Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.

153–174, 2011
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.07.015

ASSESSING THE ‘POVERTY OF

CRUISE THEORY’ HYPOTHESIS
Alexis Papathanassis
Insa Beckmann
Bremerhaven University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Abstract: The field of tourism has been described as pre-paradigmatic and multidisciplinary.
The acclaimed ‘poverty of tourism theory’ is attributed to the fragmentation, managerialism
and lack of unifying theoretical perspectives characterising empirical research. Constituting a
sub-category of tourism, cruise research is presumably subject to similar criticism. The niche
character of the cruise sector implies a limited amount of domain-specific research, possibly
exacerbating the relevance and intensity of those issues. Mainstream bibliographic databases
were systematically queried, resulting to a collection of 145 cruise-related academic publica-
tions published between 1983 and 2009. The identified publications were analysed in terms of
their content and meta-data. Apart from providing a comprehensive analysis of cruise
research, the validity and relevance of the posed hypothesis are also challenged. Keywords:
cruises, theory, managerialism, fragmentation, review. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

INTRODUCTION

The first trouble with tourism studies, and paradoxically also one of
its sources of interest, is that its research object, ‘tourism’ has grown
very dramatically and quickly and that the tourism research commu-
nity is relatively new. Indeed at times it has been unclear which was
growing more rapidly—tourism or tourism research (Franklin &
Crang, 2001, p. 5).
As world-wide tourism continues developing, both as a business and
as a scientific domain, the rigour and relevance of research practices in
this dynamic field come under questioning. Indeed, one may claim
that the inherent dynamism and applied nature of tourism theory is
fuelling some kind of ‘existential crisis’ for scholars. Is tourism a
science or an art? Should it adhere to a positivistic or interpretative par-
adigm? Should it become more generic in order to encompass the gen-
erality of social science, or should it sustain its specificity to ensure its
relevance for the industry? Amongst others, Goeldner and Faulkner
(1998) have argued that tourism has a multidisciplinary orientation;

Alexis Papathanassis (Bremerhaven University of Applied Science, An der Karlstadt 8, D-

27568 Bremerhaven, Germany. Email <apapathanassis@hs-bremerhaven.de>) is the chairman
of the Cruise Research Society and a co-director of the institute of Maritime Tourism. His
main research interests are cruise tourism and eTourism. Insa Beckmann is employed by the
Institute of Maritime Tourism, aiding its consulting and research activities.

153
154 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

utilising perspectives from various disciplines but failing to adequately

integrate them. Moreover, tourism theory is highly-specialised, lacking
the tradition, history and unifying paradigms that characterise some
more established disciplines. Thus, it has been characterised as ‘pre-
paradigmatic’. Nevertheless, the authors also contend that those chal-
lenges are being gradually addressed, and that tourism is in fact on the
way of becoming a discipline. Whether this is a sustainable and desir-
able development, or not, remains to be seen and the corresponding
debate will most probably persist.

Tourism Research Challenges: Fragmentation & Managerialism

Over the last decade, other leading tourism scholars (Ryan, 2005;
Farell & Twinning-Ward, 2004; Tribe, 2002; Tribe, 2006) have high-
lighted similar issues and further analysed the scientific development
of tourism. Franklin & Crang identify two main issues leading to a ‘pov-
erty of tourism theory’ (2001, p. 6). The first issue can be encapsulated
under the term ‘Fragmentation’, and refers to the tendency of tracking
and recording industry developments producing an ‘‘enormous record
of instances, case-studies and variations’’ (p. 5). It is worth noting that
this issue is not exclusive to tourism-related research, but also to the
field of management in general (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).
Apart from the risk of displacing academics as key stakeholders in
the research process (Whitely, 2000), fragmentation is likely to ‘prolif-
erate irrelevant theory and untheorised and invalid practice’ (Hodg-
kinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001). Finally, in order to deal with an
expanding field of knowledge, a wide range of classifications and taxo-
nomies are being created at the expense of in-depth understanding.
Although categorisation efforts enable ‘description’ they do not neces-
sarily constitute ‘theory-building’. The second issue can be described as
‘Managerialism’. This refers to an overreaching focus on economic phe-
nomena and their exploration from a managerial perspective. In turn,
such a paradigmatic limitation indirectly leads to a standardisation and
reinforcement of a limited set of methodological approaches.

‘Cruise Cocoons’ and Research Issues

Being a fast-growing sub-category of tourism, cruise tourism is sub-
ject to similar challenges. In fact, one could argue that the issues sur-
rounding tourism research (i.e. fragmentation, managerialism) are
intensified in the context of cruises due to its inherent characteristics.
Vogel (2004) argues that the recent popularity and attractiveness of
cruises could be explained by the cruise vessel’s function as a protec-
tive, emotionally-reassuring, complexity-reducing ‘cocoon’. Apart from
attracting consumers, the secluded space, controlled setting and socio-
cultural environment onboard a cruise vessel, constitute close-to-ideal
laboratory conditions for social researchers. This, in combination with
the niche character and developments (e.g. mega-liners) of the cruise
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 155

industry, renders it highly suitable and attractive for case-study re-

search. Gaining access to such an attractive research environment is
nonetheless restricted, requiring the permission and support of its
owners. A ‘social cocoon’ is by definition inaccessible for outsiders.
Given the economic aims and business focus of the cruise sector’s gate-
keepers, it is understandable and expected that access is preferentially
granted to researchers serving managerial motives. Cruising is, after all,
a business; it is a social phenomenon designed for generating profit.
Considering the above, the risks of fragmentation and managerial-
ism are indeed highly relevant for cruise tourism research. Hence, crit-
ical reflection on the progress and scientific rigour of cruise tourism
research is indispensable, acting as a feedback mechanism enabling a
more diversified and relevant knowledge evolution. Does the ‘poverty
of tourism theory’ hypothesis apply in the cruise context? To what de-
gree? What are the potential implications for cruise researchers and
how could they be dealt with? Our aim here is two-fold. Firstly, we
aim at delivering a comprehensive cruise-research synopsis that will
serve as a starting point and reference for potential cruise researchers.
Secondly, we hope in initiating a reflective and constructive discussion
about the progress of cruise-tourism research within the wider context
of the evolving academic field of tourism.
With respect to the latter, our experience with this piece of research
and our reflections on its outcome suggest that the issues surrounding
tourism research reveal more about how they are dealt with, than about
the nature of tourism itself. It could be asserted that the pre-paradig-
matic nature of tourism theory is symptomatic of a post-positivist world-
view, challenging the relevance of unifying paradigms and ‘grand
theories’ altogether. Our findings and resulting discussion reveal that
a ‘pre-paradigmatic’ (or post-paradigmatic), ‘impoverished’ tourism
theory consists of both challenges and opportunities. Therefore, limit-
ing research efforts to a critical exposure of this nature, followed by
suggestions and prognoses on how it could, or should, change is ques-
tionable. Investing effort in understanding and in effectively dealing
with the challenging nature of tourism as a research domain is arguably
just as, if not more, relevant.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CRUISE-RELATED RESEARCH

