Cruiselines have marketed their product exceptionally well and they do generate considerable economic activity. The cruise sector continues to be amongst the fastest growing sectors in an overall fast growing tourism marketplace. The cruise companies have also marketed to the destinations exceptionally well, with the underlying thrust that there is significant economic advantage to destinations.
However, this is not so clear and may be quite a similar economic relationship as with all-inclusive resorts where it is the resorts together with in-house food & drink that capture most of the in-destination spend. In the tourism industry, the biggest revenue share and profit accrues to mostly foreign owned airlines, cruiselines and major hotel chains. Local economic impact may be, in a word, over-stated.
Ever since the birth of this industry, cruise companies have been negotiating from a position of strength. Their almost complete domination of the cruise market from the ships, to the selling of ancillary products to the control of services at the destination does not leave very much room for any competitor to offer services, or sub-contractor for that matter. The cruiselines have made sure to cater to nearly all cruise passenger needs. Even discretionary purchases are offered within the constellation of cruiseline businesses. However, some observers are starting to challenge this dominance: "Ports too often perceive that they need the cruise ships more than the cruiselines need them, but in fact there is a mutual need. Ports have not yet realised that with the recent expansion of the cruise industry, cruiselines need new ports as much if not more than the ports need them." (Brida, 2007)
Visits by cruise ship can be a contentious issue. As an example, Loop News reported in 2022 that one island, Anguilla continues to shun cruise tourism. The article states: "Tourism officials say that the revenue generated from cruise tourism is not worth the environmental impact".
Further to this, "Mr. [Hayden] Hughes [Anguilla's Minister of Tourism ] told reporters that cruise tourism is not good for Anguilla, which has positioned itself “in a particular sphere where you want to have the high end tourism features which actually make a lot more revenue for the destination than cruise ship visits. ... Mr. Hughes further remarked ... "that upwards of 90% of revenue generated by passengers is retained by the cruise ships alone, and it is widely known that the highest spending in the islands amounts to less than $180 per passenger. Also, the Minister observed that cruise tourism would not benefit areas that depend heavily on tourism, such as taxis, since the cruise companies usually contract their own transportation providers. Neither would cruise tourism benefit restaurants since cruise tourists spend only a few hours on the island, and most of them return to the ship for lunch." ("Minister of Tourism says "NO" to Cruise Tourism, The Anguillian, September 27, 2022)
In Key West, a 2014 referendum to widen the cruise ship channel was defeated. "A city bid to seek a U.S. Army Corps of Engineering feasibility study was opposed by 74% of Key West's 25,000 residents when put to a referendum in October". (Ports of Contention, Travel Weekly, 2014) One resident went further in stating: "People think if we build it they will come, but people should wake up and finally realize the best thing we have going is the natural environment," Will Benson said, "We need to protect and support that". (Key West draws a line in the water over a wider cruise-ship harbor by Cammy Clark, Miami Herald, 2013, $$) This was again put to the test in 2020 with more referenda to limit cruise visits.
In Belize, the local authority asked for, and got, a concession from cruiselines that cruise ships must shutdown on-board services and amenities while in-port resulting in a very high passenger disembarkation rate. "[T]he Policy's requirement that cruise ships shut down their onboard entertainment activities (including restaurants) while in port appears to have helped increase the percentage of passengers coming ashore". (Cruise Tourism in Belize: Perceptions of Economic, Social & Environmental Impact, CREST, 2006)
Even the cruise companies are looking at this sector to discover new ways to market it. To re-iterate, "Carnival UK's Gerard Tempest said: "I just wonder whether third parties have been in our blind spot and we have let some of those parties eat our lunch. We, and I daresay some other cruiselines, are wondering about our traditional model of offering shore excursions and tours. How fit for the future is it? And is there another model we could look at?" (Carnival UK questions how lines sell port excursions by Hollie-Rae Merrick, Travel Weekly, May 29, 2014)
In spite of this apparent oversight, the advantage to local populations from cruise calls appears limited and leakages remain very high. The same study in Belize concludes that "[d]espite a dramatic rise in the numbers of cruise visitors, Belizians have not benefitted from the increased popularity of their destination". Generally, the perception amongst local people is that there is low to no possibility to either gain employment or to offer services to the cruise ship clientele because most of their needs are already being catered to.
