Introduction
More than 6000 years after humans reputedly
first reached the North American continent by
land, Vitus Bering led a Russian expedition
aboard two ships to explore Alaska in 1741. Four
decades later, Captain James Cook arrived by
boat to map Alaska’s extensive coastline for
Great Britain. Soon thereafter, intrepid Russian
colonialists sailed from Siberia to establish the
first European settlement on Kodiak Island, and
almost 30,000 adventurous goldseekers disem-
barked from steamships in 1897 in transit to the
Yukon and Klondike mines. Today, almost one
million visitors reach Alaska by boat each year
during the brief summer season (May–
September). Although many come aboard ferries
of the state’s famed Alaska Marine Highway
System, most sail on one of 32 vessels owned by
12 cruise lines that now ply the inland waters of
Alaska and the Canadian Pacific – and their pop-
ularity is growing almost exponentially.
Alaska’s inbound cruise arrivals now
account for almost half of all visitors to the
state, and their numbers are increasing at an
annual rate of 10% as more ships dock each
year from San Francisco, Seattle, and
Vancouver, British Columbia. Indeed, so popular
has this niche become, both regionally and
internationally, that the marine advocacy
group, Oceana, estimates cruise passengers
(85% of them US residents) will more than dou-
ble to 20 million by the year 2010, as more fam-
ilies and younger travellers try a cruise vacation.
To meet this anticipated demand, the
International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), a
consortium of 16 of the world’s leading cruise
lines,1 expects to christen 38 new cruise ships in
the next few years, thereby increasing its own
fleet capacity by 45%. Many of these vessels will
be added to those previously repositioned to
serve Alaska after the September 2001 attacks
(Klein, 2003; Alaska Travel Industry Association,
2004; Cruise Lines International Association,
2004; Morton, 2004).
The advent and rapid growth of cruise
tourism presents both opportunities and chal-
lenges for destination communities in Alaska
and the Pacific North-west (Fig. 25.1). Air pol-
lution, illegal dumping of sewage and solid
waste, inadequate treatment equipment, dam-
age to coral reefs and sensitive marine environ-
ments from inappropriate anchorages and
recreational activities aboard cruise ships, and
falsified records are only a few of the regulatory
25 Cruising North to Alaska: The New
‘Gold Rush’
G. Ringer
Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management, University of Oregon, Eugene,
OR 97403-1209 USA
©CAB International 2006. Cruise Tourism (ed. R.K. Dowling) 1
1 ICCL members include Carnival Cruise Lines,
Celebrity Cruises, Costa Cruise Lines N.V., Crystal
Cruises, Cunard Line Limited, Disney Cruise Line,
Holland America Line, Norwegian Cruise Line, Orient
Lines, Princess Cruises, Radisson Seven Seas Cruises,
Regal Cruises, Royal Caribbean International, Royal
Olympic Cruises, Seabourn Cruise Line and Windstar
Cruises. The vessels owned by these companies repre-
sent approximately 90% of the North American cruise
line industry.
[Q1]
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 1
infractions for which cruise lines have paid mil-
lions of US dollars in fines. The socio-economic
and cultural costs are equally significant, par-
ticularly in the isolated coastal and island com-
munities increasingly attractive to cruise
visitors because of their rural lifestyles and
local traditions (Ringer, 1998).
Subsistence practices among indigenous
Alaskan natives are now threatened by environ-
mental and cultural mismanagement, while
social systems are overwhelmed in communities
where the ratio of passengers to residents is often
11:1 or greater. Economic benefits remain
equally uncertain, as villagers spend money
preparing for cruise tourists who may not come,
or will spend less than land-based tourists and
independent travellers if they do arrive. In other
ports, the noise of sightseeing helicopters and
float planes, the stress on humpback whales and
wildlife from tour boats, conflicts over trail use,
and the ‘[f]loods of cruise passengers threaten to
overtax the limited facilities and supplies’
(Earthjustice, 2003, p. 2). Meanwhile, the ports
of Juneau and Seattle must incur additional
expenses for security measures mandated by the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
to directly monitor cruise ship passengers, crews
and baggage while docked. As a result, the Port of
Seattle continues to lose money every year on the
cruise business (Zuckerman, 1999; Schroeder,
2001; Meadahl, 2003; Brown, 2004).
At the same time, there can be no denying
the positive impacts of cruise travel for both pas-
sengers and local people. Economically, the
influx of ships and people pumped US$958 mil-
lion into Alaska in 2003 in wages and pur-
chases, and another US$103 million in tax
revenue, moorage fees and marketing. Money
spent by cruise visitors while ashore added an
additional US$230 million in income to state
businesses and governments. As a result, cruise
travel is now ‘the largest sector of the tourism
industry in Southeast Alaska, and has a signifi-
cant economic impact in the region’ (Schmid,
2003, p. 1; McDowell Group, 2004; Northern
Economics Inc., 2004).
