0.31 1.29 31
Changed itineraries 208 440 232 0.08 0.30 1.22 29
Social risk 87 1343 1256 0.45 0.39 0.75 18
Tapsall et al. 259
A primary sentiment was that cruising was not an option, unless COVID-19 was eliminated, or
an effective vaccine existed (‘I would only ever set foot on a cruise ship if they could prove and be
certain of my health and safety onboard’[AU cruiser] and ‘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’[AU cruiser]). Even those positive about ship hygiene were waiting for a vaccine:
I love cruising and…want to cruise again, but won’t until there is some form of control or vaccine. I
actually trust the cruise ships’cleaning more than my local shopping centre! It is the other idiots
travelling with me I don’t trust. The infection risk is not much greater than when noro[virus] or a cold is
circulating around a ship, which I have had mixed luck with avoiding/catching. [AU cruiser]
Common themes reflected in comments included:
1. Expectations cruise lines would substantially improve protective measures against sickness
(‘I would need to ensure cruise ships go above and beyond for health and hygiene’[AU
cruiser] and ‘The hygiene issue on cruises has now been highlighted for me. If one person
gets sick, I would be worried about everyone getting sick. I expect cruise advertising would
now include reassuring me of cleaning practices’[AU non-cruiser]).
2. Heightened concern about the risk of lockdowns or quarantine onboard (‘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’. [AU cruiser]).
3. A loss of trust and belief in cruise companies (‘The record of cruise liner companies as
exposed by the recent events of various cruise ships in relation to COVID-19 is extremely
disturbing; especially the actions, honesty and attitudes of cruise line companies involved!
This alone would give me pause to consider whether or not to go on a cruise’[AU cruiser]
and ‘I don’t trust cruise lines and the lies they have told regarding these issues’[Au non-
cruiser]
Table 4. Cruisers: BWS Aspects of Most concern.
Attribute
Best
(most)
Worst
(least)
Aggregate B-
W
Mean ind.
B-W/
attribute req
Stdev ind.
B-W/
attribute
Sqrt
b/W
Sqrt B/W
stand
Health risk 1219 67 1152 0.68 0.44 4.31 100
Financial risk 397 113 284 0.17 0.32 2.03 47
Safety risk 263 189 74 0.04 0.35 1.63 38
Convenience risk (time
and effort)
256 164 92 0.05 0.26 1.62 38
Mechanical risk 195 173 22 0.01 0.26 1.45 34
Performance risk (fails
expectations)
186 274 88 0.05 0.30 1.38 32
Changed itineraries 161 252 91 0.05 0.31 1.32 31
Environmental risk 144 218 74 0.04 0.29 1.29 30
Doing something better 135 351 216 0.13 0.32 1.20 28
Psychological risk (bored/
not cruising type)
102 520 418 0.25 0.39 1.03 24
Social risk 55 792 737 0.43 0.39 0.77 18
260 Tourism Economics 28(1)
4. Negative connotations of cruising due to the deaths of COVID-19-affected cruisers (‘I don’t
think I would cruise now that the pandemic has taken so many lives on cruise ships’[AU
cruiser] and ‘Many people died from COVID going on cruise ships. Seems like a petri dish
where the virus grows and grows on the ship. Seems too risky now’[AU non-cruiser]).
While the aspect of environmental risk did not rate as highly as some other concerns (sitting ninth
in a cluster of risks), some respondents were vocal about the impact of this risk on their future
cruising intentions:
I had already cut back international travel almost entirely due to climate change. I would not consider
large scale cruising under any circumstances due to the odious and environmentally catastrophic nature
of the industry.
Discussion
These findings add to our understanding of the effects COVID-19 has had on risk perceptions of
ocean cruising. Consistent with other recently published research into the impact the pandemic has
had on cruising, negative perceptions of health risks have impacted consumers’willingness to cruise
(Radic et al., 2020,2021). The finding that the cruiser sample was more concerned about health risk
than the non-cruiser subgroup is notable, as it does not accord with earlier research suggesting that
experience moderates risk perceptions. Prior studies suggested cruisers’intentions were not sig-
nificantly influenced by infectious illness outbreaks, as they felt able to manage the risk (e.g. by
frequent hand-washing) or because they trusted ships’hygiene and health-measures (Baker and
Stockton, 2013;Holland 2020;Liu et al., 2016)). This would be consistent with the Theory of
Planned Behaviour, which suggests consumers are more likely to carry out a particular behaviour
where they believe they can perform that behaviour (Quintal et al., 2010).