Academic research in cruise tourism has been relatively small (Wild
& Dearing, 2000). There are only a handful of academic textbooks
introducing the topic and our extensive literature searches have only
managed to identify 145 scientific papers, many of them not directly
focused on cruise tourism. This apparent scarcity of cruise-related re-
search could be attributed to the domain’s niche status within the tour-
ism research community and its inherent interdisciplinarity (i.e.
requiring a combination of shipping with tourism). The current
growth trend characterising the cruise-sector and the advances in the
tourism’s body of knowledge put this status quo under question. De-
spite growing three times faster than the overall tourism sector, cruis-
156 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

ing represents a relatively small fraction (1.8–2.2%) in terms of passen-

ger numbers (GP Wild International, 2007). In terms of size, the world
market for cruises has steadily increased from 9.9 million in 2001 to
15.2 million passengers in 2006 (IRN Research, 2008). Alongside the
growth of demand, a number of novel challenges are beginning to
emerge for the cruise sector, creating a relevance gap for cruise-related
research and underlining its necessity.
Firstly, there is the challenge posed by new technologies and adop-
tion. More specifically this refers to the impact and potential of technol-
ogy advancements related to energy efficiency (e.g. insulation, double-
glazing, low power products, auto-shut-off, equipment optimisation for
actual vs maximum utilisation), propulsion (e.g. CRP, Wing-thrusters,
Wärtsilä ruder), hull-construction (to reduce water resistance), safety
and security technology (e.g. biometrics) and employee productivity
(esp. information and communication technologies). Secondly, the
increasing size of ships, not mentioning the volume of concurrent visi-
tors (‘overcrowding’), are posing significant demands on the infrastruc-
ture of the ports and surrounding resorts. Such demands are associated
with significant economic, social, and environmental implications.
Thirdly, the sector’s growth is constrained due to limitation in cruise
ship supply. Over the last decade, there has been an observable concen-
tration in the cruise-ship building industry. The number of cruise-ship
builders has decreased from 14 in the 90s, to four currently (IRN Re-
search, 2008). The relatively small number of ship-builders, ship-repair-
ers and suitable dry docks, imply a large dependency and loss of
negotiating power for cruise operators, which could impede growth
in the medium-term. At the same time, the backlog of ship orders
and the time required to produce and deliver a new vessel ultimately im-
ply planning risks for cruise operators. Fourthly, there is an increasing
cost-base due to crude oil price increases, demanding security standards
and regulations imposed by governments (esp. U.S.) and international
regulatory bodies (ISPS code) and rising insurance costs. Those cost-re-
lated issues are expected to increase along with ship sizes and passenger
volumes. Finally, the growth of passenger numbers and vessel sizes im-
plies an increasing management complexity both on- and off-board.
One can expect an increasing demand for formally-qualified mid-level
management personnel. In this light, traditional human resource man-
agement practices and working conditions on board are coming under
scrutiny. Currently, only a handful of educational institutions exists
world-wide, offering university-level management education which is
tailored to the emerging needs of the cruise sector.
Addressing the above does not merely serve business interests, hav-
ing implications for related, wider-encompassing socio-cultural and
environmental domains. Parallel to the opportunities and relevance
of intensified cruise-tourism research, the pre-paradigmatic and multi-
disciplinary tradition characterising tourism is inherited. Scoping
cruise research is arguably a challenge in its own right. The area is sub-
jected to various definitions (e.g. maritime tourism, cruise tourism,
maritime leisure), classifications (e.g. freighter/passenger, sea/river)
and segment-related sub-categorisations (e.g. shipyard tourism, sailing
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 157

trips, cruise excursions). For the purpose of this paper we intend to

adopt the definition proposed by Wild and Dearing (2000, p. 319):
‘‘Any maritime based tour by fare paying guests onboard a vessel whose
primary purpose is the carriage of passengers’’.

Study Method
Creating a comprehensive synopsis of a research field represents a sig-
nificant challenge for a variety of reasons. Locating and processing a rep-
resentative amount of literature in a rapidly-evolving field of study,
requires a considerable time-investment and access to a variety of publi-
cation resources. In the presence of research fragmentation, the effort
and complexity of collecting sufficient material is accompanied by the
difficulty of synthesising it in a meaningful way. In addition, the disci-
plinary-orientation, experiences, preferences and even interests of the
researcher may result in a biased selection of topics and literature
sources. This risk is particularly pertinent for interdisciplinary fields of
research such as tourism. It may well be that the above-mentioned issues
are endemic to literature reviews of this kind. Conducting such a widely-
scoped literature review in a systematic, transparent manner is perhaps
the most pragmatic and effective way of addressing them. Hence, we
decided to apply the systematic review methodology, as described by
Tranfield, Denyer & Smart (2003). The authors maintain that for ‘prac-
titioners a systematic review helps develop a reliable knowledge-base by
accumulating knowledge from a range of studies’. This, combined with
the transparency enabled by the process of conducting (i.e. rigour) such
a review, contributes to what the authors describe as ‘pragmatic science’.

Systematic Review: Overview

According to the authors, the methodology comprises of three
stages. Stage one, planning the review. Initially, the need for and objec-
tives of the review, need to be identified and explicitly-stated. In order
to enable methodological transparency, inclusion criteria are estab-
lished and a review protocol is initialised. Stage two, conducting the re-
view. Subsequently, relevant keywords and search strings are identified
and documented in order to enable the replication of the review. A
variety of sources, published and non-published, ought to be consid-
ered. Only those papers that meet the specified inclusion criteria
should be incorporated in the review. Stage three, reporting and dis-
semination. Having undertaken a descriptive (i.e. publication meta-
data) and thematic (i.e. interpretative aggregation) analysis, the result-
ing literature review is expected to provide a holistic knowledge base.

Data Collection: Stage One and Two of the Systematic Review Process
Data was collected over a three-month period, from October until
December 2008. The process was repeated in December 2009. In total,
158 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

four main databases for scientific articles were systematically queried

and mined in order to try to collect published articles related to the
cruise sector. Given that the aim of this paper is to explore the status
of cruise research, textbooks and commercial publications were ex-
cluded. The adopted data collection method consisted of five steps
(Figure 1). The first step consisted of defining search keywords and
took place during October 2008. Initiating the query with the keywords
‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’, resulted to search results including a vast num-
ber of scope-irrelevant papers (e.g. missile-control, navigation-technol-
ogy, maritime biology). In order to refine the search, an initial
selection of 20 cruise paper abstracts was examined. Their correspond-
ing keywords were listed and ranked according to thematic relevance.
The resulting keyword-list, consisted of the following terms: Cruise(s),
cruise ship(s), cruise tourism, cruise line(s), port(s), cruise-industry,
cruising, cruise holidays, cruise-shipping, maritime travel, freighter-
travel.
In November 2008, the keyword list was utilised in the science-direct
portal (http://www.sciencedirect.com). This constituted the second
step of the review process and resulted to a total of 56 publications.
Those were downloaded and categorised according to their publica-
tion properties and content. Publication properties include: DOI (Dig-
ital Object Identifier, author(s) surnames and initials, publication
journal and publication year. With regard to their contents the articles
were categorised according to: scope (tourism/non-tourism), research
paradigm (conceptual, qualitative, quantitative) and disciplinary do-
main (Business & management/economics/sociology & psychology/
technology & engineering/environment & geography/medicine).
Limiting the search to one source (i.e. portal) was judged as insuffi-
cient as it could result to exclusion of either a cruise-specific journal
or other journals containing relevant papers. As a result we decided
to add a third step in the search process by extending the search to
other bibliographic databases. In December 2008 the ATHENS portal
(http://www.athens.ac.uk), Google-Scholar (http://www.scholar.goo-
gle.com) and Journal Seek (http://journalseek.net), were also in-
cluded in the data collection process. The pre-defined set of