Residents are embittered that the promise of economic activity seems to be nothing more than a catchphrase devoid of meaning. It is not unheard of for local merchants to be openly hostile to visitors who do not make any purchases. There appears to be very little opportunity forthcoming to alter this view but this may be slowly changing. Local suppliers, at best, have only managed a few nibbles from the buffet tables laid out for the cruiselines, with the tip jar at the end. They continue to profit handsomely from these sales. Consider, in fact, it may be a 'free' lunch as the destinations capture very low taxes and docking fees to pay for the necessary infrastructure and other costs, such as cleaning, refurbishment or repairs.
From the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism survey in 2018: During the 2017/2018 cruise year: "As shown in Table ES-3, data collected from the participating destinations indicated that there were 20,058,000 cruise passengers and 17,240,500 that disembarked, and visited, the 22 Caribbean destinations. (Table 4) These passengers spent $2.37B USD for shore excursions and other goods and services during the 2017/2018 cruise year in the Caribbean destinations. Average per passenger expenditures ranged from a low of $3.5MM in Trinidad to a high of $405.8MM in The Bahamas and averaged $92.63 per passenger visit across the 22 Caribbean destinations." This is the most recent study available.
The most popular expenditure continues to be for shore excursions but less than half (45.7%) of all passengers during the 2017/2018 cruise year made such a purchase. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the passengers that went ashore in the 22 destinations purchased a shore excursion. About 73% of passengers who purchased a tour did so through their cruiseline, 20% purchased their tour onshore with 6.7% purchasing their tour from their travel agents or by other means. Actual reported average spending for shore excursions by source is as follows: cruiselines - $68.84; travel agents/other - $59.86; and onshore tour operators - $30.73. During the 2017/2018 cruise year the 'Local Effective Price of a Tour' was $44.71 per passenger*. (Table 6)
Local tour operators received an average of $30.73 per passenger directly from cruise passengers and cruiselines. (Average actual spend/passenger visit) The typical cruise party that purchased a shore excursion spent $148.73 for their tour. The typical cruise party consisted of 2.04 passengers and spent an average of 4.4 hours ashore. (pg 21) Cruise ship visitors spent about $552.9MM on shore excursions in the Caribbean destinations in the 2017/2018 season. This represents 23.3% of passenger spend in the Caribbean destinations, down from 34.7% in the 2014/2015 survey. This is partially due to an increase from 15% to 20% of visiting passengers who purchased their tour after arriving in port instead of from a travel agency. The 2017/2018 cruise year is defined as "the 12-month period beginning in May, 2017 and ending in April, 2018".
During the 2017-2018 season, the four ports with the highest passenger expenditures are: The Bahamas, $405.8MM, Jamaica $244.5MM, Cayman Islands, $224.5MM and US Virgin Islands, $184.7MM. Total expenditures for these islands: $1,059.5MM out of a total passenger expenditures of $2.37B or 44.8%. Jamaica displaced St Maarten in the top 4 category.
The remainder, $1,306.2MM is parcelled out to the other 18 destinations. Of this amount, Puerto Rico received $151.1MM. So, the remaining 17 destinations were in receipt of a split of $1,155.0MM total spending. (Table 5) During the 2017-2018 season, these 17 islands welcomed 10,281,000 visiting passengers for an average of 547,206 passenger visits/per island*. Average expenditure per passenger visit: $84.03. About 55% of passengers purchased a tour visiting these 17 islands compared to 51% in the top four islands. (Table 1) Approximately 14% of arriving passengers, (or 2.8MM) did not leave the ship. (Table 2) In addition, during the 2017-2018 season, 16 islands welcomed 1.75MM visiting crew for an average of 97,200 crew visits/per island*. Average expenditure: $54. Data shows that money spent for tours by crew was $11.7MM in all destinations, less than 2% of all money spent on tours. (Table 10)
Data was drawn from a survey of cruise passengers and crew conducted by BREA consultants for the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. A total of 36,347 passenger and crew surveys were completed between the beginning of October 2017 and the end of May 2018 in these 22 destinations. Currency is USD.
