Local Residents Reaction To Cruise Ship Passengers

[Kristelle]

7 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Likely that most of us on these forums feel the same way.  Probably most of the population in general.   We are all for protecting the environment until it means we must sacrifice the things we enjoy doing. 

 

 I think it is more that we are not prepared to give up things like travelling ( unless temporarily in extenuating circumstances like pandemics) but we are prepared to modify things at home and travelling, when reasonable to do so.

 

I certainly try to re use and recycle as much as possible and  avoid plastic bags, straws etc  and I like changes such as reusable bottles when cruising rather than free bottles of water, for example. 

 

 

[Gwendy]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, I didn’t read all 5 pages

in the South Pacific the locals refer to the cruise ships as the big white ATMs. Lol

[9tee2Sea]

The ' Locals" may enjoy the more peaceful environment ( without thousands of cruise ship passengers clogging the streets for a few hours a day), but once they start seeing business close, due to lack of activity, and city revenues going down, I bet they will start accepting cruise ships again.  Maybe have a limit on size and how many a day, but they will be saying they need the revenue.  As for now , ships are being docked far away, but more autos, busses, trains, will be needed to bring those passengers to the towns.  So, they are still getting pollution ( maybe more?) and the crowds. And now the roads to get into those popular towns will be crumbling due to all the extra automobile/buss traffic.  Catch 22

[Harry Lake]

1 hour ago, 9tee2Sea said:

but more autos, busses, trains, will be needed to bring those passengers to the towns.

But some of those people are staying in hotels - for multiple nights perhaps, having dinners out, etc. In other words spending more money than cruisers.

[Kristelle]

5 hours ago, 9tee2Sea said:

The ' Locals" may enjoy the more peaceful environment ( without thousands of cruise ship passengers clogging the streets for a few hours a day), but once they start seeing business close, due to lack of activity, and city revenues going down, I bet they will start accepting cruise ships again.  Maybe have a limit on size and how many a day, but they will be saying they need the revenue.

 

 

yes  I think most people accept tourism revenue is a good thing for the places visited - but like

everything there can be too much of a good thing - so huge numbers of tourists, especially all at once, is not always good for the local population or the environment of delicate places for the many reasons already given upthread

 

this idea that just because visitors spend money. unlimited amount of them is wonderful is misguided at best  - and, as has been pointed out cruisers don't spend as much in local places as other non cruiser tourists.

[Harry Lake]

2 hours ago, Kristelle said:

and, as has been pointed out cruisers don't spend as much in local places as other non cruiser tourists.

Right. Sometimes no food, no hotel, no car rental (when applicable, rarely staying more than one night, etc. Those arriving not by ship have gotten turned off by the cruise crowd (not that that's question. It's the #1 reason I wouldn't go back there if I were paid to.

[ldubs]

11 hours ago, 9tee2Sea said:

The ' Locals" may enjoy the more peaceful environment ( without thousands of cruise ship passengers clogging the streets for a few hours a day), but once they start seeing business close, due to lack of activity, and city revenues going down, I bet they will start accepting cruise ships again.  Maybe have a limit on size and how many a day, but they will be saying they need the revenue.  As for now , ships are being docked far away, but more autos, busses, trains, will be needed to bring those passengers to the towns.  So, they are still getting pollution ( maybe more?) and the crowds. And now the roads to get into those popular towns will be crumbling due to all the extra automobile/buss traffic.  Catch 22

 

Reading your comment reminded me of one state's officials that begged for the return of cruise ships during the pandemic. 

 

Reading about Venice's concerns, it seems a major issue is cruise passengers just don't spend very much compared to other tourists.  Hence, the crowding caused is not really welcomed.   

[Harry Lake]

29 minutes ago, ldubs said:

Reading about Venice's concerns, it seems a major issue is cruise passengers just don't spend very much compared to other tourists.  Hence, the crowding caused is not really welcomed.   

This.