Figure 1. Data Collection Process

 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 159

keywords was used, and findings were compared to the existing list of
papers in order to eliminate any potential duplication. An additional
43 cruise-relevant publications were examined, analysed and classified.
A year later (December 2009), all the previous steps were repeated to
identify articles published in 2009. The reference lists of the existing
data set were also examined, revealing an additional 21 publications.
Finally, in February 2010, the bibliography was made available to the
academic delegates of the 2nd International Cruise Conference
(http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/icc2/index.html) and to the mem-
bers of the Cruise Research Society (http://www.cruiseresearchsoci-
ety.com), requesting their feedback. This last fifth step, followed by
the submission to and review of the Annals of Tourism Research re-
sulted to the identification of 25 additional publications.

Systematic Review Limitations

The above-mentioned data collection process has been designed and
conducted with the aim of attaining sufficient coverage, validity and
reliability in mind (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). Given the
aim of this paper, only publications from scientific, peer-reviewed jour-
nals have been considered. Conference contributions, textbooks, trade
press and self-published material were excluded. This exclusion does
not intend to degrade the contribution of such sources, as they are
an essential part of the scientific knowledge-creation process. It is pri-
marily due to practicality reasons, supported by the presumption that
valuable research originating from those sources tends to eventually
‘mutate’ into peer-reviewed publications. With regard to coverage, be-
sides an extensive keyword list, a number of wide-encompassing scien-
tific portals were included in the search for secondary data. It does
however need to be mentioned that the applied method is subject to
a number of limitations. The collected literature is restricted to Eng-
lish-speaking, electronically available journals. Excluding the rest, off-
line-published research and non-English journals, is an issue that
needs to be addressed; or at least made explicit. Moreover, given the
lengthy review process and publication frequency of such sources,
our sample most probably excludes research currently in production.
Bearing in mind, the current growth and the challenges characteris-
ing the cruise sector (Papathanassis & Gibson, 2009), one would expect
intensified research in this area; increasing the impact of this exclu-
sion. Therefore, a follow-up regular (e.g. annually) update of the pre-
sented publication list, coupled with a longitudinal comparison, is
deemed necessary. On the other hand it could be asserted that the dis-
semination potential, and thus impact, of offline-published research
and of contributions not in English is relatively low. Summarising,
the defined inclusion criteria for our systematic review prioritise quality
and practicality at the probable expense of coverage. Nevertheless, it
has been argued that this trade off is not detrimental and that our data
forms a representative analytical basis. The descriptive and thematic
analysis constitutes the third stage of the systematic review process.
160 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

Accordingly, the meta-data as well as the content of the 145 cruise-re-

lated journal articles collected were analysed, with the aim of providing
an overview of the status and content of current cruise research.

Descriptive Analysis: Fragmentation and Managerialism Indicators

Research concentration can be defined as the extent to which cruise-
related research is enveloping within a visible and guided environ-
ment. Does it appear within an observable academic network and is
it developed by a distinct scientific community? In other words, are
cruise-related publications concentrated into a small number of jour-
nals or are they spread across a wider spectrum of publications, repre-
senting a rather sporadic occurrence? Similarly, is cruise-related
Table 1. Published Article Distribution Across Scientific Journals

Journal Num. %

Other Journals (Single Instances) 43 30

Tourism Management 20 14
Journal of Travel Research 13 9
International Journal of Hospitality Management 9 6
Annals of Tourism Research 9 6
Journal of Travel Medicine 7 5
Journal of Tourism Studies 6 4
International Journal of Tourism Research 6 4
Tourism Analysis 5 3
Marine Policy 5 3
Tourism Economics 4 3
Journal of Vacation Marketing 4 3
Research in Transportation Economics 3 2
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 3 2
Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 3 2
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 3 2
Maritime Policy & Management 2 1
List of journals contained single instances of cruise-related articles
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research; Behaviour Research & Therapy; Environmental
International; Estuarine Coastal and Shelf; European Journal of Operational Research; European
Planning Studies; Health Education Journal; Hospitality Review; International Congress Series;
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management; International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research; International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration;
Island Studies Journal; Journal of Applied Acoustics; Journal of Aquatic Conservation / Maritime
Freshwater Ecosystems; Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines; Journal of
Clinical Infectious Diseases; Journal of Economic and Social Geography; Journal of Ecotourism;
Journal of Environmental Management; Journal of Food Engineering; Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research; Journal of Operations Management; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society; Journal of Tourism Consumption & Practice; Managing Service Quality;
Marine Pollution Bulletin; Ocean & Shoreline Management; Ocean Engineering; Safety Science;
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism; Sociological Focus; Sociological Imagination; The
British Journal of Clinical Psychology; Tourism; Tourism & Hospitality Management; Tourism
Geographies; Tourism in Marine Environments; Tourism Recreation Research; Tourism Review
International; Transportation Journal; Travel Medicine & Infectious Diseases
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 161

research driven by a visible network of specialised researchers or is it

divided amongst a large number of loosely-connected generalists? In
terms of article distribution across journals, the identified cruise-arti-
cles appeared in 59 different journals. When considering the relative
scarcity of cruise research, this type fragmentation poses a challenge
for existing, as well as potential, cruise researchers. The lack of exten-
sive research, ‘engineered’ to different journal scopes and its subjec-
tion to a variety of publishing standards impedes building on the
work of others. Nonetheless, one can observe (Table 1) that approxi-
mately 57% of cruise research is published within leading international
tourism journals.
Cruise-research authorship seems to follow a similar pattern. The
identified articles are attributed to a fairly large amount of authors
(174). 82% of them (i.e. 143) have a single cruise-publication. Those
with multiple cruise publications are, with a few of exceptions, specia-
lised in tourism. Thus, attributing authorship fragmentation to the
interdisciplinary nature of cruise tourism would not be sufficient.
The emergence of specialised academics as ‘cruise-publication repeat-
ers’ such as: Petrick, Douglas, Marti and Gibson, speaks for the pre-par-
adigmatic character of cruise research and signals a growth trend (see
Section 5).
In order to obtain an impression of the type and scope of cruise re-
search taking place, the articles were categorised according to the re-
search paradigm adopted and the disciplinary domain they are
related to (Table 2). In terms of the research paradigm adopted, there
appears to be a balance between quantitative-positivist and qualitative-
humanist research. The considerable amount of conceptual, and to a
certain degree descriptive, work being published is compliant with
the pre-paradigmatic nature of tourism in general and cruise-tourism
in particular. Examining the disciplinary affiliation, cruise-research
seems to follow the social-science tradition of tourism. The majority
of papers have a business-managerial focus, followed by sociology-psy-
chology and economics.
A closer look at the keywords and their frequency of occurrence sup-
ports this finding. Non-tourism keywords such as: satisfaction, word-of-
mouth, perceived value, price, price-sensitivity, branding, quality and
service-quality, suggest a predominance of the marketing sub-disci-