17 Destinations are: Antigua & Barbuda, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Puerto Rico (San Juan), St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, Tobago, Trinidad and Turks and Caicos. 16 Destinations excludes Puerto Rico.
The study states: "Direct comparisons with earlier studies are not exact, as the number and mix of participating destinations (36) differs from prior studies." (pg 8)
From the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism survey in 2015: During the 2014/2015 cruise year: "As shown in Table 1, data collected from the participating destinations indicated that there were 20,267,300 cruise passengers and 17,931,200 that disembarked, and visited, the 23 Caribbean destinations. (Table 4) These passengers spent $1.9B USD for shore excursions and other goods and services during the 2014/2015 cruise year. Average per passenger expenditures ranged from a low of $42.58 in Trinidad to a high of $191.26 in St. Maarten and averaged $86.97* per passenger visit across the 23 destinations." Total expenditures by passengers and crew amounted to 2.48B USD.
The most popular expenditure was for shore excursions with more than half (53%) of all passengers making such a purchase at each destination. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the passengers that went ashore purchased a shore excursion. Over 73% of passengers who purchased a tour did so through their cruiseline, 15% purchased their tour onshore and nearly 12% purchased their tour through their travel agents or other means. (Table 5) Actual reported average spending for shore excursions by source is as follows: cruiselines - $72.10; travel agents/other - $62.69; and onshore tour operators - $32.36. During the 2014/2015 cruise year the 'Local Effective Price of a Tour' was $44.37 per passenger per visit. (Table 6)
Local tour operators received an average of $32.36 per passenger directly from cruise passengers and cruiselines. (Average actual spend/passenger visit) The typical cruise party that purchased a shore excursion spent $144.13 for their tour. (pg 18) The typical cruise party consisted of 2.04 passengers and spent an average of 4.38 hours ashore. (pg 17) Cruise ship visitors spent about $660.6MM on shore excursions in the Caribbean destinations in the 2014/2015 season. This represents 34.7% of passenger spend in the Caribbean destinations. The 2014/2015 cruise year is defined as "the 12-month period beginning in May, 2014 and ending in April, 2015".
During the 2014-2015 season, the four ports with the highest passenger expenditures are: St Maarten ($422.9MM), Bahamas, mainly Nassau and Freeport, $373.1MM, US Virgin Islands, 344.3MM and Cayman Islands, $207.6MM. Total expenditures for these islands: $1,347.9MM out of a total passenger expenditures of $2.48B or 54.4%. The remainder, $1,130.6MM is parcelled out to the other 19 destinations. (Table 5) During the 2014-2015 season, these 19 destinations welcomed 9.85 MM visiting passengers for an average of 518,463 passenger visits/per island*. Average expenditure per passenger visit for these 19 destinations was $76.86. An average of 57.5% of passengers purchased a tour compared to 61.3% in the top three islands. Excluded from this sample were Cayman Islands because only 24.8% of disembarked passengers bought a tour. (Table 1) Approximately 2.33 MM of arriving passengers, or 12% did not leave the ship. (Table 2) In addition, during the 2014-2015 season, these 19 islands also welcomed 4.22MM visiting crew for an average of 221,847 crew visits/per island*. Average expenditure: $56.52. Data shows that money spent by crew for tours in all destinations was $16.97MM, or 2.5% of all money spent on tours. (Table 10)
Data was drawn from a survey of cruise passengers conducted by BREA consultants for the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. A total of 41,985 passenger surveys were completed between the beginning of October 2014 and the end of May 2015. Currency is USD.
19 Destinations are: Antigua & Barbuda, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Puerto Rico (San Juan), St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, Tobago, Trinidad and Turks and Caicos.
From the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (F-CCA) Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism survey in 2012: During the 2011/2012 cruise year: "As shown in Table ES-3, data collected from the participating destinations indicated that 15.44 million cruise passengers that disembarked cruise ships visited the destinations. These passengers spent $1.48 billion for shore excursions and other goods and services during the 2011/2012 cruise year. Average per passenger expenditures ranged from a low of $27.10 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines to a high of $185.40 in St. Maarten and averaged $95.92 per passenger visit across the 21 destinations."
