Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

River tourism development: The case of the port of Brussels

Mitchell van Balen a,, Michael Dooms a,1, Elvira Haezendonck a,b,2
a
b

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Business, Unit Management and Strategy, Brussels, Belgium
Department of Management, Universiteit Antwerpen (UA), Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 February 2014
Received in revised form 27 October 2014
Accepted 29 October 2014
Available online 20 November 2014
Keywords:
River tourism
Scenario planning
Economic impact analysis
Brussels

a b s t r a c t
River tourism becomes for many ports an important development area that often requires additional infrastructure investments. As such there is a need to understand whether such investments are legitimized by the expected economic impacts. To this end we develop a scenario planning method to assess the economic impacts of river
tourism on a port region in terms of added value, created employment, port revenues, and scal impact. We illustrate the method through the case of Brussels, which involves desk research, 19 interviews with diverse stakeholders, macroeconomic data and workshops with senior port management. The case illustrates step-by-step
how to determine economic impacts under different scenarios. We argue that such an exercise aids port managers with examining the business case for river tourism and to determine the optimal level of investments in
river tourism infrastructure. We conclude by offering managerial recommendations and discuss how the method
can be applied to other cases.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many of the world's great rivers are used for touristic purposes. In
this paper we focus on two of such touristic activities, namely river
cruises and river events. River cruises are multi-day journeys to appealing riverside destinations. The river cruise ships typically offer onboard
suites, dining facilities and leisure amenities. Recent investments by operators and ports have given a new impulse to the river cruise industry.
According to CLIA (2012), the industry experienced a 10% annual
growth between 2007 and 2012, with the greatest growth occurring
on Western European waterways. The popularity is however not limited to Europe, and many other ports and rivers around the world are
experiencing growing interest as well (Prideaux & Cooper, 2009). A second form of tourism is business-related and concerns river events. We
focus on event ships that sail to different ports to host corporate events,
such as product presentations and company parties. We observe that
many ports welcome these ships, even though reliable statistics on the
river event market appear absent. In this paper we dene river cruises
and river events together as river tourism.
In contrast to the more mature sea cruise industry, river tourism is
emerging and several developments confront port authorities with opportunities and challenges. For instance, the recent growth of the river
Corresponding author at: Department of Business, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan
2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Tel.: +32 2 6292129.
E-mail addresses: Mitchell.van.Balen@vub.ac.be (M. van Balen),
Michael.Dooms@vub.ac.be (M. Dooms), Elvira.Haezendonck@vub.ac.be (E. Haezendonck).
1
Department of Business, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Tel.: +32 2 6292130.
2
Department of Business, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Tel.: +32 2 6292132.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.10.014
2210-5395/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

cruise industry resulted in the saturation of popular ports during

peak-periods. We observe this, amongst others, in Amsterdam and popular destinations along the Rhine and Danube rivers. As a consequence
these ports need to invest in quay facilities to enable sustainable
growth. For ports in the proximity of such popular destinations, opportunities exist as well. They can, for instance, attract ships that could not
reserve a berth at the more popular destination or compete on port
dues. Additionally, we observe that river cruise operators are actively
developing new journeys in order to retain old and attract new customers. For this reason non-traditional river cruise ports are increasingly visited, including ports in cities that are not located along popular
itineraries, but are well-known enough to attract a signicant number
of customers. On top of promoting new cities, we observe a more radical
approach that focuses on the marketing and development of rivers that
previously were not offered. For instance, several European players are
expanding their offers to the Amazon and Mekong river (Divino &
McAleer, 2009; Laws & Semone, 2009; Prideaux & Cooper, 2009).
Hence, industry growth and the pro-active development of new itineraries by river tourism operators can have signicant implications for inland ports.
There are good reasons for port authorities and local governments to
welcome these developments. For port authorities, river tourism can act
as an additional source of income through port dues and the provision
of associated services. Local governments, on the other hand, can expect
positive scal impacts from tourist expenses. This is especially relevant
because river cruise passengers generally are wealthy and eager to purchase local goods and services (Bauer, 2010).
However, several challenges exist that port authorities and local
governments should reckon with. Similar to sea cruises (Lekakou,
Pallis, & Vaggelas, 2009), ample factors inuence the attractiveness of

72

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

ports for touristic purposes, including the location and quality of the
quay. Yet, many inland ports have industrial activities and/or urban logistics organized in the same limited area of waterbound operations
(Dooms, Haezendonck, & Valaert, 2013). As a consequence ports often
lack the facilities and surroundings that align with the requirements of
the river tourism industry. If inland ports are therefore to consolidate
a position as a river tourism destination, they are often required to
make considerable investments to become a more attractive stopover. As such, port managers should question whether the benets of
attracting touristic activity are higher than the costs (Brida & Zapata,
2010; McCarthy, 2003).
Typically, two factors complicate such investment decisions. First,
river tourism is relatively new for many inland ports. Historic gures
are therefore insufcient to legitimize investments and forecasting
methods are called for. Second, the value of river tourism is captured
by a broad range of actors. Local tourist expenses, for instance, can be
signicant, but do not necessarily ow back to the port authorities. For
this reason port authorities could be more inclined to invest in industrial
projects, even though the region as a whole would prot more from
river tourism. Investment decisions thus need to account for different forms of economic value that legitimize co-nancing by local
authorities.
In this paper we develop a scenario planning method to assess the
potential economic impacts of river tourism on a port region. To the
best of our knowledge, such a method has not been applied to river
tourism, but could serve as a powerful tool for strategic decision making
by port managers and policy makers (Prideaux, Laws, & Faulkner, 2003;
Song & Li, 2008). We shall apply the methodology on the Port of
Brussels, after which we elaborate on the tool's wider applicability and
validity for ports that want to conduct such an analysis. The paper is
structured as follows. In the next section we provide a survey of the literature on forecasting economic impacts, and why scenario planning is
a suitable tool for our study. Next, we develop and illustrate the scenario
planning method by leveraging a case study on the Port of Brussels. Additionally, we present the results of the study. Afterwards we elaborate
on the managerial value of the methodology and give guidelines on how
the results need to be interpreted. We end the paper by discussing the
broader applicability of scenario planning for river tourism and elaborate on the study's limitations.