Table 5. Non-cruisers: BWS Aspects of Most concern.
Attribute
Best
(most)
Worst
(least)
Aggregate B-
W
Mean ind.
B-W/
attribute req
Stdev ind.
B-W/
attribute
Sqrt
b/W
Sqrt B/W
stand
Health risk 700 18 682 0.63 0.38 3.99 100
Safety risk 224 103 121 0.11 0.37 1.88 47
Psychological risk (bored/
not cruising type)
208 228 20 0.02 0.47 1.72 43
Financial risk 170 83 87 0.08 0.30 1.67 42
Doing something better 183 205 22 0.02 0.39 1.63 41
Convenience risk (time
and effort)
159 90 69 0.06 0.27 1.61 40
Environmental risk 100 174 74 0.07 0.33 1.30 33
Mechanical risk 80 140 60 0.06 0.24 1.24 31
Performance risk (fails
expectations)
88 211 123 0.11 0.28 1.22 31
Changed itineraries 47 188 141 0.13 0.27 1.06 27
Social risk 32 551 519 0.48 0.40 0.72 18
Tapsall et al. 261
The finding could not be explained by age, gender or income as there were no significant
differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of the groups. In speculating about why
cruisers may be more concerned about health risks than non-cruisers, a number of possibilities
emerge, namely:
1. Previous experiences of health issues and sickness outbreaks on earlier cruises may mean
that cruisers are more aware of the potential for illnesses to spread onboard (and COVID-19
has a significant mortality rate);
2. Cruisers may have fewer concerns about other cruising risks (e.g. psychological risk and
convenience risk). Consequently, while health was just one of many aspects of concern for
non-cruisers, it was critically important for cruisers;
3. The difference in the severity of the illnesses as most prior studies were associated with
outbreaks of sicknesses such as norovirus, without COVID-19’s death rate.
Findings also suggest the perceived cost of cruising (both financial costs and time/effort) has
increased, at least for cruisers. In the same way cruising was considered a ‘safe’holiday in terms of
physical risk, it had also been considered ‘safe’in terms of knowing what to expect and was seen as
a standardised consumption experience (Weaver, 2005). The many negative pandemic experiences
(e.g. itineraries being changed and cancelled and passengers and crew quarantined onboard) appear
to have changed this.
Negative experiences related to the financial costs associated with these aspects (e.g. concerns
about refunds and insurance coverage) have also impacted cruisers who held bookings at the time of
the initial COVID-19 outbreak. In considering the strong negative perceptions of health and finance
risks expressed by respondents, it would appear the value equation has shifted, and that, consistent
with the Theory of Planned Behaviour, cruisers no longer consider cruising as valuable as they once
did.
Further, the decoupling of health and safety as aspects of physical risk, appears to be warranted.
Here, safety related to risks such as onboard fires, sinking and other adverse incidents. This was a
concern for respondents (more so for non-cruisers), but less than half as concerning as health risks.
For cruisers, financial risk was more concerning than safety. Again, this may reflect cruisers’prior
‘safe’experiences, as well as the negative financial impacts of COVID-19, including losing de-
posits, the costs associated with cancelled cruises (fares, other transport fees and pre- and post-cruise
holiday activities) and issues related to collecting refunds.
Additionally, the Australian experience of COVID-19 and cruising, as reflected earlier in the
BWS analysis and in the free-text responses, suggests a worrying development of a ‘them and us’
mentality; with ‘them’being the greedy, uncaring cruise line companies with unhygienic, po-
tentially life-threatening ships and ‘us’being Australian residents and governments.
Respondents’lack of concern about ‘social risk’(i.e. what others will think of [or about] me for
taking a cruise) is notable. The researchers had wondered whether the health concerns associated
with cruising and COVID-19 would increase consumers’regard for how family and friends might
view them for cruising or whether respondents could be concerned their friends and family would be
worried about them cruising, as found by Floyd et al., (2004). Much ocean cruising research had
identified status as an important (positive) consideration (e.g. Fan et al., 2015;Hung and Petrick,
2011;Loureiro et al., 2019). However, the study results did not seem to indicate this, suggesting it
may be time to examine whether class and status are as intertwined with the cruising experience in
Australia, as they appear to be in Asia and the USA.