The most popular expenditure was for shore excursions with almost half (49.1%) of all passengers making such a purchase at each destination.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of the passengers that went ashore purchased a shore excursion. Nearly 75% of passengers who purchased a tour did so through their cruiseline, 15.5% purchased their tour onshore and nearly 10% purchased their tour through their travel agents or other means.
Actual reported average spending for shore excursions by source is as follows: cruiselines - $57.05; travel agents/other - $49.61; and onshore tour operators - $24.80.
During the 2011/2012 cruise year the weighted average amount paid directly to either tour operators or taxi drivers was $36.41 per passenger per visit.
The typical cruise party that purchased a shore excursion spent $123.20 for their tour.
The typical cruise party consisted of 2.1 passengers and spent an average of 4.2 hours ashore. (pages 9 and 14)
Cruise ship visitors spent a total of $270.7MM on shore excursions. This represents 18.2% of all spending.
The 2011/2012 cruise year is defined as "the 12-month period beginning in May, 2011 and ending in April, 2012".
During the 2011-2012 season, the four ports with the highest passenger expenditures are: St Maarten ($294.1MM), US Virgin Islands, mainly St Thomas ($263.5MM), Bahamas, mainly Nassau and Freeport, ($241.5MM) and San Juan ($131.4MM). Total expenditures for these islands: $930.5MM out of a total passenger expenditures of $1.48B or 62.9%. The remainder, $550.7MM is parcelled out to the other 17 destinations. Of this amount, Cayman Islands received $121.5MM. So, 16 destinations were in receipt of a split of $429.2MM or $26.83MM average total passenger spending per island. Data from: Total Cruise Tourism Expenditures ($US Millions) (Data from: Table 5)
During the 2011-2012 season, the bottom 16 islands welcomed 5,924,000 visiting passengers for an average of 370,250 passenger visits/per island*. Average expenditure per passenger visit: $67.04. Interestingly, 58.8% of passengers purchased a tour compared to only 44.3% in the top four islands. Excluded from this sample were Cayman Islands where 55.9% bought a tour. (Data from: Table 1)
Approximately 12.1% of arriving passengers, (or 1,868,240) did not leave the ship. (Data from: Table 2)
In addition, during the 2011-2012 season, 16 islands welcomed 2,738,200 visiting crew for an average of 171,114 crew visits/per island*. Average expenditure: $58.24. Data show only 3.4% of money spent for tours was by crew but the spend per crew was impressive: $106.27. (A crew member may have bought more than one tour per location.) (Data from: Table 10)
Data was drawn from a survey of cruise passengers conducted by BREA consultants for the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. A total of 28,822 passenger surveys were completed between the beginning of December 2011 and the end of May 2012.
From the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism survey in 2009: During the 2008/2009 cruise year: "As shown in Table ES-3, the 17.56 million cruise passengers that disembarked cruise ships and visited the 29 participating destinations spent $1.71 billion for shore excursions and other goods and services during the 2008/2009 cruise year. Average per passenger expenditures ranged from a low of $33.50 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines to a high of $193.22 in the U.S. Virgin Islands and averaged $97.26 across the 29 destinations." This amount was down from the 1999/2000 average cruise passenger spending per port of $103.81. The amount for the 2005/2006 season was $98.01.
The most popular expenditure was for shore excursions with an average of 52% of all passengers making such a purchase at each destination.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the passengers that went ashore purchased a shore excursion. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of passengers who purchased a tour did so through their cruiseline, 17.7% purchased their tour onshore and nearly 5% purchased their tour through their travel agent.
Actual reported average spending for shore excursions by source is as follows: cruiselines - $57.37; travel agents - $77.56; and onshore tour operators - $21.21.
During the 2008/2009 cruise year the weighted average amount paid directly to either tour operators or taxi drivers was $22.26 per passenger per visit.
Local tour operators received an average of $35.78 per passenger directly from cruise passengers and cruiselines. (Average actual spend/passenger visit)
The typical cruise party that purchased a shore excursion spent $119 for their tour.
