In 2017, Princess Cruises was hit with a $40 million dollar fine “for illegally dumping oily water overboard and falsifying official logs to hide the damage” (Herrera, 2017). It remains the largest fine ever given for vessel pollution in history. Just two years later, Carnival Cruises, the parent company of Princess, was fined $20 million for dumping plastic waste into the ocean (Kennedy & Allen, 2019). These two cases are just a fraction of the many environmental costs that the cruise industry places on the world today.
The cruise industry is a juggernaut in the travel and tourism industry today. Before the COVID-19 epidemic of 2020, the cruise industry was projected to have 32 million passengers, and have over $150 billion in revenue in 2020 (Cruise Lines International Association, 2020). The industry also found that 82% of the projected cruisers in 2020 would be repeat customers, which is an amazingly sustainable customer base for business growth, and is partially a reason why the cruise industry has grown exponentially over the last few decades, including almost doubling in the number of cruisers in 2019. The majority of cruisers come from North America, Western Europe, and Asia, though a significantly higher proportion of the population in Australasia took part in cruises than the rest of the world.
In theory, the cruise industry is the perfect vacation. It is an effective method of moving thousands of people at once, a significant supplier of jobs to residents of lower-income countries, a way to get foreign travelers to visit countries and locations that would ordinarily fall under the radar, and have many of its services fall under one fee. However, the environmental costs behind this growing form of travel and tourism has been overlooked; those costs may end up destroying the very places that the cruise industry is trying to visit. In this article, the cruise industry’s environmental costs will be explored - including the contributions to climate change, overtourism, social costs of port destinations, food waste, and dishonest reporting in the industry. The barriers to sustainability and possible solutions will be explored to set the cruise industry on a pathway to save the very resources it needs to be successful.
Literature Review
Environmental Impacts and Contribution to Climate Change
One of the primary impacts that the cruise industry contributes to environmental issues is that of waste. By its very nature, tourism and travel is very wasteful, but this is no more true than in the cruise industry. Cuba and Burgos (2008) found that the average 3,000 passenger cruise ship produced 1.5 million gallons of water waste and over 50 tons of solid waste per week - an estimated 40% of which is plastics, cardboard, and paper (Commoy, Polytika, Nadel, & Bulkley, 2005). In particular, about 1 million gallons of that water waste is grey water – non-sewage wastewater used in cleaning, showering, sinks, etc. – which is legal to discharge into the ocean (Commoy et al., 2005). 
However, grey water contains harmful cleaning chemicals, soaps, and oils that are extremely damaging to marine life and ecosystems (Carić & Mackelworth, 2014). Cuba and Burgos (2008) also discuss the increased amount of solid waste and plastics being dumped in the ocean; though illegal, “there is increased evidence that cruise ship waste is reaching the shore of many Caribbean islands" (p. 6). Carić and Mackelworth (2014) take this a step further, actively placing blame on the uncontrolled waste dumping that is contributing to many of the ocean waste issues. Johnson (2002) suggests that the cruise industry is responsible for the pollution of sea floors and harbors, the degradation of water resources, the destruction of coral reefs, and public health issues in ports that aren’t able to cope with the waste disposal of their own communities, let alone the increased demand from the cruise industry.
Commoy et al. (2005) go further in-depth on the emission impact that the cruise industry has. They found that the diesel engines on cruise ships are significant factors in the pollution of many ports. In some ports, the cruise ships alone contribute to over 7% of nitrogen oxide – a dangerous greenhouse gas – in the air. Carić and Mackelworth (2014) found that over 30% of the world’s smog is from the shipping industry. However, they neglected to break down how much of the shipping industry is made up of the cruise industry.
Carić and Mackelworth (2014) also discuss the physical damage that cruises have on ocean life. They point to the fact that up to a third of all whale deaths can be attributed to vessel collisions, though this number may be higher as investigating all cases is impossible. They also discuss how not all collisions end up in the death of the animals, but that the injuries left behind significantly hamper the animals’ abilities to survive for very long. This is expected to increase as the cruise industry – and indeed the shipping industry as a whole – continues to expand. Johnson (2002) also discusses how cruise ships frequently collide with coral reefs – especially in the shallow Caribbean waters, where 32% of all cruises take place (Cruise Lines International Association, 2020). Most of the time, the ships are undamaged, but the impact to the sensitive coral reefs is catastrophic.