Table 2. Research Paradigm & Disciplinary Affiliation

Research focus Num. of % Disciplinary domain Num. %

article of articles

Conceptual/discussion papers 45 31 Business & Management 57 39

Sociology & Psychology 26 18
Qualitative research papers 45 31 Economics 24 17
Quantitative research papers 45 31 Environment & Geography 15 10
Book reviews, conf. 10 7 Medicine 15 10
reports & editorials Engineering & Technology 8 6
TOTAL 145
162 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

pline. From the total of 291 different keywords, 247 represent single
instances. The large number and variety of keywords could also be
interpreted as a fragmentation indicator, increasing the complexity
of a purposeful literature search for cruise researchers. Surprisingly en-
ough, 18 cruise-related papers did not even include the words
‘cruise(s)’ or ‘cruising’ in their keyword list.

Descriptive Analysis: Synthesis

Returning to the question of fragmentation and managerialism in
cruise research, it would be rather simplistic to interpret the above
findings as a clearly affirmative answer. Despite the distribution of
cruise-related research amongst a large number of academic journals
and authors, a concentration tendency can be observed. In terms of
authorship there is a visible emergence of cruise research ‘repeaters’
with a tourism background, publishing in tourism journals. At this
early stage of cruise research evolution, the establishment of specia-
lised forums for cruise researchers (e.g. International Cruise Confer-
ence cycle, Cruise Research Society) could enable the development
of a visible network of cruise-interested researchers, paving the way to-
wards domain-specific publication platforms. Perhaps, the observed de-
gree of fragmentation is merely a symptom of an evolving research
field at the development-brink of supporting networks and publication
infrastructure. In fact, prior to 2000 cruise research was limited to a
few, sporadic publications. As depicted in Figure 2, over the last decade

Figure 2. Trends According to Disciplinary Domain

 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 163

there has been an exponential growth of cruise-related publications,

with a predominance of the social sciences (i.e. business & manage-
ment, sociology & psychology, economics).
Indeed, cruises are primarily perceived as an economic phenome-
non explored from a managerial-business perspective. Nevertheless, a
corresponding methodological limitation is not visible. There is an ob-
servable balance between quantitative and qualitative approaches,
including experimentation beyond the ‘mainstream’ expressions of
those two paradigms (e.g. critical incident analysis in Petrick, Tonner
& Quinn, 2006). In this sense, a managerial perspective does not nec-
essarily pose a paradigmatic restriction; neither methodologically, nor
thematically (see Thematic analysis: Towards a cruise research framework).

Thematic Analysis: Towards a Cruise Research Framework

The last step of a systematic literature review encompasses a thematic
analysis, which is an interpretative aggregation of the collected mate-
rial in order to create a holistic knowledge base (Tranfield, Denyer
& Smart, 2003). More specifically, the collected papers were analysed
in order to extract research themes, which were subsequently organ-
ised in a meaningful way. Our thematic analysis resulted in the propo-
sition of a cruise research framework (Figure 3), indicating relevant
research domains (i.e. cruise staff, cruise passengers, destinations,
cruise operators, cruise vessels) and their interrelationships (e.g. Desti-

Figure 3. Thematic Analysis—Cruise research framework

164 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

nation-passengers, passengers-staff), existing themes and their poten-

tial (e.g. social interaction between cruise staff and passengers, envi-
ronmental impacts of cruise vessels on destinations), and novel
research themes (e.g. cruise operators and destination development).
As shown in Figure 3, in terms of thematic focus, cruise-related re-
search to date is neither limited to onboard phenomena nor to solely
economic-organisational issues. Socio-psychological, medical and envi-
ronmental issues are also being addressed. Moreover, the themes iden-
tified extend beyond the questions emerging within the boundaries of
a cruise-vessel, involving the interrelationships and interaction with
land-based entities.
The themes emerging can be classified under the headings: ‘The
cruise market’, ‘the cruise society’, ‘cruises and society’ and ‘cruise
administration’. The first theme (Cruise market’) focuses on the rela-
tionship between cruise operators and their actual and potential pas-
sengers. Approximately one third of cruise-related papers are
primarily concerned with marketing practices in the cruise sector. Mar-
ket trends and consumption analysis, demand forecasting, customer
expectations and pricing issues remain highly relevant; presumably
reflecting their significance for the sector and its business stakeholders.
Tourism in general, and the cruise business increasingly so, are both
driven by capacity-related risk. Sector growth goes hand in hand with
increasing capacities, rendering their effective management a matter
of organisational survival in the longer-term. In this context, research
concerned with influencing or forecasting demand is pertinent as it
is desirable since it ultimately aids the management of capacity-risk.
Considering the fact that over the last five years capacities have been
increasing at a higher rate than passenger numbers (Papathanassis,
2008, p. 3), it would be reasonable to argue that this sub-field of cruise
research will remain relevant and sustain its centrality in academic
literature.
The second theme is concerned about the interaction between
cruise staff and passengers and the experience of living on a cruise ves-
sel. With regards to the life of people onboard a cruise ship, research is
primarily concerning health and safety questions, followed by an inter-
est in living conditions from an organisational and infrastructural per-
spective. The study of social life and human behaviour on board is a
rarity in cruise research literature. The confined space of a cruise ves-
sel, the maritime tradition, existential scope of cruising and the demo-
graphic configuration of its participants, represent a distinctive social
environment. The value of interpreting the social phenomena and
understanding the human behaviour (e.g. emergence of sub-cultures,
group dynamics, work-life balance, sense-making and identity) within it
is twofold. First, it offers the potential of improving the living condi-
tions, experiences and well-being of this social system’s members; ulti-
mately enabling the system’s continuity and supporting its aims.
Secondly, the acquired knowledge may be partially transferable to
other social domains, sharing similar characteristics (e.g. holiday re-
sorts, seniors’ residences, suburban university campuses, aircraft carri-
ers). The increasing size of cruise vessels (‘floating resorts’) and the
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 165

