Sustainable Arctic Cruise Communities: Nuuk Case Report

Cruise practices draw on a range of different human and physical resources. These include materials and infrastructure (for instance port facilities, fences, busses) and competences (such as human skills, knowledge and hands). Many of these resources are shared with or have significance for other practices; for instance, fisheries and shipping (through the shared port spaces and facilities) or locals shopping in Nuuk (through crowding in the town centre). In that sense, cruise tourism is intertwined with, affects, and is affected by many other local practices and the physical environment.

There is potential for mutual support and for synergies; for example, when locals use tourism infrastructure. But there may also be clashes; for example, due to pollution from cruise affecting the local environment or for interference with other practices which take place in the same geographical spaces as cruise tourism such as hunting or fishing. Analysing the ways in which cruise practices relate to other local practices and the resources on which they depend is crucial to understanding the sustainability of this type of tourism. In this section we explore the extent to which cruise practices in Nuuk are complementary or clashing, and whether there is competition between cruise and other practices (for example, over space, resources and labour).  

The most obvious geographical space in which cruise intersects with many other practices is at the harbour itself and there are clearly challenges related to the coordination of tourists and getting them off the cruise ships and on to tours.  Tourists who have booked land-based experiences are usually transported by shuttle bus directly to the town centre or to attractions upon their arrival, but some passengers walk on their own, which can be problematic as there is no pathway for pedestrians or signage to the city centre. This means that they share the road with cars, machinery and heavy goods vehicles carrying containers. Also, the walk from the harbour to the centre is steep, which means that the approximately 25-minute walk is difficult for older or less mobile passengers.   

Passengers taking boat trips which leave from the harbour must cross the main road into the facility in order to access the small pontoon from which boat tours leave. When larger cruise ships call (or there are two in port at the same time), the quay areas can become chaotic. For example, one tour operator describes how a ship with nearly 4,000 guests is only in port for six hours, and they can barely manage to get all the guests off the ship and back again in that time:

Competition for quay space is more common in the summer as the harbour becomes more crowded due to the cruise season. As described in Section 1, coordination by the harbour authorities is necessary to avoid clashes between trawlers and cruise ships, and most stakeholder felt that the harbour was close to the limit in terms of the number of ships that can be accommodated each season.  

By contrast, crowding in the town centre was not mentioned as a serious issue by any of our interviewees. The distance from harbour creates a natural divide between the two parts of the town. In the context of cruise tourism, this physical lay-out may unintentionally help to counter massive, condensed ‘waves’ of cruise tourists and crowding in the city centre, something which is often reported in other ports of call in Greenland, such as Ilulissat and Qaqortoq. Also, Nuuk is a relatively large and sprawled town with a substantial town centre that includes shops, offices, museums, etc. Although interviewees all said that cruise tourists were visible when they visit the town centre, they did not seem to overwhelm the locals.  

In short, there currently seems to be enough space to share between residents and tourists so that residents’ everyday practices are not unduly disturbed by cruise calls. As one interviewee put it: ‘I would say that the town is so big that it [cruise tourism]… gives a good vibe. And it brings a little life to the town because the town has the size it has, and it isn’t as vulnerable as other small towns’.  The fact that most tourists are transported by bus directly to e.g., the national museum or on guided walks outside the town, means that there are not often large groups of tourists exploring by themselves, and there seem to be no issues with tourists invading locals’ privacy, trespassing on private land, etc.   

Cruise tourism also impacts on the local environment in several ways. Pollution is a major issue, which becomes worse as the number of cruise calls increases. During their stay in the port, a cruise ship will keep its motors running to provide electricity and heating for the ship. In the Greenlandic media, this issue has received attention over the year, as exemplified by this article from 2018: ‘Greenland has some of the world's cleanest air, but cruise ships calling at the country's ports noticeably damage the clean air, with the use of heavy bunker oil, which is banned in several places in the world’ (Link).

While heavy fuel oil (HFO) has now been banned in the Arctic, there are plans to connect the cruise ships to shore power. As all electric power in Nuuk comes from hydro power (from the Buksefjorden power plant), this would be a major improvement and currently (2023), calculations are being made by Nukissiorfiit (the Greenlandic power company) about this possibility. Whether and when this will materialize remains uncertain and before the planned expansion of the Buksefjord plant, there is currently not enough capacity. It should also be mentioned that this is not an issue that was discussed by the stakeholders interviewed for this project.   