Carić and Mackelworth (2014) also discuss two further forms of pollution that are neglected in environmental impacts literature – light and noise pollution. In many ports that are in poorer regions of the world, the cruise ships are often the brightest things for a significant distance. Other than the human derision among local communities, light pollution is much more impactful to the ocean ecosystem, as many species are reliant on the lights from the moon and stars to navigate their migration patterns. Additionally, the lights tend to attract many fish into groups, leaving them vulnerable to fishing and natural predators. Carić and Mackelworth (2014) also discuss how noise pollution from cruise ships has increased exponentially with the increasing number of ships in the water. Other than the human impacts, noise pollution once again affects the marine life far more severely. Even noises with low frequencies, such as sonar and engines, are extremely damaging to the wellbeing of ocean life, particularly cetaceans that rely on their own sonar to navigate, communicate, and hunt. This may be a contributing factor to increased whale collisions with ships as well.
Overtourism and Social Issues
One of the major issues that the cruise industry causes is that of overtourism. Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2008) discuss quite exhaustively in their paper of all of the impacts other than environmental that the cruise industry brings to their ports of call. Firstly, they point out that just getting the infrastructure in place to be able to support the cruise industry is a massive investment, which is only exacerbated by the fact that cruise ships are getting larger and larger with each passing year, necessitating further improvements and increased maintenance costs. Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2008) also note that most of these ports require foreign investment, which generates jobs and revenue, but “it is questionable whether construction of large cruise ship terminals could pass a benefit-cost analysis” (p. 2).
Additionally, the cruise ships can cause the shore-based activities to lose money based on reduced revenue. Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2008) point out that most of the shore-based activities that guests take part in are sold by the cruise company itself. This causes the host of the shore-based activity to lose between 50% and 75% of their values should a non-cruise guest choose to participate in that activity. Additionally, “[t]ourism service providers who want to appear in advertisements delivered on board (videos, brochures, etc.) have to pay for it” (Brida and Zapata-Aguirre, 2008, p. 2). This, combined with the strong lobbying groups in many of these destinations that make laws favorable to the cruise industry, cause the residents and experience providers of many of the destinations to be forced to take smaller shares of shore-based activities in order to even compete.
As discussed before, pollution of the ocean is already considered to be a massive environmental disaster. However, these environmental impacts extend to social impacts as well. Many of the wastewater expulsions end up in the port harbors, and the small amount of fines that the cruise lines pay are doing little to dissuade the cruise lines from continuing to do so (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2008). Additionally, the smog that is created not just from cruise ships, but the entire shipping industry as a whole, has caused massive cardiovascular problems within the port populations (Maragkogianni & Papaefthimiou, 2015). Maragkogianni and Papaefthimiou (2015) also found that the social costs of the environmental impacts in port harbors number in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This takes into account the environmental cost to solve the issues created, healthcare costs for the smog issues, and dealing with waste products generates in port.
The social impacts of tourists on their host communities is well-documented. Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2017) report that “[i]t has been observed that a highly concentrated tourism generates more negative perceptions from residents towards tourist [sic]” (p. 12). One reason for this is social crowding, as tourists take up the physical space that many residents want to use as well. It is also pointed out that tourists also contribute to a shifting culture in host communities, which has both positive and negative effects. Two of the biggest impacts have been cited as loss of local language, and “adopt[ing] habits and patterns from the visitors” (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2017, p. 13). Additional impacts include competing for transportation, especially during high season, exploitative practices to ship workers (many of whom come from major ports), discrimination, and increased crime.
Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2017) also report that few taxes are paid by cruise lines apart from port fees. In fact, many cruise lines have obtained exemptions from the respective port governments in order to encourage ships to dock, as well as passengers to spent money in port. However, in cases where fees are paid, many of those hidden costs are passed down to the residents, many of whom do not make enough money back from the guests to justify keeping their operations open.
