The first cruise ship to attempt to sail through Venice's canal after a 19-month pandemic-enforced break was greeted by hundreds of protesters, with many sailing out in small boats to meet the giant ship.

The following month, the government responded to local and international concerns and banned ships weighing more than 25,000-tonnes from entering the famous Giudecca Canal.

The Giudecca Canal also runs along the iconic Piazza San Marco.

READ MORE:

Chinese firm builds key Croatia bridge

The Olympic history of a small English town

The new World Heritage Sites in pictures

And now, as of August 1, the ships will have to dock at the nearby industrial port of Marghera.

The ban will also block entry to ships which release more than 0.1 percent sulfur, are more than 180 meters long or are taller than 35 meters.

This move has also helped stop the city from being added to Unesco's list of World Heritage sites in danger.

Ships traveling through St Mark's Basin and the Giudecca Canal were one of Unesco's concerns. Activists are also worried that the giant cruise ships traveling through these canals would damage the bottom of the famous lagoon.

This is concerning because Venice is already threatened by climate change and rising sea levels. 

The Unesco committee has asked the Italian government to submit an update on its attempts to protect the city from the negative impact of tourism, by 2022.

Non-governmental groups, working alongside Unesco, have also cited urban development and management of cultural resources as concerns, in addition to too much tourism.

There are currently around 50,000 residents in Venice. But in 2019, before the pandemic, it was visited by 25 million tourists. And every year, around 1,000 Venetians choose to leave the city.

However, the cruise ship ban was a blow to the tourist industry in Venice. Antonio Velleca, who has worked at the Venice port for more than 15 years, told Reuters the ban made him feel "awful."

"I felt I had lost the certainty of my life. We had just resumed work on June 5 after 19 months of inactivity. And 19 months without work for any person who is used to working is unimaginable," he said.

"Making this decision without taking things gradually, without planning, is absurd. In our opinion, it is evil and a crime against the workers."