Other environmental impacts occur because cruise ships and tourists on boat tours share the fjord with other various types of wildlife. The role of whales in cruise (and other forms of tourism) is particularly sensitive. Whale watching is an extremely popular tourism activity, and a number of humpback whales return to Nuuk fjord each year. Given the potential for tourist boats to disturb whales, the Nature Institute in Nuuk helped to develop a code of conduct which has been adopted by the boat operators which provides guidelines regarding the speed and direction from which boats approach whales, how far away from the animals they should stay.

Cruise ships themselves are a major source of acoustic disturbance (as are all large vessels) but little is known about the impact on whales and other wildlife. However, due to hunting practices, many animals are very wary of humans and Nuuk is not well-known as a wildlife tourism destination. Birdwatching is also a popular activity and is regulated so that humans do not come within a few hundred metres of bird colonies.  

There is also an on-going debate about whether whales should be protected in the fjord for the sake of tourists (and animal welfare) or whether the cultural (and economic) interests of hunters should be given priority. Hunting of humpback whales in the fjord was forbidden in 2021, though hunting of other whales is not forbidden. Examples exist in the Nuuk fjord of fours orcas being shot only a week after entering the fjord to the great disappointment of tourism operators (link) and how a whale spotting Facebook page was used by hunters to help them locate their prey.  However, some stakeholders also describe somewhat chaotic scenes in the fjord if a whale is spotted while a large cruise ship is in port, with several tour boats all trying to get the best position for tourists to observe them.  

Participants at a scenario workshop held in Nuuk in August 2022 on the future of tourism expressed concern about increasing human activity and crowding in the Nuuk fjord in the coming years because of the new airport. Also, concerns are voiced over more disturbance of hunting areas during hunting season. New camps and huts are being built for land-based tourists, where hunters previously would go, and in a case in 2023, musk ox hunting concessions were rolled back due to protests of hunters indicate that moving forward, spatial crowd and spatial management will be of increasing importance to avoid conflicts over land and resources.    

Cruise tourism can, however, also generate or attract resources that may serve to improve the quality of life of local residents. This applies on a general level in regard to infrastructure from airport development to signage, garbage cans, roads, paths and boardwalks. For instance, a resident working in tourism noted how developing better trail systems in town away from the main traffic ores for tourists would also be great for walking with the pram (private communication). Also, on the level of individual businesses looking into the development of culture, arts, adventure, wellness and food products do we see an interest in making these available for locals as well as cruise tourists.

At the same time, there can be a tension between providing experiences for cruise tourists and locals. Those involved in cultural experiences, for example, noted that cruise tourists were interested in authentic experiences that locals would also enjoy, but that these needed to be presented in a way that was accessible (e.g., due to language). As one stakeholder put it:

Cruise tourism is characterised as a combination of different paces and temporalities, ranging from the long-term planning of cruise itineraries years in advance of a cruise ship visiting a destination, to the micro-dynamics of a particular cruise call that unfolds over a few hours.  

At the destination, there is much waiting and anticipation before the season starts and before a ship is expected. Then, once the ship is in, there is little time to get everything sorted out as describe in this quote: “Then they want a waste container. They want a footbridge. They'd like to have foam bags. They would like some water delivered. They want vacuum cleaners, all sorts of weird things. Then you line it up in the – what to say – the times when they are inside. And it's quite intense, because then they're in for eight hours, and we have to deliver provisions to them from our logistics department, and we drive a lot of buses for them on guided tours and transfers up to the city, and when the day is over, you throw the last rope, and you see them sailing again. What a day!”.    

Usually, cruise trips are developed, planned, advertised and sold years in advance. On the list of cruise calls on the homepage of Visit Greenland, authorities and operators are able to get an overview over the calls in Greenlandic ports for the coming season months in advance (link). However, even with years and months of preparation, calls may be cancelled with only a few hours’ notice if the weather is bad, or the ship has lagged behind its schedule. A major issue for local stakeholders is how to manage this tension between long-term planning and the costs of arranging tours, with the realities of weather and sea conditions, which mean that cruise calls can be cancelled at extremely short notice. One big debate is whether cruise ships should pay cancellation fees to cover some of the unrecoverable costs incurred by tour operators when arranging activities. It appears that there is now a dialogue between tour operators and cruise lines regarding this issue but, as one operator put it: ‘previously you couldn’t talk about it. They turn up if it suits them and if they didn’t come then tough luck’.  

If more agents and operators set up businesses in Nuuk, this could lead to conflicts in years to come, especially if it means that the cruise companies gain more power in negotiating terms because they can more easily find alternatives should a particular operator ask for cancellation/no show fees. 