262 Tourism Economics 28(1)
Limitations and future research
Possible limitations to this research include the timing of the survey, as data were obtained in the
early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020). Subsequent experiences and discoveries may
have changed perceptions. Issues of importance may vary with consumers’personal characteristics,
experience and expertise, as well as external factors, such as government rulings and statements,
media coverage and word of mouth. Without any comprehension of how the crisis would unfold, the
researchers believed it was important to begin building understanding of how consumer concerns
might impact on post-COVID-19 travel intentions. Future studies should replicate this research to
see whether the change in concern about health risk was temporary or lasting, and if there have been
other changes in consumer’s views.
This paper used an Australian sample as Australian residents were exposed to a particularly
negative cruising narrative, which may have affected people’s responses. It would be useful to
broaden the research by comparing Australian consumer responses with responses from other
countries.
A further limitation was the disaggregation of several traditional risk categories (e.g. dividing
physical risk into health risk and safety risk). The disparity in the relative importance of health and
safety concerns, particularly for cruisers, suggests this decoupling was useful. The findings also
showed some smaller differences between aspects of performance risk (‘failing to meet expec-
tations’and ‘changes to itineraries and port’); the value of such disaggregations should be examined
in future studies.
Conclusions, implications and recommendations
This research has significant implications for the cruising industry in a post–COVID-19 world.
Cruise companies need to understand the issues that affect people’s willingness to cruise and their
attitudes towards cruising and the cruising industry. These findings are notable given the clear
negative shift in Australian respondents’attitudes towards cruising. If these results are reflected
more widely, this is of particular importance, as prior to the pandemic Australia was enjoying a love
affair with cruising, reflected in reaching the highest market penetration globally (almost double the
market penetration in the UK, for example).
While the cruising industry may be counting on repeaters to drive post-pandemic recovery
(Coster, 2020;McDonald, 2021), these findings suggest they cannot take repeat cruisers for granted
and assume they will return to the seas. These results do not align with earlier research suggesting
cruise experience mitigated risk perceptions. Rather, cruise lines will need to work harder to instil
confidence and bring repeat cruise passengers back onboard, focussing on health and financial
safety through increased cleaning and hygiene measures, flexible and reliable refund and can-
cellation policies and the like.
This study suggests the trend in recent years of increasing numbers of first-time cruisers may also
be under threat. While health risk was less concerning for non-cruisers (though still of most
concern), it appears it may reinforce other concerns about cruising for these respondents, making it
less likely non-cruisers will consider cruise holidays in future. Indeed, almost eight out of 10 non-
cruiser respondents reported being less willing to go on a cruise, with more than half of these, much
less willing. Continued growth in attracting new passengers was an important strategy pre-COVID-
19, alongside building more and bigger ships to increase capacity. The industry will need clear
strategies to encourage non-cruisers to come onboard.
Tapsall et al. 263
The intertwining of cruising and COVID-19, and the associated development of a ‘them and us’
mentality presents a serious challenge to the industry as it seeks to return to Australian waters.
Notwithstanding the acknowledged and significant value of cruising and tourism generally, in 2021
there remained thousands of Australians stranded overseas and stringent border controls prevented
most travel into and out of the country. A successful negotiation of a return to cruising in Australia is
likely to take considerable time and be a fraught experience for the cruise industry. Australian
Government support for resumed cruising is essential to allow ships into local ports and necessary to
give Australian consumers’the confidence that it is safe to return.
COVID-19 has disrupted what had been an unending tale of growth and success for the cruising
sector. Whether this disruption is permanent, or will eventually be considered a temporary blip in the
industry’s performance will depend, at least in part, on the extent to which the sector can convince
travellers and governments that cruising is safe –at least in terms of physical health. Considered
through a TPB lens, the industry will need to persuade consumers, particularly repeat cruisers, that
the value of cruise ship travel to them outweighs the perceived risks of cruising.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication
of this article: This study was funded by the University of Western Australia.
ORCID iDs
Suellen Tapsall https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1505-6686
Tim Mazzarol https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7107-7046
Note
1. CLIA is the largest cruise association of the world’s major cruise lines. It started in the USA in 1975. CLIA
Australasia is a regional chapter, which has evolved since 1996 with a number of different trading names.
2. The terms Best/Most Important/Most Concerning and Worst/Least Important/Least Concerning are used
interchangeably throughout the paper.
References
9 News (2018) Cruise ship gastro victims set to launch class action for thousands of dollars over ‘nightmare’
voyages. Available at: www.9news.com.au/national/cruise-ship-gastro-victims-to-win-thousands-of-
dollars-over-nightmare-voyages/c33e9cf0-101e-4b9f-b936-3280df924a83 (accessed 9 April 2020).