Food and Other Waste
Food waste is one of the biggest concerns in the cruise industry today. By its very nature, the cruise industry is extremely wasteful. Most food services are buffet-style, and other than drinks, are inclusive in the cruise’s pricing. It is estimated that the average cruise wastes 2.6 to 3.5 kilograms of food per person per day (Carić & Mackelworth, 2014). When mixed together with the non-organic waste – such as cleaning chemicals – the uncontrolled dumping of waste in the ocean simply compounds the problems. Carić and Mackelworth (2014) also explain that “[t]he problem of storage of waste on-board cruisers is a significant issue, especially as space is at a premium this is why new ships apply on board waste incineration systems”, which contributes to the smog problems throughout the world as discussed earlier (p. 352).
Making matters worse is that when ships do not have the capacity to incinerate their waste, it puts pressure on local communities who have to dump the waste, further straining waste disposal resources that may not even be able to keep up with the current demand of their own population. Carić and Mackelworth (2014) also estimate that up to 24% of all waste in the ocean is a result of cruise ships, as the regulations for dumping waste in international waters continue to be virtually non-existent. Compounding this growing waste issue is that recycling on cruise ships is extremely rare as of this writing, and cruise lines continue to have no incentive to make that correction.
Dishonest Reporting
The cruise industry has been quick to continually point out the positives of having cruise ships on the water. Their own reporting reflects considerable economic growth – both in the cruise industry itself, as well as in the ports – and details several plans to outline the reduction of waste, emissions, and beginning to rely on renewable energies (Cruise Lines International Association, 2020). However, there appears to be a gap in what is appearing in industry reporting, and what is actually occurring. For example, Cruise Lines International Association (2020) claims that on average, $376 is spent by each passenger in the cruise home port before they even embark on the ship, and that each passenger spends $101 in each port. Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2008) claim that this number is not reflective of the actual value of the services that shore operators offer, and that passengers are rarely taxed, thus not contributing to the infrastructure needs of the cruise industry.
Hall, Wood, and Wilson (2017) note that the cruise industry frequently falsifies information in their reports, including their environmental impacts. Court documents reveal that it is common practice, and the continued fining of cruise lines, as introduced earlier, shows that this practice continues. Additionally, Hall et al. (2017) found that the cruise industry is blatantly falsifying their efforts to increase renewable energy use, noting that the cruise industry emissions my increase 150-250% over the next thirty years. The industry reports that their renewable energy efforts are much stronger than is actually the case (Cruise Lines International Association, 2020). Hall et al. (2017) also note that the solar capacity technology currently available is only able to output a fraction of the energy necessary to run a ship, and that current studies in environmental issues fail to recognize the impact of travel to a home port causes, as the majority of cruises do not live in the home port. They also point out that only a fraction of cruise lines have environmental policies, corporate social responsibility initiatives, and biodiversity initiatives.
Discussion
Environmental Impacts and Contributions to Global Warming
The environmental impacts of the cruise industry have been well documented, as discussed in the previous section. When combined with the inconsistent – and sometimes blatantly false – reporting of the cruise industry, it leaves open a perfect storm for climate disaster. Ironically, the rise in “last chance” cruises – trips to areas of the world that are rapidly declining due to climate change – highlight how the cruise industry is both ignoring the climate crisis, but is also profiting from it (Eijgelaar, Thaper, & Peeters, 2010; Johnston, Johnston, Stewart, Dawson, & Lemelin, 2012). Though the cruise industry appears to be making efforts to curb their impacts by investing in renewable technologies, Hall et al. (2017) notes that current technology is not enough to make up for the massive amount of energy required for just one cruise ship to operate. 
This makes the industry’s projections dangerously optimistic, as public perception towards the industry is more favorable, but misleading. The disproportionate amount of environmental impact from the cruise industry compared to others is concerning, and does not appear to be getting any better as time goes on.
As cruise ships get larger and larger, these impacts will continue to affect the environment, especially in ports that have to directly change the environment in order to accommodate the bigger ships (Lester & Weeden, 2004). Johnson (2002) warns that there are certain popular ports that are just not conducive to environmentally-sustainable cruise practices, even with technological advancements and stricter policies. This puts the cruise industry at odds with its claim of trying to be more environmentally friendly and turning a profit.