In Juneau, Alaska’s state capital, the cruise
tourism boom has successfully revitalized the
2 G. Ringer
Fig. 25.1. Selected cruise ports, western USA and Canadian Pacific. Source: Greg Ringer.
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 2
town, helping to fund restoration of a down-
town historic shopping district, and to diversify
the local economy through job creation and
business partnerships. Where cruise visits have
disturbed wildlife or disrupted residents, State
and community officials have tried to mitigate
the impacts through established ‘best practices’,
and the designation of more socially and ecolog-
ically sensitive routes, landing sites and viewing
areas. For this reason, annual opinion surveys
conducted by the city tourism office consistently
show strong support among community mem-
bers for the cruise visits. Despite legitimate con-
cerns about growing ship and passenger
arrivals, many residents and local governments
throughout south-east and south-central
Alaska appear equally cognizant of the practical
benefits of cruise tourism.
Socio-economic Impacts
Although the state of Florida accounts for the
majority of embarkations at US ports – 69% of an
estimated 7.1 million passengers in 2003 – the
western states of California, Oregon, Washington
and Alaska, as well as Canada’s Pacific provinces,
are experiencing equally significant socio-eco-
nomic impacts. Ports in Astoria, Oregon; Seattle;
and Vancouver, British Columbia, now share a
growing segment of the national cruise ship mar-
ket, as Alaska prospers as a cruise destination in
spite of increased worries over personal safety
and high unemployment (Fig. 25.2).
Attracted by its abundant and accessible
natural scenery, wildlife and native culture, the
North West Cruise Ship Association recorded in
excess of 800,000 passenger arrivals in Alaska
in 2004 – 110,000 more than reported only 3
years earlier – and the state is ranked among the
five most profitable for cruise tourism in the
USA. With nearly 8% of the total worldwide
cruise market, the industry claims that every
summer, ‘one of every five cruise ships on the
planet is navigating Alaska’s Inside Passage to
Ketchikan, Juneau and other outposts [and an]
Alaska cruise is now the world’s third most pop-
ular voyage, trailing [only] the Caribbean and
Mediterranean runs’ (Lynch, 2004, p. E1;
Alaska Travel Industry Association, 2004).
‘With our many natural attractions, colorful
history and native cultures, Alaska is a perfect
cruise destination’, said Governor Frank
Murkowski. ‘The cruise business is an important
part of our diverse economy (International
Council of Cruise Lines, 2004, p. 2).
Most US ‘cruisers’ come from the east coast
or midwest and consequently, embark on their
7–11 day journey to the ‘Last Frontier’ from a
major coastal gateway, such as Los Angeles, San
Francisco and Vancouver, British Columbia.
A growing number, however, sail from smaller
‘drive-to’ markets in close proximity to larger
populations in the Pacific North-west, including
Seattle. So popular are these sailings regionally
that Idaho and Oregon American Automobile
Association travel agents alone booked 37%
more Alaskan cruise vacations in 2004 than the
previous year (AAA Oregon/Idaho, 2004).
Cruising North to Alaska 3
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Pa
ss
en
ge
r a
rri
va
ls 
(′0
00
)
1984 1994 2004
Year
Fig. 25.2. Alaska cruise passenger arrivals. Source: Alaska Travel Industry Association, 2004.
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 3
The majority of passengers are married
and middle-aged (50 years or older). Since
Alaskan cruises tend to be relatively expensive,
costing an average of US$10,000 a person for a
week-long cruise, those who sail aboard the
cruise ships are also moderately affluent, with
median household incomes of US$75,000 and
more. Passenger surveys further indicate that
Alaskan cruisers prefer to travel in pairs or par-
ties of two, and the majority are women.
Popular ports of call include Juneau; Sitka,
once the political center of Russian America in
the 19th century; Ketchikan, Alaska’s ‘First
City’ as cruise ships transit the Inside Passage
north; Skagway, a former gold rush town;
Haines, terminus for the Alaska State Marine
Highway; Hubbard Glacier, in the Wrangell–St
Elias National Park (the largest protected area in
the USA); and Whittier, gateway to Anchorage
and Denali National Park. As a destination mar-
ket, Alaska attracts more than 90% of all US
port-of-call passengers – and this total does not
include those who sail on small cruise ships, or
‘pocket cruises’ that typically carry 50–100 pas-
sengers on day cruises for whalewatching and to
view scenic sights like Prince William Sound,
the Malaspina Glacier, College Fjord and Glacier
Bay National Park.
