Article Title PageCruise Passengers’ Satisfaction: Cartagena de IndiasAuthor DetailsAuthor 1 Name: Juan Gabriel BridaDepartment: School of Economics & ManagementUniversity/Institution: Free University of BolzanoTown/City: BolzanoCountry: ItalyAuthor 2 Name: Nicolás GarridoDepartment: Departamento de EconomíaUniversity/Institution: Universidad Católica del NorteTown/City: AntofagastaCountry: ChileAuthor 3 Name: María Jesús Such DevesaDepartment: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y EmpresarialesUniversity/Institution: Universidad de AlcaláTown/City: MadridCountry: SpainCorresponding author: María Jesús Such DevesaCorresponding Author’s Email: email@example.comAcknowledgments (if applicable): n/aBiographical Details (if applicable): Juan Gabriel Brida, PhD in Economics, he teaches Mathematics and Tourism Economics.His research interests include Tourism Economics and Growth Economics.Nicolás Garrido, PhD in Economics, he teaches Economics. His research interests are Tourism Economics and RegionalEconomics.María Jesús Such Devesa, PhD in Economics, she teaches Applied Economics and her researches focus on Tourism Economics.Structured Abstract: Purpose - This paper aims to explain the onshore satisfaction of cruise passengers in the port of call ofCartagena de Indias using a questionnaire given to 1,361 passengers of 28 cruise ships during October and November of 2009.Design/methodology/approach - Factor analysis and cluster analysis.Findings - The results suggest that although visitors held a high overall satisfaction of the onshore experience, there are twodimensions that require the attention of tourist policy makers: the city infrastructure (traffic, noise, cleanliness and infrastructure) andthe general shopping experience. In particular, the worst experience seems to be related to street vendors. Moreover, there isevidence that tourists from the United States of America are more exigent of being fully satisfied.Research limitations/implications - The survey contained was only conducted in the months of October and November. Futureresearch can also include the repetition of the study in different seasons and compare with our results. The study shows that there isa good potential for the growth of tourism activity of the destination because over 52% of the participants declared their intention ofreturn to the city as land tourists and more than 60% will recommend the destination to their friends.Originality/value - The application of known methodologies to an emergent destination in which many stakeholders are involvedand concerned about cruise tourism evolution and its effects on the destination.Keywords: Customer services quality, Tourism managementArticle Classification: Case studyFor internal production use onlyRunning Heads:
Cruise Passengers’ Satisfaction: Cartagena de Indias1. Introduction The cruise tourism industry has been the fastest growing segment of the global travelsector, with an average annual growth rate of passengers of 7.4% for the period of 1990-2007(see Brida and Zapata (2010), Dowling (2006) and Cruise Lines International Association(2010)). This growth in cruise tourism is expected to continue into the future, as only a smallproportion of the population that has the resources to take a cruise have done so (Chase andMcKee, 2003). Nevertheless, this fact is a changing reality. This form of tourism accounts foronly about 2% of the worldwide total leisure tourists, but the numbers have been increasingrapidly: from about 4 million people who took a cruise vacation in 1990 to more than 14million in 2009 (Brida and Zapata, 2010). Cruises represent the following paradigms ofglobalization: physical mobility, international capital that can be relocated anywhere and atany time, crews coming from different countries in the same ship, no national or internationalregulations and marine registrations that are optimally selected. A cruise ship can beconsidered a destination itself. It represents all four facets of the tourism industry:transportation, accommodation (including food and beverages), attractions and touroperators. Thirteen million people took a cruise in 2008, with the industry predicting that morethan 30 million people will do so in 2015 (Cruise Lines International Association, 2010). Cruisetourism can benefit a destination by increasing or improving foreign exchange earnings, profitand taxes, employment, positive externalities and economies of scale (Dwyer and Forsyth,1998). From another point of view, cruise tourism requires less infrastructure compared tostopover tourism at a tourist destination (McKee, 1998). The rapid expansion of the cruise industry has produced considerable research interestover the last decade. This research considers several studies on cruise passengers’segmentation, motivation, satisfaction and behavior related to the cruise tourism experiencebut not studies on destinations (Clancy (2008); Diedrich (2010); Duman and Mattila (2005);Henderson (2009); Ikeda and Jaswar (2002); Johansson and Naslund (2009); Kwortnik (2006and 2008); Macpherson (2008); McCarthy (2003); Lemmetyinen and Go (2010); Li and Petrick(2008 and 2010); Lobo (2009); Miller and Grazer (2002 and 2003); Park and Petrick (2009);Petrick (2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005); Petrick and Sirakaya (2004); Petrick and Li (2006); Petricket al. (2006, 2007); Pratt and Blake (2009), Teye and Leclerc (2002); Vogel (2009); Weaver(2005); Yarnal and Kerstetter (2005)). There are fewer studies on cruise passengers’satisfaction with a visit to a particular destination, the intentions of a cruise passenger ofreturning to a port of call as a land tourist or the different impacts of cruise tourism in aparticular destination (Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2010); Braun et al (2002); Dwyer et al.(2004); Chase and McKee (2003); Gabe et al. (2006); Hannarong et al. (2006); Hosany andWitham (2010) Seidl et al. (2006, 2007)). The research on tourist satisfaction in the cruise industry is analyzed in two differentand complementary contexts: tourist satisfaction on board and tourist satisfaction in a port ofcall. Most of the published work has been focused on the former area of research, in whichsocial interaction, spatial distribution and services are well defined. For instance, Kwortnik(2006 and 2008) explored how the leisure cruise service environment, the “shipscape”, affectsthe cruiser’s emotions and onboard behavior. The author showed that the serviceenvironment is fundamental for the onboard satisfaction of customers. Yarnal and Kerstetter(2005) analyzed how social interaction in a group vacation in a cruise ship space might createmore meaningful passenger experiences. The authors made suggestions about making playful
