Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

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

Cruise home-port selection criteria

Aimilia A. Papachristou a, *, Athanasios A. Pallis a, b, c, George K. Vaggelas a, c
a
University of the Aegean, 2a Korai Str, 82132 Chios, Greece
b
Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia
c
University of the Aegean, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cruise ports seek to secure cruise calls, with most of them competing to accommodate the most profitable ac­
Cruise industry tivities of all: home-porting. Meanwhile, an uninterrupted growth of cruise activities is based on the evolution of
Home-port criteria renewed business strategies that alter home-porting selection criteria. The present study examines the criteria
Cruise ports
structuring cruise lines decisions of which port to use for home-porting with the use of a database constructed
Stakeholders
with input from cruise lines, ports and cruise terminal operators, and stakeholders. Methodologically, it does so
via a survey and the analysis (descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test) of
the 109 replies received. The collected empirical data reveals (a) the hierarchy of the home-porting selection
criteria; (b) the variance of the perspectives of cruise lines, cruise ports, and other stakeholders; and (c) the role
of the experience of cruise professionals in shaping their assessment of the significance of each criterion - while
the comparison of the findings with those of past researches identifies the evolution and potential alterations of
this hierarchy of home-porting selection criteria.

1. Introduction itineraries, and/or scheduling new ones, with respective decisions

Cruise ports seek to secure cruise calls, with a number of them
competing to accommodate the most profitable, in terms of economical
return, activities of all: home-porting. Cruise growth increases the rev­
enue for both cruise lines and ports (Whyte, 2018). When cruise lines
achieve noteworthy upsurge in their annual revenues, ports, port-cities
and/or nearby touristic destinations that host cruise activities also enjoy
a positive economic impact. Any positive impact is higher when a cruise
port is selected as a home-port, which is when selected as the embar­
kation port where a cruise itinerary commences and/or as the final
disembarkation port. In these cases, passengers stay longer in the city
and spend more. Not rarely, cruise ships also berth longer at the home-
port, acting as income generators by increasing the consumption of
services and products by all the involved actors.
Changes of existing home-porting choices are more likely to happen
than in the past, even in the established, and hence comparatively sta­
ble, cruise markets. The increasing scale of cruise vessels (Ros Chaos,
Pallis, Surí Marchán, Pino Roca, & Sánchez-Arcilla Conejo 2020.), the
larger scale of port operations to serve more (dis)embarking visitors per
call, and the provision of a new cruise product underscored by market
segmentation, are all conditions resulting in re-planning existing
responding to the novel conditions. Local socio-economic settings might
also work towards reform of itineraries; a notable recent example are the
changes in the Adriatic Sea due to new regulations that apply in the
major home-port of the region (Venice). In ‘new’ and emerging cruise
regions, such as Australia, South America and Far East (for details:
Cruise Industry News, 2020), the planning of new itineraries is even
more frequent. With both the setting and the size of the cruise market
structurally different from a decade ago, research on home-porting se­
lection criteria is worth to be revisited. The, 2020 standstill, produced by
the COVID-19 pandemic, and the new conditions and protocols for
serving cruise vessels (see: EMSA, 2020) will probably add to the evo­
lution of new itineraries, and might further alter the criteria taken in
consideration when a cruise line decides which port to use as home-port.
A better understanding of the criteria for selecting a cruise port as a
home-port is important for all. From a practical point of view (Section
2), it is important for cruise lines, as more sophisticated selection criteria
of ports to be used stand among the key factors for the success of their
business strategies and the continuation of the observed growth of cruise
shipping throughout the last three decades. It is also vital for cruise-ports
and related decision-makers, as it would enable them to assess their
potential, and develop their governance, management, and operational,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.papachristou@aegean.gr (A.A. Papachristou), apallis@aegean.gr (A.A. Pallis), g.vaggelas@stt.aegean.gr (G.K. Vaggelas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100584
Received 27 April 2020; Received in revised form 24 September 2020; Accepted 19 October 2020
2210-5395/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Aimilia A. Papachristou, Research in Transportation Business & Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100584
A.A. Papachristou et al.
strategies, in a way that will fit the expectations of cruise lines. It is key
for those responsible for the planning and development of port-cities and
related touristic destinations; as has been long realized (cf. European
Community, 2009), the final cruise lines choice regarding ports of call,
has serious economic social and environmental impacts on ports and
local communities.
Foremost, it is worth from a research perspective (Section 2.1). With
related empirical research traced back in the 1990s or 2000s, it is worth
examining whether the findings of the highly cited studies by Marti
(1990), McCalla (1998) and Lekakou, Pallis, and Vaggelas (2009) are
still valid in the emerging cruise market conditions. Updating these
analyses would offer much-needed insights due to the changes in cruise
companies’ strategies, the amended structure of the cruise markets, and
the increased interest of cruise ports and destinations in hosting such
operations.
The present study works towards this direction, with the use of a
database constructed with input from cruise lines, ports and cruise ter­
minal operators, and stakeholders. It builds up in past research and
explores empirically the criteria on which cruise companies structure
their decisions to use a specific port as a home-port, as well as the
magnitude that each of these criteria has on their decision. Methodo­
logically (Section 3), it does so via a survey and the statistical analysis
(descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis non-para­
metric test) of the 109 replies received. The analysis of the collected data
(Section 4) (a) reveals the hierarchy of the home-porting selection
criteria; (b) compares the findings with those of past researches assess­
ing the alterations of this hierarchy; and (c) explores the different per­
spectives of cruise lines, cruise ports, and other stakeholders.
2. Setting the scene
Each year of the 21st century, and until the COVID-19 pandemic,
cruise experienced remarkable growth rates. According to the Cruise
Lines International Association (CLIA, 2019), the number of single
persons that cruised in 2019 surpassed the 30 million threshold. Car­
rying double the number of persons that were cruising per annum a
decade ago, the ‘seemingly unstoppable globalization’ (Pallis & Vagge­
las, 2020) of cruise shipping generates approximately 160 million cruise
passenger movements in world ports per annum.
This growth reflects a changing business model. Cruise lines
expanded, and managed to cruise through the perfect storm of the late
2000s (Peisley, 2012), via strategies appealing to further age and social
groups. Three are the core, yet interrelated, elements of these strategies,
with all of them linked with itineraries redesign (cf. Cruise Industry
News, 2019; Klein, 2009; Pallis, 2015; Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2013;
Terry, 2011). The first one is the exploitation of economies of scale and
scope, with bigger cruise vessels hosting more passengers, lowering
operating costs per passengers, while providing enriched, upgraded, and
differentiated on-board amenities, facilities and service that allow on
board market segmentation. The second one is the endorsement of
deployment strategies eying the expansion of the number of the desti­
nations included in cruising itineraries (cf. London and Lohmann, 2014),
calling both new and most popular markets at an extend that regularly
tests the carrying capacity of port-cities and destinations (Stefanidaki &
Lekakou, 2014; Esteve-Perez & Garcia-Sanchez, 2015, 2017; Navarro-
Ruiz et al., 2019). The third element is their expanding presence in
cruise terminal operations and port governance (Pallis, Arapi, &
Papachristou, 2019; Pallis, Parola, Satta, & Notteboom, 2018).
Competition for both port of call and home-port businesses is
growing, with ports and destinations working to evaluate the benefits of
each option in order to direct their efforts to the most convenient
business opportunity. A cruise port might be used by cruise lines as a
home-port (turnaround port), a port-of-call (transit port), or as a hybrid
one; a classification that was first introduced by Marti (1990). A home-
port is the starting, or ending, point for a cruise; most commonly, both
these points. Passengers begin and end their cruise, and vessels
2
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
ordinarily take on supplies. A port of call is an intermediate stop en route
to another destination: cruise vessels call for a few hours before
continuing their itinerary. Hybrid ports are a blend of the previous two
categories; these ports are the starting and ending point for some cruise
itineraries but they also act as intermediate point for other cruise itin­
eraries. Taking the Spanish market as an example, Barcelona fulfills the
function of a home-port, Seville, Valencia, Palma, and Gran Canaria play
dual roles, and there are even some, like Malaga, which during some
years primarily play the role of port of call and, during others, that of a
home-port (Castillo-Manzano, Fageda, & Gonzalez-Laxe, 2014).
A cruise port is, in principle, interested in being a home-port for one