Because of passengers’ varied interests and
itineraries, the major lines employ a practice
called ‘vertical integration’. By purchasing busi-
nesses in all segments of the Alaskan tourism
industry (including investments in land- and
water-based tour companies in the primary des-
tinations, gift and souvenir shops, hotels and
restaurants), cruise lines strive to satisfy every
desire of the growing number of users. In this
manner, both cruise companies and Alaskan
communities derive considerable revenue from a
wide range of ancillary support and recre-
ational activities, such as ‘flightseeing,’ fishing,
birdwatching and wildlife viewing, and wilder-
ness accommodations, as well as related spend-
ing in food sales, environmental management,
marine maintenance and infrastructure devel-
opment.
With multiplying passenger numbers and
jobs – the Alaska cruise industry now employs
almost 19,000 workers or 7% of the total cruise-
related workforce in the USA – marine tourism
impacts virtually every part of the state’s econ-
omy, from construction to agriculture and trans-
portation. In ports from Astoria to Skagway,
‘industry and passenger spending in the United
States rose from $10.3 billion in 2000 to $12.9
billion in 2003 – a 25 percent gain’ (Business
Research & Economic Advisors, 2004, p. 1). The
International Council of Cruise Lines further
reports that cruise ships and their vendors con-
tributed more than US$694 million in direct
purchases, salaries, taxes and services to the
state’s economy in 2004. Nearly two-thirds of
this amount comes from crew and passengers,
the latter spending US$140 each per visit or ‘31
percent of all passenger and crew spending in
the United States’ (Business Research &
Economic Advisors, 2004, p. 1; Sacks, 2004).
The Juneau Convention & Visitor Bureau
(2004, personal communication) reported
almost 850,000 cruise arrivals in 2004 from
both large and ‘pocket’ cruise lines (a 9%
annual growth rate), while in Ketchikan,
between one and five ships now anchor each
day in the summer season, with 508 stops by
34 ships recorded by the Ketchikan Visitors
Bureau (2004). Aboard were a total of
681,096 passengers, nearly triple the number
reported a decade earlier, when a total of 27
cruise liners stopped in port.
The decline of the timber industry in
Haines in the early 1990s led to similar growth
in tourism, with the town targeting the cruise
ship market early by identifying the industry’s
infrastructure needs and nearby attractions,
and then spending US$1.5 million to expand the
Port Chilkoot dock facilities and transportation
networks. The result, at least initially, was con-
tinued increases in both ships and passengers,
from 58 stops (27,000 passengers) in 1990 to a
peak of 184,134 passengers on 13 vessels (157
stops) in 2000 (Cerveny, 2004; Gilbertson,
2004; Mazza, 2004).
In addition to the growth of cruise tourism in
Alaska, neighbouring states in the USA and the
Canadian province of British Columbia have also
profited as cruise travel attracts more passengers
to the Pacific North-west, already the second-
largest source of cruise passengers in the country,
with 1.18 million reported in 2003. Seattle, a
major port of embarkation for visitors from across
the USA is now reputedly the third-largest cruise
port in the nation in terms of passengers, with
172,500 passengers boarding in 2003 (many of
them regional and local residents).
4 G. Ringer
[Q2]
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 4
On average, seven cruise ships now stop
briefly in Seattle each week from May—to
September, with 149 cruises recorded in 2004
and annual income of almost US$ 200 mil-
lion, and the city is homeport for four interna-
tional companies – a remarkable turnaround
for a city that rarely saw a cruise ship before
2000. Perhaps more significant for local work-
ers, jobs in the cruise industry are also increas-
ing, with nearly 2000 positions either directly
or indirectly servicing the cruise lines in 2003,
each paying approximately US$39,500 a year.
Anticipating further expansions in the Alaska
cruise market, with 185 ships and 375,000
passengers expected to dock in Seattle in
2005, as faster ships make it possible for those
based in Los Angeles and San Francisco to
explore Alaska, the Port of Seattle is now rede-
veloping its harbour facilities to accommodate
more cruise ships, and establishing itself as
administrative headquarters for cruise lines on
the west coast through a combination of ship
repair facilities and management support
services.