[ilikeanswers]

12 hours ago, 9tee2Sea said:

The ' Locals" may enjoy the more peaceful environment ( without thousands of cruise ship passengers clogging the streets for a few hours a day), but once they start seeing business close, due to lack of activity, and city revenues going down, I bet they will start accepting cruise ships again.  

 

From what I read a lot of locals seem to complain about local stores being replaced with cruise company owned businesses so they might actually be pleased with those businesses shutting down😂. 

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

Reading about Venice's concerns, it seems a major issue is cruise passengers just don't spend very much compared to other tourists.  Hence, the crowding caused is not really welcomed.   

 

That and the environmental damage being done to the city's timber underpinnings by the deep wash caused by large cruiseships. And possibly the damage to the delicate ecosystem of the Venice lagoon by these large cruise ships.

 

Oh, and also the fact that the entire city of Venice is a UNESCO World Heritage site and someone suddenly woke up a few years ago to the danger of gigantic cruise ships navigating right through the heart of the city when one of those ships lost control and rammed into a river cruise boat, damaging it and destroying a pier. By great good fortune, no one was seriously injured but it certainly raised a lot of questions that the ship was steaming down the canal under its own power with propellers turning as opposed to being pulled by tugs with props off. And this ship wasn't even one of the larger ones at 66,000 tons. If the incident had happened at a different spot in the canal, damage could've been catastrophic.

 

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/04/09/venice-cruise-ship-crash-in-2019-was-caused-by-captains-incompetence

 

[ldubs]

5 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

From what I read a lot of locals seem to complain about local stores being replaced with cruise company owned businesses so they might actually be pleased with those businesses shutting down😂. 

 

I think the bigger issue is local stores catering to residents are replaced by stores catering to tourists.   Not necessarily cruise company owned stores.   I personally think the dynamic is going to vary significantly by cruise port.  Some will die without cruse ships.  Some will feel better off.  

[Harry Lake]

5 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I think the bigger issue is local stores catering to residents are replaced by stores catering to tourists.   Not necessarily cruise company owned stores.   I personally think the dynamic is going to vary significantly by cruise port.  Some will die without cruse ships.  Some will feel better off.  

With all respect, what are some that will die...and why?

[ldubs]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

That and the environmental damage being done to the city's timber underpinnings by the deep wash caused by large cruiseships. And possibly the damage to the delicate ecosystem of the Venice lagoon by these large cruise ships.

 

Oh, and also the fact that the entire city of Venice is a UNESCO World Heritage site and someone suddenly woke up a few years ago to the danger of gigantic cruise ships navigating right through the heart of the city when one of those ships lost control and rammed into a river cruise boat, damaging it and destroying a pier. By great good fortune, no one was seriously injured but it certainly raised a lot of questions that the ship was steaming down the canal under its own power with propellers turning as opposed to being pulled by tugs with props off. And this ship wasn't even one of the larger ones at 66,000 tons. If the incident had happened at a different spot in the canal, damage could've been catastrophic.

 

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/04/09/venice-cruise-ship-crash-in-2019-was-caused-by-captains-incompetence

 

 

Yes, there is a real environmental component. I was talking to the crowded tourism issue.   

 

Did UNESCO in fact mandate anything regarding cruise ships in Venice? I know there is/was concern but not sure if they threatened to withdraw the World Heritage designation.   It occurs to me that we are protecting precious historical areas so future generations can enjoy them by not allowing too many of the current generation to enjoy them.  😀

[cruisemom42]

2 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Yes, there is a real environmental component. I was talking to the crowded tourism issue.   

 

Did UNESCO in fact mandate anything regarding cruise ships in Venice? I know there is/was concern but not sure if they threatened to withdraw the World Heritage designation.   It occurs to me that we are protecting precious historical areas so future generations can enjoy them by not allowing too many of the current generation to enjoy them.  😀

 

At one point I seem to recall that they were threatening both Venice and Dubrovnik -- that they would be put on the "endangered" list so to speak and would lose much of the UNESCO funding they receive if steps were not taken to strengthen preservation/protection efforts.

 

(I don't recall the details, I was much more interested in Pompeii which was undergoing a similar struggle at the time.)