or more cruise lines, as the total (i.e. direct, indirect and induced) impact
for it and the port-related city are generally regarded as higher. This is
due to three sources: cruise lines tendency to purchase goods and ser­
vices from port suppliers; passengers’ potential longer stay at the city
and overnight at local hotels; and crew members spending. The de­
terminants of cruisers spending are many and can hardly be homoge­
nized. Hitherto, none of the scholars applying micro-econometric
models (such as descriptive statistics – i.e. Douglas & Douglas, 2004),
graph-based (Brida, Santinaque, & Lanzilotta, 2017) machine-learning
(Brida, Lanzilotta, Moreno, & Santinaque, 2018), or other methods
(for a recent study: Casado-Díaz, Navarro-Ruiz, Nicolau, & Ivars-Baidal,
2020; for a summary: Domenech & Gutierrez, 2019) to identify cruise
passengers’ expenditures onshore challenges the core concept that the
returns of home-porting remain higher than otherwise.
BREA (2009) estimated that when at home-port a cruise passenger
spends six to seven times more than what he spends at a port-of-call.
Since then, vessels upgrade results in a significant downturn of the
average expenditures per cruise passenger ashore and an increase in the
portion of cruisers expenditures that remain to the cruise lines via on-
board spending (Brida & Zapata, 2010). Still, home-porting contin­
uous to have a major impact on the selected port and the associated city
and/or touristic destination. Research at the major cruise port of Europe
(Port de Barcelona-Turisme de Barcelona, 2014; Vayá, Garcia, Murillo,
Romaní, & Suriñach, 2018), estimated an average €202 spending per
cruise passenger hosted in Barcelona, with an overnight stay in a hotel,
comparing to a respective €57 average spending of cruise passengers
without an overnight stay and an average €156 spending of a holiday
tourist in the city with an overnight stay in a hotel. Per year, Barcelona
receives €315.8 million from cruise passengers spending, €121.2 million
from cruise lines (shopping and fuel supply services, provisions, termi­
nal services, travel agencies and tour operator services, etc.) and €5.5
million from crew spending. CLIA (2018) calculates the spending of a
passenger before boarding a cruise at $376 and the spending at a port
while visiting during a cruise at $101.
In this context, none of the ports with a minimum infrastructure and
enhanced in-port and destination experiences for the vessels deployed in
a specific geographic cruise region, and/or convenient departures from
proximal embarkation cities, has renounced on being a home-port. For
both existing and aspiring to be home-ports knowing the criteria for
being selected by cruise lines is essential. Especially as few parameters
might be taken for granted. The geographical location seems to be of
limited importance as vessels deployed in a region have the option to
select one of the many departing options. Cruise ships might prioritize
the attractiveness of destinations, or the need to access to appropriate
port infrastructures, superstructures, supplies and services in order to
facilitate the ship and the passengers. The deployment of continuously
growing in size cruise ships generates further incentives for home-
porting at least in the case of destinations that have yet to reach their
carrying capacity. The bigger cruise vessels can accommodate approxi­
mately 6000 passengers served by crews of more than 3000 members.
Assuming a post-COVID-19 return to a business-as-usual scenario,
within the next seven years (2020–2027), 117 newbuilding cruise ships,
will add to worldwide passenger capacity 243,852 passengers, and new
itineraries will be developed. For the biggest vessels, for example, fea­
tures and facilities of the cruise port and destination might be significant
A.A. Papachristou et al.
yet the quality and variety offered by the existing chain of suppliers (i.e.
bunkering, provisioning) having the capacity to serve home-porting
calls might be prioritized.
Knowledge of the home-port selection criteria is even more impor­
tant when a port decides to invest in increasing cruise traffic and the
related value-create supply chains (Madsen et al., 2018) and, thus, faces
different dilemmas. Favoring cruising, in order to fulfill a social function
or else, for example, may harm the port’s cargo activities, as the docking
or anchorage facilities are normally limited and the coexistence of the
two industries becomes complicated owing to the respective re­
quirements. Second, financing infrastructure improvements, as the
increasing size of ships and the growth of the business put great pres­
sures, might (or not) happen at the expense of adjusting operations and
strategies to requests of other cruise operators that constantly demand
better facilities for increasing the less profitable yet valuable transit
calls.
Not least it would facilitate the restructuring of existing national
level strategies aiming to transform respective countries to the ‘door­
ways’ to the nearby regions, when cruise lines’ primary dilemma is “…
where to deploy an ever-expanding fleet, and where to find new and inter­
esting ports to attract a new passenger base and retain repeat passengers”
(quoted in: Jordan, 2013:368) for several countries, whether they are
part of the major cruise markets of all, the Caribbean (ibid), the estab­
lished European market (see: Pallis & Vaggelas, 2017) or the emerging
Asian one (see: Sun, Feng, & Gauri, 2014), home-porting has turned to a
national target.
Besides, although generally described as a ‘placeless’ business, cruise
does heavily rely on local attractions. In this light, cruise lines, ports, and
cities appear indeed highly interrelated and should establish a kind of
‘joint venture’, where cruise lines invest in the ships, and destinations
invest in port facilities and tourism attractions (Gui & Russo, 2011), and
not least in strategies that would eliminate the several challenges asso­
ciated with the use of public space in port-cities hosting substantial
numbers of home-porting cruise activities are not few: the well docu­
mented planning challenges in Barcelona (see: Brandajs & Russo, 2019;
Ros Chaos, Pino Roca, Saurí Marchán, & Sánchez-Arcilla, 2018) and
Hong-Kong (see: Lau, Tam, Ng, & Pallis, 2014) are illustrative.
2.1. The theoretical terrain
In a seminal study aiming to answer what makes a cruise port so
attractive that a cruise company might opt to use it Marti (1990)
examined the importance attributed to the ‘site’ criteria (infrastructures
and superstructures; physical factors) versus the one attributed to the
‘situation’ related ones. McCalla (1998) advanced Marti’s thesis through
content analysis and field research. Home, transit and hybrid ports
evaluated differently the site and situation criteria, with McCalla
concluding on some important site and situation attributes that the
cruise ports consider as crucial for their success. Revisiting the ‘site’ and
‘situation’ concepts, Lekakou et al. (2009) categorized hierarchically 12
categories of 81 unique factors that might contribute to the attractive­
ness of a cruise port to become a home-port. Their findings were closer to
Marti’s idea that ‘situation’ and “site” are of the same outstanding sig­
nificance for the origin and evolution of cruise ports, with the offering of
port services to cruise lines and the natural characteristics of a port being
the highest categorized factors. Other identified cruise factors included
airport connections and the political and security conditions of the
destinations.
Based on the perspective of cruise liners, Ma, Fan, and Zhang (2018)
divided 55 factors into seven categories and using a grey-cloud clus­
tering model evaluated the potential of nine Asian ports in becoming
cruise home-ports. Niavis and Vaggelas (2016) studied the Mediterra­
nean region and assessed the effect of destination - composed by the
ports and their hinterland- characteristics on home-ports’ potential.
Their study concludes that cruise port efficiency, the presence of private
actors in the port governance, adequate infrastructure capacity, the
3
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
number of the cruise companies that a port cooperates (with the smaller
the number the higher the probability to attract cruise passengers) and,
last but not least, the existence of an airport, are the key factors on the
decision of cruise lines to set up home-porting operations. To these, they
added the important role of the capacity of touristic infrastructures and
the economic growth of the region that the port is located.
Meanwhile, scholars employing shift-share techniques and analysing
traffic shifts and competitiveness of major home-ports highlighted a
dynamic, speedily changing, cruise market, where itineraries are
continuously rescheduled and specialization strategy of major home-
ports evolve. Examining the second biggest cruise region of the world
after the Caribbean, the multi-port Mediterranean region, Pallis and
Arapi (2016) and Karlis and Polemis (2018) confirmed the presences of
both inter-regional and intra-regional shifts. In this vein it the confir­
mation that for most cruise ports, achieving more home-porting target
remains among the key challenges to be addressed (Papachristou &
Pallis, 2019) is not surprising.
Notably, studies of cruise itineraries development highlight further
the emerging complexity of cruise port selection and itinerary optimi­
zation of (cf. Asta et al., 2018); thus it is not surprising that criteria for
developing home-porting might be found listed (i.e. Jordan, 2013)
rather than put in a single hierarchy. Ordinarily, beyond geography and
tourist attractiveness, itinerary planners would prefer a port where the
level of facilities and service is comparable to on-board experiences
(Barron & Greenwood, 2006). Market segmentation however might
reverse certainties as to length other aspects outweigh the simple desire
for a high level of facilities and service (i.e. the luxury market appears to
be attracted to longer stays in port, and underdeveloped ports as part of
itineraries). Castillo-Manzano et al. (2014) assessed the effect of site and
situation attributes on the potential of ports to attract cruise traffic,