With Portland considered too inconvenient
for cruise ships because of its location inland on
the Columbia River and its lack of inner-city
moorings, the San Francisco–based ‘[c]ruise
ship stopovers bring economic hope’ (Associated
Press, 2004a, p. D13) to the small coastal com-
munity of Astoria, Oregon, as well. In a town
where dilapidated shops and houses were the
norms only a few years ago, the arrival of cruise
ships headed north to Alaska has helped initiate
an economic revival. Following rehabilitation of
Astoria’s historic hotels and renovated water-
front, and sparked by the arrival of Norwegian
Cruise Lines in 1997, companies now stop in
Astoria so that passengers can enjoy walking
tours and excursions to Mount St Helens, an
active volcano, or to seaside towns nearby
(Tobias, 2004).
In 2004, a total of 8 ships docked – includ-
ing three on the same day in late September,
with 6000 passengers altogether in a city of
only 10,000 persons – and 14 vessels are sched-
uled to visit Astoria in 2005, evidence of the
growing popularity of both the town and cruise
tourism. Although the stopovers are relatively
brief, averaging 6–8 hours in length from berth
to departure, tourism has increased by half
since 2002 and the cruise stops are quite lucra-
tive for the local community, with each passen-
ger spending approximately US$150 while
ashore. In time, the city’s goal is to become a
‘jump-off spot where Oregon cruisers could get
on and off ships…[instead of a] pit stop for
California cruisers’ (Lynch, 2004, p. E2; Rocka,
2004).
Along the Canadian Pacific coast, cruise
travel is equally strong, as revenue and total pas-
sengers are driven higher by the Alaskan cruise
market. Although Vancouver’s role has changed
since cruises to Alaska began in the 1950s, as
more cruise lines homeport in Seattle, the city
remains a prominent beneficiary of Alaska’s
popularity and the US Passenger Services Act
(1886), which generally allows only US-owned,
-built and -crewed ships to transport domestic
passengers directly between US ports. Since
most of the Alaskan cruise ships are foreign-
owned and -manned, they must make an inter-
mediate stop outside the USA en route to and
from Alaska and the contiguous USA. For this
reason, in part, more than two dozen ships now
either depart from, or visit, Vancouver each year
in transit to Alaska, and the 368 port calls
scheduled for 2004 earned an estimated US$1.9
million in direct and indirect benefits (Dobson,
et al., 2002; Lynch, 2004).
Accompanying the economic contribu-
tions, however, are growing conflicts – from
Astoria to Alaska – related to the changing
dynamics and behaviour of tourists, the conges-
tion and strains on local residents and infra-
structure, and the potential loss of social and
cultural identity as communities evolve into
tourist destinations, and local people are forced
to make the difficult transition from lifestyles
defined by resource extraction (fishing, timber,
mining) to those of a tourist attraction. Local
entrepreneurs complain that the permit process
utilized by cruise ships in Glacier Bay is unfair to
local business owners, while operators in Haines
are unable to profitably compete against the
tours pre-sold by the cruise ships, as independ-
ent travel to Alaska declines in interest – only
23% of those who visit south-east Alaska now
label themselves ‘independent travelers’, com-
pared to 40% in 1989 (McDowell Group, 2002;
Cruise Junkie.com, 2004a).
Aggravating the situation, many working-
class residents have been displaced by higher
housing costs associated with the economic
Cruising North to Alaska 5
[Q3]
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 5
rebirth and gentrification of Alaska’s coastal
communities, and wages in the cruise sector
remain significantly less than those historically
paid in the logging and fishing industries. In
addition, the instability of the domestic and
international tourism markets, along with the
hostility of the cruise industry to visitor taxes
and cruise cap measures, and its willingness and
ability to transfer ships and stops to more lucra-
tive routes on short notice, add to the difficulty
of relying on tourism as a sustainable source of
income, as the people of Haines are learning.
In 2002, the total number of cruise visi-
tors declined by almost 79% after Royal
Caribbean International cancelled 52 dockings
in Haines, the Norwegian Sky cancelled 19 port
calls, and the Universe Explorer reduced its visits
by one, dropping the total number of arriving
cruise passengers to only 37,192 for the season.
Two years later, Holland America Line
announced plans to withdraw 8 of the com-
pany’s 17 planned cruise stops in 2005 and
shift them to neighbouring Skagway, where
passengers could connect directly to the com-
pany’s bus tours and lodges. The result will be a
further reduction in passenger numbers, with
only 14,400 passengers expected to arrive next
summer – the lowest number since cruise ships
began stopping in Haines in the early 1990s –
and an equal decline in income. As a result,
there is now considerable out-migration of
younger residents and families for affordable
homes, jobs and schools elsewhere (Morphet,
2002; Williams, 2004).