The typical cruise party consisted of 2.1 passengers and spent an average of 4.3 hours ashore. (pages 8 and 13)
The 2008/2009 cruise year is defined as "the 12-month period from May, 2008 through April, 2009". (pg 3)
* Throughout these reports, arrivals are distinguished from visits. Arrivals are the number of passengers (crew) onboard cruise ships that call at each destination. Visits are the number of passengers (crew) that disembark and visit each destination. The concentration in this discussion is on the insular Caribbean.
What can be drawn from these numbers?
The shore excursion marketplace is substantial. In the Caribbean, where the cruise tourism business comprises more than a third of worldwide cruise tourism business. There are more than 17 million passengers disembarking annually into Caribbean ports of call. This is nearly 75% of the land-based stay-over tourism business that these islands receive. It is a potential source for the coveted stay-over market and is, therefore, a market that cannot be overlooked by any destination. Cruiselines, indeed, are largely responsible for having developed this market. These companies own this business and they are jealously guarding it. However, in reality, some very large gaps in the way that economic activity is reported by BREA/F-CCA leaves the evaluation open to serious questioning. In addition, very few cruise visitors turn into stay-over visitors.
The value of visitor spend across various BREA/F-CCA studies appears to be fairly consistent, on average between US $85 and $100 per port call being the representative amount. Generally, around half to two-thirds of the amount that the visitor spends in-destination is for gifts or souvenirs purchased at these 'tourist malls' and some for food & drink. The amount spent, however can vary quite dramatically between ports. On the face, this would appear to be a significant amount. What is not shown, and is therefore less well known, is how much of this spend returns to the cruiseline in the form of commissions, fees, profit, rents and so on. For example, the port facilities are usually the first site the visitor sees upon disembarking and, in many cases, these are owned by the cruiselines. They charge a rent to the retail outlets in them but these rents are not accounted for in calculating in-destination tourist spend.
The visitor also spends between 25 - 35% on purchases of shore excursions, with around half of passengers that go ashore purchasing tours. However, the amount paid varies dramatically, depending on who sold the excursion and, again, on the port. Usually, the cruiselines negotiate with local tour guides to offer tours to their passengers. In many cases, the final price is barely enough to give the tour guide a decent return for his/her time. The cruiseline then marks up this amount by a margin to resell to the passenger, the mark-up varies but may be 75%, 100%, or more. As well, the tour guide is restricted from selling tours to other passengers and would be forced to run the tour, regardless of how many seats have been sold.
The average spend amongst the Caribbean island ports of $92.63 in 2018 is below the average amount spent ($101.52) in all destinations, including those in central America. The highest total amounts spent continue to be in calls closer to American homeports. Given that a tour might have cost anywhere from $31 to the $69 that most passengers who did take a tour paid to the cruiseline. This only leaves, on average, between $24 to about $62 for other purchases in many of these places.
It is also worth mentioning that the cruiseline markup on the tour of $38, or so, is included in this total spend, so the return back to the cruiseline is already quite large. To put it another way, this is why the numbers cannot be taken as verbatim as this would seem to be saying that the real dollar that goes into local coffers is probably closer to $55 in many destinations. Much of this is on souvenirs, and so on, bought from the merchants in the port malls who, to reiterate, still need to pay the commissions, fees and rents out of any profit they might make.
Over time, destinations, particularly in poor, developing countries appear to be less and less receptive to the brand of tourism that cruise tourism represents. All-inclusive resorts and cruise ships, are more and more being seen as predatory with very little benefit to local people. Local populations are becoming completely disillusioned about the prosperity that cruise companies, and their own governments have been promising for decades, but has yet to be delivered.
The reason for this can be easily demonstrated by the numbers shown above. In this example, in 2018, a tour guide delivering a tour to a single passenger, was paid by the cruiseline, on average, about $31. The cruise company then sold this product, unaltered, for about $69, on average, hence the markup of $38. Because competition is so fierce, taxi drivers and tour guides selling directly to visitors on arrival, on average, were paid significantly less for delivering a nearly identical service. This is a key profit centre for the cruiselines which make a huge markup but do not actually deliver the service, instead relying on local suppliers as 'sub' or 'co' contractors.