concluding that several hinterland characteristics such as insular situa­
tion, hotels capacity, air connectivity and population are positively
affecting cruise traffic. When cruise operators follow supply push stra­
tegies aiming at ‘creating’ demand by providing new capacity (Rodrigue
& Notteboom, 2013), shore excursions might be used by ports and cities
to build up a durable presence within cruise itineraries (Cusano, Ferrari,
& Tei, 2017). The potential role of these premises is far from being
comprehensively exploited, and further work on cruise port selection
criteria is found wanting – the recent interest in port-of-call selection
criteria (Zhu & Cheng 2020) is indicative.
3. Research methodology
The first step of the field research was the development of a list of
potential home-porting selection criteria the significance of which
would be worth being measured. Then, we asked cruise professionals,
working for cruise lines, cruise ports, and stakeholders (such as cham­
bers of commerce, shore excursion and port operations agents, and
suppliers), to assess the significance of every specific criterion. The
assessment employed a 7-point Likert-type scale.
The list of potential home-port selection criteria evolved via a two
steps process. An initial list was detailed via desktop research including
the relevant literature as well as information obtained from a content
analysis of the presentations delivered on the theme of home-porting by
cruise professionals at the major annual conference Seatrade Cruise
Global and the biannual general assemblies of the association of cruise
ports in the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas, MedCruise,
throughout the period 2014–2018. Once concluded, the provisional list
was confirmed and modified via interactions with a selected group of
seven (7) cruise experts, that have more than five (5) experience in the
cruise industry and are specialized on itinerary planning, port opera­
tions and shore excursions.
The final list contains 49 potential criteria for selecting a port for
home-porting activities grouped in eight different categories (Appendix
I): (a) nine criteria relate to the availability/quality of port services; (b)
nine criteria relate to the cost of port services; (c) eight are the assessed
A.A. Papachristou et al.
features of the destination; (d) two criteria related to the geography; (e)
three policy and regulatory issues; (f) six criteria that relate to port effi­
ciency; (g) five criteria related to port infrastructure; and (h) seven criteria
related to port management-governance. The survey was circulated for
assessment to senior members of cruise lines itinerary planners, cruise
ports in Europe, North America and South America, and selected com­
panies that are involved in cruise related activities, such as ports and
cruise agents.
A total of 109 replies were received: 24 cruise lines, 64 cruise ports
and/or terminal operators and 21 stakeholders. The received replies are
analysed in aggregate, but also per industry group, and per experience of
the responder in the industry, with the help of descriptive statistics, with
the variations further tested with the use of one-way ANOVA and
Kruskal – Wallis non-parametric test.
4. Empirical findings
4.1. Selection criteria hierarchy: Average significance scores
The overall picture, as revealed by the average significance score for
the eight different categories of criteria (Table 1), indicates that issues
related to port efficiency (mean: 5.80) stand as the most significant ones.
Policy and regulatory issues (5.46), geography and costs of port services
(5.46) are the next most important categories of criteria. At the other
end of the rankings, port infrastructure (4.27) stands as the comparatively
least important one. Contrary to one would expect, the state of the
infrastructure available at the port is anything but decisive as regards
the home-porting selection process.
Irrespective of the industry they work for, all groups of responders
agree in their assessment as regards the top and least important two
categories of criteria. There is a further agreement in the assessment of
the other two groups of criteria of low average significance score, i.e.
port management-governance (5.03) and availability/quality of port
services (4.63). Variation per industry perspective exists as regards all
other categories of criteria. Comparing with cruise lines, cruise ports
tend to underestimate the importance of the features of the destination
(Δmeans(CL-CP) = 0.43), and that of the costs for port services
(Δmeans(CL-CP) = 0.31), while they overestimate the role of the geog­
raphy related criteria (Δmeans(CL-CP) = − 0.51). The group of responding
stakeholders tends to overestimate the significance of criteria related to
geography (Δmeans(CL-ST) = − 0.64) and the availability/quality of port
services (Δmeans(CL-ST) = − 0.47). These findings suggest that the
various actors involved in cruising beyond cruise lines and ports have a
different perspective on which are the most vital home-porting selection
criteria. Stakeholders, other than ports or cruise lines tend to be more
cautious regarding the evaluation of each home-port selection criteria,
with the causes of this approach deserving further research.
Turning to the significance of each specific criterion (Table 2), three
seem to be the most significant ones. Of highest importance stands the
level of security (6.40) at the port. The other two of the top-three criteria
relate to the existence of an international airport, namely the proximity of
the port to an international airport (6.38) and the connectivity of the airport
with international itineraries (6.36). The leptokurtic distribution (>3) of
Table 1
Average significance score per group of criteria.
Category Total (n = 109) Cruise lines (CL) (n = 24)
Port efficiency 5.80 5.88 (1)
Policy & regulatory issues 5.46 5.39 (3)
Geography 5.46 5.03 (5)
Cost of port services 5.30 5.42 (2)
Features of the destination 5.14 5.38 (4)
Port management-governance 5.03 5.02 (6)
Availability/quality of port services 4.63 4.36 (7)
Port infrastructure 4.27 4.03 (8)
Source: Authors.
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
the last criterion corresponds to a greater disparity of deviations, rather
than the configuration of data near the mean value. The top-three
criteria seem to be a sine qua non for the consideration of establishing
home-porting activities at a specific port. Beyond security, three other
parameters of port efficiency are included in the top-10 significant
criteria: Time for passenger clearance procedures (5.96), baggage handling
(5.86), and comfort of cruise passengers (5.81). The list also included two
criteria related to port services costs: port dues for cruise ships (5.86) and
port dues for cruise passengers (5.74). Perhaps rather surprisingly, given
that this is reportedly the most commonly discussed issue between
cruise lines and ports, berth allocation (5.73) is listed only as the ninth
most important criterion, with the top-10 criteria list concluding with
the inclusion of the port to established cruise itineraries (5.71).
Three of the criteria that are of the least significance relate to the
availability/quality of port related services (Table 3). The presence of
duty free shops (2.92), which would limit the revenues of cruise lines, the
presence of ship-repair facilities (3.67), which can always be undertaken
at another port or on a specialized ship repair yard and, not least during
the period that the vessel will not be in operation, seem to be particu­
larly irrelevant, while of lower importance is also the presence of LNG
bunkering facilities (4.06), which only recently has been included in the
agenda of cruise operations. The extent that part of the port manage­
ment activities includes marketing campaigns to attract cruisers (4.28) is
also of, comparatively, minor importance.
4.2. Variation of home-port selection criteria hierarchy per industry
The collected data allow realizing whether all three different in­
dustries involved in the sector share the same perspectives as regards the
most important criteria. Detailing with the top-10 criteria per industry,
Table 4 allows some interesting conclusions.
First, there is the agreement of all three types of respondents- cruise
lines, cruise ports and stakeholders- as regards the top-3 criteria,
although rankings do not precisely match. The role of the international
airport, its proximity to the port and the levels of connectivity, as well as
that of security, are undoubtedly dominant. Variations of the average
significance score for these criteria are limited. Notably, the replies to
the survey would further stress the importance of the connectivity op­
tions offered by the airport, if not for the segmentation of cruise market:
some cruise lines, especially those operating in the luxury market, are
also owners of aircrafts, thus for few responders this criterion is highly
irrelevant, or of low importance – a factor that increases both the
standard deviation and the kurtosis of the replies regarding both criteria
related to the airport.
Second, significant differences emerge when we focus on the
assessment of cost issues. Cruise ports tend to underestimate the
importance of port dues for cruise ports (Δmeans(CL-CP) = 1.00; Δmeans(CL-
CP) = − 1.14); what for cruise lines, and stakeholders, ranks as the fourth
most significant criterion, is assessed by cruise ports as only the 21st
most significant one. Similar is the picture regarding port dues for cruise
ships, as they are also highly evaluated by cruise lines (Δmeans(CL-CP) =
0.65) yet they fail to make the top-10 criteria according to cruise ports.
Third, different perspectives are not limited to cost related issues. On
Cruise ports (CP) (n = 64) Stakeholders (ST) (n = 21) Δmeans (CL-CP) Δmeans (CL-S)
5.67 (1) 6.11 (1) 0.21 − 0.23
5.45 (3) 5.60 (3) − 0.06 − 0.21
5.54 (2) 5.67 (4) − 0.51 − 0.64
5.11 (4) 5.71 (2) 0.31 − 0.29
4.95 (5) 5.41 (5) 0.43 − 0.03
4.94 (6) 5.31 (6) 0.08 − 0.29
4.67 (7) 4.83 (7) − 0.31 − 0.47
4.33 (8) 4.36 (8) − 0.3 − 0.33
4
A.A. Papachristou et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Top-10 criteria for cruise home-port selection.
Rank Criteria Category Mean Std. deviation Skewness Kurtosis