2. Assessing future economic impacts

Economic impact assessment is used by ports to determine the
legitimacy of infrastructure investments (Chang, 1978; Kinsey, 1981;
Nijdam, Van der Lugt, & Van der Biessen, 2010; Waters, 1977). This
holds not only true for industrial, logistic, or conventional (ferry) passenger activities (Acosta, Coronado, & Cerban, 2011; Bryan, Munday,
Pickernell, & Roberts, 2006; Gripaios & Gripaios, 1995) but also for touristic and leisure activities (Guerrero, Selva, & Medina, 2008). However,
these studies focus for a great part on sea cruises (Dowling, 2006;
Dwyer & Forsyth, 1996, 1998; Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2013).
We do not question the signicance of such studies, but note that
several differences exist between sea cruises and river cruises. For one,
sea cruises focus mostly on itineraries (Marti, 1990; Rodrigue &
Notteboom, 2013) whereas river cruise operators sell destinations.
Port selection criteria and expected growth expectations are therefore
dependent on a set of different factors. Another factor is that sea cruise
passengers generally do not spend a lot in the cities where they disembark (McCarthy, 2003). A potential explanation is that the sea cruises
offer an incomparable range of onboard facilities, such as swimming
pools, ice skating rinks, and cinemas. In the absence of such amenities,
river cruise passengers are more likely to make large expenses in each
of the cities they visit. This also could follow from the different passenger proles, which signicantly impact the kind of expenses that are
made (Brida, Bukstein, Garrido, & Tealde, 2012).

Therefore we believe that methods for analyzing the economic impact of sea cruises are not transposable to river tourism, which is in
need of its own methodology. We observe nevertheless that such a contribution is, to the best of our knowledge, absent in the academic literature. Some contributions highlight economic aspects of river cruises
(Johnson & Moore, 1993), but none offer a method that ports can use
to assess the economic impact of river tourism. Moreover, a signicant
impediment to applying economic impact studies for river tourism is
that such activities are relatively new for many ports. As such, ports cannot build on historic data to determine economic impacts and legitimize
investments. Advanced forecasting methods are therefore called for.
Forecasting in the tourism industry is a common practice. Song and
Li (2008) nd between 2000 and 2006 no less than 119 academic studies on tourism demand modeling and forecasting. They take stock of the
diverse methods and suggest that no single method outperforms the
others. However, they do underline that scenario planning as a tool in
tourism forecasting deserves future study, as forecasting alone is not
enough to anticipate on future situations. This is in line with the recommendations of Prideaux et al. (2003), who explore the limitations of
forecasting methods in light of unexpected tourism shocks. After analyzing the political and economic crises in Indonesia after 2007, and
the consequent effects on tourism, they argue that traditional forecasting methods do not sufciently account for risks. Scenario planning,
they argue, can help to better understand and anticipate on the uncertainties that pertain to future situations.
Scenario planning has been around for almost 40 years and is commonly used for business planning purposes (Bradeld, Wright, Burt,
Cairns, & Van Der Heijden, 2005). It is a proven tool for comprehensive
decision making in complex and uncertain environments that is used by
both public and private organizations (Schoemaker, 1991; Wilkinson &
Kupers, 2013). Scenario planning sets itself apart from other methods as
it focuses on how several variables interact simultaneously, rather than
scrutinizing one variable in isolation (Schoemaker, 1995). As such it is a
method to create narratives that do not get bogged down by minor details, so to stimulate a compelling discussion on potential futures
(Schoemaker, 1995). Another argument in favor of scenario planning
is that the inuence of variables on a project is often subjective due to
the uncertainty that increases over time and various other complexities.
Rather than denying this, scenario planning allows for the inclusion of
expert opinions whose input can be leveraged to develop grounded
and plausible scenarios. As such, the tool embraces both conicting
and supporting opinions rather than omitting the subjectivity that is inherently part of planning. A nal argument in favor of scenario planning
is the possibility to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative aspects
(Bradeld et al., 2005), so to enable more comprehensive decision
making.
At this point it is important to emphasize that scenarios and forecasting are not the same thing (Zentner, 1982). A main difference is
that scenarios aim to display a number of possible futures, whereas a
forecast aims to illustrate the most likely future. Scenarios are therefore
plausible descriptions of potential future that can support strategy development by making decision makers aware of uncertainties and
risks. Hence, the utility of scenario planning lies in the comprehensiveness of the different scenarios and the quality of the consequent discussion amongst strategic decision makers on the respective scenarios. A
key strength of scenario planning is indeed the ability to force participants to acknowledge the complexity of a project and discuss this, rather than offering one ofcial future (Schoemaker, 1995).
Scenario planning is especially useful to inform infrastructure investments. The reason being is that the economic and nancial impacts
that follow from an investment often depend on long-term developments that are surrounded by uncertainty and risk (Acosta et al.,
2011; De Brucker, Verbeke, & Winkelmans, 1998). This relates to
stakeholder complexities and the time it takes before the project
actually materializes. Especially with regard to the construction of
transport infrastructure this holds true (Dooms, 2010). Following