So, quite telling is that cruise ship visitors spent about $552.9MM on shore excursions in 2018, considerably below the amount of $660.6MM from 2015, calculated using the study's own data. The proportion of tours purchased by crew has also decreased from $16.97MM in 2015 to $11.7MM in 2018.
And, the proportion of purchases has shifted away from travel agents to direct purchases. The much higher percentage of cruise visitors (20% vs 15%) buying tours after disembarking (2018 vs 2015). On the other hand, the cruiselines have maintained their 73% share of tour purchases showing that their own customers continue to buy the cruiselines' equivocations about 'safety'. The proportion of passengers choosing to stay on board increased from 12% to 14% from 2015 to 2018. This represents an increase from 2.3MM to around 2.8MM passengers who are not interested in any kind of in-destination marketing.
Also, during the time that the F-CCA has been publishing their surveys, the time spent by visiting passengers in-destination has barely budged, about 4.4 hours. The tours purchased must only be half-day tours because taxi drivers and tour guides know that to get the passengers back to the ship on time is set. The numbers of passengers going ashore as well as buying tours has remained surprisingly constant during the several years these studies represent. The dip to less than half (45.7%) in 2018 may indicate a longer term trend. This would especially be true when considering that many cruisers are repeats.
This has the potential to work against the cruiselines as local people are becoming more hostile to the visitors that these enterprises deliver to their shores. While there is a tacit acceptance that cruise tourism is a 'necessary evil', there is also the awareness that the disembarked passenger leaves very little money trickling into local hands. Call it post-colonial, globalised business, leakage, or whatever but only a select few, in-destination, are getting any richer.
From the passengers' point of view, it would be easy to blame the local people, as one author observed, "Dissatisfied passengers are more likely to blame the tour operator or the port than the cruiseline from which the tour is purchased". (Raluca, 2008) But this is missing the real underlying tectonics of why the seas may be restless. Butler's model of the tourism life-cycle showed that deterioration of a site is associated with the site's popularity. However, this degradation is also a result of the neglect of destinations by the companies using them, and after discarding them, onto other golden shores. But this is starting to become less possible, as the world is getting low on fresh, unblemished sites with tourism potential.
Destinations should note that a small, perhaps insignificant, percentage will return as stay-over visitors. In other words, the coveted return visitor is not a sure thing. It is highly contentious whether these visitors may decide to return to the destination. It is not known what proportion of the market would visit the destination, with or without a cruise stop-over. Importantly, the cruise type of visitor, like the all-inclusive customer, may only be interested in cruising and may not even be a potential market. It is also questionable whether the stop-over visit may actually deter some passengers from returning, negating any advantage of the cruise ship visit.
Destinations must put their best face forward, no question, but whether the money invested in attracting cruise visitors to their places with the 'hope' they will return may be better spent elsewhere. The data are showing that cruise stop-over visits show very little potential to become long-stay visitors. (See: Cruise Tourism in Belize: Perceptions of Economic, Social & Environmental Impact, CREST, 2006)
Recent developments by the cruiselines have created the 'private islands', such as Paradise Island or Harvest Quay. Cruiselines are using these owned and operated sites as a way to displace other Caribbean destinations. In doing so, the cruiselines exert near complete control over the passenger activity and spending in these sites.
It is problematic that, after several decades of delivering high volume tourism, the destinations that all-inclusive or cruise tourism depend on are still relatively impoverished. It is abundantly clear that there is very little sharing of the wealth. What cruiselines, and other tourism businesses, need to come to terms with is how to better share the economic benefits that their businesses have created and then to improve the relationship with destinations and, importantly, the people who live in them. In turn, the objective will be to reduce the negative social impacts and also the environmental consequences that these styles of mass tourism bring.