Ahola M, Murto P, Kujala P, et al. (2014) Perceiving safety in passenger ships - user studies in an authentic
environment. Safety Science 70: 222–232.
Ajzen I (2006) TPB model. Available at: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html (accessed 18 March
2014).
Ajzen I (2014) Icek Ajzen: frequently asked questions. Available from: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/faq.html
(accessed 18 March 2014).
Alexander DE (2012) The ‘Titanic Syndrome’: risk and crisis management on the costa concordia. Journal of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management 9(1): 1–25.
264 Tourism Economics 28(1)
Anderson C (2019) Cruise Ship Company Carnival Fined $28m for Pumping Pollution into Oceans. Sydney
Morning Herald.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020) National, state and territory population. Available at: www.abs.gov.au/
statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release (accessed 30 March
2021).
Baker DM and Stockton S (2013) Smooth sailing! Cruise passengers demographics and health perceptions
while cruising the Eastern Caribbean. International Journal of Business and Social Science 4(7): 8–17.
BBC (2019) Venice crash captain ordered ‘all procedures to avoid impact’. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.
uk/news/world-europe-48496412 (accessed 3 June 2019).
Belam M, Quinn B and Rourke A (2020) Cruise ship accounts for more than half of virus cases outside China –
as it happened. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/feb/20/coronavirus-live-
updates-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-japan-deaths-latest-news-china-infections (accessed 21 February
2020).
Bowen C, Fidgeon P and Page SJ (2014) Maritime tourism and terrorism: customer perceptions of the potential
terrorist threat to cruise shipping. Current Issues in Tourism 17(7): 610–639.
Braun Vand Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):
77–101.
Brosnan IG (2011) The diminishing age gap between polar cruisers and their ships: a new reason to codify the
IMO guidelines for ships operating in polar waters and make them mandatory? Marine Policy 35(2):
261–265.
Chua B (2019) Who’s to blame for the deaths on the Danube? Available at: https://rivercruisepassenger.com.au/
two-locations-two-accidents-and-the-authorities-who-could-have-blood-on-their-hands/ (accessed 10
July 2019).
Chua B-L, Lee S and Han H (2017) Consequences of cruise line involvement: a comparison of first-time and
repeat passengers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29(6): 1658–1683.
Cooper D, Holmes K, Pforr C, et al. (2019) Implications of generational change: European river cruises and the
emerging gen X market. Journal of Vacation Marketing 25(4): 418–431.
Cordesmeyer M and Papathanassis A (2011) Safety perceptions in the cruise sector: a grounded theory
approach. In: Gibson, P, Papathanassis, A and Milde, P (eds), Cruise Sector Challenges. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Gabler Verlag-Springer Fachmedien, pp. 127–146.
Coster H (2020) Stalled cruise industry targets repeat passengers. MarineLink. Available at: www.marinelink.
com/news/stalled-cruise-industry-targets-repeat-480580 (accessed 17 August 2021).
Cruise Lines International Association (2017) Safety at sea. Available at: https://cruising.org/en/about-the-
industry/policy-priorities/safety-at-sea (accessed on 29 May 2020).
Cruise Lines International Association CLIA (2018a) 2019 cruise trends and industry outlook. Available at:
https://cruising.org/news-and-research/-/media/CLIA/Research/CLIA%202019%20State%20of%20the
%20Industry.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2018).
Cruise Lines International Association CLIA (2018b) Cruise travel report. Available at: https://cruising.org/-/
media/research-updates/research/consumer-research/2018-clia-travel-report.pdf (accessed on 30 June
2018).
Cruise Lines International Association (2019) 2020 state of the cruise industry outlook. Available at: https://
cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/research/state-of-the-cruise-industry.ashx (accessed on 10 June
2020).
Cruise Lines International Association (2020). FAQs: the cruise community and COVID-19. Available at:
https://cruising.org/-/media/Facts-and-Resources/Cruise-Industry-COVID-19-FAQs_August-13-2020
(accessed on 10 July 2021).
Tapsall et al. 265
Cruise Lines International Association Australasia (2018a) CLIA news: new report reveals Australian demand
for cruising continues. Available at: https://australia.etbtravelnews.global/357387/new-report-reveals-
australian-demand-for-cruising-continues/(accessed on 30 May 2018).
Cruise Lines International Association Australasia (2018b) Cruise industry ocean source market report - Australia
2017. Available at: https://www.cruising.org.au/Tenant/C0000003/Cruise%20Industry%20Source%
20Market%20Report%20(1).pdf (accessed on 1 August 2018).