Health and Ecological Impacts
In addition to the economic displacement and
behaviour transformations associated with the
development of cruise tourism in many of these
towns, there are risks associated with cruise ship
sanitation and public health. Since many
Alaskans rely on the natural environment for
subsistence, as well as recreation and trans-
portation, this is an issue of great concern, and
one which the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) high-
lighted in 1999 when it established the Alaska
Cruise Ship Initiative to address impacts caused
by cruise ships in state waters (ADEC, 2002).
All Alaskan cruise ships must comply with
Federal and State environmental laws, including
the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, and the Oil
Pollution Control Act. Despite these efforts,
sewage-borne illnesses, similar to the recent out-
breaks of Norwalk-like viruses on several cruise
ships in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean
that affected more than 3000 passengers and
crew, have resulted in cancelled port stops and
shortened itineraries in Alaska as well. Yet, this
highly contagious virus is spread, in part, by raw
sewage dumped into the oceans by cruise boats,
which ‘generate as much as 30,000 gallons of
raw sewage [in addition to 7 t of garbage and
solid waste, 15 gallons of toxic chemicals, 7000
gallons of oil and bilge water, and air pollution
equivalent to the exhausts of 12,000 automo-
biles] every day’ (Klein, 2002, p. 1).
Although diesel engine emissions from
cruise ships are regulated in Alaska (Cruise Ship
Air Emissions Working Group, 2000), air pollu-
tion also remains a serious public health prob-
lem. While compliance has certainly improved
since 1999, when 13 ships from six companies
were fined by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (2004) for violating air quality stan-
dards in Glacier Bay, Juneau and Seward, ships
from Holland America Line continue to be cited
every year for violating air opacity regulations
in Alaskan ports (though most fines were sus-
pended after the company promised to comply).
In addition, while cruise ships are legally
barred from releasing plastics and untreated
grey water (waste water from sinks, baths,
showers and laundries) in Alaska state waters,
and may only release untreated sewage in the
Alexander Archipelago of Alaska while travel-
ling at least 6 knots an hour and a mile offshore,
neither the US nor the Canadian governments
regularly monitor discharges in the Inland
Passage or Gulf of Alaska. Nor are cruise ships
required to have a permit to dump or to monitor
water quality where they discharge, or even to
report the contents of their release.
As a result, no one knows whether the ille-
gal sewage discharge in Juneau in May 2001 by
the Norwegian Sky, where ‘[f]ecal coliform
counts were 3500 times the allowable federal
standard and total suspended solids 180 times
the standard’ (London, 2002, p. 39), was an
anomaly in terms of seriousness? Unlawful grey
water and waste water discharges were clearly
6 G. Ringer
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 6
the industry norms, however, as evidenced by
similar citations against three other vessels
while docked in Juneau only a month later, and
the subsequent dumping of 40,000 gallons of
sewage sludge in Juneau’s harbour by Holland
America Line’s Ryndam in 2002 (Cruise
Junkie.com, 2004b).
Nevertheless, ADEC determined that same
year, after nearly 2 years of research and advi-
sory input, that Federal and State regulations
were adequate in controlling potential hazards
to the marine and terrestrial environments.
Although ‘the high levels of fecal coliform found
in cruise ship discharge testing during the 2000
cruise ship season in Alaska’ (Dobson, et al.,
2002, p. 13) increased concern over industry
impacts to wildlife and human health, ADEC
advisers noted that every cruise ship entering
Alaskan waters is equipped with primary or sec-
ondary treatment facilities. They argued, there-
fore, that normal ship operations should not
ordinarily release harmful amounts of chemi-
cals or particulates. Consequently, the state was
urged only to restrict chlorine discharges, a
caustic disinfectant regularly used in shipboard
treatment systems, and to address the possible
impacts of waste water dumping by cruise ships
and state ferries in slow-moving water.
An equally serious environmental threat
stems from the release of ballast water into state
waters. Frequently laden with non-endemic,
invasive marine species, bacteria and diseases
transported from foreign ports, the impacts can
include the decimation and extinction of native
plants and wildlife, and it is a growing problem
in west coast ports. Yet, only California regulates
ballast discharges at present, though the US
Environmental Protection Agency is currently
developing sewage and grey water disposal stan-
dards for cruise ships in Alaskan waters under
Title XIV: Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship
Operations (33 U.S.C. 1902 Note), with sam-
pling initiated in the summer of 2004.
Furthermore, while some ‘cruise lines have
worked to develop – and implement – state-of-the-
art waste treatment equipment…no government
programs exist to verify the efficiency and benefits
of new technologies’ (Ocean Conservancy, 2004,
p. 3), and US and international laws continue to
permit ocean-going vessels to dump treated
sewage anywhere at sea and untreated sewage
more than 4 knots from shore (though the cruise
ship industry standard is 12 knots). Thus, while
cruise travel in Alaskan waters is certainly better
managed, and the ocean and marine wildlife bet-
ter protected, by Federal and State legislation
than elsewhere in the country, it remains prima-
rily the responsibility of local communities to
determine whether fishing and swimming in
coastal waters remain safe for public consump-
tion and use (Cruise Junkie.com, 2004b).