1 Security Port efficiency 6.40 0.867 − 1.327 0.827

2 Proximity to an international airport Features of the destination 6.38 0.794 − 1.479 2.798
3 Connectivity of the airport (international itineraries) Features of the destination 6.36 0.990 − 2.371 8.144
4 Time for passenger clearance procedures Port efficiency 5.96 1.009 − 0.767 0.027
5 Baggage handling Port efficiency 5.86 1.054 − 0.838 0.098
6 Port dues for cruise ships Cost of port services 5.86 1.145 − 0.874 0.263
7 Comfort of cruise passengers Port efficiency 5.81 1.095 − 0.842 0.184
8 Port dues for cruise passengers Cost of port services 5.74 1.184 − 0.934 0.676
9 Berth allocation system Port management-governance 5.73 1.173 − 0.840 0.287
10 Inclusion of the port to established cruise itineraries Geography 5.71 1.249 − 0.961 0.532

Source: Authors.

Table 3
Least significant criteria for cruise home-port selection.
Rank Criteria Category Mean Std. deviation Skewness Kurtosis

45 Number of berths Port infrastructure 4.59 1665 -,383 -,022

46 Port marketing campaigns to attract cruisers Port management-governance 4.28 1891 -,554 -,468
47 LNG bunkering Availability/quality of port services 4.06 1888 -,460 -,568
48 Ship-repair facilities Availability/quality of port services 3.67 1795 -,273 -,512
49 Duty free shops Availability/quality of port services 2.92 1765 -,027 -,804

Source: Authors.

Table 4
Top-10 criteria for cruise home-port selection/per industry.
Criteria Category Cruise lines (CL) Cruise ports (CP) Stakeholders (ST) Δmeans (CL- Δmeans (CL- Δmeans (CP-
(n = 24) (n = 64) (n = 21) CP) ST) ST)

Mean St.D. Mean St.D Mean St.D.

Proximity to an international airport Features of the destination 6.50 0.659 6.24 0.893 6.67 0.483 0.26 − 0.17 − 0.43
(1) (3) (1)
Connectivity of the airport Features of the destination 6.38 1.245 6.25 0.933 6.67 0.796 0.13 − 0.29 − 0.42
(international itineraries) (2) (2) (2)
Security Port efficiency 6.29 0.859 6.42 0.879 6.48 0.873 − 0.13 − 0.19 − 0.06
(3) (1) (3)
Port dues for cruise passengers Cost of port services 6.29 0.955 5.29 1.179 6.43 0.811 1.00 − 0.14 − 1.14
(4) (21) (4)
Time for passenger clearance Port efficiency 6.21 0.932 5.79 1.042 6.19 0.928 0.42 0.02 − 0.4
procedures (5) (4) (7)
Port dues for cruise ships Cost of port services 6.21 0.932 5.56 1.196 6.33 0.966 0.65 − 0.12 − 0.77
(6) (12) (5)
Comfort of cruise passengers Port efficiency 6.17 1.129 5.57 1.058 6.14 1.014 0.60 0.03 − 0.57
(7) (11) (8)
Protection from weather conditions Port infrastructure 6.13 1.116 5.46 1.242 5.33 1.017 0.67 0.80 0.13
(8) (15) (34)
Berth allocation system Port management- 6.00 1.103 5.59 1.131 5,86 1.017 0.41 0.14 − 0.27
governance (9) (10) (12)
Adaptive to special needs of the Port management- 5.96 0.955 5.31 1.153 5.90 1.017 0.65 0.06 − 0.59
cruise company governance (10) (19) (11)
Baggage handling Port efficiency 5.92 0.929 5.73 1.125 6.19 0.928 0.19 − 0.27 − 0.46
(11) (5) (6)
Operational depth Port infrastructure 5.52 1.534 5.71 1.275 5.67 1.390 − 0.19 − 0.15 0.04
(20) (6) (14)
Availability of a passenger terminal Port infrastructure 5.52 1.668 5.65 1.393 5.62 1.396 − 0.13 − 0.10 0.03
(19) (7) (18)
Inclusion of the port to established Geography 5.63 1.377 5.64 1.314 6.00 0.837 − 0.01 − 0.37 − 0.36
cruise itineraries (16) (8) (10)
Waste reception facilities Availability/quality of 5.79 1.285 5.63 1.134 5.67 1.111 0.16 0.12 − 0.04
port services (12) (9) (15)
Cruise ship turnaround time Port efficiency 5.67 1.129 5.48 1.120 6.10 1.179 0.19 − 0.43 − 0.62
(13) (14) (9)

Source: Authors.
The Top-10 criteria for each industry examined (cruise lines, cruise ports and stakeholders) are presented in bold.

the one hand, cruise lines evaluate the time for passenger clearance pro­ attractions etc.), and the protection from weather conditions remarkably
cedures, the comfort of cruise passengers, ports being adaptive to cruise lines higher than cruise ports (Δmeans(CL-CP) equal 0.42, 0.60, 0,65 and 0.67
special needs (i.e. adjustment of operation hours and/or conditions, respectively). On the other hand, there are four criteria that cruise ports
facilitation of landside operations, responsiveness of related tourist assess with a higher significance comparing to cruise lines yet for all of

5
A.A. Papachristou et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

them the gap between the two assessments is rather minor with
Δmeans(CL-CP) equal 0.19 in the case of the three parameters, and 0,16 in
the latter one: baggage handling, operational depth, cruise ship turnaround
time, and waste reception facilities. As regards the third group, stake­
holders assess four criteria as more important than the two other groups
do: cruise ship turnaround time, the inclusion of the port to established
itineraries, and baggage handling. At the same time they assign a lower
significance to the importance of the protection from weather conditions
criterion, especially when their replies are compared with those of cruise
lines ((Δmeans(CL-ST) = 0.80)).
The perspectives of the responders as regards the least significant
criteria vary less (Table 5). Those criteria that are considered as of low
significance by cruise industry are also listed as of low importance in the
hierarchy of the other two groups of responders. Duty free shops is the
very least significant criterion, with ship-repairing facilities standing as
the second least for all groups, a result that makes irrelevant the fact that
both cruise ports and, more evidently, stakeholders tend to overvalue
the actual importance of each of these criteria comparing to the views of
cruise lines. Interestingly this happens in the case of the other two low-
significance criteria: as in the case of duty free presence (Δmeans(CL-CP)
= − 1.11), cruise ports tend to overestimate the importance that is
attributed to the number of berths at the port (Δmeans(CL-CP) = − 0.97),
and even more that of the port marketing campaign to attract cruising
(Δmeans(CL-CP) = − 1.03). Nonetheless, these criteria remain low in the
hierarchy for cruise ports as well. An agreement exists by all as regards
the relatively low importance of LNG bunkering provision, as this is not
an option demanded by many cruise vessels. The presence of a parking
area also stands among the least important factors, most probably taken
for granted in those cases that ‘drive and cruise’ is extensive. Perhaps
most notably of all, the local community perceptions have yet to emerge as
a significant factor for the home-port selection agenda. As of today, the
addressing of such considerations tends to follow the decision of market
actors to establish cruise operations, rather than standing as a condition
for the evolution.
4.2.1. Statistical significance of variations per industry
The use of a one-way Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA) has
enabled to statistically test for significant differences per criterion be­
tween the perspectives expressed by group of respondents, depending on
the industry they represent: Cruise Lines (CL), Cruise Ports (CP) and
Stakeholders (St) respectively.
Testing the null hypothesis:
H0 : μ1 = μ2 = ….. = μk
Where:
μ = the mean of each group responds; and
k = the number of groups tested.
ANOVA allows comparing the means between data per group,
determining whether any of those means are statistically significant
different from each other. When ANOVA testing shows a statistically
significantly result (F-value) we accept the alternative hypothesis Hα,
meaning that there are at least two group means that are statistically
significantly different from each other.
In our case, we have the following:
μ1 = the mean value of cruise lines evaluations
μ2 = the mean value of cruise ports evaluations
μ3 = the mean value of cruise stakeholders evaluations
and
H1: μi ∕
= μj at least for one pair (i,j) of respondent groups.
The independent variable (factor) are the groups of respondents and
as a dependent variable each one of the home-porting criteria.
The analysis of variance returned a total of 11 criteria for which there
are at least two groups that are statistically significantly different from
each other and, thus, for these criteria the null hypothesis (H0) is
rejected. Table 6 details these criteria in increasing p-value (significance)
order. As regards the rest of the potential home-porting selection criteria
tested, the testing suggests there are no statistically significant differ­
ences between the three groups of respondents. This means that for them
the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted.
With ANOVA informing the presence of significant differences be­
tween the responds of the three groups as regards 11 selection criteria,
the follow-up question to be statistically tested was which specific
groups have perspectives that differ, i.e. have returned different reply
means.
To statistically test and answer this question, but also strengthen the
ANOVA results, we run a non-parametric analysis of independent sam­
ples (i.e. the three groups of respondents) through a Kruskal-Wallis one-
way ANOVA allowing all pairwise comparisons. The use of Kruskal-
Wallis is suggested as: a) the dependent variable is measured at the
ordinal or continuous level (i.e. the case of the Likert scale we used), b)
the independent variable should consist of two or more independent

Table 5
Least important criteria for cruise home-port selection/per industry.
Criteria Category Cruise lines (CL) Cruise ports (CP) Stakeholders (ST) Δmeans (CL- Δmeans (CL- Δmeans (CP-
(n = 24) (n = 64) (n = 21) CP) ST) ST)

Mean St.D. Mean St.D Mean St.D.