Cruise Lines International Association Australasia (2019a) 2018 Australian Ocean Source Market. Available
at: https://www.cruising.org.au/Tenant/C0000003/2018%20Source%20Market%20Report%20Australia
%20(FINAL).pdf (accessed 1 Match 2020).
Cruise Lines International Association Australasia (2019b) CLIA Cruise EIA 2018-19 Infographic.Availableat:
https://www.cruising.org.au/Tenant/C0000003/Reports/CLIA%20Cruise%20EIA%202018-19%20infographic.
pdf ((accessed on 10 November 2019).
Day O (2021) Fears the Entire Cruise Industry Will Boycott Australia until the End of Next Year as a Major
Operator Pulls Out of a $34million Voyage. Daily Mail Australia. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.
uk/news/article-9695599/Major-cruise-operator-cancels-voyages-Australia-end-2022.html (accessed on
22 August 2021).
Deloitte Development LLC (2018) The next generation of cruise passengers has embarked. Available at:
www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/consumer-business/us-cruise-industry-analysis-
passenger-experience.pdf ((accessed on 20 August 2021).
Dolven T, Blaskey S, Nehamas N, et al (2020) Cruise Ships Sailed on Despite the Coronavirus. Thousands
Paid the Price. Miami Herald.
Douglas AC, Mills JE and Phelan KV (2010) Smooth sailing? Passengers’assessment of cruise brand equity.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 27(7): 649–675.
Dowling RK (2006) The cruising industry. In: Dowling RK (ed), Cruise Ship Tourism. Wallingford: CABI,
pp. 3–17.
Dowling R (2016) Australia’s cruising phenomenon. Tourism in Marine Environments 11(2–3): 178–184.
Dowling R and Weeden C (2017) The world of cruising. In: Dowling, R and Weeden, C (eds), Cruise Ship
Tourism.2
nd
edition. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 1–39.
Elfrink T and Horton A (2019) Six Dead after Sightseeing Planes Collide in Alaska, Coast Guard Says. The
Washington Post.
Elliott D, Harris K and Baron S (2005) Crisis management and services marketing. Journal of Services
Marketing 19(5): 336–345.
Fan DXF, Qiu H, Hsu CHC, et al. (2015) Comparing motivations and intentions of potential cruise passengers
from different demographic groups: the case of China. Journal of China Tourism Research 11(4):
461–480.
Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1976) Misconceptions about the fishbein model: reflections on a study by songer-
nocks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12(6): 579–584.
Floyd MF, Gibson H, Pennington-Gray L, et al. (2004) The effect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in
the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 15(2–3): 19–38.
Floyd MF and Pennington-Gray L (2004) Profiling risk perceptions of tourists. Annals of Tourism Research
31(4): 1051–1054.
Forgas-Coll S, Palau-Saumell R, S´
anchez-Garc´
ıa J, et al. (2014) The role of trust in cruise passenger behavioral
intentions. Management Decision 52(8): 1346–1367.
Fuchs G and Reichel A (2011) An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction
strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tourism Management 32(2):
266–276.
266 Tourism Economics 28(1)
Greenberg MD, Chalk P, Willis HH, et al. (2006) Maritime Terrorism: Risk and Liability. USA: Rand: Centre
for Terrorism Risk Management Policy.
Gong X and Liang M (2019) Study on risk perception of domestic cruise tourists. IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science 252(4): 1–7.
GP Wild (International) Limited (2017) Report on operational incidents 2009 to 2016. Available at https://
www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/report-on-operational-incidents-2009-to-2016.pdf?
sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 22 March 2018.
Holland J (2020) Risk perceptions of health and safety in cruising. AIMS Geosciences 6(4): 422–436.
Holland J, Mazzarol T, Soutar GN, et al. (2021a) Cruising through a pandemic: the impact of COVID-19 on
intentions to cruise. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 9: 1–15.
Holland J, Weeden C, Palmer C, et al. (2021b) Conceptualising risk in cruise holidays: a critical review.
International Journal of Tourism Research 24: 122–139.
Hung K and Petrick JF (2011) Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the
construction of a cruising motivation scale. Tourism Management 32(2): 386–393.
Ironside R (2014) Cruise ship crisis: another sea princess cruise cancelled, leaving holiday-makers stranded.
Availa ble a t: https://www.escape.com.au/escape-travel/news-story/c4aeabd63bbd74c96df61c9cb790b9b2
(accessed on 9 April 2020.