spaces on the cruise ship to enhance customer satisfaction. In this line, Duman and Mattila(2005) proposed that consumers’ affective responses are directly related to perceived value inhighly experiential service settings, such as cruising. Petrick (2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005),Petrick and Li (2006) and Petrick et al. (2006, 2007) showed, using structural equations andother techniques, that the SERV-PERVAL factors of perceived quality, emotional response,monetary price, behavioral price and reputation are related to cruise passengers post-cruisecognitive assessments of perceived value, satisfaction, and intentions to repurchase. The workdone by Hosany and Witham (2010) identified the underlying dimensions of cruisers’experiences and their relationships with cruisers’ satisfaction and intention to recommend. Forinstance, they found that females value entertainment, esthetics and escapism more thanmales, and young guests (30 and younger), compared to the other age segments, findentertainment as the most important dimension. Moreover, the authors concluded thatoverall, cruisers expect a fun, relaxing get-away experience with plenty of excitement. Theseresults can be used by cruise management to understand the diverse nature of cruisers’experiences and create a more tailored environment. Tourist satisfaction in a port of embarkation, disembarkation or a port of call hasreceived less attention than cruise passengers’ satisfaction. Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis(2010) studied cruise ship passengers’ motivation, satisfaction and likelihood of return to theport of Heraklion in Greece. They employed a self-completed questionnaire with Likert-typescale questions to analyze motivation and satisfaction. The highest satisfaction was expressedfor the feeling of personal safety and security, followed by the friendliness of local residentsand attitude of local shopkeepers and staff. On the other extreme, the lowest satisfaction wasexpressed about the time available on the island. Gabe et al. (2006) analyzed 568 surveys filledout by ship passengers that visited Bar Harbor in 2002 and concluded that respondents’ placeof residence in relation to the port has a negative effect on the likelihood of return. Moreover,time available in the port was also expressed as being correlated with tourist satisfaction. In the present study, we investigate the satisfaction of cruise passengers with theirvisit to Cartagena de Indias to identify the main factors influencing their experience at thedestination. We describe different aspects of the experience of the cruise passengers at thedestination to understand the levels of satisfaction considering various factors. In addition to the economic impact, cruise activity can provide a destination with anadditional benefit of showcasing the touristic attractions to thousands of people who mayreturn as independent land tourists. In fact, this argument is generally used by policy makersto give incentives to the cruise lines in order to be a port of call of their routes. During the visitto a cruise destination, passengers have the opportunity to experience the attractions of thearea, and the level of the passengers’ satisfaction with the visit may influence the likelihood ofa return visit. This possibility indicates that it is necessary for administrators and officials atcruise destinations to study onshore satisfaction of cruise passengers visiting the destination.Destination managers, local governments and policy makers in Cartagena de Indias can profitfrom this information by formulating private and public development and marketing strategiesfor cruise tourism. Satisfied tourists are more likely to return to the same destination and aremore willing to share their positive traveling experience with their friends and relatives. Thisfinding is supported by empirical evidence (Alegre and Cladera, 2006, Juaneda, 1996; Lau andMcKercher, 2004; Kozak, 2001 and 2002; Petrick, 2004a; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to examine the different factors affecting a cruise shippassenger’s satisfaction of his or her visit to Cartagena de Indias. The empirical analysis isbased on data from passenger surveys conducted during the second semester of 2009. Thesample of the survey consists of 1,361 cruise passengers interviewed before their return to the
cruise ship. In the survey, information was requested on the tourists’ socio-demographiccharacteristics, expenditure levels and satisfaction levels. The questionnaire included thefollowing items: number of hours on land, quality of the port services, tourist attractions (suchas leisure parks), quality of transportation, cleanliness and hygiene, the presence of friendsand/or relatives on the cruise, familiarity with the destination, safety, tranquility, prices,general satisfaction with the visit and amount of the expenditures in tours, cultural activities,tourist attractions, souvenirs, medical costs, transportation and restaurants. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present an overview of the cruiseindustry in Cartagena de Indias and descriptive statistics of the main characteristics of cruisepassengers arriving in this country. Section 3 provides a description of the data andmethodologies, and in the subsequent section we present the empirical results. Conclusionsare summarized in the final section.2. The cruise activity in Cartagena de Indias The excellent natural conditions of Cartagena de Indias have led to an increase incruise activity in the tourism industry. However, little is known about cruise tourismdevelopment at this destination. Cruise passengers are excursionists arriving at Cartagena deIndias on board the ship and returning to the ship each night to sleep on board. As they do notstrictly spend the night in an accommodation structure in the country, they are not included inthe category of tourists. Cruise tourism constitutes an increasing share of all tourism visits tothe country, accounting for approximately one in five tourist arrivals in 2009. On average, thetime that an overnight tourist remains at the destination is approximately five days, whereasthat of a cruise passenger is less than five hours. Cruise ships first arrived in the country in