Number of berths Port infrastructure 3.79 1.587 4.76 1.656 5.00 1.549 − 0.97 − 1.21 − 0.24
(45) (43) (40)
LNG bunkering Availability/quality of port 3.75 2.707 3.98 1.594 4.62 1.499 − 0.23 − 0.87 − 0.64
services (46) (47) (47)
Port marketing campaigns to Port management- 3.42 2.083 4.45 1.918 4.76 1.221 − 1.03 − 1.34 − 0.31
attract cruising governance (47) (46) (43)
Ship-repair facilities Availability/quality of port 2.96 2.074 3.74 1.619 4.29 1.765 − 0.78 − 1.33 − 0.55
services (48) (48) (48)
Duty free shops Availability/quality of port 2.08 1.717 3.19 1.791 3.05 1.499 − 1.11 − 0.97 0.14
services (49) (49) (49)
Capability for setting up long- Port management- 4.54 1.318 4.59 1.611 5.24 1.179 − 0.05 − 0.7 − 0.65
term contracts governance (41) (45) (35)
Local community perceptions Features of the destination 4.91 1.311 4.79 1.578 4.71 1.271 0.12 0.2 0.08
on cruise (34) (42) (45)
Parking area Availability/quality of port 4.29 1.853 4.94 1.470 4.67 1.623 − 0.65 − 0.38 0.27
services (44) (34) (46)

Source: Authors.
The Top-10 criteria for each industry examined (cruise lines, cruise ports and stakeholders) are presented in bold.

6
A.A. Papachristou et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 6 depending on the “industry” background of the responders grouping

Perspectives per industry: F-values of different factors through ANOVA. them in three groups:
Criteria Category F- p
values • Group A-responders with less than 5 years experience;
Port dues for cruise passengers Cost of port services 13.034 0.000 • Group B-responders whose experience ranges between 5 and 10
Port dues for cruise ships Cost of port services 5.383 0.006 years; and
Adaptive to special needs of the Port management- 4.280 0.016 • Group C - responders having more than 10 years.
cruise line governance
Comfort of cruise passengers Port efficiency 3.943 0.022
Number of berths Port infrastructure 3.915 0.023
As
Duty free shops Availability/quality of port 3.672 0.029 Table 8 details, irrespective of the years of experience in the cruise
services industry, respondents assign a similar significance score to the major
Port marketing campaigns to Port management- 3.619 0.030 three home-porting selection criteria. The notable difference as regards
attract cruising governance
the criteria topping the list is that the most experienced cruise pro­
Proximity to source markets Geography 3.469 0.035
Protection from weather Port infrastructure 3.371 0.038 fessionals (Group C) tend to assign a higher assessment score to both
conditions airport related criteria. A shifting perspective is further evident when
Ship-repair facilities Availability/quality of port 3.309 0.040 concentrating on the other criteria that are perceived being among the
services top ones. As years of experience increase the same happens to the
Cabotage policy Policy & regulatory issues 3.168 0.046
importance assigned to cost criteria (port dues for cruise ships, and to a
Source: Authors. lesser extent dues for passengers), to operational efficiency parameters
such as baggage handling, to the availability of waste reception facilities,
groups, whereas in our case there are three groups offering a number of the operational berth of the port, as well as to the presence of a berth
independent observations. allocation system. The most substantial differences of approaches though
The Kruskal-Wallis results validated the abovementioned statistical refers to two other criteria: Comparing to their more experienced col­
results for all 10 criteria bar one, which is the criterion proximity to leagues, the novice or younger in terms of industry experience cruise
source markets. In addition, Kruskal-Wallis allowed the identification professionals tend to significantly underestimate the weight of the in­
significant differences occurred between two or more groups of re­ clusion of the port to established cruise itineraries, as well as that of the
spondents. Table 7 provides the groups for which the Kruskal-Wallis availability of a passenger terminal. They would soon reassess their posi­
adjusted significance of pairwise comparison unveils a statistical sig­ tion: the assessment score for these criteria by Group B and Group C
nificant difference between them. For two criteria, namely port mar­ responders are similar and notably higher than those of Group A.
keting campaigns to attract cruising and cabotage policy respectively, this Contrariwise, Group A tends to overestimate the impact of ship supplies
analysis did not return any significant difference in the groups pairwise availability on shipping lines decisions when selecting a home-port.
comparisons; this implies that the finding of the p-value testing reflect a In a similar way, experience does not result in shifting perspectives as
significant difference that is more complex than the one that could not regards the least important home-port selection criteria. Table 9 pre­
be illustrated by the outcome simple pairwise comparisons. sents the five least important criteria according to the replies of each
group of respondents. The presences of duty free shops and ship-repair
4.3. Experience of cruise professionals and selection criteria hierarchy facilities are at the bottom of the relevant significance list for all three
groups of cruise professionals. Rather surprisingly, for all three groups
Studying the role of the experience that someone enjoys in the cruise quite low stands the significance assigned to the local community per­
world in shaping the perceptions as regards the key criteria for selecting ceptions on cruising. Further variations depending on the experience of
a home-port, we examined the presence of different approaches the responders exist in the assessment of other criteria included in the
particular list. On the one hand, more experienced professionals assign a
Table 7
considerably higher significance score to two cost related criteria, i.e.
Perspectives per industry: Kruskal – Wallis non-parametric test. baggage handling costs, and ISPS costs. On the other hand, the less expe­
rienced cruise professionals (Group A) allocate a higher significance
Criteria Category Pairs of groups with Adjusted
significantly different Significance
score to the presence of LNG bunkering facilities at the cruise port, a
perspectives finding that might be part of the increasing emphasis of a younger
generation on the several green issues (cf. Pallis & Vaggelas, 2019) that
Number of berths Port infrastructure CL – CP 0.024
CL – ST 0.027 the industry has to address.
Protection from Port infrastructure ST – CL 0.030
weather CP – CL 0.040 4.3.1. Statistical significance of variations per experience of cruise
conditions
professionals
Comfort of cruise Port efficiency CP – CL 0.023
passengers
Analysing the statistical significance of the different approaches
Adaptive to Port management- CP – CL 0.044 depending on the professional background of the responders, the pre­
special needs of governance formed one-way ANOVA identified seven criteria for which statistically
the cruise line significant different perspective based on experience in the cruise in­
Duty free shops Availability/ CL – CP 0.034
dustry exist (Table 10).
quality of port
services The specific groups of responders that have different perspectives in
Ship repair Availability/ CL – ST 0.029 each of these cases were identified via a Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric
facilities quality of port test. This non-parametric test returned eight criteria for which a statis­
services tically significant difference happens. Five of them are the same with
Port dues for Cost of port CP – CL 0.000
cruise services CP – ST 0.000
ANOVA. The other two criteria revealed by ANOVA, namely hotel
passengers infrastructure and time for passenger clearance procedures were not present
Port dues for Cost of port CP – ST 0.015 in the Kruskal-Wallis results. Conversely, the Kruskal-Wallis test iden­
cruise ships services tified differences in the perspectives of responders as regards the
CL = Cruise Line; CP = Cruise Port/Cruise Terminal Operator; ST = Stakeholder. importance of three additional criteria: ISPS costs, connectivity of the
Source: Authors. airport, and protection from weather conditions.

7
A.A. Papachristou et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 8
Top-10 criteria for cruise home-port selection/years of experience.
Criteria Category A (<5 years; n = B (5–10 years; n C (>10 years; n Δmeans (A- Δmeans (A- Δmeans (B-
19) = 20) = 66) B) C) C)

Mean St. Mean St.D Mean St.