Jacoby J and Kaplan L (1972) The components of perceived risk. In: Venkatesan M (ed), Proceedings of the
Third Annual Convention of the Association for Consumer Research. Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research, pp. 382–393.
Karl M (2018) Risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making: tourist and destination perspective. Journal of
Travel Research 57(1): 129–146.
Karl M, Reintinger C and Schmude J (2015) Reject or select: mapping destination choice. Annals of Tourism
Research 54: 48–64.
Kim H, Schroeder A and Pennington-Gray L (2016) Does culture influence risk perceptions? Tourism Review
International 20(1): 11–28.
Klein RA, Lück M and Poulston J (2017) Passengers and risk: health, wellbeing and liability. In: Dowling R
and Weeden C (eds), Cruise ship tourism.2
nd
edition. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 1–39.
Kozak M, Crotts JC and Law R (2007) The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers.
International Journal of Tourism Research 9(4): 233–242.
Le TH and Arcodia C (2018) Risk perceptions on cruise ships among young people: concepts, approaches and
directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 69: 102–112.
Lee D, Park J and Ahn JH (2001) On the explanation of factors affecting e-commerce adoption. Proceedings of
the Twenty-Second International Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 16-
19 December, 2001, pp. 109–120.
Lee JA, Soutar G and Louviere J (2008) The best-worst scaling approach: an alternative to Schwartz’s values
survey. Journal of Personality Assessment 90(4): 335–347.
Li X and Petrick JF (2008) Reexamining the dimensionality of brand loyalty: a case of the cruise industry.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 25(1): 68–85.
Liu B, Pennington-Gray L and Krieger J (2016) Tourism crisis management: can the extended parallel process
model be used to understand crisis responses in the cruise industry? Tourism Management 55: 310–321.
Loureiro SMC, Japutra A and Kwun D (2019) Signalling effects on symbolic status and travellers’well-being
in the luxury cruise industry. International Journal of Tourism Research 21(5): 639–654.
Louviere J, Lings I, Islam T, et al.(2013) An introduction to the application of (case 1) best-worst scaling in
marketing research. International Journal of Research in Marketing 30(3): 292–303.
Louviere J, Flynn T and Marley AAJ (2015) Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications. United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Tapsall et al. 267
Lück M, Maher PT and Stewart EJ (eds), (2010) Cruise tourism in Polar Regions: Promoting environmental
and social sustainability? London: Earthscan.
Mahadevan R. (2016) Examining the intention to cruise again sooner rather than later. Tourism Economics
22(6): 1423–1430.
Maher PT, Johnston ME, Dawson JP, et al. (2011) Risk and a changing environment for Antarctic tourism.
Current Issues in Tourism 14(4): 387–399.
McCaughey R, Mao I and Dowling R (2018) Residents’perceptions towards cruise tourism development: the
case of Esperance, Western Australia. Tourism Recreation Research 43(3): 403–408.
McDonald T (2021) Can onboard rollercoasters save the cruise industry? BBC News. Available at: https://
www.bbc.com/news/business-55496436 (accessed on 20 August 2021).
McGowan M (2021) Talkback Radio. In: Mitsopoulos N (ed), ABC Radio Perth Mornings.
Mileski JP, Wang G and Lamar Beacham L (2014) Understanding the causes of recent cruise ship mishaps and
disasters. Research in Transportation Business and Management 13: 65–70.
Morakabati Y and Kapu´
sci´
nski G (2016) Personality, risk perception, benefit sought and terrorism effect.
International Journal of Tourism Research 18(5): 506–514.
Moriarty LF, Plucinski MM, Marston BJ, et al. (2020) Public health responses to COVID-19 outbreaks on
cruise ships - worldwide, february-march 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69(12):
347–352.
Mueller S and Rungie C (2009) Is there more information in best-worst choice data? International Journal of
Wine Business Research 21(1): 24–40.
news.com.au (2020) Coronavirus Australia: ruby princess passenger, 70, dies from COVID-19. Available at:
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/health-safety/coronavirus-australia-ruby-princess-passenger-
70-dies-from-covid19/news-story/a289cf1872d31d7b8c1d1146035749a5 (accessed on 21 March 2021).
Otte J (2019) Viking Sky Reaches Port with 900 Still Onboard after Dramatic Rescues. The Guardian, p. 2019.
Pan T, Shu F, Kitterlin-Lynch M, et al. (2021) Perceptions of cruise travel during the COVID-19 pandemic:
market recovery strategies for cruise businesses in North America. Tourism Management 85: 104275.