the1990s. According to data provided by the Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena, 246,951cruise passengers arrived aboard cruise ships during the 2008/2009 cruise year (that is, thetwelve months beginning in May 2008 and ending in April 2009). These passengers included242,144 in-transit passengers and 4,807 passengers embarking on their cruises in Cartagena deIndias. Of the in-transit passengers, an estimated 205,822 passengers (85% percent)disembarked and visited Cartagena de Indias. Table 1 shows the number of arrivals during theperiod from 1998-2009. Note that during the period from 2001-2007, there was a decline inactivity because the corporations Royal Caribbean International and Carnival Cruise Linesdecided to retire their ships as a consequence of the U.S. recession and potential effects of the9/11 terrorist attacks. INSERT TABLE 1 NEAR HERE Only in 2009 did the quantity of cruise ships (168) arriving in Cartagena exceed thenumber reached in 1998 (161), but the number of cruise passengers presently arriving at thedestination (about 270,000) has almost doubled the number in 1991.Three cruise lines hold an increasingly large market share of the cruise tourism industry inCartagena de Indias, accounting for more than 60% of all cruise ship passengers in 2009:Carnival Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean International and Star Cruises. Note that this degree ofmarket power could provide particular negotiation challenges to current and potential portcommunities. Cruise tourism visitation in Cartagena de Indias is strongly seasonal, with morethan 98% of all arrivals occurring during the October–April period (Table 2). The arrivals of landtourists to Cartagena de Indias have two peaks, one in the period of December-January andthe other in June-August. As a result, cruise tourists only produce crowding effects on touristexperiences during the winter season.
INSERT TABLE 2 NEAR HERE The majority of cruises having Cartagena de Indias as a port of call last from four toseven days and include up to five port stops. The fact that most cruise ships stay around fivehours means that cruise passengers can only participate in a limited number of activities.When cruise passengers arrive at the port, they can stay on board, join a guided excursion ortour, explore the city on their own or hire a taxi for sightseeing. The most popular sites forcruisers in Cartagena de Indias are the Old City, the San Felipe castle, the Pierino Galloshopping area and the Heredia theater.3. Data and methodology Given the scarcity of data on the expenditure behavior of cruise visitors in Cartagenade Indias, the Ministry of Tourism of Colombia decided to conduct this study. On the bases ofliterature review and discussions with principal agents of the cruise industry in the city(including port managers, tour operators and local and national government tourism offices), aquestionnaire was designed. The questionnaire was given to onshore visitors before theirreturn to the cruise ship during October and November of 2009. The questionnaire wasadministered by previously trained assistants. The questionnaire comprised 23 questions,which can be arranged in four sections (see Appendix 1). The first section collects demographicinformation, such as age, marital status, education level and nationality. The second sectionasked respondents to give information about the trip, such as their main reason for choosingit, how they paid for the cruise trip and previous cruise experiences. The third sectioncontained questions about the visitors’ expenditure behavior: how much had the visitor spenton board per day, the number of hours spent out of the port in Cartagena de Indias, and theamount of purchases made during the onshore time in 10 categories. Finally, in the fourthsection, tourists were asked to indicate their satisfaction with the port of call on a 20-item,five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied.” Thequestionnaire was translated into two languages: Spanish and English. The population of this study consisted of passengers and crew older than age 18 whodisembarked from cruise ships arriving to the city of Cartagena de Indias between September27 and November 14 of 2009. During this period, 28 cruise ships arrived at the port, with atotal of 42,936 passengers (see Appendix 2). The questionnaire was asked of 1,451 visitors, butas a consequence of revisions to the results, only 1,361 valid questionnaires were left. Thequestionnaire was taken just minutes before the visitors returned to the cruise ship.A number of statistical techniques were applied to the data. First, descriptive statistics(including frequency distributions, means, standard deviations, medians and frequencydistributions) were computed to have a first look at the profile of cruise ship passengers (seeTable 3). INSERT TABLE 3 NEAR HERE The sample consisted of 51.3% male and 48.7% female respondents. More than 65% ofrespondents were North Americans, 16.7% were Venezuelans, and about 9% were Europeans.About 76% of cruise tourists traveling to Cartagena de Indias were married, and more than62% were 56 years old or older. Cruise tourists visiting Cartagena de Indias had a medium/higheducation level and were experienced as cruise tourists. Cruise ships are in Cartagena de Indiasfor an average of 6 hours per visit. Because their visit is so brief, the majority of cruise touristexpenditures come from tours, local transportation, food and beverage, jewelry, souvenirs and
handicrafts. The length of time a visitor spent shopping in the local markets had a substantialimpact on the amount of money he or she spent. The number of hours that the visitor stayedon shore was positively correlated with dollars spent, indicating that respondents who spentlittle time in the market spent little, if any, money. This correlation gives support to long-heldlocal beliefs that the visitors are not going to buy if they do not set foot in the shops, and thelonger the visitors are kept occupied in the shops, the more they will spend. Consistent withother destinations (see Seidl et al., 2006 and 2007; Braun et al., 2002 and Douglas and Douglas,2004), some 90% of passengers disembarked, and 10% remained on board. Approximately64.5% of those who chose to disembark pre-purchased local tours; the remaining 35.5% didnot purchase tours.4. Data analysis In the questionnaire, there were 20 Likert-type questions exploring the visitors’satisfaction of the onshore experience. The questions accepted five possible answers