internationalisation of the cruise sector underline the practical rele-

vance, ethical imperative and research potential of this under-repre-
sented theme.
The third theme refers to the implications of cruise vessels and their
passengers on ports of call. It is often acclaimed that a cruise is more
than a cruise ship. Just as a ship cannot forgo harbours, a cruise cannot
abstain from an itinerary. Ports/destinations are the primary interface
between the ‘cruising entity’ (i.e. vessel and passengers) and its wider
environment. Failing to take into consideration this interface would
imply that a cruise vessel is a closed system, which would be a simplistic
assumption. In accordance, a quarter of cruise-related papers deal with
the social, economical and environmental impacts of cruising activity at
ports of call. Until now, the interrelationship between cruise vessel and
port has been implicitly perceived as unidirectional. Namely, the focus
has been on the impact of cruising on the destinations; and not on the
impact destinations (or itineraries) have on cruising. From a research-
er’s point of view, this merits some questioning. Do cruise staff or
repeaters not immerge in and identify with the regional culture of
the itinerary (e.g. Caribbean, North See)? Does the itinerary not affect
the diet, practices and procedures on board? Do locals not visit the
cruise ship and interact with its staff and the tourists? Hypothetically-
speaking, impacts could range from socio-cultural to health-related.
The last theme is concerned with how cruise operators manage their
vessels and staff. Ironically, cruise research ‘managerialism’ does not
correspond to overrepresentation of cruise management. In other
words, the focus on the business/economic facets of cruise tourism is
not translated to extensive research on cruise business administration.
The value chain and core processes of cruise operators remain some-
what under-researched. Setting aside descriptive accounts of generic
processes and common practices in cruise textbooks, there is limited
management research and scientific observation/experimentation on
cruise operating.
At this point it is important to distinguish between hotel operations
onboard a cruise ship and cruise operating. Cruise operating has a
wider scope, involving the strategic, tactical and operational manage-
ment of both land- and ship-based resources. Processes such as itiner-
ary-planning, ship-financing, chartering and yield-management offer
fruitful grounds for the utilisation and evolution of operational re-
search techniques and information system development methods.
Managing a cruise fleet is fundamentally different from managing a
hotel department onboard a cruise ship. Strategic management, man-
agerial accounting, human-resource planning and development, sup-
ply-chain management and outsourcing, may be perceived as distal
concepts for the daily hotel operations of a cruise, but are nonetheless
proximal for the daily management of a cruise operator. Increasing
competition and concentration in the cruise sector underlines this re-
search theme’s centrality and rationale. Bridging the gap between the
descriptiveness of hotel operations and repetitiveness of marketing re-
search could enable the transformation of cruise tourism research
from a field of study to a practically-relevant academic discipline.
166 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

Summarising, the thematic analysis has resulted in a research frame-

work which could be translated into four research themes; all justifi-
able and research-relevant in the cruising context. The unifying
definition emerging from this framework is: Cruise tourism is a so-
cio-economic system generated by the interaction between human,
organisational and geographical entities, aimed at producing mari-
time-transportation-enabled leisure experiences.

CONCLUSION
Having completed the systematic review of cruise research literature,
the ‘theoretical poverty’ hypothesis is somewhat disputable. Despite
indications of fragmentation in cruise tourism theory, concentration
tendencies are visible and presumably symptomatic of a novel and
evolving research domain. In our view, ‘managerialism’, or rather
‘marketism’, is only moderately relevant. Even though there appears
to be a business-economic paradigmatic focus, it cannot be character-
ised as restrictive; neither methodologically, nor thematically. Instead
of viewing the cruise domain as a suitable testing bed for existing meth-
odological tools (i.e. phenomenological domain), suitable research
methodologies could be developed for it (i.e. methodological
domain).
Consequently, a constructive interpretation of the initial question
posed by this paper ought to lead towards a proposed way forward.
In this respect, our contribution is two-fold. Firstly, it comprises of a
framework for placing and scoping future cruise-related research and
a set of themes discussed in terms of their relevance and potential.
This, in conjunction with the included bibliography, could constitute
a useful reference for aspiring cruise researchers and hopefully serve
as a basis for further research in the field. In other words, the aim here
is not the provision of a bibliography, ultimately aimed at highlighting
and denouncing an acclaimed ‘theoretical poverty’. It is mainly about
addressing the challenges it poses for researchers. Those range from
research-scoping difficulties and the corresponding obstacles to litera-
ture search, to the purposeful selection of keywords for publication.
The categorisation framework derived from the thematic analysis, the
summarised findings of the descriptive analysis, and the data collection
approach outlined here, could all be utilised in this respect.
Secondly, the application of a systematic review within an interdisci-
plinary context highlights some of the inherent shortcomings of this
methodology and paves the way towards a purposeful evolution. As out-
lined by Tranfield, Denyer & Smart (2003), a systematic review is char-
acterised by a sequential logic, with the completion of one step leading
to the next. Methodological rigour may be encapsulated within the
implementation of each step; but not necessarily applicable to the logic
itself. At the end of the day, does a systematic review result to a reliable
knowledge-base under the conditions of domain inter-disciplinarity
and research fragmentation? This is also a question addressed by the
above-mentioned authors who underline the need for more flexibility
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 167

in the application of a systematic review methodology, which ‘can be

modified through the course of the study’ (Tranfield, Denyer & Smart,
2003, p. 215). This is not to be regarded as a lack of methodological
rigour but as pragmatism, allowing exploration and creativity within
a non-standardised, interpretivist context. Although there is little ad-
vice on how to translate methodological flexibility into concrete action,
our experience supports this contention. Each step’s completion left
us compelled to conduct iterative checks and adaptations in our ap-
proach. Following the initial collection of sources based on the defined
inclusion criteria, the selection of data sources was extended. Subse-
quently, the resulting bibliography was subjected to peer-reviews within
relevant research communities (i.e. International Cruise Conference,
Cruise Research Society and Annals of Tourism Research). Each itera-
tion highlighted missing sources, leading to considerable improve-
ments and presumably to more reliable results. More concretely, our
iterative approach resulted to an enrichment of the initial 56 publica-
tions to 145. In effect, our own restrictions and subjectivity in relation
to the identification and selection of bibliographic sources has been
significantly counteracted through the exposure to domain experts
and relevant scientific communities. On this basis, it could be argued
that an explicit formalisation of iterative checks and the early (esp.
pre-submission) involvement of relevant research communities in tour-
ism-related systematic reviews would arguably constitute a methodolog-
ical improvement.
Perhaps, the question of ‘poverty of tourism (cruise) theory’ is mis-
placed and over-judgemental. At the end of the day, fragmentation
can also mean diversity of perspectives, methodological creativity and
freedom from ‘publication cartels’. Similarly, managerialism can also
mean practical relevance and funded research. In fact, theoretical pov-
erty can be alternatively seen as endemic to the domain of tourism,
promising a plethora of research possibilities. Rather than merely
exposing and ideologically condemning it, counteracting ‘theoretical
poverty’ (of any kind of poverty for that matter), may well lie in under-
standing its nature and equipping those affected with the means for
dealing with its implications.