Edited November 17, 2023 by cruisemom42

[ldubs]

4 minutes ago, Harry Lake said:

With all respect, what are some that will die...and why?

 

The ones that exist because of cruise ship revenues.  Ones that were built specifically as cruise stops.  Then there are others that would take a severe economic hit without cruise ships.  Skagway might be a good example.  

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

At one point I seem to recall that they were threatening both Venice and Dubrovnik -- that they would be put on the "endangered" list so to speak and would lose much of the UNESCO funding they receive if steps were not taken to strengthen preservation/protection efforts.

 

(I don't recall the details, I was much more interested in Pompeii which was undergoing a similar struggle at the time.)

I sort of remember UNESCO saying something like that about Dubrovnik. I thought it was Italy that was expressing concern about Venice.. 

[K32682]

22 hours ago, 9tee2Sea said:

The ' Locals" may enjoy the more peaceful environment ( without thousands of cruise ship passengers clogging the streets for a few hours a day), but once they start seeing business close, due to lack of activity, and city revenues going down, I bet they will start accepting cruise ships again.  Maybe have a limit on size and how many a day, but they will be saying they need the revenue.  As for now , ships are being docked far away, but more autos, busses, trains, will be needed to bring those passengers to the towns.  So, they are still getting pollution ( maybe more?) and the crowds. And now the roads to get into those popular towns will be crumbling due to all the extra automobile/buss traffic.  Catch 22

 

It depends on the port. Places like Venice don't need cruise ships. There is plenty of tourism without the bloated boats who drop in for half a day. Tourists who stay locally spend more locally. Meanwhile, other places don't have similar levels of non-cruise visitors and are more dependent on their communities being swarmed by hordes of cruisers for a few hours each day.

 

Some cruisers seem to believe that "locals" should be grateful for cruisers. The fact is unless you are reaping the benefits personally there is a tendency is to deeply resent them. 

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I sort of remember UNESCO saying something like that about Dubrovnik. I thought it was Italy that was expressing concern about Venice.. 

 

From UNESCO's own website:

 

Inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1987, Venice is threatened on several fronts – from overtourism, from damage caused by a steady stream of cruise ships, including ones weighing over 40,000 tons, and from the potential negative effects of new developments. This, combined with the lack of an integrated management system for the site, have put Venice’s “Outstanding Universal Value”, the hallmark of every World Heritage property, in peril.

 

The meeting represented an opportunity for the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism, the Municipality of Venice and the Permanent Delegation of Italy to update UNESCO and ICOMOS International on these issues, and to discuss Italy’s response to the last World Heritage Committee decision on Venice. In this decision, the World Heritage Committee warned that unless significant progress was made in the state of Venice’s conservation, the Committee would consider inscribing Venice on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

 

https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2043  (no byline given)

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

 

It depends on the port. Places like Venice don't need cruise ships. There is plenty of tourism without the bloated boats who drop in for half a day. Tourists who stay locally spend more locally. Meanwhile, other places don't have similar levels of non-cruise visitors and are more dependent on their communities being swarmed by hordes of cruisers for a few hours each day.

 

Some cruisers seem to believe that "locals" should be grateful for cruisers. The fact is unless you are reaping the benefits personally there is a tendency is to deeply resent them. 

Let me add this to the discussion.  When a city decides to promote tourism they do that at the loss to other industries.  Now tax dollars are used to develop cruise passenger facilities which are dramatically different from cargo facilities.  Roads and bridges for other uses are bypassed for roads and bridges which lead to tourism facilities.  I grew up in a city which turned away from other business models toward tourism.  It led to such a lack of opportunity I was forced (and many in my generation) to leave to pursue a science career (or other technical)

Edited November 17, 2023 by Mary229

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

From UNESCO's own website:

 

Inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1987, Venice is threatened on several fronts – from overtourism, from damage caused by a steady stream of cruise ships, including ones weighing over 40,000 tons, and from the potential negative effects of new developments. This, combined with the lack of an integrated management system for the site, have put Venice’s “Outstanding Universal Value”, the hallmark of every World Heritage property, in peril.