rangingfrom “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” on topics as diverse as available infrastructure,information, relationship with locals, transport system, prices and weather. Taking the mean ofthe answers as a simple indicator of satisfaction, we found that the tourists in the sample heldhigh overall satisfaction of the onshore experience in Cartagena de Indias, as shown in thedescriptive summary in Table 4. INSERT TABLE 4 NEAR HERE Note that social interaction with the locals made up the two extremes in the ranking ofsatisfaction. On the one hand, tourist guides and bus and taxi drivers received the highestmean satisfaction degree, whereas on the other hand, the interaction with street sellersreceived the lowest degree of satisfaction. To explore if the total information available in thetourists’ answers could be reduced to a set of conceptual factors, we applied principalcomponents analysis using the rotation method varimax with Kaiser normalizationi. The Kaiser-Meyer and Olkin measure of sampling adequacy in this case was 0.945, revealing that theobserved correlation coefficients were close to the partial correlation coefficients. Moreover,the Bartlett’s test rejects the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrixii.Both criteria conclude that the strength of the relationship among the variables is strong andthe number of variables and the sample size are appropriate; therefore, it is possible toproceed with the reduction of information technique. To determine the number of factors, thecriterion of eigenvalues greater than 1 was used. The results are presented in Table 5. INSERT TABLE 5 NEAR HERE In all cases, the loading to the factors of each variable was greater than 0.55, so all thevariables were presented. Factor 1 and factor 2 explained more than 78% of the total variance,and each factor explained almost half the explained variances of 46% and 31%, which were thefirst and second factors, respectively. Notice that the first factor makes a group with all thevariables having a mean higher than 4.17 in Table 4. Equally, the second factor collects all thevariables with a mean lower than 4.17 in Table 4. The sample mean of Table 4 is related to thetwo factors, explaining 78% of the total variance. Thus, the two factors represent the simplesatisfaction of the tourists. On the one hand, the first factor captures the items that satisfiedthe tourists’ expectations. On the other hand, the second factor captures the items thattourists think are not good enough. The second factor represents the areas on which thetourist policy makers of Cartagena de Indias should focus. Looking at factor 1, it can be saidthat the visitors are satisfied with the general port infrastructure (welcome and port and
service infrastructure), the tourist information, the entertainment offered by the city (varietyof leisure activities, tourist information and historical centre) and the work done by peopledirectly related to the visit of the city (tourist guides, transport and language communication). Factor 2 shows that there are problems related to the city infrastructure (traffic, noise,cleanliness and infrastructure) and the shopping experience (attitude of local shopkeepers,street vendors, general shopping experience and prices). Looking at the comments added bythe tourists, the problems with city infrastructure is related to a lack of WCs, lack of elevatorsat the fortress, lack of infrastructure for aged tourists and places where the visitors can beprotected from the weather. The not-so-good shopping experience is related mainly to theaggressive behavior of street vendors. Factor 2 represents the main source of information forincreasing the satisfaction of visitors. This satisfaction enhances the positive image of the port,which is translated into a greater likelihood of return. Using the variables active in factor 2, acluster distribution of the tourist was made. The tourists are allocated in clusters according tothe probability distribution of the variables. The 9 variables are assumed to be multinomial andindependent. The two clusters identified were selected to maximize the Schwarz’s BayesianCriterion (BIC). Cluster number 1 has identified the individuals with less than extremelysatisfied answers. Cluster number 2 collects all the individuals with answers that are lowerthan extremely satisfied. The valid sample is split into 46.3% and 53.7% of individuals inclusters 1 and 2, respectively. Table 6 explores whether the probability of being less than extremely satisfied, i.e., theprobability of being in cluster 1, depends on characteristics of the tourist. The hypothesis isthat there are tourists who are systematically more likely not to be extremely satisfied. INSERT TABLE 6 NEAR HERE There are two attributes of the tourist that have influence on the probability of beingless than extremely satisfied. First, tourists from the United States of America are more likelyto be less than extremely satisfied. Second, tourists who visited Cartagena de Indias before areless likely to be less than extremely satisfied. Thus, tourists from the United States of Americaseem to be more exigent, and therefore there are more difficulties for them to be fullysatisfied. The accumulation of experiences of the tourists can leave memories that caninfluence their probability of visiting or suggesting to other tourists the same destination.Moreover, as suggested by Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2010) in the case of cruisepassengers, the likelihood to return on a land-based vacation may be higher mainly because ofthe limited time spent on shore, which may increase the possibility of returning to experienceaspects of the destination that were omitted the first time.The probability of returning or recommending the port of Cartagena de Indias was studiedelsewhere (Brida and Coletti, 2010). However, it is interesting to explore whether anindividual’s belonging to the group with a less-than-extremely satisfied degree of satisfactionwould influence the probability of return or recommendation. Two binary logistic regressionswere applied using a dummy variable representing individuals who were less than extremelysatisfied. In the first regression, the dependent variable was the probability of return, whereasin the second regression, the dependent variable was the probability of recommendingCartagena de Indias. In both cases, there is no significant relation between the dummy variableand the probability of return or recommendationiii.