D. D.

Proximity to an international airport Features of the destination 6.26 (1) 0.81 6.05 (2) 1.19 6.52 (2) 0.61 0.21 − 0.25 − 0.47
Connectivity of the airport (international Features of the destination 6.16 (2) 0.90 6.00 (3) 1.21 6.55 (1) 0.91 0.16 − 0.39 − 0.55
itineraries)
Security Port efficiency 6.06 (3) 1.09 6.55 (1) 0.60 6.46 (3) 0.86 − 0.49 − 0.40 0.09
Comfort of cruise passengers Port efficiency 5.61 (4) 1.14 5.85 (4) 0.93 5.85 1.14 − 0.24 − 0.24 0.00
(10)
Port dues for cruise ships Cost of port services 5.61 (5) 0.85 5.65 0.99 6.00 (7) 1.20 − 0.04 − 0.39 − 0.35
(10)
Ship supplies Availability/quality of port 5.59 (6) 0.94 5.40 0.99 5.15 1.52 0.19 0.44 0.25
services (21) (35)
Baggage handling Port efficiency 5.50 (7) 1.04 5.55 1.10 6.04 (5) 0.99 − 0.05 − 0.54 − 0.49
(12)
Waste reception facilities Availability/quality of port 5.50 (8) 1.04 5.50 0.76 5.80 1.24 0.00 − 0.30 − 0.30
services (14) (12)
Port dues for cruise passengers Cost of port services 5.50 (9) 0.86 5.45 1.10 5.88 (9) 1.26 0.05 − 0.38 − 0.43
(17)
Time for passenger clearance procedures Port efficiency 5.44 1.29 5.84 (5) 0.83 6.15 (4) 0.91 − 0.40 − 0.70 − 0.31
(10)
Inclusion of the port to established cruise Geography 5.05 1.43 5.80 (6) 1.36 5.90 (8) 1.07 − 0.75 − 0.84 − 0.10
itineraries (18)
Protection from weather conditions Port infrastructure 5.00 1.15 5.80 (7) 1.32 5.67 1.13 − 0.80 − 0.67 0.13
(25) (16)
Availability of a passenger terminal Port infrastructure 5.00 1.53 5.70 (8) 1.34 5.82 1.39 − 0.70 − 0.82 − 0.12
(24) (11)
Operational depth Port infrastructure 5.32 1.16 5.68 (9) 1.42 5.82 1.39 − 0.37 − 0.50 − 0.13
(12) (14)
Berth allocation system Port management- 5.05 1.31 5.45 1.19 6.02 (6) 0.98 − 0.37 − 0.50 − 0.13
governance (23) (19)

Source: Authors.
The Top-10 criteria for each industry examined (cruise lines, cruise ports and stakeholders) are presented in bold.

Table 9
Least important criteria for cruise home-port selection per years of experience.
Criteria Category A (<5 years; n = B (5–10 years; n C (>10 years; n = (A-B) (A-C) (B-C)
19) = 20) 66)

Mean St. Mean St.D Mean St.

D. D.

Baggage handling cost Port efficiency 4.39 (45) 1.24 5.50 (16) 1.24 5.53 (19) 1.30 − 1.11 − 1.14 − 0.03
ISPS cost Cost of port services 4.33 (46) 1.08 5.10 (31) 1.59 5.22 (34) 1.54 − 0.77 − 0.88 − 0.12
Ship-repair facilities Availability/quality of port 4.17 (47) 1.42 3.85 (47) 1.39 3.59 (48) 1.94 0.32 0.58 0.26
services
Number of berths 4.11 (48) 1.45 5.00 (35) 1.52 4.58 (45) 1.75 − 0.89 − 0.46 0.42
Duty free shops Availability/quality of port 3.39 (49) 1.42 3.30 (49) 1.66 2.65 (49) 1.82 0.09 0.74 0.65
services
Local community perceptions on cruise Features of the destination 4.58 (40) 1.35 4.65 (45) 1.57 4.95 (40) 1.48 − 0.07 − 0.37 − 0.30
Hotel infrastructure Features of the destination 4.95 (27) 1.68 4.45 (46) 1.57 5.35 (23) 1.33 0.50 − 0.40 − 0.90
LNG bunkering Availability/quality of port 4.61 (38) 1.24 3.50 (48) 1.32 4.20 (47) 2.05 1.11 0.41 − 0.70
services
Port marketing campaigns to attract Port management-governance 4.47 (44) 1.74 4.65 (43) 1.87 4.21 (46) 1.90 − 0.18 0.26 0.44
cruising

Source: Authors.
The Top-10 criteria for each industry examined (cruise lines, cruise ports and stakeholders) are presented in bold.

Table 11 presents the outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test including
the five criteria for which pairwise comparisons with a statistically
significant difference. The other three of the criteria unveiled by the
Kruskal-Wallis test - namely baggage handling procedures, capacity of ports
to be adaptive to special needs of the cruise line and connectivity of the airport
– did not return specific pair of groups with statistically significant
differences; such differences exist but are far more complex than the one
that of a pairwise group comparison. Notably, all five cases detail a
different perspective of the less experienced cruise professionals, i.e.
with less than five years of experience in the cruise industry (Group A)
comparing to the more experienced ones. There are no significant
variation between the other two groups tested, i.e. between Group B and
Group C professionals.
5. Conclusions
The study has shed light on the current hierarchy of the criteria for
selecting a cruise port as a home-port. The findings provide the foun­
dations for a better understanding of the contemporary strategies of the
most dynamic cruise industry. Especially as studies of the continuous
inter-regional and intra-regional dynamics of deployment shares un­
derline that tourist growth is linked with the development of new itin­
eraries and altered home-porting or transit calls decisions. Even though
2018 data suggest that in more than one out of four ports cruise ships

8
A.A. Papachristou et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 10 green and sustainability issues remains rather minimal. In addition, and
Professional background: F-values of different factors through ANOVA. despite the fact that this is an issue that gained attraction in well-
Criteria Category F- p established home-porting cruise destinations (i.e, Barcelona, Venice),
values the study concluded that the local community’s perceptions on cruise
Berth allocation system Port management- 6.603 0.002 are not a significant parameter for selecting a home-port; challenging in
governance essence the advocacy that the relationships with local community are
Baggage handling cost Cost of port services 5.841 0.004 among the top-ten environmental priorities for European Port Author­
Time for passenger clearance Port efficiency 3.933 0.023 ities (ESPO, 2016).
procedures
Inclusion of the port to established Geography 3.696 0.025
The study has also revealed, and confirmed via statistical signifi­
cruise itineraries cance testing, a variance of perspectives between cruise lines, cruise
Adaptive to special needs of the Port management- 3.339 0.039 ports, and stakeholders. The hierarchy for all is similar as regards the top
cruise line governance three criteria, but the variance regarding other criteria is informative:
Baggage handling Port efficiency 3.138 0.048
only two more criteria are shared in the top-10 criteria list of cruise lines
Hotel infrastructure Features of the 3.106 0.049
destination and cruise ports. The statistical tests detailed specific criteria where the
major variance of perspectives is observed. In a nutshell, ports tend to
Source: Authors.
overestimate parameters related to their infrastructure, such as the
number of berths, or of their strategies and campaigns to attract
Table 11
cruising, and tend to underestimate the importance assigned by cruise
Professional background: Results of Kruskal – Wallis non-parametric test. lines in parameters related to passenger clearance procedures and
comfort or the importance of been adaptive to cruise lines special needs.
Criteria Category Pairs of groups with Adjusted
significantly different Significance
An additional contribution of the study emerges by the analysis of
perspectives the replies received based on the experience of cruise professionals in
the sector. A shifting perspective was observed as more experienced in
Inclusion of the port Geography A-C 0.045
to established gained. This has been further confirmed by the statistical testing of
cruise itineraries assessment, which confirmed the variance of less experienced cruise
Protection from Port A-B 0.046 professionals, i.e. with less than five years of experience in the cruise
weather infrastructure industry comparing to the more experienced and, foremost with the
conditions
Berth allocation Port A-C 0.010
more experienced when there are no statistical significant variations
system management- between the perspectives of the two latter groups. However, it is notable
governance that the variance refers to the relative importance of criteria of medium
ISPS Cost Cost of port A-C 0.020 significance, such as the inclusion of the port to established cruise itin­
services
eraries, or the availability of a passenger terminal at a port, rather the
Baggage handling Cost of port A-B 0.028
cost services A-C 0.003 most significant home-port selection criteria.
The contribution of a considerable and quite representative part of
Note: Group A = Less than five years of experience; B = Between 5 and 10 years
the cruise industry – i.e. 24 cruise lines (from the approximately 60
of experience; C = More than 10 years of experience.
ones), 64 cruise ports and 21 stakeholders – increases the validity of the
Source: Authors.
research findings, while directs towards further research. With cruise
shipping marked by increasing segmentation, understanding the per­
call for longer hours than in the past (Seatrade, 2018), thus spending at
spectives of each market segment as regards home-port selection is
ports of call increases, the interest of most ports to increase home-
worthy. Perspectives might vary, at least as regards some of the potential
porting remains.
criteria. Their better understanding - including regional variations of
Unambiguously, the presence of an international airport with good
these perspectives, and the role of cruisers perspectives (see: Satta,
international connections, along with the guaranteed security levels at
Parola, Penco, & Perico, 2015) - would help realizing the actual stra­
the port, are the sine que non for the selection of a port as a home-port. If
tegies of each cruise shipping segment and cruise brand. In turn such
it was not for the few cruise lines in the luxury market possessing their
information would help the increasing number of cruise ports that aim to
own air means to transport their guests to any port they wish, the
host particular segments of the market (see: MedCruise, 2016) to adjust
respective ports that host them, and the associated stakeholders, the
their own strategies. It is also worth further understanding whether the
assessment of the importance of the international airport would be
perspectives of cruise ports are homogeneous or, for example, home-
unanimous. When these conditions are present the focus turn on specific
ports have different perspectives from ports of call, and/or hybrid
port efficiency criteria such as time for passenger clearance and baggage
ports, and are already aligned with cruise lines perspectives.
handling, with port cost issues following.
An additional quest for research emerges as a result of the COVID-19
Comparing to previous studies, on the one hand, the overall findings
pandemic and the consequent ‘new norm’. The new protocols have
support conclusions regarding the top three criteria (Lekakou, et al.,
already started requesting additional sanitation/disinfection at cruise
2009), and the vital role of port efficiency as a factor increasing the
terminals, health monitoring of terminal staff, management of possible
likelihood of a port to attract additional home-port activities (Niavis &
cases and their contacts at the cruise terminal and other additional
Vaggelas, 2016). They also provide foundations for the recorded pres­
measures (see: EMSA, 2020). All these might result in cruise lines pri­
sures that several ports experienced in terms of port dues reduction
oritize the progressing of digitalization and new technologies when
(Seatrade Cruise News, 2018). On the other hand, they challenge the
hosting cruise activities, while cruise business models are already
argument that adequate infrastructure is a parameter that fosters home-
revisited and might result in more specialized needs per cruise line.
port selection (a conclusion also present in: Niavis & Vaggelas, 2016).
Further research aiming to explore these dimensions of home-porting
Port infrastructure parameters, whether referring to berth availability,
selection criteria would enable a better understanding of the cruise
LNG provisions, or duty free presence, were found to be of lower, and
port industry and not least the levels of the industry’s alignment with the
some of them of insignificant, for home-porting selection decisions. The
existing operating and socio-economic environment.
pace of the LNG revolution in cruising has accelerated yet the impact of