 

The meeting represented an opportunity for the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism, the Municipality of Venice and the Permanent Delegation of Italy to update UNESCO and ICOMOS International on these issues, and to discuss Italy’s response to the last World Heritage Committee decision on Venice. In this decision, the World Heritage Committee warned that unless significant progress was made in the state of Venice’s conservation, the Committee would consider inscribing Venice on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

 

https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2043  (no byline given)

But did they ever threaten, not just consider threatening, Venice being listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site? I specifically remember them threatening Dubrovnik with removal from the list.

Edited November 17, 2023 by ontheweb
accidentally posted before I was finsished typing

[ilikeanswers]

11 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I think the bigger issue is local stores catering to residents are replaced by stores catering to tourists.   Not necessarily cruise company owned stores.   I personally think the dynamic is going to vary significantly by cruise port.  Some will die without cruse ships.  Some will feel better off.  

 

Unfortunately that does seem to happen in tourist hot spots. I remember an article years ago of central Amsterdam residents complaining about having to travel to the outer suburbs to get their grocery shopping because all the local shops had been replaced by souvenir shops. Maybe local councils in places like that need to consider quotas on tourist stores so there can be space for businesses that cater to local needs. 

 

The only reason I had focused on the cruise owned businesses is because I had seen a couple of days ago a news piece of one of the Alaskan ports (can't remember the name and having never travelled there I am not familiar with the area) where the residents complained that 80% of the tourist business was owned by the cruise company and they had effectively pushed out most the local businesses. One of them had said they would be quite happy for those businesses to shut down so the locals could "take back the tourist dollar". Maybe there is a conversation to be had about whether cruise companies should be allowed to run on shore businesses🤔. 

[cruisemom42]

26 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

But did they ever threaten, not just consider threatening, Venice being listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site? I specifically remember them threatening Dubrovnik with removal from the list.

 

UNESCO actually put Dubrovnik on its list of endangered sites (this has now been reversed). I think that is the next step following the warning Venice received -- you don't actually want the committee to meet and vote on it. Chances are it will not be in your favor.

 

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Unfortunately that does seem to happen in tourist hot spots. I remember an article years ago of central Amsterdam residents complaining about having to travel to the outer suburbs to get their grocery shopping because all the local shops had been replaced by souvenir shops. Maybe local councils in places like that need to consider quotas on tourist stores so there can be space for businesses that cater to local needs. 

 

The only reason I had focused on the cruise owned businesses is because I had seen a couple of days ago a news piece of one of the Alaskan ports (can't remember the name and having never travelled there I am not familiar with the area) where the residents complained that 80% of the tourist business was owned by the cruise company and they had effectively pushed out most the local businesses. One of them had said they would be quite happy for those businesses to shut down so the locals could "take back the tourist dollar". Maybe there is a conversation to be had about whether cruise companies should be allowed to run on shore businesses🤔. 

 

I hate to pop another popular forum bubble, but I do not believe those stores are actually owned by the cruise lines.  Certainly not 80% of them.   What I understand is they pay a pretty price to be listed among the places recommended by the cruise lines and to be included on the rather vague port maps provided by the cruise lines.  It is bad for passengers who don't realize they are probably paying more at those places and bad for the community because those kick-backs are not staying local to multiply.

 

I believe in the free market.  I don't agree that some gov't body should dictate quotas on what businesses are allowed. 

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

UNESCO actually put Dubrovnik on its list of endangered sites (this has now been reversed). I think that is the next step following the warning Venice received -- you don't actually want the committee to meet and vote on it. Chances are it will not be in your favor.

 

Glad Dubrovnik was taken off the list. Was there a partial ban on cruise ships either by number of ships at the same time or how many passengers at a time that preceded this?

[Harry Lake]

16 hours ago, ldubs said:

Skagway

A quick search showed a major landslide on a major cruise ship pier. That doesn't sound like what we're talking about.