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

these arguments we propose that scenario planning is a suitable tool

to assess the potential economic impacts of river tourism and, therefore, can aid with informing investment decisions in river tourism
infrastructure.
3. Developing scenarios
We now shall provide a case study on how scenario planning for
river tourism was used for the Port of Brussels. We performed the case
study between March and June 2011 and build on a total of 19 interviews: Eight operators, seven port experts, and four local stakeholders.
The study entails, moreover, desk research of practitioner and academic
sources, a benchmark analysis of four river tourism ports (Amsterdam,
Cologne, Coblenz, and Paris), workshops with senior port management,
and macro-economic data.
To avoid any confusion, the purpose of providing this case study is
not to offer denitive answers on how economic impacts of river tourism should be assessed. Rather, it showcases the lessons we learned
on applying scenario planning for river tourism, how the accuracy of
the tool can be improved, and to highlight its limitations. In this section
we elaborate on each respective step, and provide additional details on
how the data was retrieved and used. Table 1 provides an overview of
the methodological steps and data sources that we used to develop
the scenarios. In the discussion section we shall expand on the limitations of the method and recommendations for applying the method
on other cases.
3.1. Case context: Brussels
The port of Brussels, Belgium, is a relatively small port for the river
tourism industry. A channel connects the city with the main waterways
and the port of Antwerp up north. Because the southern locks are too
small to let river cruise and event ships pass, Brussels usually acts as
the starting point or nal destination of a journey. Despite this limitation there were about 53 river cruise ships that visited Brussels in

73

2010, coming from 19 in 2006. This growth urged port managers to contemplate on the future of river tourism in Brussels. There was however
little insight into the reasons why river tourism emerged in Brussels and
its potential. In addition, senior port managers expected that sizeable investments would be needed, as no specic river tourism facilities
existed. To be more precise, a quay of about 250 m served both river
tourism and industrial activities, and the predominantly industrial character of the port conicted with the desired touristic ambience. Port
management therefore proposed to create a new dedicated river tourism quay that was expected to cost over 2 million. But given that
river tourism creates positive externalities that the Port cannot capture,
the Port was looking for external support. Dening the extent to which
the port region benets from infrastructure investments would make a
case for additional public nancing.
But assessing the economic impact of river tourism and the extent
to which investments are legitimized is troubled by the fact that the
Port of Brussels collected limited information on river tourism.
Moreover, there was high uncertainty regarding the industry's interest in Brussels as a destination and the key factors that inuence this.
In light of this uncertainty we proposed a scenario planning methodology to systematically examine the business case for investments in
river tourism infrastructure under different futures. Five consequent
steps ensued.
Step 1 Determine annual number of passengers
Prior to developing scenarios the baseline situation must be
assessed. Since the Port did not track how many passengers visited Brussels, our rst step was to approximate the annual number of passengers. For this we based ourselves on the Port
captain's logbook, in which all river tourism ships were noted
that called the port since 2006, including the date of arrival, duration of the stay, operator and name of the ship. Through the
websites of operators we analyzed every documented ship and
noted the capacity, length, and whether the ship was used for
river cruises or events.

Table 1
Overview of research steps and data sources.
Step 1: Determine yearly amount of passengers

Data sources

a. Retrieve historic data on river tourism ships in Port

b. Determine maximum capacity of these river tourism ships
c. Determine average occupancy rate of river cruises and river events
d. Calculate yearly amount of passengers

Logbook of Port Captain

Operator websites
8 interviews with operators
Own calculations

Step 2: Determine key growth factors

a. Identify growth factors of river tourism in the region
b. Evaluate factors and identify potential gaps

Desk research on academic and practitioner studies

8 interviews with operators, 7 with port experts, and 4 with local stakeholders

Step 3: Build scenarios

a. Assess historic and expected growth of other nearby river tourism ports
b. Assess growth potential of the river tourism industry
c. Discuss growth potential of Port with operators
d. Discuss validity of scenarios and determine nal growth rates

Interviews with representatives of four nearby ports

Desk research on practitioner studies and prognostics
8 interviews with operators
Workshop with senior management Port of Brussels

Step 4: Assess passenger expenses

a. Determine activities on which passengers spend money
b. Examine passenger expenses per activity
c. Compare different numbers and relate activities to NACE sectors

8 interviews with operators

Desk research on practitioner studies
Own calculations

Step 5: Convert expenses into value added, scal impact and employment
a. Obtain regional macro economic data
b. Determine multipliers for indirect impacts
c. Determine rates for translating revenue in added value
d. Determine rates for translating added value in scal impact
e. Calculate all economic impacts (see Appendix 1)

National Bank of Belgium

Studies on multiplier effects in Belgium
National Bank of Belgium
National Bank of Belgium and others
Own calculations

