Cruise Tourism and the Socio-Economic Challenges of Sustainable Development: The Case of Kotor, Montenegro

Abstract

Cruise tourism plays a prominent role in Kotor’s tourism strategy, contributing to local income and shaping the city’s recent development. Driven by growing global demand, cruise arrivals have transformed the destination, raising questions about sustainability and local well-being. This study examines how residents perceive the impacts of cruise tourism across economic, sociocultural and environmental dimensions. Based on a sample of 214 residents, data were collected using a structured questionnaire and analyzed through descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and ANOVA. The findings indicate predominantly negative attitudes, especially regarding increased living costs, overcrowding and limited local economic benefits. Environmental concerns were also strongly expressed. Notably, there were no significant differences in perceptions based on residents’ proximity to the cruise port or their employment in tourism. These results contrast with earlier research suggesting that tourism involvement or spatial proximity leads to more positive attitudes. In Kotor’s case, widespread dissatisfaction suggests that a saturation point has been reached, highlighting a growing disconnect between cruise tourism growth and community well-being. The findings indicate the need for participatory and sustainable tourism planning and reaffirm the relevance of conceptual models such as Doxey’s Irridex in assessing resident attitudes in over-touristed destinations.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, the cruise industry has experienced significant growth and has established itself as one of the fastest-expanding sectors of global tourism [1]. According to the Cruise Lines International Association, the number of cruise passengers reached 31.7 million in 2023, with further growth projected in the coming years. Although cruise tourism represents a relatively small share of total global tourist traffic, its economic contribution amounting to USD 168.6 billion in 2023 makes it a highly influential segment of the international tourism industry [2]. Projections by J.P. Morgan Research suggest that by 2028, the cruise industry could account for 3.8% of the global leisure travel market [3]. Given its growing importance and the complexity of its impacts, cruise tourism has become the focus of increasing scholarly attention, particularly in the context of sustainable destination development.

Existing research on cruise tourism has been timely and relevant [4], with particular emphasis on analyzing its economic, social and environmental effects [1,5]. Within this context, the study of residents’ attitudes has gained increasing relevance, as local perceptions of cruise tourism development and its impacts play a key role in shaping sustainable tourism policies in port destinations. Studies have consistently highlighted the diversity of resident perspectives [6,7], often drawing on theoretical frameworks such as Doxey’s Irridex [8] and the Tourism Area Life Cycle model [5]. Community responses to cruise tourism tend to vary, with perceptions evolving throughout different stages of destination development and depending on the balance between perceived benefits and costs [1].

There is a clear need for a deeper understanding of local perceptions in destinations experiencing rapid cruise tourism growth. One such case is the town of Kotor, a port of notable significance within Mediterranean cruise itineraries [9]. Located in the Bay of Kotor, the town boasts rich cultural heritage, parts of which are protected under UNESCO, and welcomes between 400 and 500 cruise ship calls annually [10]. More broadly, tourism represents a major sector of the Montenegrin economy, with a direct contribution of 9.5% to GDP in 2019 [11]. When indirect contributions are included, tourism accounts for 21.6% of Montenegro’s GDP (figure for 2018) [12]. Nevertheless, numerous sources point to the adverse effects of cruise tourism, including pressure on urban infrastructure, overcrowding, environmental pollution and threats to cultural heritage [13].

In general, local residents’ attitudes toward tourism represent important input for the sustainable development of destinations [1,6,14,15]. A number of studies confirm that residents’ perceptions vary depending on their level of awareness and involvement in tourism planning: those who are better informed and more actively engaged tend to express more positive attitudes [16,17]. Factors such as length of residence, economic dependence on tourism, sociodemographic characteristics and cultural distance have all been found to shape these views [8]. However, the increasing intensity of tourism in certain destinations suggests that these factors may not always fully explain the dynamics of local attitudes, especially in smaller and spatially constrained communities. These specific contexts call for a more nuanced analysis of residents’ perceptions, where models such as Doxey’s Irridex may offer additional interpretive value [18,19].

Studies from diverse destinations, including Sal and Boa Vista [6], Messina [7], Faro [20] and Dubrovnik [14], illustrate a clear ambivalence in local community attitudes toward tourism. While economic benefits are acknowledged, there is also growing concern over environmental strain and social consequences. Methodologically, most perception studies rely on survey questionnaires based on Likert scales, often combined with factor and cluster analyses to segment residents according to their views [7,15,16,17]. In addition to quantitative approaches, qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews [21] have gained prominence, offering deeper insights into how communities cope with the challenges posed by tourism.