5. Conclusions This study aimed to provide a better understanding of the Cartagena de Indias cruiseexperience satisfaction by using a sample of 1,361 cruise passengers. The population of thisstudy consisted of passengers and crew older than 18 years who disembarked from arrivingcruise ships to the city of Cartagena de Indias between September 27 and November 14, 2009.During this period, 28 cruise ships arrived at the port, with a total of 42,936 passengers. Thequestionnaire was taken just minutes before the visitors returned to the cruise ship. The results of the study suggest that although visitors had a high overall satisfaction withthe visit to Cartagena de Indias, there are two dimensions that require the attention of thetourist policy makers and destination managers: the city infrastructure (traffic, noise,cleanliness and infrastructure) and the general shopping experience. In particular, the worstshopping experience seems to be related to street vendors’ attitudes. The study also showsthat tourists from the United States of America are more exigent of being fully satisfied. Thefindings of our paper provide evidence of the importance of maintaining and improving servicequality and enhancing customer satisfaction. Managers and local policy makers must alsounderstand how to promote the destination and how to develop this segment of the tourismmarket. More and more people in the world choose this relatively new type of vacation. Theyhave either started their first cruise journey or intend to repeat a cruise vacation. This findingprovides a good opportunity for Cartagena de Indias to attract cruisers arriving to thedestination as land tourists. Nevertheless, stakeholders have to pay attention to the specialcharacteristics of cruise tourism in terms of destination saturation, particularly on thefollowing two topics: first, avoiding the collapse of some areas mostly visited by tourists duringsome periods; and second, preventing antagonism between residents and tourists, if residents’perception of tourists evolves according to the Irridex model (Doxey, 1975). It must be noted that the visit of cruise passengers to Cartagena de Indias is one aspect ofa larger cruise package. Therefore, it is important to satisfy the expectations of the passengersduring their visit to the city to offer both more positive experiences than other ports of call andto maintain the destination as a cruise port of call, given that there is always the danger ofcruise lines canceling future visits to the destination if passengers are not satisfied. In the sameway, it has to be pinpointed that the cruise tourism industry is being characterized by agrowing competition among destinations, so tourists can easily choose among differentdestinations. According to the literature (see for example Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2010);Gabe et al. (2006); Hosany and Witham (2010); Kozak (2001 and 2002); Li and Petrick (2010);Petrick (2004a and 2004b); Hui et al. (2007)), a visit to a new destination can produce first-hand experiences in the minds of tourists, influencing their probability of revisiting the samedestination. In the case of a cruise passenger, this probability could be a good opportunity fordestination managers and policy makers to show the attractions of the place to visitors whocan return to the destination. Satisfaction with the visit is directly related to the probability ofreturning to the destination, and cruise passengers who have had a positive experience willprobably return as a land tourist or recommend a visit to the destination. The results showsuitable quality levels must be offered to the visitors, and manager strategies on cruise activityat Cartagena de Indias must focus on improving the city infrastructure and the shoppingfacilities to increase the satisfaction of visitors. One important limitation of this paper is that it was only conducted in the months ofOctober and November. Future research can also include the repetition of the study indifferent seasons and comparison with our results. The study shows that there is a good
potential for the growth of tourism activity at the destination because over 52% of therespondents declared their intention to return to the city as land tourists, and more than 60%will recommend the destination to their friends. Future research can include an additionalsurvey to determine the percentage of stay-over tourists coming to Cartagena de Indias thathad previously visited the destination as cruise ship passengers and to characterize thispopulation.
ReferencesAlegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2006), “Repeat visitation in mature sun and sand holidaydestinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 288-97.Alexopoulos, A.B. (2008), “Introducing system dynamics modelling into the passenger andcruise markets focusing on the marine manpower”, International Journal of Applied SystemicStudies, Vol.1 No. 4, pp. 436-449.Andriotis, K. and Agiomirgianakis, G. (2010), “Cruise visitors experience in a Mediterraneanport of call”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 390-404.Braun, B.M., Dander, J.A. and White, K.R. (2002), “The impact of the cruise industry on aregion’s economy: a case study of Port Canaveral, Florida”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 8 No. 3,pp. 281–288.Brida, J.G. and Coletti, P. (2010), “Tourist’s intention of returning to a visited destination:cruise ship passengers in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia”, Available at SSRNhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1617894 (accesed 13 December 2010).Brida, J.G. and Zapata Aguirre, S. (2010), “Cruise Tourism: Economic, Socio-Cultural andEnvironmental Impacts”, International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 205-226.Chase, G.L. and McKee, D. L. (2003), “The Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism on Jamaica”,Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 16-22.Clancy, M. (2008), “Cruisin To Exclusion: Commodity Chains, the Cruise Industry, andDevelopment in the Caribbean”, Globalizations, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 405-418.Cruise Lines International Association (2010). 2008 CLIA Cruise Market Overview. StatisticalCruise Industry Data Through 2007. Available athttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/17337714/2008-CLIACruise-Market-Overview-Statistical-Cruise-Industry-Data (accessed 15 April 2010).Diedrich, A. (2010), “Cruise ship tourism in Belize: The implications of developing cruise shiptourism in an ecotourism destination”, Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 53 No. 5-6, pp.234-244.Dowling, R.K. (2006). Cruise Ship Tourism, CABI Publishing, London.Douglas, N., and Douglas, N. (1999), “Cruise consumer behavior: a comparative study”, inPizam, A., and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, HaworthHospitality Press, New York, pp. 369-428.Doxey, G.V. (1975), “A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants, methodology, and researchinferences”, Sixth annual conference proceedings of the Travel Research Association, SanDiego, CA: Travel and Tourism Research Association, pp. 195-198.Duman T. and Mattila AS. (2005), “The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacationvalue”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 311–323.
Dwyer L. and Forsyth P. (1998), “Economic significance of cruise tourism”. Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 393–415.Dwyer, L., Douglas N. and Livaic, Z. (2004), “Estimating the economic contribution of a cruiseship visit”, Tourism in marine environments, Vol.1 No. 1, pp. 5-16.Gabe, T., Lynch, C. and McConnon, J. (2006), “Likelihood of Cruise Ship Passenger Return to aVisited Port: The Case of Bar Harbor, Maine”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No.3, pp. 281-287.Gibson, P. and Bentley, M. (2006), “A study of impacts – cruise tourism and the south west ofEngland”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3/4.Henderson, S. (2009), “Cayamo - a case study of a music themed cruise”, MarketingIntelligence & Planning, Vol. 27 No.4, pp. 549-557.Hannarong, S., Albrecht, W. and Dawkins , R. (2006), “Relationship between cruise-shiptourism and stay-over tourism: a case study of the shift in the Cayman Islands tourismstrategy”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 11, pp. 95–104.Hosany, S. and Witham, M. (2010), “Dimensions of Cruisers’ Experiences, Satisfaction, andIntention to Recommend”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 351-364.Ikeda, Y. and Jaswar (2002), “A prediction method of travel demand of cruise ships in Japan”,Journal – Kansai Society of Naval Architects Japan, Vol. 238, pp. 215–224.Johansson, M. and Naslund, L. (2009), “Welcome to Paradise. Customer experience design andemotional labour on a cruise ship”, International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion,Vol. 3 No.1, pp. 40-55.Juaneda, C. (1996), “Estimating the probability of return visits using a survey of touristexpenditure in the Balearic Islands”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 2 No.4, pp. 339–352.Kozak, M. (2001), “Repeaters’ behaviour at two distinct destinations”, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 28 No.3, pp. 784–807.Kozak, M. (2002), “Measuring Tourist Satisfaction with Multiple Destination Attributes”,Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7 No. 3–4, pp. 229–40.Kwortnik, R. J. (2006), “Carnival Cruise Lines: Burnishing the Brand”, Cornell Hotel & RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 286-300.Kwortnik, R. J. (2008), “Shipscape Influence on the Leisure Cruise Experience”, InternationalJournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-311.Lau, A.L.S. and McKercher, B. (2004), “Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of first-time and repeat visitors”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 279-85.Lemmetyinen, A. and Go, F.M. (2010), “Building a brand identity in a network of Cruise Balticsdestinations: A multi-authoring approach”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No.7,pp. 519-531.