74

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

The search indicated that most ships that sail to Brussels are typical for the European rivers, measuring 110135 m in length and
1012 m wide, with a maximum capacity of 120150 passengers. These ships employ 20 to 40 crew members, depending
on the ship's size and comfort level. River event ships are different as they lack onboard suites, but do offer spacious rooms in
which large groups of people can gather. The capacity of an
event ship ranges from 20 to 1250 passengers, and the size increases accordingly.
Through interviews with operators (most of whom had experiences with Brussels) we understood that river cruises generally
enjoy a high occupancy rate. After comparing the different numbers of river tourism operators we set the average occupancy
rate at 90%. By linking the ships, their capacity, and the average
occupancy rate, we could calculate the annual number of passengers. Based on this analysis we approximated that there
were 9252 river cruise passengers and 4400 even ship passengers in 2010.
Step 2 Determine key growth factors
To determine the key growth factors of river tourism in Brussels
two separate and consequent steps were made (see Table 1).
First, we extensively analyzed both scholarly and practitioner
sources on river tourism to better understand the key issues in
the industry. For this we widened our scope to articles that describe river tourism in different global markets (e.g. the contributions in Prideaux & Cooper, 2009). But as previously stated,
river tourism receives a fraction of the attention that sea cruises
enjoy. As a consequence we were uncertain if our desk research
on key growth factors was sufciently comprehensive.
We therefore decided to gather data by interviewing river tourism operators, port related stakeholders, and market experts to
reect on our ndings and add factors where needed. Through a
total of 19 semi-structured interviews we identied several recurring elements, which we grouped under six endogenous
growth factors and ve exogenous growth factors. Endogenous
factors are those factors that can be inuenced by the investors
and port managers themselves. Exogenous factors, on the other
hand, remain outside the sphere of inuence of the Brussels'
port authority. In line with the scenario planning method
(Schoemaker, 1995), it is recommendable to distinguish between factors with different levels of risk and uncertainty. We
now discuss each factor, starting with the endogenous factors,
and elaborate on the assigned importance by the interviewees.
We explicitly mention any discrepancies that might exist between river cruises and river events.
A rst salient endogenous growth factor of inuence is the location of the quay, which inuences both the distance from touristic hotspots and the general ambience. River cruise operators
mentioned that the distance from touristic hotspots is not crucial for growth, because coach transport to bring passengers to
touristic hotspots is very common. At the same time they
noted that a quay on walking distance from main touristic
sights is a trump. If, however, this is not possible, it does not
matter much if a quay is located either 3 or 5 km away. The
direct surroundings of a quay are of greater importance. Operators and port experts emphasized that passengers are enjoying
their holidays and desire a surrounding that aligns with leisure
expectations. Therefore, an industrial or ill maintained surrounding decreases the willingness of tourists and operators
to visit the location. For river events, on the other hand, the distance from main sights is of limited importance and inviting
surroundings are regarded mostly as a nice extra. Location is
therefore of smaller importance for event ships.
Second, several on-land facilities can be offered to ships, such as
shore power, fresh water supplies, and waste disposal. As mentioned by the interviewees, these facilities are not needed at

every port since ships can operate for several days without. Operators state however that their presence is regarded as benecial, for reasons of convenience and because they might make
ports compete more on the prices of these facilities. Such practices are also visible in the sea cruise industry (McCarthy, 2003).
On a similar account, the height of the berth reservation fees
also inuences the willingness of operators to visit a port.
A third element that was mentioned is the quality of the quay.
Operators mentioned that the quality is determined by how
well it is maintained, the availability of illumination by night,
the extent to which it protects from noise pollution and the
overall accessibility for provisioning. These elements are
deemed important for the attractiveness of a port by both
river cruise and river event operators.
Fourth, services can be offered to the passengers on-site, such as
an information desk about the city and its touristic offerings,
souvenirs shops and stores with consumer goods. In several of
the benchmarked cities those facilities exist and tourists generally regard this as an asset, according to the operators. But for
river events, those services are of limited value.
A fth and nal element concerns the parking spaces next to the
quay. River cruises require parking spaces for coaches and taxis
next to the quay. This is because passengers often arrive from
airports or train stations and travel the last kilometers to the
ship by taxi. Coaches are used to bring passengers closer to touristic hotspots and are frequently used in Brussels. Given that
river cruise ships can carry over 110 passengers, it is important
that two to three coaches can park closely to the ship so that a
long walk is not needed. For river events parking spaces next
to the quay are equally important, but the dimensions are bigger. According to the river event operators the events attract
mostly business people that come by car. Given that some
events attract over 600 attendees, parking for around 200 cars
can be asked for. A lack of parking spaces would make it impossible to host large events and therefore negatively affect the
growth potential.
Besides the endogenous factors we identied four salient exogenous factors for river tourism, and three for river events. The
rst factor relates to river cruises and river events. As previously
stated, river cruise and event ships enter Brussels through a
channel, which is administered by a regional governmental
agency. Recently, the agency imposed signicant fees upon for
ships that sail to Brussels for touristic purposes. Because of the
complex institutional environment in Belgium, and conicts between different levels of government, the Port does not have a
strong inuence on the fees that are charged for ships that
want to visit Brussels.
A second factor outside the inuence of the Port of Brussels is
the competitive positioning of nearby ports, such as the Port
of Antwerp and Ghent. While most operators emphasize the
importance of visiting well-known cities by ship, a competitive
disadvantage that follows from port dues and other service
costs could cause operators to skip a city. This factor is relevant
for both river cruises and river events.
A third exogenous factor that can positively affect river cruise
tourism is the development of new waterways, such as the
SeineNord Europe Canal. This waterway will connect ports in
the Netherlands, Belgium and France, which is currently being
developed. New waterways allow operators to develop new
itineraries and some operators suggested that this could positively impact Brussels as a destination. For river events this is
of less value, as they mostly travel over small distances.
A nal river cruise related exogenous factor is the evolution of
the industry. Most practitioner sources and interviewees were
positive about the industry's growth. As main arguments they
refer to the recent increase in popularity and the ageing of the