However, the analysis of cruise tourism’s impact on local communities cannot be fully understood without incorporating the concept of sustainable development [4,19,22]. Sustainability, as a framework, implies a balance between economic benefits, environmental preservation and the protection of local residents’ quality of life. Ignoring any of these dimensions can lead to destination degradation and weaken its long-term viability. Therefore, studies on residents’ perceptions must be integrated with sustainability assessments in order to identify risks early on and guide tourism policies toward more sustainable models [23]. In the European context, the principle of sustainability has gained increasing relevance and approaches such as the Triple Bottom Line model [24] emphasize the need to incorporate economic, social and environmental components into tourism strategies. Studies by Santos et al. [25], Del Chiappa et al. [26] and Godovykh et al. [27] highlight the importance of including local stakeholders and adapting destination management practices to the specific needs of communities. Studies like that of McNeill and Wozniak [28] further caution that expected benefits may not materialize without adequate planning and community engagement.

Building on the theoretical and empirical insights outlined above, this study focuses on analyzing residents’ perceptions of cruise tourism impacts in Kotor, with the aim of better understanding the challenges of sustainable development in the context of contemporary tourism expansion. Special attention is given to the extent to which the local community perceives economic benefits, as well as how it views the environmental and social consequences of cruise tourism, taking into account European standards and sustainable development strategies [24]. The underlying assumption is that the dynamic and spatially unregulated growth of cruise tourism in Kotor does not contribute to the city’s sustainable development, as it threatens environmental stability, disrupts social cohesion and fails to deliver adequate economic returns for local residents. Accordingly, the study starts from the premise that the Kotor community is increasingly expressing negative perceptions of cruise tourism, finding that the adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts outweigh its positive effects. In this light, this research seeks to answer the following question: how do Kotor residents assess the impacts of cruise tourism and how do these impacts shape their broader perception of the destination’s sustainability?

After the interpretation of relevant literature and previous research, as well as the contextualization of Kotor as a representative case within Mediterranean cruise tourism, the methodology section outlines the design and implementation of the survey, including sampling procedures and the application of inferential statistical tests used to evaluate the stated hypothesis. Research findings are then presented through descriptive statistics and graphical visualizations. The discussion interprets these findings in light of sustainability-oriented tourism planning and reflects on the study’s limitations. Ultimately, the results underline the need for a more cautious and context-aware approach to tourism development, while future research should focus on identifying targeted strategies that foster greater sustainability and improve public perceptions of cruise tourism as a viable development model.

2. Materials and Methods

Kotor holds a prominent position among cruise destinations in the Adriatic region. As an active nautical port and the only port of call in Montenegro, it has been hosting a substantial volume of cruise ships and passengers for nearly two decades (Figure 1) [13], significantly influencing the tourism development of the area. The mass character of this form of tourism is most clearly reflected in the quantitative indicators published by the Port of Kotor, which reported 586,403 cruise passengers and 476 ship calls in 2024, compared to 226,479 stationary (overnight) tourists [29]. These figures frequently surpass the numbers recorded in the stationary tourism sector and the overall impacts of tourism are strongly felt, perceived in varying ways by local residents depending on the maturity of the destination and their level of participation in tourism-related processes. In this context, the research area presents itself as particularly suitable for the analysis of local perceptions.

According to Nikčević [10], the continuous increase in cruise ship arrivals has positioned not only Kotor, but Montenegro as a whole, as a significant cruise tourism destination, bringing with it a range of environmental, infrastructural, economic and social challenges. Kotor’s reputation as a major cruise port is further supported by international references: the 2017 MedCruise report ranked Kotor as the third busiest cruise port on the Adriatic, following Dubrovnik and Venice [30], while the Daily Mail listed it among the most beautiful ports in the world in 2020 [31]. Bratić and colleagues also identify Kotor as one of the most attractive cruise destinations in the region [32].