REFERENCES
Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(2), 274–295.
Franklin, A., & Crang, M. (2001). The trouble with tourism and travel theory.
Tourism Studies, 1(1), 5–22.
Goeldner, C., & Faulkner, B. (1998). Progress in tourism and hospitality research.
Journal of Travel Research, 37, 76–80.
GP Wild International (2007). Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Economies of
Europe. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from maritime industries forum. http://
www.mif-eu.org/ECC_Report_6.pdf.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Realigning the stakehold-
ers in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational
psychology. British Journal of Management, 41, 48.
168 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

IRN Research (2008, April 25). IRN Research. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from
European Cruise Council – Statistics & markets 2007. http://www.
irn-research.com/main/content/download/201/721/file/ECC2007Statsand
marts2007.pdf.
Papathanassis, A. (2008). Cruise sector growth and destination development:
Development for cruising vs. development through cruising. Meeresnutzung im
Jahr 2025: Wirtschaftliche Chancen für Cuxhaven, Industrie- und Handelskammer.
Germany: Cuxhaven. http://www.papathanassis.com/dlfiles/
IHKCruiseDest.pdf.
Papathanassis, A., & Gibson, P. (2009). Cruise sector futures: Exploring growth-
related opportunities and challenges, 1st international cruise conference, 26–
27 September 2008, Bremerhaven. International Journal of Tourism Research,
105–106.
Petrick, J., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C. (2006). The utilization of critical incident
technique to examine cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions. Journal of
Travel Research, 44, 273–280.
Ryan, C. (2005). The ranking and rating of academics and journals in tourism
research. Tourism Management, 26, 657–662.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students.
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of system-
atic review. British Journal of Management, 207, 222.
Tribe, J. (2002). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2),
338–357.
Tribe, J. (2006). The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2),
360–381.
Vogel, M. (2004). Kreuzfahrt: Reisen im dreifachen Kokon. An Bord, 5.
Whitely, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of sciences. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wild, P., & Dearing, J. (2000). Development of and prospects for cruising in
Europe. Marit. Pol. Mgmt., 27(4), 315–333.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bansal, V., Fortlage, D., Lee, J., Hill, L., Potenza, B., & Coimbra, R. (2007).
Significant injury in cruise ship passengers – A case study. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 33(3), 219–221.
Brewer, P., & Barry, M. (2002). Survey of web-based health care information
for prospective cruise line passengers. Journal of Travel Medicine, 9,
194–197.
Brownell, J. (2008). Leading on land and sea: Competencies and context.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 137–150.
Butt, N. (2007). The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and
ports of call: A study of Southhampton. Marine Policy, 31, 591–598.
Cessford, G., & Dingwall, P. (1994). Tourism on New Zealand’s sub-Antarctic
islands. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 318–332.
Chase, G. L., & McKee, D. L. (2003). The economic impact of cruise tourism on
Jamaica. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 16–22.
Chimonas, M.-A., Vaughan, G., Andre, Z., Ames, J., Tarling, G., Breard, S., et al.
(2008). Passenger behaviors associated with norovirus infection on board a
cruise ship – Alaska, may to june 2004. Journal of Travel Medicine, 15(3),
177–183.
Cloesen, U. (2003). Environmental impact management of ship based tourism to
Antarctica. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 8(2), 32–34.
Cramer, E., Blanton, C., Blanton, L., Vaughan, G., Bopp, C., & Forney, D. (2006).
Epidemiology of Gastroenteritis on Cruise Ships, 2001–2004. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 30(3), 252–257.
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 169

Cramer, E., Gu, D., & Durbin, R. (2003). Diarrheal disease on cruise ships, 1990–
2000 – The impact of environmental health programs. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 24(3), 227–233.
Dahl, E. (1999). Anatomy of a World cruise. Journal of Travel Medicine, 6, 168–171.
Dale, C., & Robinson, N. (1999). Bermuda, tourism and the visiting cruise sector:
Strategies for sustained growth. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(4), 333–339.
Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. (2005). The impact of tourism and personal leisure
transport on coastal environments: A review. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science,
67, 280–292.
De La Vina, L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic regression analysis of cruise vacation
market potential: Demographic and trip attribute perception factors. Journal of
Travel Research, 39, 406–410.
DeKay, F., Yates, B., & Toh, R. (2004). Non-performance penalties in the hotel
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 273–286.
Dev, C. (2006). Carnival cruise lines: Charting a new brand course. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 301–308.
Diakomihalis, M. (2007). Greek maritime tourism: Evolution, structures and
prospects. Research in Transportation Economics, 21, 419–455.
Douglas, N., & Douglas, N. (1997). P&O’s Pacific. Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(2),
2–14.
Douglas, N., & Douglas, N. (2000). Internet tourism site review: Cruising.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 301–302.
Douglas, N., & Douglas, N. (2004). Cruise ship passenger spending patterns in
pacific Island ports. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 251–261.
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise
vacation value. Tourism Management, 26, 311–323.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1996). Economic impacts of cruise tourism in Australia.
Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(2), 36–43.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic significance of cruise tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(2), 393–415.
Dwyer, L., Douglas, N., & Zelko, L. (2004). Estimating the economic contribution
of a cruise ship visit. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(1), 5–16.
Erize, F. (1987). The impact of tourism on the Antarctic environment. Environment
International, 13, 133–136.
Erkoc, M., Iakovou, E., & Spaulding, A. (2005). Multi-stage onboard inventory
management policies for food and beverage items in cruise liner operations.
Journal of Food Engineering, 70, 269–279.
Foster, G. (1986). South seas cruise – A case study of a short-lived society. Annals of
Tourism Research, 13, 215–238.
Gabe, T., Lynch, C., & McConnon, J. (2006). Likelihood of cruise ship passenger
return to a visited port: The case of bar harbor, Maine. Journal of Travel
Research, 44, 281–287.
Gahlinger, P. (2000). Cabin location and the likelihood of motion sickness in
cruise ship passengers. Journal of Travel Medicine, 7, 120–124.
Gibson, P., & Papathanassis, A. (2009). Cruise sector futures – Exploring growth-
related opportunities and challenges: The 1st international cruise conference.
Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice, 1(1), 113–117.
Gibson, P. (2008). Cruising in the 21st century: Who works while others play?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 42–52.
Gibson, P., & Bentley, M. (2007). A study of impacts-cruise tourism and the south
west of England. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 20(3–4), 63–77.
Goujard, B., Sakout, A., & Valeau, V. (2005). Acoustic comfort on board ships: An
evaluation based on a questionnaire. Applied Acoustics, 66, 1063–1073.
Guyer, C., & Pollard, J. (1997). Cruise visitor impressions of the environment of the
Shannon–Erne waterways system. Journal of Environmental Management, 51,
199–215.
Hall, C. (1992). Tourism in Antarctica: Activities, impacts, and management.
Journal of Travel Research, 30, 2–9.
Hall, J., & Braithwaite, R. (1990). Carribean cruise tourism – A business of
transnational partnership. Tourism Management, 339, 347.
170 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