Cruise tourism in Nuuk only takes place during the summer months, and one consequence of the short season is the idling of resources outside this period as described by one tourism operator: ‘eight months of the year, we have far too many buses, but four months of the year, we have far too few (…). However, this also means that all resources are booked up when cruise ships call and that the operators have ‘all their eggs in one basket’. Nonetheless, the relatively few days when cruise ships call are a very important source of income for tour operators and their suppliers: ‘a lot of money comes in on one of these days. Maybe we have 20 days a year when it is in full swing with the boats sailing for cruise ships. And those 20 days are something that means that we can afford to invest in more material, more boats and maintain the boats we have. So, it has big significance’.  

Overall, June-August is generally characterized as a (hectic) high season for those directly involved in tourism. Charter boat firms may have a few employees in winter and many more in summer. However, some local institutions struggle to make space and find the time for cruise-related activities in summer, that is usually quiet: ‘It's just the balancing act and the fact that it's also something that has to make sense for the house and to prioritize it in a time that's also holiday time’.  

It is important to emphasise that Nuuk has all-year tourism due to its position as the capital of Greenland. It is accessible by air, including a direct flight connection to Iceland. There are many business visitors and tour operators have activities all year round, as well as organising travel for local residents. Some would like to spread the summer peak into the shoulder seasons, but this is challenging for cruise tourism, which is dependent on ice conditions. As one interviewee describes: Kangerlussuaq [where some cruises start] is a huge bottleneck in terms of getting the season extended, because it thaws late and freezes early. So if Nuuk becomes a turn-around port [cruise line] has indicated that they would like to do a cruise – something like March to October, and then turn around in Nuuk’.  

The temporal rhythm of cruise visits themselves are also important to the overall impacts on residents’ quality of life and the social sustainability of cruise tourism. Cruise tourists are only present in the town during the daytime. They arrive at approximately 8am and leave again between 4 and 6pm after which the residents ‘have the town to themselves again’, as one interviewee put it. However, the fact that their visits are so short means that there are few connections made between locals and tourists. Cruise calls also change the rhythm of local travel. If a big cruise ship calls, then all boats will be used for tourism, and local people delay other trips until later in the day.  

Cruise tourism is contested in many places around the world. While there are currently no vocal protests or open conflicts around cruise tourism development in Nuuk, it is still the subject of discussion and there are many different opinions about the benefits and problems of cruise. There is no consensus about what kind of cruise tourism – and indeed tourism in general – is best for Nuuk, but there is a clear sense that development up to (and now after) the COVID-19 pandemic had been very rapid. Some stakeholders expressed concerns about further growth in tourism, with fears about mass tourism that is not controlled by local stakeholders. As one interviewee put it:

In contrast to other cruise destinations, Nuuk is not dependent on cruise tourism, and has year-round land-based tourism. Nonetheless, cruise tourism has grown substantially and is a significant source of revenue. While the harbour prioritises fishing and container ships, some tourism stakeholders would like to grow cruise tourism even more.  Their focus is on developing products and services that can generate more economic benefits from cruise:  

‘how do we actually discover what it is that we can sell to cruise tourism instead of just saying they are in the way? We have some really bad estimates, but the turnover is probably 1-1.5 million DKK in the city when a trawler arrives and probably an average of DKK 0.5 million when a cruise ship arrives. And that number could well be raised much higher. Instead of just sitting down and saying: 'trawlers, they are the ones who give the most, so they are the ones we want space for'. It's only a year and a half ago that that I'm beginning to experience that some of the companies that actually primarily service fishing are beginning to say: 'whoa, what can we actually sell to cruise tourism?', instead of just complaining about them. Because they are not going away.’ 

It should be stressed that there is a lot of uncertainty around how much income cruise tourism generates, but some argued that although individual cruise tourists do not spend as much per person as land-based tourists, the large numbers that arrive make them economically important:  

‘Statistics are both good and bad in the sense that if you look at the individual tourist on a cruise, it is clear that one tourist does not perform nearly as well as the land-based tourist. They don't stay here and they don't eat as much and things like that. But if you look at the cruise then it's really, really a big amount of money they're handing over.’ 

This is echoed by other stakeholders, but they often emphasised that this was only an economic perspective, as one stakeholder explained: 

‘Only economic. That is what I see. In terms of income, if you think about cruise tourism as a possible future income source, then it’s the big ships that spend money. And it is them that can develop not only cruise tourism but also local tourism because they, as I said, use all the capacity there is already’. 

Overall, the debate in Nuuk centres not on whether cruise is or is not a good thing per se, but what type of cruise tourism should be developed. Almost all the interviewees believed that cruise could be economically and socially valuable for the town and local community, but there were a variety of views about what type of cruise ships and what type of cruise tourists are most desirable.  

