Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to explore the dimensions of perceived value of tourists with disabilities at heritage sites. Second, it examines the differences in the precedents of satisfaction and loyalty among tourists with disabilities in two different World Heritage Sites (WHS).
Design/methodology/approach
The sample consists of 150 and 184 questionnaires given to tourists with disabilities in Ecuador’s WHS of Quito and Cuenca, respectively. To test the hypotheses, data were analysed using confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modelling.
Findings
This study suggests a five-dimensional structure for perceived value of tourists with disabilities in WHS. However, differences in the behaviour of people with disabilities are found depending on the specific WHS. While the perceived value factors that determine satisfaction are different according to the WHS, the loyalty precedents remain the same.
Practical implications
This study contributes to the formulation of actions and strategies towards a more sustainable and inclusive future, where all tourism stakeholders in WHS have role. By understanding the behaviour of tourists with disabilities, these stakeholders will be more informed about the destinations’ elements that need to be improved and enhanced to satisfy this loyal market segment.
Originality/value
Although the importance of accessible tourism is widely recognised, there is a dearth of literature investigating the behaviour of tourists with disabilities in heritage destinations. This study proposes a model to understand the role of perceived value in cultural heritage destinations.
Keywords
Citation
Moreno-Manzo, J., Coromina, L. and Gassiot-Melian, A. (2024), "Examining the structural relationships between perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty among disabled tourists in two world heritage sites", Consumer Behavior in Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/CBTH-02-2023-0011
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Jessenia Moreno-Manzo, Lluís Coromina and Ariadna Gassiot-Melian.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Tourism is a significant global revenue source, with over 960 million international travellers in 2022, marking a remarkable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic (UNWTO, 2022, 2023a). Accessible tourism is also a business opportunity (UNWTO, 2023b), given that an estimated 1.3 billion people have disabilities. This number indicates that one in three older adults is a person with a disability, with the highest prevalence observed in Europe and America (WHO, 2022).
This study is focused on World Heritage Sites (WHS), the designation given to locations that possess outstanding universal value to humanity (UNESCO, 2023). Cultural heritage sites, museums and galleries play a special role in encouraging immersion in cultural life and fostering social cohesion and inclusion (Mastrogiuseppe et al., 2021). Recognising the right of people with disabilities (PwD) to participate in cultural life on an equal basis with people without disabilities (United Nations, 2006) is essential to creating products and services appropriate for all at the heritage destination. Tourists with disabilities should be able to visit heritage attractions on equal terms and have comparable experiences to all other visitors (Goodall, 2006).
Academic interest in accessible tourism has increased over the last two decades (Chen and Chen, 2012; Sarmah et al., 2022; Stumbo and Pegg, 2005), and this market is still growing due to the potential of COVID-19 long-term health impacts that may increase the prevalence of disability (Pomeroy, 2021).
The perceived value, satisfaction (SAT) and loyalty (LOY) of tourists without disabilities have been studied in the tourism literature (Chen and Chen, 2010; Pandža Bajs, 2015; Valverde-Roda et al., 2022; Wu and Li, 2017; Zhang et al., 2022). The relationships between perceived value, SAT and LOY have been addressed in previous studies to compare the behaviour of people with and without disabilities. These are focused on religious destinations (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016) and outdoor recreation (Humagain and Singleton, 2021). However, there seems to be a lack of research to understand the behaviour of tourists with disabilities in heritage sites and to analyse the impact of perceived value factors on SAT and LOY. If they understood tourists’ behaviour, destination tourism managers would have a better idea about how to develop their marketing strategies to optimise the efficient use of their available resources (Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2015). Specifically, the evaluation of the behaviour of PwD is critical for the improvement of the accessibility of products and services in tourism destinations (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2022), and it may be crucial in the cultural context of WHS. Consequently, this research may be especially useful for cultural tourism stakeholders, such as curators or public cultural entities, to understand PwD needs (Mastrogiuseppe et al., 2021) and create safe environments for them.