The answer as to how environmental issues caused by the cruise industry can be fixed is not a simple one to answer. In the past, massive fines imposed on the offending companies have done little to change their practices. Financial incentives for cruise lines who invest in renewable technologies have been proposed, but Hall et al. (2017) reminds us that the technology to supply that much power is simply not available yet. Han, Jae, & Hwang (2016) propose that it is actually the passengers who may have the most impact in changing how cruise lines operate. The cruise industry may give financial incentives to passengers who practice certain green behaviors, such as recycling and limiting laundry and water use or food waste. When other passengers see these incentives, it will normalize the behavior within the industry. However, they note that since many cruisers are older adults who are repeat cruisers, the level of comfort and complacency experienced in this group may be a major limitation to normalizing green behaviors.
Cuba & Burgos (2008) propose that cruise lines and host nations should also focus on converting waste products into energy, and that there is technology available to make this viable. This involves using waste products to be converted into new energy sources, such as compost, recycling, and biogas technology. However, there are severe financial limitations to this idea, as the technology is very expensive. Cruise lines may use that as a reason to not invest in that form of sustainable energy, and many host nations are developing countries that do not have the funds to implement this initiative. For this method to be successful, certain behaviors like recycling would need to become normalized. As discussed previously, there are serious barriers to this becoming reality.
Commoy et al. (2005) suggest that stricter regulations and enforcement – especially in the realm of wastewater – may be the only way to really stem the tide of environmental impacts. They propose requiring ships to meet certain environmental standards, and to be transparent with any test results stemming from these regulations. Ultimately, this may force cruise lines to retire older – and less environmentally friendly – ships sooner, as well as building smaller vessels that don’t have as much impact on the environment.
Overtourism and Social Issues
As bigger ships continue to come into ports, more passengers begin to flood the areas they visit. This consequentially increases the impact that passengers have on social issues, both positively and negatively. Lester and Weeden (2004) discuss how one of the biggest tragedies of the growing cruise industry is the loss of control that many of the port countries are experiencing. As ships continue to grow larger, the increase for service demands also increases. This necessitates the construction of more facilities, expensive changes to harbors, and continued loss of value in local services (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2008). This causes inflation to run rampant, as service providers charge more to make up the money they are losing from value loss, which increases the cost of services for host residents as well. As discussed previously, healthcare costs also rise for communities with heavy cruise activities (Maragkogianni & Papaefthimiou, 2015). This is particularly true of the transportation industry, as the demand has increased dramatically without major changes to the infrastructure (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2017). This puts a considerable amount of people at risk of spending most of their income on transportation, or missing out on the usage at all.
Brida and Zapata-Aguirre (2017) discuss how the lack of taxation is a major reason for the social issues and financial loss of host communities. Cruise ships frequently lobby to port destinations to have tax-free visits at the risk of losing the port of tourists altogether. The income from taxation of both tourists and the cruise lines could greatly – and positively – impact how these social issues can be mitigated. The cost of maintaining and building bigger and better ports would be taken up by the governments, and the increased taxation would ensure better financial security in the port nations.
Having environmental regulations may also help the current social issues become lessened. As explained, if environmental laws are enacted and enforced, newer, cleaner, and smaller ships may become the norm, thus lessening the amount of people that visit ports. This reduces strain and competition on local resources immediately.
There are several ways that a lessening of competition for resources could be enacted. One of those methods is that of establishment of a carrying capacity. Stefanidaki and Lekakou (2014) propose that this would not be so different to establishing carrying capacities with standards that are already in place for popular areas of natural resources. They proposed several factors that would limit the amount of passengers to enter ports, but still remain beneficial to the locals who depend on them for income. Thus, establishing a carrying capacity would find a good balance between both the benefits and the negatives of the cruise industry. Not only would social issues be vastly diminished, but so will environmental factors.
Food Waste
As explained previously, Carić & Mackelworth (2014) estimate that food waste on cruise ships is massive. This may include several factors, including the lack of need to prepare, that food is inclusive of the price, and the buffet-style menu of many cruises. Passengers do not pay for the food in the way that they do at home. Thus, it leaves it open for passengers to take more than they’ll actually eat. Thus, food waste is seen as a luxury rather than a burden to passengers whose behavior on cruises is not reflective of their home behaviors. And as Han et al. (2016) pointed out, the current demographic of passengers that go on cruises are older adults that have difficulty in changing behaviors.