Fortunately, ‘this pollution can be stopped
for the costs of a can of soda per passenger per
day’ (Oceana, 2002, p. 2). Unfortunately, many
communities are restrained from taking effec-
tive action against polluters by political barriers,
as well as budget constraints. Every cruise ship
now operating on the Alaska route flies a ‘flag of
convenience’, indicating that it is registered out-
side the USA. As such, these ships are immune
from stronger US labour and environmental
laws, even though they operate in US waters.
Enforcement efforts against illegal actions
by cruise ships are further impeded by misinfor-
mation among cruise ship passengers, most of
whom mistakenly believe that environmental
safeguards are in place aboard most ships, and
consequently are unaware that sewage is
dumped daily at sea. However, a strong majority
(80%) of tourists opposed this practice when
informed, and 60% expressed a willingness to
pay more to ensure cleaner, ‘eco-friendly’
cruises. More specifically, cruise customers want
companies to upgrade existing ship-based,
waste-treatment systems, and favour more
stringent inspections and frequent, independent
monitoring of cruise ship practices (Reece,
2003; ADEC, 2004).
The Future
There is no doubt that many Alaskans share
these sentiments, as Governor Tony Knowles
himself indicated in June 2001, when he
signed legislation giving Alaska state regulators
direct authority over the cruise industry.
Designed to give greater protection to Alaska’s
marine resources, including ‘the world’s largest
populations of wild salmon and other species
that are important to commercial, sport,
and subsistence users’ (M. Brown, Commis-
sioner, Alaska Department of Environmental
Cruising North to Alaska 7
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 7
Conservation, Juneau, 2002, personal commu-
nication), the industry-funded law created, for
the first time, a set of enforceable environmen-
tal standards and a verified programme for
monitoring and documenting ship discharges
and emissions in state waters effective January
2004. Although small cruise ship operators
now seek an exemption from the waste water
pollution law, arguing against the high expense
of the equipment required, violations of the
Marine Visible Emissions Standards have
declined from a total of 15 in 2000 to only 2
Notices of Violation in 2003, as a direct result
of the approximately 260 opacity assessments
conducted each year on large cruise ships in
south-east and south-central Alaska ports
(Associated Press, 2004b; Eastern Research
Group Inc., 2004).
This effort accelerated in December 2003,
when the International Council of Cruise Lines
and Conservation International announced a
‘joint initiative to protect biodiversity in top
cruise destinations and promote industry prac-
tices that minimize the cruise industry’s envi-
ronmental impact’ (ICCL, 2003, p. 1). It was
critical, the Ocean Conservation and Tourism
Alliance proclaimed, that actions be taken
immediately by the cruise industry to ‘pioneer
conservation solutions that are scientifically,
economically and culturally sound…[noting
that] approximately 70% of cruise destinations
are in the biodiversity hotspots’ (ICCL, 2004,
p. 2). With an initial commitment of US$1.2
million, the partnership, in consultation with
scientific experts in conservation and cruise
tourism, urged companies to become better
environmental stewards by acting quickly to (i)
establish ‘best practices’ and improved technol-
ogy for waste water purification and disposal; (ii)
increase environmental education for vendors,
crew members and cruise guests to highlight
critical environmental challenges and support
opportunities; and (iii) create collaborative ‘des-
tination partnerships’ between local communi-
ties, governments and cruise companies to
assure quality experiences for both residents and
visitors, and long-term protection for the natu-
ral and cultural environments of the cruise des-
tination.
Actions already undertaken include the
installation of a US$4.5 million electric shore-
power plug-in system in Juneau, where cruise
ships may disconnect their engines while
docked, thereby reducing both noise and air
pollution. The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
have also joined with cruise lines and tour oper-
ators to institute Tourism Best Management
Practices, ‘a model management program for
sustainable tourism’ (CBJ, 2004, p. 1) that
addresses the concerns of local residents, gov-
ernment leaders and the industry.
Our vision is to work with leaders in the
tourism industry and demonstrate how the
industry and conservation community can
work together to produce mutually beneficial
results. The goal is to not only protect the places
tourists visit but also maximize positive contri-
butions to conservation in high biodiversity
areas where the cruise industry operates (ICCL,
2004, p. 3).