In light of this, the objective of this study is twofold:
to explore the dimensions of perceived value in heritage sites so as to understand how tourists with disabilities value these places; and
to examine the differences in behaviour in different WHS (i.e. Quito and Cuenca) and establish which factors of perceived value influence tourists with disabilities’ SAT and LOY.
This research is based on two WHS located in Ecuador. The city of Quito was declared a WHS in 1978 and the Historic Centre of Cuenca in 1999 (UNESCO, 2021). Ecuador is also the first Latin American country to receive an award for universal accessibility from the French Design for All Foundation, demonstrating that accessibility has been important for the country’s strategy recently (Cancillería del Ecuador, 2015).
After this introduction, a review is conducted of the theoretical background of the constructs of perceived value, SAT and LOY and their relationships, and the research hypotheses are formulated. Then, the methodological approach is presented. The components of this research are developed considering previous literature (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006; Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016; Pandža Bajs, 2015; Zhang et al., 2022), and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM) are developed to confirm the dimensions of these components and test their relationships. Finally, results, conclusions, a discussion and implications are presented.
Literature review
PwD are defined as those with long-term mental, physical, intellectual or sensory impairments (United Nations, 2006). PwD experiences are often very different from those of people without disabilities. In heritage sites, it is usually less of an experience due to numerous diversions and inaccessible areas (Pearn, 2010). In addition, the disability market has been acknowledged as the largest and the fastest-growing market segment of the travel and tourism industry (Gassiot et al., 2018; WHO, 2022; World Tourism Organization, 2016), specifically within the cultural and heritage sector (Pegg and Stumbo, 2008). It has been identified as a growing group of paying and discerning customers looking for opportunities to participate in several heritage tourism activities. This literature review focuses on three main aspects of PwD behaviour and their relationships: perceived value, SAT and LOY.
Perceived value
The construct of perceived value results from assessing costs and benefits related to an offering (Paulose and Shakeel, 2022). This construct helps tourism companies know how visitors value their services (Carrascosa-López et al., 2021). Previous studies have focused on the perceived value of tourists in general. Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) examine the underlying factors affecting perceived value of university students’ travel behaviour. The results identified service quality, social value, play and aesthetics as contributing dimensions to perceived value. Similarly, a previous study analysed the behaviour of tourists in a Croatian historical heritage city, Pandža Bajs (2015). It found six dimensions: quality of tourist services, destination appearance, emotional experience, reputation and monetary and non-monetary costs (MNC). In addition, for the general behaviour of tourists in WHS, in a study about perceived value, Valverde-Roda et al. (2022) found that it included 15 indicators related to beauty, accessibility to buildings and monuments, tourist information, service and quality, value for money, diversity, cleanliness, opportunity to buy handicrafts, complementary offer, security, transport services and heritage conservation.
Although perceived value is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage, it varies across people and situations (Gallarza and Gil, 2008). While tourists with and without disabilities have the same desire to travel, travelling poses unique challenges for tourists with disabilities (Yau et al., 2004). Consequently, heritage tourism operators, to differentiate themselves, must be willing to offer better-perceived value for PwD than their competitors (Pegg and Stumbo, 2012). Despite this relevance, research on perceived value among PwD is scarce. Gassiot-Melian et al. (2016) evaluate and compare the perceived value of accessibility for people with and without disabilities at religious destinations (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016) but, to date, no studies have been found that analyse the multidimensional construct of the perceived value of PwD in WHS. In this context, it is essential to consider that there are needs and services that, if fulfilled and improved appropriately, will create a high perceived value in heritage tourism (Pegg and Stumbo, 2012).
In summary, previous studies have analysed relevant factors such as MNC, staff service quality (SSQ) and destination attractiveness (DA) for the non-disability market in tourist destinations. In comparison, no studies have analysed the perceived value factors of disabled tourists in WHS. In this study, before explaining the effects of perceived value on other components of PwD behaviour, and as stated in the first objective of this paper, perceived value dimensions are addressed.