Adding to this problem – as well as an adequate solution – is the fact that current food standards decree that food cannot be served again once it as already been served, leaving a solution of giving food waste to the poor of port nations problematic. However, several solutions have been proposed to potentially lessen the increased food waste that cruises are seeing. Though served food has to be thrown out, that does not necessarily mean that that is true of food that has not been served. It would be possible for unserved food to be given to charity organizations in poorer ports, thus giving back to communities that the cruises benefit from. Another solution would be to remove the all-inclusive food option in cruises, and have passengers pay for food separately. This obviously presents some problems – such as passengers being unable or unwilling to pay for ship food, and cruises inflating the pricing of food to make it unaffordable – but could actually have some interesting benefits. Particularly when it comes to buffets, many takeout buffets are going towards a weight system to pay for food. This may help passengers be more aware of how much food they are buying, and less likely to waste food, and likely exhibiting their at-home behaviors in the process. Again, as pointed out by Han et al. (2016), when ships and passengers normalize this behavior, adoption for other people becomes much easier.
Dishonest Reporting
One of the more disturbing issues in the cruise industry is that of dishonest reporting. As Hall et al. (2017) reports, this issue is very deep-seeded in the industry, particularly when it comes to environmental issues. However, they also estimate that the cruise industry’s projections for changes are extremely optimistic. Fortunately, this reporting issue is one that appears to be easier to remedy than some of the other current disturbing trends within the industry. Hall et al. (2017) cite the increased regulations on the industry emerging from Europe and other vulnerable areas are a positive change on the horizon which will force cruise ships to be transparent about their reporting.
Additionally, change in public perception may be a catalyst for major changes within the industry. As passengers demand more transparency, and more environmentally-friendly practices, the cruise industry may be forced to adapt to changing climates, and potentially be left behind to newer cruise lines that are following updated standards of operation. But as Commoy et al. (2005) remind us, stricter regulation may be the only way to see truly lasting change. And that should come in the form of international regulation, rather than regional as is the current practice. This could also include changes to regulations in international waters, as that is where many cruise lines get away with the worst environmental crimes. International law should decree that no waste may be dumped in the ocean, and can only be dumped in the home port or ports that can handle the increased waste management. If it is mandated – or indeed, necessary - that waste needs to be dumped at each port of call, taxes should be levied from the cruise lines to support construction of better waste disposal in ports. This will also benefit port residents, as their public health facilities will be dramatically improved.
However, increased regulations and patrolling do not necessarily mean greater compliance. As shown in previous cases, the cruise industry appears to accept the fines as the cost of doing business (Herrera, 2017; Kennedy & Allen, 2019). It should be noted that increasing the fines to encompass the entire revenue of the cruise in question may be the only way to prevent the cruise lines from simply writing off the fines as a cost of doing business. Along with regulations, it is estimated that 89% of environmental cases against cruise lines are never pursued (Commoy et al., 2005). It may be time for passengers – and more importantly, ports – to demand that courts pursue these cases and properly punish the cruise lines into compliance.
Conclusion
Before the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, the cruise industry was estimated to be one of the most popular and profitable methods of tourism in the world. The ease of access to new countries, stellar hospitality, and the ever-increasing affordability of cruises have made them a very attractive vacation alternative for a growing number of people worldwide. However, the amazing positives that the cruise industry brings is outweighed by the stunning negatives that have perpetuated the industry.
And while environmental issues, social issues, food waste, and dishonest reporting continue to be common within the industry, there are some hopes for changes in the future. Increased regulation from European ports may force the industry as a whole to adopt new standards of operation. Additionally, as ports and passengers become more aware of the industry’s unethical practices, demand for change continues to mount. As passengers normalize environmentally and socially friendly behaviors, adoption by cruise lines and passengers appear to be more likely.
And while COVID-19 ravages the world, we can be optimistic of a few things. While the cruise industry has shut down, there is hope that both the industry and the ports reevaluate the impacts that cruising has on various aspects of their worlds, and that positive and permanent change will be enacted to make the cruise a continued benefit, but also a less negative one.
Growing up in South Africa and moving to Utah, USA as a teenager, Scott is a graduate of Utah Valley University’s Outdoor Recreation program. Scott is currently a Master’s Student at the University of Florida. His research interests include ecotourism, sustainability, and tourist affect cycles. He has worked in multiple therapy, outdoor, and retail settings, and is a published author.