ODYBOAT Cruise Flow
Observatory › Port-city governance
Port-city governance Peer-reviewed journal

Four governance models for cruise ports

A systematic literature review, based on a very small body of studies, distinguishes four cruise port governance models, from an entrepreneurial port authority to a private terminal operator.

Port Governance and Cruise Tourism — Vega-Muñoz, A.; Salazar-Sepúlveda, G.; Contreras-Barraza, N. et al. · Sustainability (MDPI), 13, 4877

WhereConceptual study
Year2021
SourceSustainability (MDPI), 13, 4877
Strength of methodMedium

The question

Which port governance models explicitly consider cruise traffic, terminals and passengers, and what patterns of cooperation, competition and stakeholder involvement emerge from the scientific literature?

The method

Systematic review (PRISMA, PICOS criteria) with scientometric analysis (VOSviewer) on the Web of Science Core Collection; qualitative meta-analysis of a very small set of articles (n = 6, published 2017-2020).

What the study finds

6 articlesfound on port governance and cruisesThe systematic Web of Science search returned just six articles on port governance that also cover cruise traffic; the authors themselves flag this scarcity as the study's main weakness.
4 modelsof cruise port governanceDrawing on the literature, the study distinguishes four cruise port governance models: A) large port run by the port authority as an active entrepreneur; B) operation by an international cruise terminal operator (investor/facilitator); C) operation by a terminal operator (marketer role); D) small port run by the port authority in a passive, conservative role.
3 portsintegrated in the Suruga Bay systemThe Suruga Bay model (Japan) integrates three prefectural ports into a cooperative system with complementary functions: logistics, safety/disaster response and a 'spark' function tied to tourism, travel and environment.
  • Building on an earlier study, the authors note that Northern European cruise terminals, being smaller, face less pressure than Mediterranean ones, whose larger size calls for more elaborate strategies and dealings with more actors; they add that, counting all traffic, Northern European ports are often the bigger ones.
  • The entry of private operators, including cruise lines, into terminal operation points to further privatisation; according to the authors this benefits the destination only if on-board, port and attraction activities are integrated.
  • In the authors' reading, the port authority mainly regulates and coordinates; when it takes an entrepreneurial role, it brings market logic into management while still keeping ownership of the port.
Why it matters for ports and cities

It provides a compact map of the ways ports can organise cruise traffic management, useful to understand who decides and who coordinates during a call. It stresses that benefits for the city depend on integrating ship, port and attractions, not just on the ownership model.

Limitations

Very small empirical base (6 articles, almost all from the Mediterranean area and with a strong presence of a single group of authors); no primary data. Pre-pandemic analysis as far as the models are concerned.

Full reference and source

Vega-Muñoz, A., Salazar-Sepúlveda, G., Contreras-Barraza, N., Araya-Silva, L. (2021). Port Governance and Cruise Tourism. Sustainability (MDPI), 13, 4877.

Read the original study ↗

Summary written by the ODYBOAT Observatory in our own words. Tables and figures belong to the authors.