Henthorne, T. (2000). An analysis of expenditures by cruise ship passengers in

Jamaica. Journal or Travel Research, 38, 246–250.
Hobson, J. (1993). Analysis of the US cruise line industry. Tourism Management,
453, 462.
Holland, S. (2006). Book review of A.B. Berger, ocean travel and cruising: A
cultural analysis. Tourism Management, 27, 533–545.
Hritz, N., & Cecil, A. K. (2008). Investigating the sustainability of cruise tourism: A
case study of key west. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 168–181.
Ingham, R., & Summers, D. (2002). Falkland islands cruise ship tourism: An
overview of the 1999–2000 season and the way forward. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 12, 145–152.
Jaakson, R. (2004). Beyond the tourist bubble? Cruiseship passengers in port.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 44–60.
Johnson, D. (2002). Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: A reality check.
Marine Policy, 26, 261–270.
Jolliffe, L. (2008). Book review of R.K. Dowling, cruise ship tourism. Tourism
Management, 29, 597–608.
Jones, R. (2007). Chemical contamination of a coral reef by the grounding of a
cruise ship in Bermuda. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 905–911.
Joseph, S., Yule, W., & Williams, R. (1993). Causal attributions and post-traumatic
stress in adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 34(2), 247–253.
Joseph, S., Yule, W., & Williams, R. (1995). Emotional processing in survivors of the
Jupiter cruise ship disaster. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(2(Feb)),
187–192.
Joseph, S., Yule, W., Williams, R., & Andrews, B. (1993). Crisis support in the
aftermath of disaster: A longitudinal perspective. The British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 32(2), 177–185.
Judd, D. (2006). Tracing the commodity chain of global tourism. Tourism
Geographies, 8(4), 323–336.
Kester, J. G. C. (2003). Cruise Tourism. Tourism Economics, 9(3), 337–350, [14].
Kerstetter, D. L., Yin Yen, I., & Yarnal, C. M. (2005). Plowing uncharted waters: A
study of perceived constraints to cruise travel. Tourism Analysis, 10, 137–150.
Kimes, S. (1989). Yield management: A tool for capacity-constrained service firms.
Journal of Operations Management, 8(4), 348–363.
King, J. (2005). The security of merchant shipping. Marine Policy, 29, 235–245.
Kwortnik, R. J. (2006). Carnival cruise lines: Burnishing the brand. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 286–300.
Kwortnik, R. J. (2008). Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience.
International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(4), 289–311.
Lawton, L., & Butler, R. (1987). Cruise ship industry – Patterns in the Carribeans
1880–1986. Tourism Management, 329, 343.
Lee-Ross, D. (2004). Organisational culture and cruise tourism – A ‘short life’
occupational community. Hospitality Review, 6(4), 46–53.
Lemmetyinen, A. (2009). The coordination of cooperation in strategic business
networks – The cruise baltic case. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 9(4), 366–386.
Lester, J.-A., & Weeden, C. (2004). Stakeholders, the natural environment and the
future of Carribean cruise tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6,
39–50.
Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008a). Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an
investment model perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 25–34.
Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008b). Reexamining the dimensionality of brand loyalty:
The case of the cruise industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(1),
68–85.
Liburd, J. J. (2001). Cruise tourism development in the south of St. Lucia. Tourism:
An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 49(3), 215–228.
Lindquist, L., & Golup, R. (2004). Cruise ship care: A proposed alternative to
assisted living facilities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(11),
1951–1954.
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 171

Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A., & Ruxton, T. (2004). Formal safety assessment of cruise
ships. Tourism Management, 25, 93–109.
Long, V., & Wall, G. (1996). Successful tourism in Nusa Lembongan, Indonesia?
Tourism Management, 17(1), 43–50.
McCarthy, J. (2003). The cruise industry and port city regeneration: The case of
Valletta. European Planning Studies, 11(3), 341–350.
Marti, B. (1986). Cruising: Small-vessel population characteristics. Journal of Travel
Research, 24, 25–28.
Marti, B. (1990). Geography and the cruise ship port selection process. Maritime
Policy and Management, 17(3), 157–164.
Marti, B. (1992). Passenger perceptions of cruise itineraries – A royal viking line
case study. Marine Policy, 360, 370.
Marti, B. (1995). The cruise ship vessel sanitation program. Journal of Travel
Research, 33, 29–38.
Marti, B. (2004). Trends in world and extended-length cruising (1985–2002).
Marine Policy, 28, 199–211.
Marti, B. E. (2007). Research note: Trends in Alaskan cruising. Tourism Analysis, 12,
327–334.
Mentzer, M. S. (1989). Factors affecting cruise ship fares. Transportation Journal,
29(1), 38–44.
Mescon, T., & Vozikis, G. (1985). The economic impact of the tourism at the port
of Miami. Annals of Tourism Research, 12, 515–528.
Miller, A., & Grazer, W. (2002). The North American cruise market and Australian
tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(3), 221–234.
Miller, J., Tam, T., Maloney, S., Fukuda, K., Cox, N., Hockin, J., et al. (2000).
Cruise ships: High-risk passengers and the global spread of new influenza
viruses. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 31, 433–438.
Molinero, C. M., & Mitsis, S. N. (1984). Budgeting fuel consumption in a cruise
liner. European Journal of Operational Research, 18(2), 172–184.
Morais, D. B., Kerstetter, D., & Yarnal, C. (2006). The love triangle: Loyal
relationships among providers, customers, and their friends. Journal of Travel
Research, 44(4), 379–386.
Morrison, A. M., Yang, C. H., O’Leary, J. T., & Nadkami, N. (1996). Comparative
profiles of travellers on cruises and land-based resort vacations. Journal of
Tourism Studies, 7(2), 15–27.
Moscardo, G., Morrison, A. M., Cai, L., Nadkami, N., & O’Leary, J. T. (1996).
Tourist perspectives on cruising: Multidimensional scaling analyses of cruising
and other holiday types. Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(2), 52–63.
Neri, A., Cramer, E., Vaughan, G., Vinjé, J., & Mainzer, H. (2008). Passenger
behaviors during norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships. Journal of Travel
Medicine, 15(3), 172–176.
Nilsson, P. (2008). Tourism in cold water Islands: A matter of contract?
Experiences from destination development in the polar north. Island Studies
Journal, 3(1), 97–112.
Orams, M. (2000). Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all
about?. Tourism Management, 21, 561–569.
Page, K. (1987). The future of cruise shipping. Tourism Management, 166,
168.
Page, S. (2008). Book review of T. Peisley, the future of cruising – Boom or bust.
Tourism Management, 29, 821–830.
Pakkala, L. (1990). Egyptian tourism: Cruising for growth. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 31, 56–59.
Park, S. Y., & Petrick, J. F. (2009). Examining current non-customers: A cruise
vacation case. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15, 275–293.
Pérez Arribas, F., & López Pineiro, A. (2007). Seasickness prediction in passenger
ships at the design stage. Ocean Engineering, 34, 2086–2092.
Perucic, D. (2007). The impact of globalization on supply and demand in the
cruise industry. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 13(3), 665–680.
Petrick, J. F. (2003). Measuring passengers’ perceived value. Tourism Analysis, 7,
251–258.
172 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