The study was designed as a quantitative, descriptive–analytical investigation focused on examining whether local residents perceive cruise tourism as a process that generates more negative than positive outcomes, particularly in terms of environmental burdens, infrastructural pressures and limited economic benefits for the local population. Such perceptions offer insights into the (un)sustainability of the current development model. Primary data were collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of statements rated on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree to strongly agree), along with several nominal questions. In developing the content of the questionnaire, validated instruments from previous tourism impact studies were selected and adapted to the local context of Kotor, taking into account its specific urban and demographic characteristics.

The target population included adult residents of Kotor, with a particular focus on inhabitants of the Bay of Kotor. The sample (N = 214) was obtained through a combination of random and convenience sampling, targeting neighborhoods in and around the Old Town and areas most exposed to cruise tourism. The questionnaire was distributed online, ensuring accessibility and diversity among respondents.

Data were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 (Figure 2), following several methodological steps. After initial data cleaning and variable preparation, descriptive statistics were conducted, with an emphasis on respondents’ sociodemographic profiles. Since the main hypothesis suggested the presence of predominantly negative attitudes toward the impacts of cruise tourism, it was necessary to determine the extent to which the negative-impact-related statements formed a coherent construct. This was examined through a reliability analysis.

To assess the internal consistency of the statements regarding the negative aspects of cruise tourism, a Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was performed. An exploratory factor analysis followed, aimed at identifying underlying components of perceived negative impacts. Factors were extracted based on latent structure and factor loadings above 0.49 [33] and interpreted in light of both theoretical and empirical considerations. Based on the identified factors, a composite index of negative economic and social impacts (negSocEco) was constructed by aggregating the mean scores of individual items within the factor explaining the highest percentage of variance. This index was subsequently used for further statistical analysis.

To test whether the mean values of the composite index significantly deviated from the neutral response, a one-sample t-test was applied. Additionally, in order to examine differences between two key categorical groups, place of residence and employment in tourism, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted.

An important analytical step in the research was the use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation. This method was incorporated into the research design to identify latent dimensions underlying residents’ perceptions of cruise tourism impacts. The goal was to reduce a large number of interrelated variables (34 included in the analysis) into a smaller number of theoretically meaningful factors, thereby enabling a clearer interpretation of the results and facilitating further quantitative analysis. The Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue > 1) was applied, alongside visual inspection of the scree plot, resulting in the extraction of three factors. Variables were assigned to factors based on their highest factor loading, while respecting the standard cross-loading threshold to ensure conceptual clarity. Following the factor extraction, additional reliability analyses were conducted to assess the internal consistency of each resulting scale.

The three factors identified through this procedure included (1) negative social and environmental impacts of cruise tourism, (2) positively perceived economic and infrastructural benefits and (3) (un)sustainable aspects of governance and quality of life. This approach allowed for a more nuanced analysis of the differentiated impacts of cruise tourism, aligning with contemporary research in the fields of sustainable development and tourism’s social effects, which emphasize the importance of local perspectives in shaping sustainable tourism policy, particularly in a context such as Kotor.

3. Results

The data collected through the convenience–random sample allowed for the definition of the general sociodemographic profile of the respondents, as presented in

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (%).

Gender		Age
Male	40.7	18–25	3.7
Female	59.3	26–40	30.8
Education		41–60	52.3
Elementary/High school	21.0	>60	13.2
College	17.3	Employment
Bachelor	26.2	Employee	79.0
Specialist	22.4	Unemployed	7.5
Master	9.8	Student	3.7
PhD	3.3	Retired	9.8
Income		How many years have you lived in Kotor?
<EUR 450	12.6	0–5	1.4
EUR 451–1000	41.1	6–10	4.7
EUR 1001–1500	27.1	11–20	11.2
EUR 1501–2000	8.4	21–30	14.0
>EUR 2000	10.7	>30	68.7
Does your job relate to tourism?		Does your relative’s job relate to tourism?
Yes	29.4	Yes	28.5
No	70.6	No	71.5
Distance from your home to cruise port		How long do you stay in Kotor during the year?
<2 km	56.5	All year	93.5
2–5 km	27.1	Summer	5.6
6–10 km	10.3	Winter	0.9
>10 km	6.1
Contact with cruise tourists
No contact	31.3
Rarely	38.8
I’m constantly in contact	29.9

Source: Research results, 2024.