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

population in the main markets, like the United States and several Western European countries. This is relevant because elderly people are the target group of river cruises. Additionally,
industry investments, such as better equipped ships and different arrangements, can increase growth gures. Cruise operators
are diversifying by offering different service categories and
catering options. Ongoing innovations and investments in the
industry are likely to positively impact growth. But this is outside the control of the Port, too.
An additional river event specic factor concerns the state of the
economy. River events are mostly sponsored by corporations
that are generally more willing to invest in events during
times of economic prosperity. The general state of the economy
therefore strongly correlates with the growth of the river event
industry. According to several river event operators that we
interviewed, this was particularly visible after the 2008 economic downturn and the years after.
Hence, we assessed that for river cruises relevant endogenous
factors were the surroundings, ship facilities, quay quality, services, and parking. The exogenous factors entail the waterway
fees, competition between ports, new waterways, and industry
development. For river events the endogenous factors were the
same, albeit the aggregated impact on growth rates differs. The
exogenous factors for river events were determined as waterway fees, competition between ports, and the state of the
economy.
Step 3 Build scenarios
As stated in Section 2, scenario planning deliberately simplies
reality as to allow a conceptualization that can support decision
making. It is difcult, if not impossible, to understand the individual impact of one factor on growth, and therefore scenario
planning focuses on the interaction effects between factors
that constitute potential growth. So in line with Schoemaker's
(1995) recommendation to develop comprehensible, consistent and engaging scenarios, we opted for four scenarios.
These scenarios emerge from a matrix approach in which endogenous and exogenous growth factors are either positive or
negative.
It is intrinsic to scenario planning that uncertainty increases
when predictions reach further. Our study is no exception. To
cope with this uncertainty we applied ve-year intervals that
allow exibility and adjust for future uncertainties. Thus, the
rst interval could be forecasted with reasonable condence,
whereas uncertainty increases signicantly for the last interval.
The growth estimates per scenario follow from three consecutive steps. First, by means of desk research we developed a general notion of how river tourism is expected to evolve in the
near future. Practitioner sources indicated that the river cruise
industry is likely to grow over the next few years, and that opportunities exist for less popular ports to gain market share.
Second, interviewees gave specic feedback on the likelihood
that river tourism in Brussels would grow, depending on several
factors. Generally, the assumption was supported that additional investments are necessary in order to attract more ships and
operators. Moreover, exogenous factors can have a reinforcing
effect on river cruise growth, even in the absence of signicant
investments. These implications are in line with what was
discussed during the interviews. For event ships, on the other
hand, the exogenous factors have a relatively more profound
effect on the growth potential. This is explained by the fact
that event ships look foremost for locations with sufcient
parking spaces, whereas other endogenous factors are appreciated but non-essential. But economic conditions and competition amongst ports have a more profound impact, according
to the river event operators. Hence, given that river cruise operators and passengers put more emphasis on the quality of the

75

quay, its surroundings and additional services, endogenous factors were deemed relatively more important for river cruises
when compared with river events. In a nal step we made all
our assumptions explicit and discussed them during a workshop with senior managers of the Port. During the workshop,
the participants were invited to challenge the initial numbers
and our assumptions. Some assumptions were straightforward,
like the one that endogenous growth factors will only be taken
into consideration after the potential date of construction, being
post-2015. Other assumptions were a matter of greater discussion, such as the expectation that quays can be saturated in the
near future during peak periods, therefore negatively inuencing the growth over time in more optimistic scenarios. This critical exercise resulted in the nal set of scenarios with associated
growth rates as presented in Table 2 for river cruises and Table 3
for river events.
Based on the growth rates per scenario and the 2010 baseline
gures, the expected number of passengers per year was calculated, of which an overview is given in Table 4.
Step 4 Assess passenger expenses
In this step we convert the scenarios into economic impacts, for
which we need to determine all relevant river tourism related
expenses. Three steps were undertaken to do so. First, we
used the interviews to understand what kind of expenses is
made by river cruise and river event passengers, the potential
expenses of crew members, and what the ship related expenses
are in ports. The interviews with operators were especially useful to understand what the likely expenses are in the context of
Brussels. Second, we retrieved several practitioner studies on
expenses within the river tourism industry. Finally, we listed
these pieces of information in an excel le in which we mentioned the expenses per activity, the source and location of the
study. Often different gures for similar expenses were found,
which can be explained by, for instance, differences in port facilities, competitive setting, and the price level of nations. Consequently, we discussed amongst the members of the research
team what are plausible gures for the Brussels context.
Besides passenger related expenses, river tourism also involves
crew and ship related expenses. These were related to passengers in order to use the number of passengers as the focal unit
of analysis. We found through interviews that there are on average ve passengers per crew member on river cruises. Crew
member expenses were thus divided amongst ve passengers
in the calculations. For river events, on the other hand, we excluded crew member expenses because operators informed us
that these are negligible. Historical data showed that a river
cruise ship in Brussels carried on average 92 passengers, whereas one event ship carried 358 passengers. Ship related expenses
were divided amongst passengers based on these numbers.
Another element that we accounted for is that passengers do
not always participate in the offered activities. We therefore

Table 2
Scenarios on the growth potential of river cruises in Brussels.
Scenarios