Petrick, J. (2004a). Are loyal visitors desired visitors?. Tourism Management, 25,
463–470.
Petrick, J. (2004b). First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value. Journal of Travel
Research, 43, 29–38.
Petrick, J. F. (2004c). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting
cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 397–407.
Petrick, J. F. (2005). Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity. Tourism
Management, 26, 753–762.
Petrick, J. F., Li, R., & Park, S. Y. (2007). Cruise passengers’ decision-making
process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1–14.
Petrick, J. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2003). Segmenting cruisers by loyalty. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(2), 472–475.
Petrick, J. F., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C. (2006). The utilization of critical incident
technique to examine cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions. Journal of
Travel Research, 44, 273–280.
Pizam, A. (2004). Are hospitality employees equipped to hide their feelings?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 315–316.
Pizam, A. (2008). Space tourism: New market opportunities for hotels and cruise
lines. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 489–490.
Polydoropolou, A., & Litinas, N. (2007). Demand models for Greek passenger
shipping. Research in Transportation Economics, 21, 297–322.
Pompl, W. (1983). The concept of animation – Aspects of tourism services. Tourism
Management, 3, 11.
Pratt, S., & Blake, A. (2009). The economic impact of Hawaii’s cruise industry.
Tourism Analysis, 14, 337–351.
Prina, L., Orazi, U., & Weber, R. (2001). Evaluation of emergency air evacuation of
critically Ill patients from cruise ships. Journal of Travel Medicine, 8, 285–292.
Qu, H., & Ping, E. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise
travelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 20,
237–244.
Raub, S., & Streit, E. (2006). Realistic recruitment: An empirical study of the cruise
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(4),
278–289.
Ritter, W., & Schafer, C. (1998). Cruise-tourism: A chance of sustainability. Tourism
Recreation Research, 23(1), 65–71.
Robbins, D. (2008). Book review of P. Gibson, cruise operations management.
Tourism Management, 29, 597–608.
Robbins, D. (2009). Book review of B.N. Christine Chin. Ashgate, cruising in the
global economy: Profits, pleasure and work at sea. Tourism Management, 30(5),
775–777.
Santangelo, R. (1984). What’s happening in the cruise industry. Journal of Travel
Research, 23, 3–5.
Scantlebury, M. (2007). Cruise ship tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3),
817–818.
Seidl, A., Fiorella, G., & Pratt, L. (2007). Cruising for colones: Cruise tourism
economics in Costa Rica. Tourism Economics, 13(1), 67–85, [19].
Shamsub, H., Albrecht, W., & Dawkins, R. (2006). Relationship between cruise-ship
tourism and stay-over tourism: A case study of the shift in the Cayman Islands’
tourism strategy. Tourism Analysis, 11, 95–104.
Shaw, M., & Leggat, P. (2008). Illness and injury to travellers on a premium
expedition to Iceland. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 6, 148–151.
Simons, M. (1990). Legal implications for cruise ships, travellers and tour
operators – An Australian experience. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 9(2), 135–141.
Sirakaya, E., Petrick, J., & Choi, H.-S. (2004). The role of mood on tourism product
evaluations. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 517–539.
Smith, S. (1988). Cruise ships: A serious threat to coral reefs and associated
organisms. Ocean and Shoreline Management, 11, 231–248.
Sobotta, B., John, M., & Nitschke, I. (2008). Cruise medicine: The dental
perspective on health care for passengers during a world cruise. Journal of
Travel Medicine, 15(1), 19–24.
 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174 173

Soyoung, B. (2008). Publications in review: Cruise ship tourism, by Ross K. Dowling

(Ed.), CABI Publishing. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 32,
137–140.
Swain, R. A., & Barth, J. E. (2002). An analysis of cruise ship rating guides.
International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3(4), 43–60.
Szarycz, G. (2008). Cruising, freighter-style: A phenomenological exploration of
tourist recollections of a passenger freighter travel experience. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 259–269.
Testa, M. (2002). Leadership dyads in the cruise industry: The impact of cultural
congruency. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21, 425–441.
Testa, M. (2004). Cultural similarity and service leadership: A look at the cruise
industry. Managing Service Quality, 14(5), 402–413.
Testa, M. (2009). National culture, leadership and citizenship: Implications for
cross-cultural management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28,
78–85.
Testa, M., Williams, J., & Pietrzak, D. (1998). The development of the cruise line
job satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of Travel Research, 36, 13–19.
Teye, V., & Leclerc, D. (1998). Product and service delivery satisfaction
among North American cruise passengers. Tourism Management, 19(2),
153–160.
Teye, V., & Leclerc, D. (2002). The white caucasian and ethnic minority cruise
markets: Some motivational perspectives. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3),
227–242.
Thomas, M. (2003). Sexual health of women working aboard cruise ships. Health
Education Journal, 62(4), 293–303.
Thompson, E. (2002). Engineered corporate culture on a cruise ship. Sociological
Focus, 35(4), 331–344.
Thompson, E. A. (2004). An orderly mess: The use of mess areas in identity
shaping of cruise ship workers. Sociological Imagination, 40(1), 15–29.
Toh, R., Rivers, M., & Ling, T. (2005). Room occupancies: Cruise lines out-do the
hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24, 121–135.
Thurau, B. B., Carver, A. D., Mangun, J. C., Basman, C. M., & Bauer, G. (2007). A
market segmentation analysis of cruise ship tourists visiting the panama canal
watershed: Opportunities for ecotourism development. Journal of Ecotourism,
6(1), 1–18.
Vanem, E., & Skjong, R. (2006). Designing for safety in passenger ships utilizing
advanced evacuation analyses – A risk based approach. Safety Science, 44,
111–135.
Véronneau, S., & Roy, J. (2009). Global service supply chains: An empirical study of
current practices and challenges of a cruise line corporation. Tourism
Management, 30(1), 128–139.
Vogel, M. (2009). The economics of US cruise companies’ European brand
strategies. Tourism Economics, 15(4), 735–751.
Weaver, A. (2005a). Interactive service work and performance metaphors – The
case of the cruise industry. Tourist Studies, 5, 5–27.
Weaver, A. (2005). The McDonaldization Thesis and Cruise Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(2), 346–366.
Whitney, G., Keith, S., & Kolar, I. (2005). Independent mobility for blind and
partially sighted people traveling by large passenger ships. International
Congress Series, 1282, 1094–1098.
Wie, B.-W. (2005). A dynamic game model of strategic capacity investment in the
cruise line industry. Tourism Management, 26, 203–217.
Wilkinson, P. (2005). Book review of A.A. Berger, ocean travel and cruising: A
cultural analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 503–505.
Wood, R. (2000). Carribean cruise tourism – Globalization at sea. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(2), 345–370.
Yarnal, C., Kerstetter, D., & Yen, I.-Y. (2005). So why haven’t you taken a cruise
lately?. Tourism Review International, 8(3), 281–296.
Yarnal, C., & Kerstetter, D. (2005). Casting off: An exploration of cruise ship space,
group tour behavior, and social interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 43,
368–379.
174 A. Papathanassis, I. Beckmann / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 153–174

Papathanassis, A., & Gibson, P. (2009). Cruise Sector Futures: Exploring Growth-
Related Opportunities and Challenges, 1st International Cruise Conference,
26–27 September 2008, Bremerhaven. International Journal of Tourism Research,
11(1), 105–106.
Wild, P., & Dearing, J. (2000). Development of and Prospects for Cruising in
Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 27(4), 315–333.

Submitted 10 February 2010. Final version 7 June 2010. Accepted 23 June 2010. Refereed
anonymously. Coordinating Editor: James Petrick

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com