The entire set of data in these reports are based on surveys that passengers and crew completed after visiting a destination. The 2018 report states:
"To develop estimates of the typical or average expenditures of cruise passengers and crew during their onshore visit, surveys were conducted onboard ships of the FCCA member cruise line ... The passenger and crew surveys were designed to collect data for onshore spending and visit satisfaction by both passengers and crew ... The survey schedule was designed to generate a representative sample of cruise passengers by cruise line at each destination ... On any given cruise itinerary, passengers and crew were surveyed following a single call. ... At the conclusion of the cruise, the surveys were returned to BREA for tabulation.". (2018 study, pg 10)
In the 22 island destinations included, along with Belize, the complete set of 2018 BREA/F-CCA report data is based on 36,347 passenger and crew surveys that were returned. (Table 2) These are the destinations that are the Caribbean Tourism Organisation member countries. From a population of 17,240,500 passengers and 2,971,800 crew who went ashore, according to BREA data, this represents about 1.8% of this population. So, the entire report in 2018, for example, was extrapolated based on the passenger or crew responses that appeared in the completed surveys. Response to the survey is voluntary and is done by the individual without any oversight by the cruiseline. We don't know how long after the visit that the survey was completed, it might have been same day, or up to a week later.
It may be possible to conclude that a broad set of data in the report is dependant on the accuracy of responses that these individuals made. With such a small sample size, any inaccuracy would become quite noticable but we can't know this from the way the reported data is shown. There are no stated ranges of results, error factors or confidence intervals or any such provision for error that may creep into a report based on survey responses. The reported data is shown as authoritative but, the fact is, we can't know this with any certainty. There are no other reports or data to corroborate this information.
Samples of the surveys are shown starting on page 37 of the report. It should also be noted that, it appears, no reference to the requirement to complete a survey was made before disembarking. The questions about expenditures do not ask to show receipts, or any validation, and are therefore answered based on individual memory. While it is assumed that the responses are accurate, again, there is no way to know.
Aggregated into the above are data from local authorities about economic activity. The economic data included the following:
According to the report, "These economic impact models are a statistical representation of each destination’s economy and were used to estimate the flow of the total cruise tourism expenditures through each destination’s economy". (pg 35)
The notations, 'as available', 'statistical representation' and 'estimate' are important and effectively become disclaimers. Generally, local statistical authorities aggregate data for tourism arrivals but most usually don't make available up to date information about spending by visitors or by cruise visitors as a separate data point. Sales data from any business that sells to cruise visitors, including retail outlets or tour guides, and so on, may be available to the cruiselines but is not included here.
The Bahamas, Ministry of Tourism Research and Statistics Dept. Their data shows cruise visitor expenditures for calendar 2018 at $354.2MM. There is no monthly breakdown. (https://www.tourismtoday.com/sites/default/files/expenditure_by_quarter_2019_and_2018.pdf)
The 2018 BREA report states expenditures at $405.75MM in The Bahamas for the year from May 2017 to April 2018.
Cayman Islands. Data shows 0.96MM arrivals for 2018 (Jan - Jun) with expenditures of $94.1MM. No full year report is available. (https://www.visitcaymanislands.com/statistics/biannual2018/index.html#page20)
2017 data shows 1.73MM passengers with 1.56MM onshore visits and $154.0MM in spending. (https://www.visitcaymanislands.com/Visitcaymanislands.com/media/Documents/2017AnnualReport.pdf, pg 9)
The 2018 BREA report states arrivals at 1.86MM, visitors at 1.64MM and expenditures in the Cayman Islands at $224.54MM for the year from May 2017 to April 2018.
Differences in the way data is reported between these two countries, as examples, shows the problem about how accurate any reporting about economic activity can be.
All in all, caution may well be advised in the use of this data as an authoritative source of estimates of economic activity. Reliance on an outside source, with its own clear vested interests, leaves an enormous gap in verifying reliability. There are no corroborating sources to confirm the accuracy of these numbers and the reports make no mention of whether they are audited or verified. Governments and tourism authorities need to conduct their own data capture in order to know what the true economic activity is and whether these reports are reliable.
Also, it should be noted, these reports are a compilation of 'gross' economic activity without factoring in any costs associated with this activity on behalf of destinations. Included should be whether the return of taxes, landing fees and so on actually re-imburse destinations for their efforts. Cost of infrastructure, port handling costs and so on.
If any realistic assessment of sustainability or evaluation of the actual value of economic activity of cruise tourism is to be made then governments and tourism authorities also need to include the cost of delivering related services in order to arrive at a final calculation of 'net' benefit.