1. Conservative scenario
2. Exogenous growth
scenario
3. Endogenous
growth scenario
4. Positive scenario

Endogenous
factors

Exogenous
factors

Yearly growth rate

Till
2015

Till
2020

Till
2025

Till
2030

4%
4%

2%
3%

0%
2%

0%
2%

4%

7%

5%

4%

4%

10%

7%

7%

76

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

Table 3
Scenarios on the growth potential of river events in Brussels.
Scenarios

Table 5
Expenses in Euros (2010) per passenger for river tourism in Brussels.1

Endogenous Exogenous Yearly growth rate

factors
factors
Till
Till
Till
Till
2015 2020 2025 2030

1. Conservative scenario
2. Exogenous growth
scenario
3. Endogenous growth
scenario
4. Positive scenario

2% 2% 0%
2% 10% 4%

0%
2%

2% 5%

2%

2% 20%

3%
5%

5%

introduced a likelihood percentage that a passenger would

make a certain expense. This percentage was derived from interviews. The validity of these gures was cross-checked by senior port management and the port captain.
Finally, the expenses were related to economic activities in
terms of NACE-2008 (NUTS 1-A64) codes. Doing so allows us
to make inferences on the economic impact, as we shall illustrate in the following step. We note that different activities
can be related to the same code. For instance, trips to museums
fall under the same NACE code as onboard entertainment on
river event ships. An aggregated account of the nal expenses
per NACE code is shown in Table 5. It shows that event ships
use fewer facilities than cruise ships, and the expenses per passenger are signicantly lower. Additionally, it shows a difference between the rst two scenarios and the other two. This
follows from the scenarios with negative endogenous factors,
implying that no facilities are offered that generate ship related
revenues.
Step 5 Convert expenses into added value, scal impact and employment
Based on the expenses per passenger, as well as the prospected
growth rates per 5 years, the total river tourism related expenses in Brussels were calculated per scenario. Appendix 1
provides a owchart on the sequence of these calculations.
Here we give more background information on how the calculations were done.
First, we applied a NACE code specic globalized rate from the
National Bank of Belgium (NBB) to convert expenses into
added value. Expected employment was calculated based on a
rate that we obtained from NBB data, too. As demand for services increases, the demand for inputs rises as well. These socalled indirect effects are also to be taken into consideration in
order to gain a complete insight into the economic impacts of
a project. The indirect effects in terms of added value and employment were calculated by using a multiplier rate that was retrieved from studies that build on data of the Flemish Social
Economic Council, Belgostat and the NBB. By combining the

Table 4
Number of river tourism passengers per year per scenario in Brussels.
Scenarios
River
cruises

1. Conservative
2. Exo. growth
3. Endo. growth
4. Positive
River events 1. Conservative
2. Exo. growth
3. Endo. growth
4. Positive

2010 2015

2020

9252
9252
9252
9252
4400
4400
4400
4400

12,428
12,428
12,428
13,049
14,408
15,907
15,788
20,150
24,515
18,129
25,426
35,662
3595
3595
3595
6405
7793
8604
5076
5885
6497
9897
12,631
16,121

11,256
11,256
11,256
11,256
3977
3977
3977
3977

2025

2030

NACE Sector name

Code
Electricity
Water
Garbage
disposal
70
Exploitation
52
Retail
55
Hotel & catering
60
Transport
92
Culture, sport
and recreation
SCENARIOS 1 + 2
SCENARIOS 3 + 4

River cruises

Event ships

Pass.

Pass. Crew Ship Total

Crew Ship Total

40
41
90

36.55
25.75
27.80
14.45

2.17
0.31
3.51

2.17
0.31
3.51

4.18

4.18
37.57
26.24
28.50
14.77

1.02
0.49
0.70
0.32

4.25
2.25
1.70
3.77

107.08
117.25

0.72

0.72
0
0

4.89

4.89
4.25
2.25
1.70
3.77
11.97
17.58

Detailed data can be retrieved from the authors upon request.

direct and indirect added value and employment, the total

added value and employment were calculated. Afterwards, we
could derive the scal revenues that are connected to the total
added value. We assumed that 38% of the total added value indicates the expected scal revenue. This indicative percentage
was derived from two studies in the Belgian context (KPMG,
2003; Sleuwaegen et al., 2003). Finally the port revenues were
calculated. As said, no ship facilities are offered in scenarios 1
and 2, and therefore no revenue is expected. In scenarios 3
and 4 we assume that the generated revenue ows to the
Brussels' port authority.
Following these steps we could calculate the expected impacts
per scenario, as mentioned in Table 6. The table provides a
quantitative representation of each scenario in terms of present
added value, created employment and scal impact. These gures can serve as additional input to support decision making
and project investments. In the upcoming sections we will reect on the methodology that we proposed, the managerial relevance, and underline several limitations of scenario planning
for predicting river tourism growth in ports with a limited history in river tourism.

4. Implications for managerial practice

The results of the case study were used by senior port managers,
government representatives and local stakeholders to discuss the potential of river tourism for Brussels as a whole, and the Port in specic.
This discussion not only resulted in the decision to invest in a quay,
but also helped to determine the most opportune quay length and to invest in nearby local infrastructure, too. Another factor was that the analysis shows that port revenue is relatively small compared to the overall
returns to the city, region and government. Therefore, the tool shaped
the debate on the division of investments amongst the involved parties.
As such it was conrmed that the utility of scenario planning is to offer
several balanced, realistic and distinguishable narratives of potential futures that promote discussion and comprehensive strategic thinking
(Wilkinson & Kupers, 2013). An additional benet of this exercise was
that it answers to the increasing need for ports to justify their activities
towards external stakeholders (Dooms, 2010). By quantifying the potential economic benets, port related investments can be better legitimized. Not doing so leads to public doubts upon the importance of
ports, and scarce land may be used for other non-port related activities
such as the construction of real estate. Understanding the impacts of
port related tourism thus supports a larger goal to increase port
legitimacy.

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

77

Table 6
Overview economic impacts river tourism in Brussels.