. The sample is predominantly female (59.3%), while males represent a slightly smaller share (40.7%). In terms of age distribution, the most represented group is between 40 and 60 years old (52.3%), which also corresponds to the most economically active segment of the population. Supporting this is the fact that 79% of respondents are employed. Notably, 56.5% of respondents live within 2 km of the cruise port and 27.1% live within a radius of 2 to 5 km. Additionally, 68.7% have been residing in Kotor for more than 30 years. These findings suggest that nearly two-thirds of the sample live in areas directly affected by cruise tourism and are, to a large extent, in direct or indirect contact with cruise tourists (38.8% and 29.9%, respectively). This reinforces the relevance of the sample for assessing the local impacts of cruise activity. The credibility of the results is further supported by the respondents’ educational background: 79% hold a post-secondary or higher education degree.

Moreover, the majority of participants (70.6%) reported that neither they nor their immediate family members are economically dependent on cruise tourism, or on tourism in general (71.5%). Additionally, 93.5% reside in Kotor year-round, which reinforces the representativeness and consistency of their views, making the sample well suited for capturing predominant community perceptions.

Respondents’ opinions on cruise tourism were assessed through a set of predefined statements, slightly adapted from previous studies [1,34]. A total of 34 items were formulated as positive, negative or general expressions regarding cruise tourism and responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The analysis of these responses yielded mean values and standard deviations ranging from M = 2.12 to M = 3.80 and from SD = 0.72 to SD = 0.98, respectively, as presented in

Table 2. Local residents’ perceptions of cruise tourism (mean and standard deviation).

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev.
O1. Improves the physical and socio-cultural environment	2.49	0.082
O2. Encourages environmental protection	2.12	0.073
O3. Enhances safety and security	2.13	0.072
O4. Enables the preservation of cultural heritage	2.52	0.084
O5. Improves the quality of public services	2.41	0.078
O6. Encourages the development of better infrastructure	2.36	0.081
O7. Utilizes the identity and authenticity of the location	2.63	0.083
O8. Expands the offer of cultural activities	2.85	0.088
O9. Enables interaction with new people and cultures	3.06	0.084
O10. Improves the quality of restaurants, hotel and retail	2.93	0.088
O11. Increases the income of the local population	3.06	0.086
O12. Increases public investment in infrastructure	2.55	0.082
O13. Increases private investment in infrastructure	2.64	0.079
O14. Increases employment opportunities	2.98	0.081
O15. Promotes Kotor as a desirable tourist destination	3.37	0.089
O16. Increases air and sea pollution	3.47	0.095
O17. Generates significant amounts of waste/garbage	3.42	0.098
O18. Revenues do not go to the local community	3.35	0.090
O19. Increases the number of minor criminal offences	2.84	0.083
O20. Increases the cost of living	3.75	0.085
O21. Crowds in the Old Town	3.59	0.098
O22. Local facilities are overcrowded during cruise ship visits	3.57	0.091
O23. Large cruise ships spoil the visual appeal of the city	2.80	0.096
O24. Large cruise ships undermine Kotor’s reputation as a quality tourist destination	3.04	0.095
O25. Cruise tourists are not good spenders	3.21	0.091
O26. Cruise tourism brings more benefits than harm	2.74	0.093
O27. The development of cruise tourism is being managed well	2.33	0.076
O28. Local institutions should become more engaged in attracting even more cruise ships	2.16	0.088
O29. Expanding the tourist offer attractive to cruise tourists beyond the city center would be very beneficial	3.34	0.088
O30. The town feels empty without cruise ships	2.51	0.093
O31. Kotor’s current tourist offer meets the needs of cruise tourists	2.85	0.081
O32. Further increase in the number of cruise ships threat to the quality of life of the local population	3.54	0.098
O33. No measures have been taken to reduce congestion	3.31	0.095
O34. Activities for cruise tourists need to be better organized	3.63	0.090

Source: Research results, 2024.

.

Particularly low levels of agreement were observed in responses to statements related to infrastructure quality, development management, safety and security, and environmental measures. Respondents expressed clear disagreement with statements such as “Encourages environmental protection” (M = 2.12), “Enhances safety and security” (M = 2.13), “Improves the quality of public services” (M = 2.41), “Encourages the development of better infrastructure” (M = 2.36) and “The development of cruise tourism is being managed well” (M = 2.33).