The recently proposed Clean Cruise Ship
Act of 2004 is another step in protecting the
marine environment enjoyed by cruise passen-
gers. Among its provisions are those that would
ban all cruise ship discharges within 12 miles
of US shores, require cruise lines to reduce air
emissions and harmful impacts on ocean
ecosystems by outfitting all ships with the lat-
est environmental technology, and ensure
greater enforcement efforts by the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
other Federal agencies to ban or limit waste
water discharges in marine protected areas and
sensitive environments. While some existing
treatment plants in Alaska would be ‘grand-
fathered’ into the new law, due to the invest-
ments already made in improvements under
existing law, the net goal would be zero pollu-
tants by 2015 in all US waters (Conservation
International, 2003; Alaska Conservation
Foundation, 2004; Ocean Conservancy, 2004).
In conclusion, for the people of Alaska, the
social and environmental problems brought by
the cruise industry are still seen as manage-
able, and cruise passengers continue to be wel-
come in most ports for both personal and
economic reasons. Whether they will remain
as guests, however, will depend upon the cruise
lines, and the practices that they employ, as
Alaskans strive to sustain both their communi-
ties and their marine environments in the 21st
century.
8 G. Ringer
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 8
References
AAA Oregon/Idaho (2004) AAA Travel Agency Sales
Strong for 2004: Cruises, European Destinations
Once Again Top Agents’ List. Available at:
www.aaanewsroom.netArticles.asp?ArticleID=30
9&SectionID=4&CategoryID=8
Alaska Conservation Foundation (2004) Alaska
Oceans Programs: Current Issues on Alaska’s Oceans.
Available at: www.alaskaoceans.net
ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation) (2002) Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative:
Part 2 Report. Division of Statewide Public Service,
Juneau.
ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation) (2004) Assessment of Cruise Ship
and Ferry Wastewater Impacts in Alaska.
Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental
Compliance Program, Juneau.
Alaska Division of Community & Business
Development (2001) 2000 Southeast Alaska
Commercial Recreation Provider Survey. Presented to
the AWRTA Conference, Alaska Division of
Tourism, Juneau.
Alaska Travel Industry Association (2004) 2004
Tourism and Visitor Industry Forecast. The Alaska
State Chamber of Commerce, Juneau.
Associated Press (2004a) Cruise ship stopovers bring
economic hope to Astoria. The (Eugene) Register-
Guard, 29 September, D13.
Associated Press (2004b) Small cruise ships say waste
laws sink profits. Anchorage Daily News, 5 March, D1.
Brown, C. (2004) Glacier Bay ship numbers could
grow, Norton says. Anchorage Daily News, 27 April,
B3.
Business Research & Economic Advisors (2004) Cruise
Industry Economic Impact Topped $25 Billion in
2003. International Council of Cruise Lines,
Arlington, Virginia.
Cerveny, L.K. (2004) Preliminary Research Findings
from a Study of the Sociocultural Effects of Tourism in
Haines, Alaska. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, Oregon.
CBJ (City and Borough of Juneau) (2004) 2004
Tourism Best Management Practices. CBJ, Juneau.
Conservation International (2003) A Shifting Tide:
Environmental Challenges and Cruise Industry
Responses. CI, Washington, DC.
Cramer, E.H., Gu, D.X. and Durbin, R.E. (2003)
Diarrheal disease on cruise ships, 1990–2000: the
impact of environmental health programs. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 24(3), 227–233.
Cruise Junkie.com (2004a) Your resource for the other
information about the cruise industry. Available at:
www.cruisejunkie.com
Cruise Junkie.com (2004b) Environmental violations
in Alaska, 1999–2003. Available at: www.cruise-
junkie.com/alaskafines.html
Cruise Lines International Association (2004) Double-
digit passenger growth buoys CLIA member cruise
lines’ 2nd quarter passenger, occupancy figures.
Cruise News, 2 September.
Cruise Ship Air Emissions Working Group (2000)
Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative: Part 1, Final Report
(Activities and Work Products up to June 1, 2000).
Division of Statewide Public Service, Juneau.
Currey, S. (2003) Cruising toward a cleaner industry.
Coast Lines 13(1), 24–26.
Dobson, S., Gill, A. and Baird, S. (2002) A Primer on the
Canadian Pacific Cruise Ship Industry. Simon Fraser
University and Canada Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, Pacific Region, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Earthjustice (2003) Cruise Ships: Impacts on the Island
of Molokàii. Earthjustice, Honolulu.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (2004) Generic Sampling
and Analysis Plan for Large Cruise Ships in Alaska
Waters. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
Friends of Misty Fjords Wilderness (2004) FMFW
Appeal to the Commissioner of Alaska as an Adversely
Affected Party! Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Ketchikan.