Total present added value

in thousands (20112030)
Direct
Indirect
Created employment (2030)
Direct
Indirect
Total present scal impact
in thousands (20112030)
Total present port revenue
in thousands (20152030)

Scenario 1
Conservative

Scenario 2
Exo. growth

Scenario 3
Endo. growth

Scenario 4
Positive

7320

8021

11,616

14,272

5758
1561
38
32
7
2781

6307
1713
50
41
9
3048

8300
3315
76
62
13
4414

10,053
4219
112
92
20
5423

2371

3125

The goal of sharing the case study was also to illustrate how other
ports can apply scenario planning for river tourism. Based on our lessons
and the limitations of the study, we can propose several recommendations to improve the value and accuracy this method. Firstly it is important to emphasize that the growth factors that constitute the scenarios
most likely are not perfectly relevant for each port. It is therefore essential that scenario planners repeat the growth factor analyses and
determine the most salient ones for the port under consideration. Additionally, the base gures that inuence the calculated economic impacts
of each scenario are strongly dependent on the context. Also partially
because the type of passenger ship greatly varies depending on the
river that is sailed (Laws & Semone, 2009).
By the same token there is a need to carefully reexamine the passenger expenses per port. Factors such as whether the port is foremost a
starting point, stop-over, or nal destination will inuence the kind of
expenses that are made in the region. Similarly, the services and
goods that are offered per region vary greatly and therefore will significantly impact the size of passenger expenses. Following our desk
research we already discovered some striking contrasts amongst
European ports and expect the differences to be even greater when
river tourism on different continents is assessed, such as the Amazon
and Mekong rivers (Divino & McAleer, 2009; Laws & Semone, 2009).
Hence, the input gures that have been used for this study need to be
carefully scrutinized for their validity in other settings.
Another point that needs to be considered is that our scenarios do
not account for one-off events that strongly impact potential futures.
Several scholars have however emphasized the importance of incorporating such events as dummy variables (Prideaux et al., 2003; Song & Li,
2008). Both past and current global events have a signicant impact on
how tourism evolves, and future events are expected to do so, too. Even
in relatively stable contexts, such as Belgium, one-off events may
emerge and signicantly impact the demand for tourism infrastructure.
We therefore recommend the inclusion of one-off event dummies into
future scenario planning studies. Greater comprehensiveness can also
be reached by additional methodological sophistications, such as determining correlations between growth factors (Schoemaker, 1991). Such
additions could constitute more comprehensive scenarios, but the necessity needs to be assessed in light of the required comprehensiveness
and data availability.
Another factor that future studies can include is different quay locations. Spatial limitations informed the Port of Brussels to analyze only
one suitable location, but other ports could use the quay location as an
additional variable. One reason why this can be interesting to analyze
is because tourist expenses can vary signicantly when there is a central
quay or when a quay exists several kilometers away from the touristic
hotspots. Moreover, quay location also can invoke a strong difference
between the growth rate of river events and river cruises, if it inuences
the number of available parking spaces.

Our meetings with senior port management and local stakeholders

informed us that the interest in river tourism is not only derived from
the potential positive economic impacts, but also from its green and
positive image. Contrarily to industrial port activities, river tourism
can augment legitimacy amongst local stakeholders, who tend to
focus on the negative externalities of traditional port activities (cargo
handling, logistics and industrial activity). The facilities for river tourism
are indeed less obtrusive than many industrial sites that lay, sometimes,
nearby urban areas. Moreover, river tourism offers tangible contributions to local rms, such as shops and bars, which prot directly from
river tourism. The potential positive impact of cruise tourism on city regeneration is also observed elsewhere (McCarthy, 2003). Such points
are important to take into consideration when deciding on river tourism
investments, but were not explicitly incorporated into the scenarios.
However, integrating such qualitative arguments would support the development of more comprehensive scenarios and sound strategic decision making.
5. Conclusion and research implications
Recent developments urge port managers, governments and investors to develop a solid understanding on the economic potential and impacts of river tourism. In this paper we have presented a methodology
to aid them with doing so. The method is instrumental towards developing scenarios and quantifying the economic benets of different futures. It offers port managers a tool to understand the several impacts
and to interact with the respective beneciaries of river tourism. Besides
the purely economic and investment implications, we also emphasized
that the benets of river tourism can surpass purely economic impacts,
and also can increase overall port legitimacy. We conclude the study by
offering several research implications.
We noted before that sea cruises enjoy greater attention than their
uvial counterparts. These studies could act as a source of inspiration
for studies on river tourism, on the condition that several specicities
are taken into consideration. For instance, Di Vaio, Medda, and Trujillo
(2011) analyzed whether public or private ownership inuences the
technical efciency of sea cruise terminals. Given the different ownership arrangements that exist amongst inland ports, such insights have
relevance for river tourism as well. Another study that comes to mind
is Lekakou et al. (2009) analysis of the port selection criteria of operators
and their relative weight. The development of such weighted criteria,
adjusted to the needs and specicities of inland ports, could complement the insights of this study considerably.
We emphasize that scenario planning was used here as an experimental tool to discuss an investment decision in river tourism. Scenario
planning is however also used for the ongoing monitoring of business
evolutions and fully integrated into the formal planning processes of
rms (Linneman & Klein, 1983). In the case of river tourism, one could

78

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

use the scenarios as the baseline framework on which further studies

build. For instance, passengers can be surveyed every couple of years
to understand how the expenses evolve. The consequent ndings can
inform the Port and local stakeholders to correct the expected impacts
of river tourism and develop new initiatives. Hence, it would be interesting to assess whether scenario planning can be used for monitoring
purposes for river tourism and other port related activities.
Finally, our analysis focused on two specic uvial activities. We did
not include, for instance, short sightseeing trips and other economic activities on rivers. The analysis we made for Brussels therefore does not

Appendix 1
Flowchart to calculate economic impacts per scenario

calculate all economic impacts and can be supplemented by other

(non-industrial) activities. By analyzing river tourism as one of several activities, ports can see how investments in tourism infrastructure limit or
enhance other activities. Such a holistic approach would urge managers
to think even more integrative about the port's river tourism potential
and the trade-offs that are involved. As a consequence, managers could
develop more balanced business strategies and better compare the return
on investments of tourism infrastructure with other options. We would
welcome contributions that develop methods and tools that integrate
and compare the impact of river tourism jointly with other port activities.