This negative sentiment, particularly regarding infrastructure, governance and safety, was further emphasized in the context of increasing cruise traffic. Respondents showed strong disagreement with the idea of further expanding cruise tourism through institutional efforts (“Local institutions should become more engaged in attracting even more cruise ships”, M = 2.16). At the same time, they expressed strong support for better organization of cruise-related activities (“Activities for cruise tourists need to be better organized”, M = 3.63).

Overall, the findings highlight concerns related to crowding, overburdened urban areas and rising living costs, issues that require attention from relevant policy makers. Yet, respondents remained ambivalent when asked to evaluate the net effect of cruise tourism: “Cruise tourism brings more benefits than harm” received a neutral score (M = 2.74), indicating that clear conclusions about its overall value are difficult to draw.

Using exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation, the study identified three key dimensions of residents’ perceptions of cruise tourism impacts, which together explain 58.03% of the total variance (

Table 3. Rotated component matrix showing grouped variables by extracted factors (Varimax rotation, 3-factor solution).

	Ldgs.	EV	% Var. Exp.	Cum. %	α
Factor 1: Neg. Socio-Economic Impacts		8.595	25.278	25.278	0.974
O21. Crowds in the Old Town	0.879
O32. Further increase in the number of cruise ships threat to the quality of the life of the local population	0.859
O22. Local facilities are overcrowded during cruise ship visits	0.835
O17. Generates significant amounts of waste	0.807
O16. Increases air and sea pollution	0.806
O20. Increases the cost of living	0.799
O25. Cruise tourists are not good spenders	0.787
O34. Activities for cruise tourists need to be better organized	0.773
O18. Revenues do not go to the local community	0.764
O33. No measures have been taken to reduce congestion	0.759
O24. Large cruise ships undermine Kotor’s reputation as a quality tourist destination	0.756
O23. Large cruise ships spoil the visual appeal of the city	0.678
O19. Increases the number of minor criminal offenses	0.580
Factor 2: Economic and Infrastructural Benefits		8.270	24.325	49.603	0.942
O14. Increases employment opportunities	0.812
O10. Improves the quality of restaurants, hotels and retail	0.809
O8. Expands the offer of cultural activities	0.789
O6. Encourages the development of better infrastructure	0.762
O11. Increases the income of the local population	0.759
O13. Increases private investment in infrastructure	0.750
O5. Improves the quality of public services	0.738
O12. Increases public investment	0.732
O9. Enables interaction with new people and cultures	0.709
O7. Utilizes the identity and authenticity of the location	0.703
O15. Promotes Kotor as a desirable tourist destination	0.678
Factor 3: (Non)Sustainability and Quality of Life		2.867	8.432	58.035	0.912
O2. Encourages environmental protection	0.719
O3. Enhances safety and security	0.701
O1. Improves the physical and socio-cultural environment	0.633
O4. Enables the preservation of cultural heritage	0.628

Source: Research results, 2024.

), as per the Benzecri index [35]. The assumptions for conducting factor analysis were met, with sufficient intercorrelation among variables, as confirmed by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The KMO value of 0.910 indicates excellent sampling adequacy, while the results of Bartlett’s test (approx. Chi-Square = 6066.476, Sig. = 0.000) confirmed statistically significant correlations among variables, allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix.

Out of the 34 original items, 6 with factor loadings below 0.49 were excluded from the analysis due to low sampling adequacy, following the recommendation by Hatcher [33]. As shown in Table 3, three domains were extracted and labeled as Negative Socio-Economic Impacts of Cruise Tourism, Economic and Infrastructural Benefits of Cruise Tourism, and (Non)Sustainability and Quality of Life. Each factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1, ranging from 2.867 to 8.595.

To assess the reliability of these factors—specifically, whether the items consistently measure the same underlying construct—Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated. The values obtained ranged from 0.912 to 0.947, indicating high correlation among variables within each factor and strong internal consistency. According to Nunnally [36], these results suggest that the measurement instrument is highly reliable. Based on the scale proposed by Kline, the values classify the extracted factors as excellent measurement scales [37].