Panko TR and Henthorne TL (2019) Crimes at sea: a review of crime onboard cruise ships. International
Journal of Safety and Security in Tourism and Hospitality 20: 1–23.
Papathanassis A (2012) Guest-to-guest interaction on board cruise ships: exploring social dynamics and the
role of situational factors. Tourism Management 33(5): 1148–1158.
Papathanassis A (2019) The growth and development of the cruise sector: a perspective article. Tourism Review
75(1): 130–135.
Papathanassis A and Beckmann I (2011) Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’hypothesis. Annals of Tourism
Research 38(1): 153–174.
Pennington-Gray L (2018) Reflections to move forward: where destination crisis management research needs
to go. Tourism Management Perspectives 25: 136–139.
Perugini M and Bagozzi RP (2001) The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours:
broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 40(1):
79–98.
Petrick JF, Li X and Park S-Y (2007) Cruise passengers’decision-making processes. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 23(1): 1–14.
Petrick JF, Tonner C and Quinn C (2006) The Utilization of Critical Incident Technique to Examine Cruise
Passengers’Repurchase Intentions. Journal of Travel Research 44(3): 273–280.
PR Newswire (2014) The state of the cruise industry in 2014: global growth in passenger numbers and product
offerings. Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-state-of-the-cruise-industry-
in-2014-global-growth-in-passenger-numbers-and-product-offerings-240589811.html ((accessed on 22
December 2019).
268 Tourism Economics 28(1)
Quintal VA, Lee JA and Soutar GN (2010) Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: a tourism
example. Tourism Management 31(6): 797–805.
Quintal V, Sung B and Lee S (2021) Is the coast clear? Trust, risk-reducing behaviours and anxiety toward
cruise travel in the wake of COVID-19. Current Issues in Tourism:1–13. Epub ahead of print 10 February
2021. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2021.1880377.
Radic A, Law R, Lück M, et al. (2020) Apocalypse now or overreaction to coronavirus: the global cruise
tourism industry crisis. Sustainability 12(17): 6968.
Radic A, Lück M, Al-Ansi A, et al. (2021) To dine, or not to dine on a cruise ship in the time of the COVID-19
pandemic: the tripartite approach towards an understanding of behavioral intentions among female
passengers. Sustainability 13(5): 2516.
Reisinger Y and Mavondo F (2005) Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: implications of travel
risk perception. Journal of Travel Research 43(3): 212–225.
Ritchie BW and JiangY (2019) 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. Annals
of Tourism Research 79: 102812.
Roehl WS and Fesenmaier DR (1992) Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: an exploratory analysis. Journal of
Travel Research 30(4): 17–26.
Roselius T (1971) Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing 35(1): 56–61.
Schroeder A, Pennington-Gray L, Kaplanidou K, et al. (2013) Destination risk perceptions among U.S.
residents for London as the host city of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Tourism Management 38:
107–119.
Sharifpour M, Walters G, Ritchie BW, et al. (2014) Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision
making. Journal of Travel Research 53(3): 307–322.
Smith A (2019) Cruise industry contributes AU$5.2 billion to Australian economy. Available from: https://
www.cruiseandferry.net/articles/cruise-industry-contributes-au-52-billion-to-australian-economy
(accessed on 13 July 2020).
S¨
onmez SF and Graefe AR (1998) Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and
perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research 37(2): 171–177.
Stewart EJ and Draper D (2008) The sinking of the MS explorer: implications for cruise tourism in Arctic
Canada. Arctic 61(2): 224–228.
Stewart EJ, Howell SE, Draper D, et al. (2007) Sea ice in Canada’s Arctic: implications for cruise tourism.
Arctic 60(4): 370–380.
Sun X, Kwortnik R and Gauri DK (2018) Exploring behavioral differences between new and repeat cruisers to
a cruise brand. International Journal of Hospitality Management 71: 132–140.
Tarlow PE (2006) Terrorism and Tourism. In: Wilkes, J, Pendergast, D and Leggat, P (eds), Tourism in
turbulent times: Towards safe experiences for visitors (Advances in Tourism Research). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier, pp. 79–92.
The Maritime Executive (2019) One cruise ship strikes another in Vancouver, BC. Available at: https://www.
maritime-executive.com/article/cruise-ship-oosterdam-strikes-nieuw-amsterdam-in-vancouver-bc
(accessed on 21 March 2021).