M. van Balen et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 13 (2014) 7179

References
Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Cerban, M.D.M. (2011). The economic impact of the Port of
Tarifa (Spain) in 2007 and the forecast for 2015. International Journal of Transport
Economics, 38(3), 243264.
Bauer, K. (2010). Auf dem Prfstand: Wassertourismus auf Mosel und Saar. Paper presented at the IHK-Tourismustreff, Koblenz.
Bradeld, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and
evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8),
795812.
Brida, J.G., Bukstein, D., Garrido, N., & Tealde, E. (2012). Cruise passengers' expenditure in
the Caribbean port of call of Cartagena de Indias: A cross-section data analysis.
Tourism Economics, 18(2), 431447.
Brida, J.G., & Zapata, S. (2010). Cruise tourism: Economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 1(3), 205226.
Bryan, J., Munday, M., Pickernell, D., & Roberts, A. (2006). Assessing the economic significance of port activity: Evidence from ABP Operations in industrial South Wales.
Maritime Policy & Management, 33(4), 371386.
Chang, S. (1978). In defense of port economic impact studies. Transportation Journal,
17(3), 7985.
CLIA (2012). 2012 cruise industry economic study. Retrieved 21 January 2014, http://
www.cruising.org/sites/default/les/pressroom/2012EconomicStudies/EconStudy_
Full_Report_2012.pdf
De Brucker, K., Verbeke, A., & Winkelmans, W. (1998). Sociaal-Economische Evaluatie Van
Overheidsinvesteringen in Transportinfrastructuur: Kritische Analyse Van Het Bestaande
Instrumentarium Ontwikkeling Van Een Eclectisch Evaluatie-Instrument. Garant.
Di Vaio, A., Medda, F.R., & Trujillo, L. (2011). An analysis of the efciency of Italian cruise
terminals. International Journal of Transport Economics, 38(1), 2946.
Divino, J.A., & McAleer, M. (2009). Modelling sustainable international tourism demand to
the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24(12), 14111419.
Dooms, M. (2010). Crafting the integrative value proposition for large scale transport infrastructure hubs: A stakeholder management approach. Brussels: Asp/Vubpress/Upa.
Dooms, M., Haezendonck, E., & Valaert, T. (2013). Dynamic green portfolio analysis for inland ports: An empirical analysis on Western Europe. Research in Transportation
Business and Management, 8, 171185.
Dowling, R.K. (2006). Cruise ship tourism. Oxfordshire: CABI.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1996). Economic impacts of cruise tourism in Australia. Journal of
Tourism Studies, 7(2), 3645.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic signicance of cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(2), 393415.
Gripaios, P., & Gripaios, R. (1995). The impact of a port on its local economy: The case of
Plymouth. Maritime Policy & Management, 22(1), 1323.
Guerrero, J.I.F., Selva, L.M., & Medina, R.P. (2008). Economic impact of Western Mediterranean leisure ports. International Journal of Transport Economics, 35(2),
251272.

79

Johnson, R.L., & Moore, E. (1993). Tourism impact estimation. Annals of Tourism Research,
20(2), 279288.
Kinsey, J. (1981). The economic impact of the port of Liverpool on the economy of
MerseysideUsing a multiplier approach. Geoforum, 12(4), 331347.
KPMG (2003). Economische impact van de Belgische koeriersector. (Brussel).
Laws, E., & Semone, P. (2009). The Mekong: Developing new tourism region. In B.
Prideaux, & M. Cooper (Eds.), River tourism (pp. 5573). Oxfordshire: CABI.
Lekakou, M.B., Pallis, A.A., & Vaggelas, G.K. (2009). Which homeport in Europe: The cruise
industry's selection criteria. Tourism: International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism,
4(4), 215240.
Linneman, R.E., & Klein, H.E. (1983). The use of multiple scenarios by US industrial companies: A comparison study, 19771981. Long Range Planning, 16(6), 94101.
Marti, B.E. (1990). Geography and the cruise ship port selection process. Maritime Policy &
Management, 17(3), 157164.
McCarthy, J. (2003). The cruise industry and port city regeneration: The case of Valletta.
European Planning Studies, 11(3), 341350.
Nijdam, M., Van der Lugt, L., & Van der Biessen, B. (2010). Havenmonitor 2010: De
economische betekenis van Nederlandse zeehavens. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
(RHV BV) (Rotterdam).
Prideaux, B., & Cooper, M. (2009). River tourism. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.
Prideaux, B., Laws, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Events in Indonesia: Exploring the limits to
formal tourism trends forecasting methods in complex crisis situations. Tourism
Management, 24(4), 475487.
Rodrigue, J. -P., & Notteboom, T. (2013). The geography of cruises: Itineraries, not destinations. Applied Geography, 38, 3142.
Schoemaker, P.J. (1991). When and how to use scenario planning: A heuristic approach
with illustration. Journal of Forecasting, 10(6), 549564.
Schoemaker, P.J. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan
Management Review, 36, 2540.
Sleuwaegen, L., De Backer, K., Van Pottelsberghe, B., Nysten, S., Gille, J., & Molemaker, R.
(2003). Naar een nieuwe balans tussen economie en ecologie. Onderzoek over de
economische impact van de luchthaven Brussel Nationaal voor de Belgische economie'.
KU Leuven (Leuven, 1-173).
Song, H., & Li, G. (2008). Tourism demand modelling and forecastingA review of recent
research. Tourism Management, 29(2), 203220.
Waters, R.C. (1977). Port economic impact studies: Practice and assessment.
Transportation Journal, 16(3), 1418.
Wilkinson, A., & Kupers, R. (2013). Living in the futures. Harvard Business Review, 91(5),
118127.
Zentner, R. (1982). Scenarios, past, present and future. Long Range Planning, 15(3), 1220.