Li, X. and Petrick, J. (2008), “Reexamining the dimensionality of brand loyalty: The case of thecruise industry”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 25 No.1, pp. 68-85.Li, X. and Petrick, J.F. (2010), “Revisiting the Commitment-Loyalty Distinction in a CruisingContext”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 42 No.1, pp. 67-90.Lobo, A.C. (2009), “Enhancing Luxury Cruise Liner Operators Competitive Advantage: A StudyAimed at Improving Customer Loyalty and Future Patronage”, Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, Vol.25 No.1, pp. 1–12.Macpherson, C. (2008), “Golden goose or Trojan horse? Cruise ship tourism in Pacificdevelopment”, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 49 No.2, pp. 185-197.McBoyle, G. and McBoyle, E. (2008), “Distillery marketing and the visitor experience: a casestudy of Scottish malt whisky distilleries”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 10,pp. 71–80.McCarthy, J. (2003), “The Cruise Industry and Port City Regeneration: The Case of Valletta”,European Planning Studies, Vol. 11 No.3, pp. 341-350.McKee, D.L. (1998), “Cruise tourism: Assessing its structural and environmental costs”,Caribbean Affairs, Vol. 8 No.1, pp. 135-147.Miller, A. R. and Grazer, W.F. (2002), “The North American Cruise Market and AustralianTourism”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8 No.3, pp. 221-34.Miller, A.R. and Grazer, W.F. (2003), “Complaint Behavior as a Factor in Cruise Line Losses. AnAnalysis of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 15 No.1, pp. 77–91.Park, S.-Y. and Petrick JF. (2009), “Examining current non-customers: A cruise vacation case”,Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 275-293.Petrick JF. (2003), “Measuring cruise passengers’ perceived value”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7 No.3-4, pp. 251–258.Petrick JF. (2004a), “The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’behavioral intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No.4, pp. 397–407.Petrick JF. (2004b), “First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value”, Journal of Travel Research,Vol. 43, pp. 29–38.Petrick JF. (2005), “Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity”, TourismManagement, Vol 26, pp. 753–762.Petrick JF. and Sirakaya E. (2004), “Segmenting cruisers by loyalty”, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 31 No.2, pp. 172–173.Petrick, J. and Li, X. (2006), “What drives cruise passengers’ perceptions of value?” In R.Dowling (eds)., Cruise Tourism: Issues, Impacts, Cases. (pp. 63-73). CABI Publishing:Wallingford, UK.
Petrick, J.F., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C. (2006), “The utilization of critical incident technique toexamine cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No.3,pp. 273-280.Petrick, J.F., Li, X. and Park, S.Y. (2007), “Cruise Passengers Decision-Making Processes”,Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 23, pp. 1-14.Pratt,S. and Blake, A. (2009), “The Economic Impact of Hawaiis Cruise Industry”, TourismAnalysis, Vol. 14 No.3, pp. 337-351.Seidl, A., Guillano, F. and Pratt, L. (2006), “Cruise tourism and community economicdevelopment in Central America and the Caribbean: The case of Costa Rica”. Pasos Online, Vol.4 No. 2, pp.213–224.Seidl, A., Guillano, F., & Pratt, L. (2007), “Cruising for colones: cruise tourism economics inCosta Rica”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 13 No.1, pp. 67–85.Teye, V. and Leclerc, D. (2002), “The White Caucasian and Ethnic Minority Cruise Markets:Some Motivational Perspectives”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No.2, pp. 153-60.Vogel, M.P.(2009), “The economics of US cruise companies European brand strategies”,Tourism Economics, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 735-751.Weaver, A. (2005), “The McDonaldization Thesis and Cruise Tourism”, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 346-66.Yarnal, C. M. and Kerstetter, D. (2005), “Casting Off: An Exploration of Cruise Ship Space,Group Tour Behavior, and Social Interaction”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp.368-79.Yoon, Y. And Uysal, M. (2005), “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction ondestination loyalty: A structural model”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No.1, pp. 45–56.
i A number of statistical procedures are applied in this paper using the Statistical Package for the SocialSciences (SPSS Inc.).ii The statistics have a value of about 5,846, and a p-value of 0.iii For the probability of return, the coefficient of the dummy was 0.226, with a p-value of 0.22. For theprobability of recommendation, the coefficient of the dummy was 0.09, with a p-value of 0.63.