Tourism Australia (n, d.) The economic importance of tourism. Available at: http://www.tourism.australia.com/
en/markets-and-stats/tourism-statistics/the-economic-importance-of-tourism.html (accessed on 3 No-
vember 2019).
Trafimow D (2009) The Theory of reasoned action. Theory and Psychology 19(4): 501–518.
Trask S (2020) Foreign cruise ships should go home now over coronavirus concerns: NSW police. Available at:
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/cruise-ships-should-go-home-nsw-police-c-900616
(accessed on 21 March 2021).
Tapsall et al. 269
Walker B (2020) Special commission of inquiry into the ruby princess. Available at: https://www.
rubyprincessinquiry.nsw.gov.au/report/(accessed on 1 March 2021).
Wang YJ, Hong S and Wei J (2010) A broadened model of goal- directed behavior: incorporating the conative
force into consumer research. Review of Business Research 10(1): 142.
Weaver A (2005) The mcdonaldization thesis and cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 32(2): 346–366.
Wild P and Dearing J (2000) Development of and prospects for cruising in Europe. Maritime Policy and
Management 27(4): 315–333.
Wikswo ME, Cortes J, Hall AJ, et al. (2011) Disease transmission and passenger behaviors during a high
morbidity norovirus outbreak on a cruise ship, January 2009. Clinical Infectious Diseases 52(9):
1116–1122.
Williams AM and Bal´
aˇ
z V (2013) Tourism, risk tolerance and competences: travel organization and tourism
hazards. Tourism Management 35: 209–221.
World Travel and Tourism Council (2018) Travel and tourism economic impact 2018 Australia. Available at:
https://www.wttc.org/economic-impact/country-analysis/country-reports/(accessed on 20 December
2019).
Xie C, Bagozzi RP and Østli J (2013) Cognitive, emotional, and sociocultural processes in consumption.
Psychology and Marketing 30(1): 12–25.
Xie HJ, Kerstetter DL and Mattila AS (2016) The importance of onboard features in cruise decision making: a
comparison between cruisers and potential cruisers. In: Travel and Tourism Research Association.
Advancing Tourism Research Globally 38.
Yang CL and Nair V (2014) Risk perception study in tourism: are we really measuring perceived risk? Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 144(1): 322–327.
Yang ECL, Khoo-Lattimore C and Arcodia C (2017) A systematic literature review of risk and gender research
in tourism. Tourism Management 58: 89–100.
Author biographies
Suellen Tapsall is Acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor, New Business (Education and Students) at the
University of Technology Sydney. Suellen moved into higher education in 1995 after 15 years in
journalism and communications. She is a life member and former president of the Journalism
Education Association and has served on various state and national boards and advisory groups. An
award-winning university lecturer, Suellen has successfully researched and published in areas
including consumer decision-making, borderless education, technology innovation, journalism
theory and practice. Since 2014, her research has focused on ocean and river cruising.
Geoffrey N Soutar is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Western Australia Business School.
He is a fellow and life member of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management and
was an inaugural fellow of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Geoff has
published widely across a wide range of areas, including tourism and marketing. He has won an
Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Distinguished Researcher Award and an Aus-
tralian Teaching and a Learning Council Citation for an Outstanding Contribution to Student
Learning.
Wendy A Elliott’sdoctoral thesis focused on what retail investors wanted from the sustainability
reporting of Australian Mining Organisations. Wendy’s research builds on her work in accounting
and finance, her interest in the environment and time spent living and working on remote Australian
indigenous land in Far North Queensland. Her interests in the environment, responsible corporate
270 Tourism Economics 28(1)
practice and consumer behaviour, along with two decades residing and working in tourism areas,
supported a natural extension into cruising research.
Tim Mazzarol is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia where his research
focusses on entrepreneurship, innovation, small business management, marketing, strategy,
commercialisation and the co-operative and mutual enterprise business model. He is a qualified
professional researcher with the Australian Research Society, the coordinator of the Co-operative
Enterprise Research Unit (CERU), at UWA, a fellow of the Australian Institute of Management,
Director of the Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation (CEMI) and Director and
Company Secretary of the Commercialisation Studies Centre (CSC) Ltd.
Jennifer Holland is a cruise and tourism researcher and lecturer at the University of Suffolk. She is a
research fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, member of the Travel and Tourism Research
Association and serves as social media editor for Tourism and Hospitality Research. Her research
interests are consumer behaviour, marketing and risk with a focus on the cruise sector, and her
research is regularly featured in the media and industry publications. www.jenniferholland.org
Tapsall et al. 271