9
A.A. Papachristou et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Appendix A. Appendix I

Criteria Category Total Cruise lines Cruise ports Stakeholders

Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking

Security Port efficiency 6.40 1 6.29 3 6.42 1 6.48 3

Proximity to an international airport Features of the destination 6.38 2 6.50 1 6.24 3 6.67 1
Connectivity of the airport (international itineraries) Features of the destination 6.36 3 6.38 2 6.25 2 6.67 2
Time for passenger clearance procedures Port efficiency 5.96 4 6.21 5 5.79 4 6.19 7
Baggage handling Port efficiency 5.86 5 5.92 11 5.73 5 6.19 6
Port dues for cruise ships Cost of port services 5.86 6 6.21 6 5.56 12 6.33 5
Comfort of cruise passengers Port efficiency 5.81 7 6.17 7 5.57 11 6.14 8
Port dues for cruise passengers Cost of port services 5.74 8 6.29 4 5.29 21 6.43 4
Berth allocation system Port management-governance 5.73 9 6.00 9 5.59 10 5.86 12
Inclusion of the port to established cruise itineraries Geography 5.71 10 5.63 16 5.64 8 6.00 10
Waste reception facilities Availability/quality of port 5.67 11 5.79 12 5.63 9 5.67 15
services
Operational depth Port infrastructure 5.66 12 5.52 20 5.71 6 5.67 14
Cruise ship turnaround time Port efficiency 5.64 13 5.67 13 5.48 14 6.10 9
Availability of a passenger terminal Port infrastructure 5.62 14 5.54 19 5.65 7 5.62 18
Protection from weather conditions Port infrastructure 5.58 15 6.13 8 5.46 15 5.33 34
Adaptive to special needs of the cruise company Port management-governance 5.57 16 5.96 10 5.31 19 5.90 11
Length of berths Port infrastructure 5.47 17 5.29 24 5.52 13 5.52 23
Previous pax feedback on destination Features of the destination 5.46 18 5.67 14 5.41 17 5.38 32
Financial incentives to cruise companies Policy & regulatory issues 5.44 19 5.63 17 5.24 23 5.81 13
Baggage handling cost Cost of port services 5.35 20 5.58 18 5.18 25 5.57 22
Cooperation between the port and the city Features of the destination 5.29 21 5.50 21 5.17 26 5.38 29
Ship supplies Availability/quality of port 5.23 22 4.83 35 5.30 20 5.48 26
services
Pilotage cost Cost of port services 5.22 23 5.21 28 5.13 27 5.52 24
Cabotage policy Policy & regulatory issues 5.21 24 5.67 15 4.87 40 5.67 17
Proximity to source markets Geography 5.20 25 4.43 43 5.44 16 5.33 33
Check-in sharing between port and the airport Availability/quality of port 5.20 26 5.13 29 5.21 24 5.24 36
services
Cost of waste reception facilities Cost of port services 5.19 27 5.33 23 4.97 33 5.67 16
Bunkering Availability/quality of port 5.18 28 5.08 31 5.11 29 5.50 25
services
Proximate places of interest Features of the destination 5.18 29 4.75 38 5.32 18 5.24 38
Number of (options for) shore excursions Features of the destination 5.16 30 4.71 40 5.25 22 5.38 31
Operating 24/7 Port efficiency 5.15 31 5.04 32 5.05 31 5.57 20
Towage cost Cost of port services 5.13 32 5.04 33 5.06 30 5.43 28
Operating costs for the cruise line shore office Cost of port services 5.12 33 5.09 30 4.98 32 5.57 21
Presence of coordination mechanisms between Port management-governance 5.09 34 5.38 22 4.88 39 5.43 27
stakeholders
Hotel infrastructure Features of the destination 5.08 35 4.71 39 5.13 28 5.38 30
ISPS cost Cost of port services 5.06 36 5.26 27 4.92 36 5.24 37
In-port transport services Availability/quality of port 5.02 37 5.29 26 4.94 35 4.95 41
services
Cost of bunkering Cost of port services 5.01 38 4.79 37 4.89 38 5.62 19
Presence of experienced personnel with long-term Port management-governance 5.01 39 5.29 25 4.86 41 5.14 39
vision
Local community perceptions on cruise Features of the destination 4.80 40 4.91 34 4.79 42 4.71 45
Presence/Potential of a Cruise Terminal Operator Port management-governance 4.80 41 4.54 42 4.89 37 4.81 42
National tourism policy Policy & regulatory issues 4.76 42 4.83 36 4.73 44 4.76 44
Parking area Availability/quality of port 4.74 43 4.29 44 4.94 34 4.67 46
services
Capability for setting up long-term contracts Port management-governance 4.71 44 4.54 41 4.59 45 5.24 35
Number of berths Port infrastructure 4.59 45 3.79 45 4.76 43 5.00 40
Port marketing campaigns to attract cruising Port management-governance 4.28 46 3.42 47 4.45 46 4.76 43
LNG bunkering Availability/quality of port 4.06 47 3.75 46 3.98 47 4.62 47
services
Ship-repair facilities Availability/quality of port 3.67 48 2.96 48 3.74 48 4.29 48
services
Duty free shops Availability/quality of port 2.92 49 2.08 49 3.19 49 3.05 49
services

References BREA (Business Research and Economic Advisors). (2009). Economic contribution of cruise
tourism to the destination economies: A survey-based analysis of the impacts of passenger,
crew and cruise line spending (vol. 1 & 2) (Destination Reports).
Asta, V., Ambrosino, D., & Bartoli, F. (2018). An optimization model to design a new
Brida, J. G., Lanzilotta, B., Moreno, L., & Santinaque, F. (2018). A non-linear
cruise itinerary: The case of Costa Crociere. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(9), 446–451.
approximation to the distribution of total expenditure distribution of cruise tourists
Barron, P., & Greenwood, A. B. (2006). Issues determining the development of cruise
in Uruguay. Tourism Management, 69, 62–68.
itineraries: A focus on the luxury market. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3(2),
Brida, J. G., Santinaque, F., & Lanzilotta, B. (2017). Graph-based models: An application
89–99.
to the study of cruise passengers’ expenditure in Uruguay. Revista de Metodos
Brandajs, F., & Russo, A. P. (2019). Whose is that square? Cruise tourists’ mobilities and
Cuantitativos Para la Economia y la Empresa, 24(24), 270–291.
negotiation for public space in Barcelona. Applied Mobilities. https://doi.org/
Brida, J. G., & Zapata, S. (2010). Economic impacts of cruise tourism: The case of Costa
10.1080/23800127.2019.1576257.
Rica. Anatolia., 21(2), 322–338.