Table 1: Cruise ship arrivals in Cartagena de Indias, 1998-2009Year Ships Passengers Crews Year Ships Passengers Crews Year Ships Passengers Crews1998 161 148,733 76,343 2002 71 85,880 39,299 2006 38 42,024 18,6261999 162 178,586 86,616 2003 32 31,063 14,335 2007 76 108,892 49,7752000 117 147,511 73,874 2004 43 38,946 18,312 2008 137 206,691 95,5142001 127 168,855 80,391 2005 35 41,542 17,993 2009 168 270,257 120,420 Source: Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena Table 2: Cruise ship arrivals in Cartagena de Indias in 2009: seasonal variation Month Ships Passengers Month Ships Passengers Month Ships Passengers January 26 37,076 May 1 1,240 September 1 1,913 February 24 40,412 June 0 0 October 19 27,838 March 23 38,363 July 0 0 November 20 32,853 April 24 42,784 August 1 1,931 December 29 45,847 Source: Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena Table 3: Characteristics of cruise ship tourists to Cartagena de Indias Residence (% yes): Age (% in category): USA 56.6 >56 64.4 Europe 8.8 46-55 16.5 Canada 9.3 26-45 16.8 Venezuela 16.7 16-25 1.6 Other Latin-American countries 5 < 15 0.7 Education: Income (% in category): Below high school 2.16 < $25,000 8.4 High school 18.07 $26,000-$50,000 14.5 College/degree 56.57 $51,000-$75,000 16.2 Postgraduate 23.20 $76,000-$100,000 10.4 First cruise (% yes) 25.1 $101,000-$150,000 8.0 First visit (% yes) 87.8 >$150,000 7.5 Marital Status (% married): 75.4 Don’t Know/No Answer 34.9
Table 4: Mean ranking of the overall responses to satisfaction statements Extremely Extremely Valid Dissatisfied Satisfied Mean MedianTourist guide in your tour 1207 0.5% 0.3% 1.9% 29.8% 67.4% 4.63 5Bus and taxi drivers 1068 0.4% 0.1% 2.9% 31.8% 64.8% 4.61 5Level of language communication by 1142 0.4% 0.6% 2.8% 35.5% 60.8% 4.56 5guides and driversHistorical centre 1117 0.1% 0.6% 4.8% 40.6% 53.8% 4.47 5Transportation (buses and taxies) 1196 0.3% 1.1% 3.1% 41.8% 53.7% 4.47 5Welcome 1246 0.2% 0.5% 3.9% 44.6% 50.7% 4.45 5Variety of entertainment 1190 0.4% 1.3% 5.8% 46.0% 46.6% 4.37 4Services and port infrastructure 1194 0.3% 0.8% 5.7% 49.0% 44.2% 4.36 4Tourist information 1042 0.2% 1.5% 8.3% 44.7% 45.3% 4.33 4Friendliness of local residents 1129 0.6% 1.1% 9.0% 44.9% 44.4% 4.31 4Time availability to visit Cartagena de 1251 0.6% 6.0% 5.3% 51.8% 36.4% 4.17 4IndiasCleanliness of the city 1195 1.0% 4.7% 13.7% 46.4% 34.1% 4.08 4Attitude of local shopkeepers 1083 1.6% 4.2% 11.2% 55.0% 28.0% 4.04 4General shopping experience 682 2.1% 4.1% 13.5% 52.6% 27.7% 4.00 4Infrastructure 1000 0.9% 2.9% 17.7% 55.6% 22.9% 3.97 4Goods varieties 1059 0.8% 5.0% 15.7% 56.1% 22.4% 3.94 4Traffic and noise 1144 0.9% 5.3% 22.0% 46.0% 25.8% 3.90 4Prices 1060 1.4% 6.8% 16.1% 56.0% 19.6% 3.86 4Weather 1178 3.3% 9.4% 16.0% 44.7% 26.6% 3.82 4Street sellers 1081 10.1% 17.5% 24.1% 31.4% 17.0% 3.28 3
Table 5: Variables with higher contributions to each factor. The most important variablessuggested by the factor analysis are shown in this table for each factor. Also, the percentage ofinertia shows which factors are those that mostly explain the variability of the original data. Eigenvalue % of Variance Rotated Factor 1 9.313 46% Tourist guide in your tour 0.857 Bus and taxi drivers 0.857 Level of language communications by guides and drivers 0.807 Historical centre 0.749 Transport (buses and taxies) 0.899 Welcome 0.892 Variety of entertainment 0.809 Services and port Infrastructure 0.870 Tourist information 0.748 Friendliness of local residents 0.750 Time available to visit Cartagena 0.716 Factor 2 6.312 31% Cleanliness of the city 0.747 Attitude of local shopkeepers 0.688 General shopping experience 0.630 Infrastructure 0.695 Goods variety 0.623 Traffic and noise 0.838 Prices 0.567 Weather 0.726 Street sellers 0.831Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with KaiserNormalization. Total percentage of explained variance 78.124%.Table 6: Logistic regressionDependent Probability of being less than extremely satisfied in factor 2 Coeff. p-value Coeff. p-value Coeff. p-valuePer Capita Expenditure 0.001 0.25 0.001 0.24USA Tourist 0.40 0.05 0.32 0.09 0.31 0.10Crew 0.32 0.68Older than 56 -0.10 0.63Not First Time in Cartagena -1.11 0.03 -1.11 0.03 -1.11 0.03More than 4 Hours on Shore -0.07 0.73Take the cruise ship to Visit Cartagena 0.39 0.19Take the cruise ship because the itinerary -0.21 0.31Take the cruise ship because the price 0.18 0.72Constant -2.22 0.00 -2.31 0.00 -2.37 0.00Cox & Snell R Square 0.011 0.008 0.006