The most important issue for the stakeholders interviewed in this study, and one that they returned to again and again, is how to maximise the economic benefits of cruise tourism for the local community. The most frequently mentioned objection to cruise tourism is the fact that most value is captured by the cruise lines because tourists sleep, eat and book tours onboard the ships. Addressing this issue is seen as a priority and most stakeholders saw this in terms of encouraging particular types of cruise ships and/or cruise tourists, although it must be stressed that there were a range of views regarding which groups should be prioritised.  

In general, most stakeholders preferred smaller ships because of their perception that tourists on these cruises spend more money in the destination. As one interviewee put it: ‘Anyone who has worked in tourism knows that the smaller, the more expensive, the more money they spend’. Some argued that adventure tourists, typically travelling on so-called expedition cruise ships (max 500 pax), were most attractive because they often stayed overnight, the tourists are younger, and more likely to take longer tours, eat in the town’s restaurants and generally spend more money. Focusing on adventure tourists is argued to fit well with Greenland’s overall destination image and a higher-spending market segment would support economic sustainability while minimising environmental impacts. As one stakeholder involved in destination development argued: the fewer tourists, the less damage to nature and all that. But we do also need to earn some money from it’.  This segment is also perceived to be more interested in experiences that support the local community and are attracted by sustainable initiatives.  

However, not all stakeholders thought that expedition cruise ships should be prioritised. Some argued, for instance, that expedition cruises often came with all their own guides and Zodiac gear on board and therefore spent very little money locally. As one operator describes: 

‘There are some that have their own guides on-board. They have zodiacs. They do everything themselves…there was a lot of talk that it was all about adventure tourists and small ships and so on. But not if you want to have income. They can go all kinds of places and enjoy themselves, have a great time and an amazing experiences…but it is just not something that gives a lot of income to the country’ 

In fact, many interviewees pointed to mid-size conventional ships as the best possible size for the local industry and also for the sake of the visiting tourists: ‘up to a maximum of 1000 passengers, I would say. That fits best with the town and attractions and gives all tourism operators full employment. And that is the most important, and it means no one has a bad experience. When 4000 passengers run around, they don’t get the experience they should’.   

Many interviewees also talked less about the size of the ships and more about the type of cruise and cruise tourists. The overwhelming preference is for wealthier cruise tourists on expensive cruises. As one interviewee described it: ‘There is a wide range of cruise ship quality.  There are some very expensive cruises, very luxury, that are expensive… and then all the way down to discount cruises, which a load of old crap to be blunt, some old ships that are just about held in life, with a clientel that don’t have any money and have in general bought an all-inclusive tour. In other words, lunch and everything. They come ashore in Greenland, and then go back onboard and eat their lunch…So if one could choose, if we shall have cruise ships, then let us take the top half and let the bottom half stay away’.  Many stakeholders also had preferences regarding the nationality of cruise tourists. Americans and Canadians were often perceived to be higher spending, for example. 

Others are concerned about the safety of cruise ships, especially conventional cruise ships that do not have ice-reinforced hulls and carry thousands of passengers in areas where sea charts are often poor. As one interviewee put it: ‘if an accident happens with one of the big ships out at sea, we are fucked. I mean, there is no capacity anywhere to help them’.  Some feared that it is only a matter of time before there is an accident and that the limited search and rescue capabilities, long distances and challenges with weather would result in high casualties.  They argued that expedition cruise ships are better equipped for sailing in the Arctic and with smaller numbers of passengers they are also more sustainable. In particular, as described in Section 2.5, expedition cruise ships follow the AECO guidelines. These were praised by many local stakeholders and there were many calls for them to be extended to all cruise ships.  

Nuuk is in many ways an atypical Arctic cruise destination and its size and position as Greenland’s capital means that it does not suffer from many of the severe problems faced by small communities that are overwhelmed by large numbers of cruise tourists. Nonetheless, as our analysis makes clear, there are still challenges related to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of cruise tourism, and a lively debate about its future development.  

Overall, it is noticeable that issues related to economic and social sustainability are much more emphasised than environmental sustainability among the stakeholders interviewed in this study, and three key issues related to cruise tourism have been identified.  First, it uses resources and shares spaces that are also used by other stakeholders (including non-humans) in ways that create both negative impacts, such as pollution, but also positive impacts; for example, supporting tourist infrastructure that can be used outside the main season. Second, the timing and pace of cruise tourism are important for economic and social sustainability. This includes issues related to seasonality, long-term planning combined with unpredictability due to weather conditions, and the dynamics of short, intense cruise calls that last only a few hours. Third, different stakeholders attach different values and meanings to various types of cruise tourism, which means that there is no consensus regarding the future development path of cruise tourism.  