The first factor, labeled Negative Socio-Economic Impacts of Cruise Tourism, accounts for 25.28% of the total variance and encompasses statements that reflect the perceived negative consequences of cruise tourism, primarily in terms of social and economic sustainability and, to a lesser extent, environmental impacts. The majority of the respondents agreed with the statement that cruise tourism contributes to rising living costs (M = 3.75), as well as to increased crowding in the city (M = 3.59) and spatial overburdening (M = 3.57), all of which negatively affect their everyday lives.

The second factor, Economic and Infrastructural Benefits of Cruise Tourism, which explains 24.32% of the variance, includes statements measuring the perceived economic and infrastructural benefits of cruise tourism. Responses to most of these items were ambivalent, with mean values ranging from M = 2.55 to M = 3.37. Lower scores and disagreement were particularly evident for statements suggesting improvements in public service quality or enhanced infrastructure resulting from cruise tourism. Respondents appeared unaware of any tangible benefits, either economic or social, and often expressed indifference or outright disagreement with the claims presented.

The third factor, (Non)Sustainability and Quality of Life, accounting for 2.867% of the variance, relates to the perceived (un)sustainability of cruise tourism governance and its effects on quality of life. It included items addressing environmental protection, improvements to the physical and socio-cultural environment and safeguarding of cultural and historical heritage. Due to consistently low mean scores, this factor was classified as negative or unsustainable, as respondents generally rejected the assertions rather than supported them.

Following the extraction of these three factors through exploratory factor analysis, the first factor, Negative Socio-Economic Impacts of Cruise Tourism (negSocEco), which explained the highest percentage of variance (25.26%), was further examined. This factor included 13 items used to measure residents’ perceptions of the negative economic and social impacts of cruise tourism in Kotor (scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 5 = “Strongly agree”). In addition to the previously calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which confirmed high internal consistency (α = 0.947), a one-sample t-test was performed (

Table 4. t-test statistics.

One-Sample Statistics

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Scale negSocEco Impacts

214

3.3465

1.06459

0.07277

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t

df

Significance

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

One-Sided p

Two-Sided p

Lower

Upper

Scale

4.761

213

<0.001

<0.001

0.34651

0.2031

0.4900

One-Sample Effect Sizes

Standardizer a

Point Est.

95% Confidence Inter.

Lower

Upper

Scale

Cohen’s d

1.06459

0.325

0.188

0.463

Hedges’ correction

1.06836

0.324

0.187

0.461

^a The denominator used in estimating the effect sizes. Cohen’s d uses the sample standard deviation. Hedges’ correction uses the sample standard deviation, plus a correction factor. Source: research results, 2024.

) on the composite negSocEco score to assess whether, on average, respondents agreed with these statements (i.e., whether the mean score was significantly higher than the neutral value of 3).

Test parameters:

• Test value: 3 (neutral point on the scale)
• Dependent variable: negSocEco (13 items, 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 5 = “Strongly agree”)

As shown in

Table 5. One-sample t-test (Test value = 3).

	M	SD	t	Df	p (Two-Tailed)	Mean Diff.	95% CI (diff)	Cohen’s d	95% CI (d)
negEkoSoc	3.35	1.06	4.76	213	<0.001	0.35	[0.20, 0.49]	0.33	[0.19, 0.46]

Source: research results, 2024. Note: A value greater than 3 indicates stronger agreement with statements about the negative economic and social impact.

, the mean score for the negSocEco impact factor (M = 3.35; SD = 1.06; n = 214) was statistically significantly higher than the neutral value of 3 (t(213) = 4.76, p < 0.001 (two-tailed test)). The mean difference from the test value was 0.35, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.20; 0.49]. The effect size, expressed using Cohen’s d, was 0.33, 95% CI [0.19; 0.46], which—according to Cohen’s criteria—indicates a small to moderate effect.

Given the overall negative sentiment toward cruise tourism impacts, the next stage of the analysis applied ANOVA testing to selected dependent variables from the first and most dominant factor group: those related to negative social effects. The analysis considered two categorical variables: distance from the Old Town (the central core of Kotor and the location of the cruise port) and employment in tourism. The aim was to more clearly define resident attitudes and determine whether differences in sociodemographic characteristics are associated with varying perceptions of cruise tourism impacts. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether living in or near the Old Town (residence location: 0 vs. 1) and economic dependence on cruise tourism (employment in tourism: 0 vs. 1) influence perceptions of negative social impacts (negSocEco).

Table 6. Means and standard deviations for the negative socio-economic impact scale scores.