Gilbertson, N. (2004) Southeast Alaska: a tale of two
economies. Alaska Economic Trends 3, 1–14.
Hawaìi Tourism Authority (2004) Benefits & Impacts of
the Cruise Industry in Alaska. HTA, Honolulu.
ICCL (International Council of Cruise Lines) (2004)
Alaska received $694 million in direct spending
and 18,500 jobs from U.S. cruise lines in 2003.
ICCL, Arlington, Virginia.
ICCL and Conservation International (2003)
International Council of Cruise Lines and
Conservation International announce joint initia-
tive. PRNewswire, Washington, DC.
Ketchikan Visitors Bureau (2004) Cruise ships: past
arrival data. Available at: www.visit-=ketchikan.
com/cruise_ship_info/shipinfo.html
Klein, R. (2002) Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the
Cruise Industry. New Society Publishers, Gabriola
Island, British Columbia.
London, T. (2002) Blowing the Whistle and the Case for
Cruise Certification. Oceans Blue Foundation,
Seattle.
Lynch, J. (2004) Northwest cruises are gaining speed.
The (Portland) Oregonian 4 July, E1–E2.
Marine Transportation Security Act (2002) SI 1994/40,
Canada Ministry of Transport, Ottawa, Canada.
Mazza, R. (2004) Economic Growth and Change in
Southeast Alaska. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, Oregon.
Cruising North to Alaska 9
[Q4]
[Q5]
[Q6]
[Q7]
[Q8]
[Q9]
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 9
McDowell Group (2002) Southeast Alaska tourism
and the new Alaska travelers survey. Working
together: tourism in Southeast Alaska conference.
Alaska Department of Community and Economic
Development, Juneau.
McDowell Group (2004) Economic Impact of the Cruise
Ship Industry in Alaska, 2003. North West
Cruiseship Association, Juneau.
Meadahl, M. (2003) BC cruising for tourists en route
to Alaska. Media release. Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Morphet, T. (2002) Businesses brainstorm response to
RCI pullout. Chilkat Valley News 30 (51), 2.
Morton, T. (2004) The Clean Cruise Ships Act,
S.2271/H.R. 4101. Oceana, Seattle.
Northern Economics Inc. (2004) Alaska Visitor Arrivals,
Summer 2003. Alaska Department of Community
and Economic Development, Anchorage.
Oceana (2002) Cruise ship regulations help cut water
pollution. Environment News Service, 18 December.
Ocean Conservancy (2002) Cruise Control: A Report on
How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment.
TOC, Washington, DC.
Ocean Conservancy, The (2004) Cruise Ships and Clean
Oceans. TOC, Washington, DC.
Reece, K. (2003) Environmentalists urge cruise ships
to clean up. KOMO TV-Seattle Local News, 20 May.
Ringer, G. (ed.) (1998) Destinations: Cultural Landscapes
of Tourism. Routledge, London and New York.
Sacks, A. (2004) The Alaska Tourism Satellite Account:
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Economic
Contribution of Travel & Tourism. Global Insight,
Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Schmid, C. (2003) Cruise-ship industry activist,
author to speak in Juneau. Juneau Empire Online.
Available at: www.juneauempire.com/sto-
ries/011503/loc_ speaker.shtml
Schroeder, R. (2001) Tourism Growth in Southeast
Alaska: Trends, Projections, and Issues. US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska
Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, Oregon.
Tobias, L. (2004) Bicentennial brings boom times: ris-
ing tourism is a mixed blessing for the town of
Astoria. The (Eugene) Register-Guard, 18
September, D3.
US Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Cruise
Ship Water Discharges. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
US Passenger Services Act of 1886 (1886) SI 1886, US
Congress, Washington, DC.
Vipond, A. (2004) Alaska by Cruise Ship: The Complete
Guide to Cruising Alaska, 4th edn. Ocean Cruise
Guides, Delta, British Columbia.
Williams, S. (2004) Holland America drops dockings.
Chilkat Valley News 33(4), 1.
Zuckerman, S. (1999) Come again, but leave your tour
at home: Alaskan towns take stand against
tourism’s excesses. Tide Pool 48, 1–2.
10 G. Ringer
[Q1]Not listed.
[Q2]Please specify place name.
[Q3]Not listed.
[Q4]Not cited.
[Q5]Not cited.
[Q6]Not cited.
[Q7]Not cited.
[Q8]Not cited.
[Q9]Not cited.
[Q10]Not cited.
[Q11]Not cited.
[Q10] [Q11]
Ch25.qxd  10/4/05  2:16 PM  Page 10