10
A.A. Papachristou et al.
Casado-Díaz, A. B., Navarro-Ruiz, S., Nicolau, J. L., & Ivars-Baidal, J. (2020). Expanding
our understanding of cruise visitors’ expenditure at destinations: The role of spatial
patterns, onshore visit choice and cruise category. Tourism Management, 83,
104–199.
Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Fageda, X., & Gonzalez-Laxe, F. (2014). An analysis of the
determinants of cruise traffic: An empirical application to the Spanish port system.
Transportation Research Part E, 66, 115–125.
Cruise Industry News. (2019). 2018–2019 state of the industry annual report. New York:
Cruise Industry News London and Lohmann, 2019.
Cruise Industry News. (2020). 2019–2020 state of the industry annual report (p. 2020).
New York: Cruise Industry News London and Lohmann.
Cruise Lines Industry Association (CLIA). (2018). 2018 global economic impact study.
Washington DC: CLIA.
Cruise Lines Industry Association (CLIA). (2019). 2019 state of the industry. Washington
DC: CLIA.
Cusano, M. I., Ferrari, C., & Tei, A. (2017). Port hierarchy and concentration: Insights
from the Mediterranean cruise market. International Journal of Tourism Research, 19
(2), 235–245.
Domenech, A., & Gutierrez, A. (2019). Determinants of cruise tourists’ expenditure
visiting port cities. Tourism Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2018-0162.
Douglas, N., & Douglas, N. (2004). Cruise ship passenger spending patterns in pacific
island ports. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(4), 251–261.
Esteve-Perez, J., & Garcia-Sanchez, A. (2015). Cruise market: Stakeholders and the role
of ports and tourist hinterlands. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 17(3), 371–388.
Esteve-Perez, J., & Garcia-Sanchez, A. (2017). Characteristics and consequences of the
cruise traffic seasonality on ports: The Spanish Mediterranean case. Maritime Policy &
Management, 44(3), 358–372.
European Community. (2009). Tourist facilities in ports: Growth opportunities for the
European maritime economy: Economic and environmentally sustainable development of
tourist facilities in ports. Study report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the EC.
European Maritime Safety Agent (EMSA). (2020). COVID-19: EU guidance for cruise ship
operations: Guidance on the gradual and safe resumption of operations of cruise ships in
the European Union in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lisbon: EMSA.
European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO). (2016). ESPO reveals new top 10 environmental
priorities of ports. Press Release. available at https://www.espo.be/news/esp
oreveals-new-top-10-environmental-priorities-o (accessed 25.02.2020).
Gui, L., & Russo, A. P. (2011). Cruise ports: A strategic nexus between regions and global
lines-evidence from the Mediterranean. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(2),
129–150.
Jordan, L.-A. (2013). A critical assessment of Trinidad and Tobago as a cruise home-port:
Doorway to the South American cruise market? Maritime Policy & Management, 40
(4), 367–383.
Karlis, T., & Polemis, D. (2018). Cruise home-port competition in the Mediterranean.
Tourism Management, 68, 168–176.
Klein, R. A. (2009). Keeping the cruise tourism responsible: The challenge for ports to
maintain high self esteem. In In International Conference for Responsible Tourism in
Destinations, Belmopan, Belize, October, 1–17.
Lau, Y.-Y., Tam, K.-C., Ng, A. K. Y., & Pallis, A. A. (2014). Cruise terminals site selection
process: An institutional analysis of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal in Hong Kong.
Research in Transportation Business and Management, 13, 16–23.
Lekakou, M. B., Pallis, A. A., & Vaggelas, G. K. (2009). Which home-port in Europe: The
cruise industry’s selection criteria. Tourismos, 4(4), 215–240.
Ma, M.-Z., Fan, H.-M., & Zhang, E.-Y. (2018). Cruise home-port location selection
evaluation based on grey-cloud clustering model. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(3),
328–354.
Madsen, E. L., Wigger, K. A., & Vinogradov, E. (2018). Collaboration, intentions, and
local value creation from cruise arrivals. Tourism in Marine Environments, 13(4),
205–216.
Marti, B. E. (1990). Geography and the cruise ship port selection process. Maritime Policy
and Management, 17(3), 157–164.
11
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
McCalla, R. J. (1998). An investigation into site and situation: Cruise ship ports.
Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89(1), 44–55.
MedCruise. (2016). Ports together. Piraeus: MedCruise.
Sumiarsa, G. S., & Phelps, R. P. (2020). Cruise tourism: the role of shore excursions in the
overcrowding of cities. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 6(1), 197–214.
Niavis, S., & Vaggelas, G. K. (2016). An empirical model for assessing the effect of ports’
and hinterlands’ characteristics on home-ports’ potential. The case of Mediterranean
ports. Maritime Business Review, 1(3), 186–207.
Pallis, A. A. (2015). Cruise shipping and ports, cruise shipping and urban development state of
the art of the industry and cruise ports. OECD-ITF Discussion Paper 2015–14, OECD:
Paris.
Pallis, A. A., & Arapi, K. P. (2016). A multi-port cruise region: Dynamics and hierarchies
in the Med. Tourismos, 11(2), 168–201.
Pallis, A. A., Arapi, K. P., & Papachristou, A. A. (2019). Models of cruise ports
governance. Maritime Policy & Management, 46(5), 630–651.
Pallis, A. A., Parola, F., Satta, G., & Notteboom, T. E. (2018). Private entry and emerging
partnerships in cruise terminal operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Maritime
Economics and Logistics, 20(1), 1–28.
Pallis, A. A., & Vaggelas, G. K. (2017). Prospects of home-porting in Greece. Athens:
DiaNeosis.
Pallis, A. A., & Vaggelas, G. K. (2019). Cruise shipping and green ports: A strategic
challenge. In R. Bergqvist, & J. Monios (Eds.), Green ports: Inland and seaside
sustainable transportation strategies (pp. 255–273). Edward Elgar.
Pallis, A. A., & Vaggelas, G. K. (2020). The changing geography of cruise shipping. In
G. Wilmsmeier, & J. Monios (Eds.), Geographies of maritime transport: Transport,
mobilities and spatial change (pp. 170–191). Edward Elgar.
Papachristou, A. A., & Pallis, A. A. (2019). European Cruise ports: Variation of challenges
and policy implications. In International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME)
Conference 2019, Athens, Greece, June.
Peisley, T. (2012). Cruising through the perfect storm: Will draconian new fuel regulations in
2015 change the cruise industry’s business model forever? Colchester: Seatrade
Communications Ltd.
Port de Barcelona and Turisme de Barcelona. (2014). Cruise activity in Barcelona: Impact
on the Catalan economy and socioeconomic profile of cruise passengers.
Rodrigue, J.-P., & Notteboom, T. E. (2013). The geography of cruises: Itineraries, not
destinations. Applied Geography, 38, 31–42.
Ros Chaos, S., Pino Roca, D., Saurí Marchán, S., & Sánchez-Arcilla, C. A. (2018). Cruise
passenger impacts on mobility within a port area: Case of the port of Barcelona.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), 147–157.
Ros Chaos, S., Pallis, A. A., Saurí Marchán, S., Pino Roca, D., & Sánchez-Arcilla, Conejo A.
(2020). Economies of Scale in Cruise Shipping. Maritime Economics and Logistics.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3 (in press).
Satta, G., Parola, F., Penco, L., & Perico, L. (2015). Word of mouth and satisfaction in
cruise port destinations. Tourism Geographies, 17(1), 54–75.
Seatrade Cruise News. (2018). Survey of worldwide ports. Colchester: Seatrade
Communications Ltd.
Stefanidaki, E., & Lekakou, M. (2014). Cruise carrying capacity: A conceptual approach.
Research in Transportation Business and Management, 13, 43–52.
Sun, X., Feng, D., & Gauri, K. (2014). The cruise industry in China: Efforts, progress and
challenges. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 71–84.
Terry, W. C. (2011). Geographic limits to global labour market flexibility: The human
resources paradox of the cruise industry. Geoforum, 42(6), 660–670.
Vayá, E., Garcia, J. R., Murillo, J., Romaní, J., & Suriñach, J. (2018). Economic impact of
cruise activity: The case of Barcelona. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(4),
479–492.
Whyte, L. J. (2018). Eliciting cruise destination attributes using repertory grid analysis.
Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 10, 172–180.
Zhu, Y., & Cheng, J. (2020). Selecting a coastal cruise port of call location in mainland
China using the AHP method. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 5, 13.