Residence Location	Employment in Tourism	M	SD	N
0—Away from the Old Town	0 (No)	2.39	1.08	56
0—Away from the Old Town	1 (Yes)	2.72	1.06	37
1—Near the Old Town	0 (No)	2.61	1.16	83
1—Near the Old Town	1 (Yes)	2.70	1.07	38

Source: research results, 2024.

presents the means and standard deviations for each group.

The ANOVA results showed that there was no statistically significant main effect of the variable residence location (F(1, 210) = 0.39, p = 0.53) nor of employment in tourism (F(1, 210) = 1.73, p = 0.19) on the perception of negative social impacts. The interaction between residence location and tourism dependence was also not significant, F(1, 210) = 0.55, p = 0.46. The model explained approximately 1.3% of the variance in perceptions of negative social impacts (R² = 0.013), indicating a very small effect size.

As shown in

Table 7. Tests of between-subject effects.

Dependent Variable: Mean of Reversed Negative Social Items (High = Less Negative Impact, Low = Strong Negative Impact)
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Corrected Model	3.318 a	3	1.106	0.905	0.439
Intercept	1305.696	1	1305.696	1069.010	<0.001
Residence location	0.474	1	0.474	0.388	0.534
Tourism dependence	2.111	1	2.111	1.728	0.190
Residence location * tourism dependence	0.672	1	0.672	0.550	0.459
Error	256.495	210	1.221
Total	1694.000	214
Corrected Total	259.813	213

Source: research results, 2024. ^a R Squared = 0.013 (adjusted R Squared = −0.001). *: the R Squared value of 0.013 was used in the analysis for the Mean of Reversed Negative Social Items (where High = Less Negative Impact, Low = Strong Negative Impact) to indicate the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that can be explained by the independent variables in the model. Although the value is relatively low, it shows that there is a small but measurable relationship. Using R Squared helps to quantify how well the reversed scoring of negative social items accounts for the observed data, which is important for understanding the impact of negative social factors in the analysis.

, the F-values and p-values for both main effects and the interaction were well above the commonly accepted significance threshold of 0.05. This indicates that neither proximity to the Old Town (residence location) nor economic dependence on cruise tourism (employment in tourism) leads to significant differences in the perception of negative social impacts, as measured by this scale (negSocEco). Furthermore, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare perceptions of negative social impacts of cruise tourism (negSocEco, where higher values = lower perceived negative impact) between respondents not employed in tourism (n = 133) and those who are employed in the tourism sector (n = 81). Levene’s test confirmed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (F = 0.77, p = 0.38), so equal variances were assumed. The results showed no significant difference between the non-tourism group (M = 2.54, SD = 1.13) and the tourism-employed group (M = 2.67, SD = 1.07), t(212) = –0.87, p = 0.386 (two-tailed test). The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = –0.12, 95% CI [–0.40, 0.15]), indicating a negligible practical difference between the two groups.

Respondents employed in tourism reported only slightly higher average scores, indicating a somewhat less negative perception of the social impacts compared to those not employed in tourism. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

4. Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to assess the perceptions of Kotor’s residents regarding the impacts of cruise tourism, with particular attention to its sustainability and the perceived balance between benefits and costs, as experienced by the local community. In line with theoretical frameworks established in prior research, community support for tourism development is often conditioned by the extent to which residents perceive that economic, sociocultural and environmental benefits outweigh the associated costs [38,39,40]. However, in less economically developed societies, previous studies have shown that sociocultural values are often overlooked in favor of short-term economic growth [40,41], which ultimately exacerbates sustainability challenges.

The findings of this study reinforce similar patterns, revealing predominantly negative perceptions among Kotor residents toward the ongoing development of cruise tourism. Statistical analysis confirms broad agreement with statements reflecting negative economic and social consequences, most notably the rising cost of living, deterioration in quality of life due to excessive crowding, and spatial congestion. These outcomes align with prior research from comparable destinations such as Venice and Naples [42,43], where the adverse effects of cruise tourism have been well documented. A particularly noteworthy result is the homogeneity of negative attitudes across the sample, regardless of respondents’ geographical location (proximity to the Old Town or the cruise port) or their degree of economic dependence on tourism. The ANOVA tests revealed no statistically significant differences between groups, indicating a general consensus on the detrimental nature of the current cruise tourism model. These findings contradict previous studies that suggested that resident attitudes may vary based on spatial proximity to tourist hotspots or levels of direct engagement in the tourism economy [7,14,44,45]. Rather than confirming the frequently suggested link between economic engagement and positive perceptions [46,47], the findings in Kotor point to a more complex and context-dependent dynamic. In this case, they reveal a convergence of negative attitudes across residents regardless of their degree of tourism-related involvement, underscoring the need to assess such assumptions within the particularities of each destination.