In Nuuk the construction of a new airport, which will enable more direct international flights, has raised expectations that it could become a turn-around cruise destination. Several interviewees talked about the economic benefits that this could bring, as it would mean cruise tourists staying longer in the town before or after their cruise. They argued that Nuuk is well-placed to take advantage of this since ships can dock at the quay which makes loading, refuelling, and provisioning easier than in Kangerlussuaq. Others were more sceptical, pointing to the lack of hotel rooms in Nuuk (which is already at full capacity when a large event takes place in the town) and the unpredictable weather which often means that flights are often cancelled or delayed. If the idea of Nuuk as a turn-around port becomes a reality, then it will have important consequences. There will be more tourists in the town, more pressure on infrastructure, and a longer cruise season.  

In any case, cruise tourism is again growing in Nuuk and at the time of writing 77 ships were expected to call in Nuuk in summer 2023. Nearly all the stakeholders interviewed in this study reflected on the number of cruise tourists and how many the town could welcome without being overwhelmed. Some pointed to the experience of Iceland and the problems caused by the explosive growth of tourism. As one interviewee said, ‘tourism became number one for Iceland [and] it was suddenly something that they couldn’t control and I think that is my biggest worry. We have an even smaller population… and if we don’t know what we want and try to control it as we wish, maybe we will stand here in a few years and think ‘oh, those tourists…’’ Overall, most stakeholders in Nuuk agree that they do not want mass cruise tourism and very large ships, but there is no clear consensus regarding exactly which cruise segment is preferred – beyond a desire to target tourists that are higher-spending.  

Most stakeholders believe that cruise tourism should be better regulated but few had very concrete ideas about how this should take place, or who has a responsibility and a mandate to lead on this issue. Some stakeholders expect the national government to act, for instance regarding the expansion of the harbour; others see Visit Greenland as leading on the development of a broader tourism strategy, while the municipality is seen as important in terms of local business development and infrastructure. Visit Greenland has taken a lead by stopping all marketing of Greenland as a destination for conventional cruise tourism (link), and is focusing on expedition cruises (although as we have noted, not all stakeholders agree with this position).  

AECO’s guidelines were popular, and several stakeholders thought that they should be expanded to include all cruise ships. AECO clearly has a strong position as opinion leader and influencer with the national tourism organisation and regional DMOs. In recent years the organisation has developed a series of community guidelines in Greenland together with representatives of the local destinations. Since the first guidelines for Sisimiut came out in 2019, a total of 10 guidelines (2023) have been published, including a set for Nuuk. These documents offer advice for cruise tourists visiting communities on how to behave, places to visit and other advice that help minimize negative impact for locals and on the environment. They are, however, voluntary guidelines, that are only followed by expedition cruises that are members of AECO. Some interviewees say that politicians seem to be uninterested in the area, but this might be changing after the current and coming record-breaking season.  

There is certainly interest in cruise and research being carried out by Visit Greenland, which has launched a process of consultation regarding the development and regulation of cruise tourism. Our findings suggest that this is very much needed, because most stakeholders felt that there should be a clearer direction for cruise development. As one put it: ‘All the time there is that question. What do we need? What is the plan, I mean the real plan for what we should prioritise, and what should be done, what should happen. That I don’t know’. It is also clear that there is a lack of dialogue with cruise lines themselves, who are in many ways the most important stakeholders influencing the future direction of development. As one local stakeholder noted: ‘I don't get the impression that anyone is even talking to the cruise lines. Why don’t you pick up the phone and call them. They might not be against you. I think that the cruise lines also want to make a positive contribution, and they also want to provide a good experience for their guests. So, everyone has a common interest, but it's not like it's set up. Greenland is being pitted against the cruise lines’. 

Those local stakeholders with strong views on regulation were, unsurprisingly, those who were most concerned about the negative impacts of cruise.  They suggested regulations including an increased passenger tax with the proceeds being partly spent on safety and infrastructure. There were also suggestions to force ships to re-fuel and provision in Greenland, so that local companies could earn more from each call. At the same time, stakeholders in Nuuk are aware that regulation in one destination has knock-on effects elsewhere on an international scale. One example is the decision to limit the size of cruise ships that can visit Svalbard, which has the effect of making other destinations more attractive for larger cruise ships. Several stakeholders mentioned Nuuk’s positioning in relation to the level of passenger tax/tonnage tax compared to other destinations, suggesting that it should not be too high or low.