In contrast to findings from Dubrovnik, where some studies have identified relatively high levels of acceptance of cruise tourism, particularly among economically benefiting groups [7,48,49], the data from Kotor suggest the opposite trend. Even among those with direct economic ties to the tourism sector, concerns about the negative effects of cruise activity are evident. This may indicate that the destination has entered a phase of saturation, where the perceived costs of tourism development outweigh the benefits [5]. These observations lend further support to theoretical models describing the evolution of resident attitudes through various stages of destination development, in which early enthusiasm is eventually replaced by resistance and frustration [50,51].

The use of exploratory factor analysis in this study allowed for the identification of latent structures in local perceptions without prior assumptions. The extracted factors reflect dominant skepticism and concern within the community regarding the long-term sustainability of the destination and the need to rethink current tourism planning approaches [52,53].

While this study provides valuable insights into residents’ perceptions of cruise tourism impacts, several limitations should be acknowledged. The research design was cross-sectional and therefore unable to track changes in attitudes over time. Future longitudinal studies could provide a more dynamic understanding of perception shifts in response to evolving tourism and development trends. Expanding the sample size would also enhance the external validity of findings. Although the use of descriptive statistics and factor analysis was appropriate for the study’s objectives, future research could benefit from the application of more advanced statistical techniques, such as multivariate regression or structural equation modeling. Additionally, a mixed-methods approach incorporating interviews or focus groups could offer a more detailed understanding of the complex attitudes held by residents.

The results of this study have several practical implications. First, they highlight the need for local authorities to incorporate resident perspectives into tourism governance by adopting participatory and transparent planning mechanisms. Structured stakeholder engagement, such as community forums or local tourism councils, could play a significant role in fostering shared responsibility and mitigating social tensions arising from cruise tourism development [17,26]. Second, the case of Kotor invites comparison with other port cities such as Dubrovnik or Venice, where proactive regulatory frameworks have been introduced to control cruise ship volume, redistribute tourist flows and promote sustainable port–city relations [54]. Unlike these destinations, Kotor has yet to implement systematic measures that reconcile economic gains with the preservation of cultural and environmental integrity. Given its UNESCO-listed heritage and geographically constrained urban core, the urgency of introducing adaptive environmental policies is particularly pronounced. Without timely interventions, the cumulative pressures of cruise traffic and broader climate-related risks may threaten both the city’s ecological resilience and its long-term tourism potential.

5. Conclusions

This study offers the systematic attempt to evaluate how residents assess the economic, environmental and social consequences of this form of tourism. The findings reveal predominantly negative attitudes among the local population, with no significant variation based on residence location or employment in tourism. Particularly concerning is the widespread indifference or disagreement expressed regarding cruise tourism’s contributions to infrastructure, quality of life and overall community well-being. These perceptions suggest that cruise tourism is not regarded as an integral or beneficial component of Kotor’s tourism identity.

The evident gap between tourism flows and perceived benefits points to a disruption of social equilibrium and raises questions about long-term support for further cruise tourism development. In line with the principles of Social Exchange Theory [55], the findings indicate that when perceived costs outweigh perceived benefits, local opposition is likely to intensify. In the context of Kotor, where cruise tourism dominates but yields limited tangible gains for the local population, there is a heightened risk of growing dissatisfaction and erosion of support, potentially affecting other, more sustainable tourism segments such as stationary tourism. This study contributes to a better understanding of the challenges associated with cruise tourism in small historic port cities and highlights the need for destination-specific policy responses. Moving forward, it is essential to integrate local community perspectives into tourism planning frameworks and prioritize adaptive, participatory strategies that align tourism development with long-term sustainability goals. These findings may serve as a critical point of reference for decision-makers seeking to recalibrate Kotor’s tourism trajectory toward a more balanced and inclusive model.