Satisfaction
SAT refers to an assessment made by the consumer between earlier formed expectations and the result derived from the consumption of that product or service (Forgas-Coll et al., 2012).
Previous research has studied the relationship between perceived value and SAT in the tourism sector in general and proved that perceived value has a positive impact on SAT (Carrascosa-López et al., 2021; Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006; Lee et al., 2007; Pandža Bajs, 2015; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2016). In these studies, specific perceived value dimensions linked to price (Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019), DA (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020) and quality factors (Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019) have a positive impact on SAT.
Notwithstanding, there are prior studies that identify the attributes that can add value and produce a high level of SAT in the tourism experience for PwD. On the one hand, Buhalis and Darcy (2011) state that the accessibility of the destination and the information are decisive elements to have satisfactory holiday experiences in the destination, and Gassiot-Melian et al. (2016) suggest that the perceived value of accessibility has a positive and direct impact on SAT. On the other hand, pricing decisions (Burnett and Baker, 2001), staff attitudes towards disabled tourists (Chang and Chen, 2012; Zhang and Cole, 2016) and the fulfilment of information needs (Eichhorn et al., 2008) may also lead to higher SAT.
Despite all this research on PwD, until now, the factors of perceived value that impact their SAT and their relationship have not been assessed in a WHS, which encourages the formulation of the following hypotheses:
The perceived value factor of monetary and non-monetary costs positively influences SAT in the WHS of Quito (H1.1) and Cuenca (H1.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of SSQ positively influences SAT in the WHS of Quito (H2.1) and Cuenca (H2.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of DA positively influences SAT in the WHS of Quito (H3.1) and Cuenca (H3.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of tourist offer accessibility (TOA) positively influences SAT in the WHS of Quito (H4.1) and Cuenca (H4.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of information accessibility (IA) positively influences SAT in the WHS of Quito (H5.1) and Cuenca (H5.2) among PwD.
The research model posited is reflected in Figure 1.
Loyalty
LOY is conceptualised and evaluated by both behavioural and attitudinal measures (Rather et al., 2019). SAT is found to affect LOY directly and positively (Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019). For PwD, previous studies confirm that they are more loyal to the offerings when satisfied (Bowtell, 2015; Burnett and Baker, 2001; Domínguez Vila et al., 2019). Therefore, in line with the previous literature, a hypothesis is proposed as follows:
SAT positively influences LOY in the WHS of Quito (H6.1) and Cuenca (H6.2) among PwD.
In general, multiple studies have been accumulated on the relationship between perceived value and LOY (Damanik and Yusuf, 2022; Lee et al., 2007; Paulose and Shakeel, 2022; Valverde-Roda et al., 2022).
In the perceived value models of people without disabilities, price (El-Adly, 2019), service quality (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006) and DA factors (Um et al., 2006; Vigolo, 2015) have a positive impact on LOY. Even though studies have been carried out on the relationship between factors of perceived value and LOY of tourists without disabilities, to date, there is little research in the literature that evaluates perceived value factors and their direct impact on LOY of PwD. In a study on outdoor recreation trips, Humagain and Singleton (2021) found that the overall perceived value and SAT significantly impact the recommendation intention. This relationship between perceived value and LOY is interesting to analyse as, for example, PwD return to the providers that offer a completely accessible experience, increasing LOY (Ambrose et al., 2012), and once functional and accessible facilities and services are ensured, they recommend and promote them to their friends and relatives (Navarro et al., 2014). Therefore, to explore the effect of perceived value on LOY, the hypotheses arise as follows:
The perceived value factor of monetary and non-monetary costs positively influences LOY in the WHS of Quito (H1.1) and Cuenca (H1.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of SSQ positively influences LOY in the WHS of Quito (H2.1) and Cuenca (H2.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of DA positively influences LOY in the WHS of Quito (H3.1) and Cuenca (H3.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of TOA positively influences LOY in the WHS of Quito (H4.1) and Cuenca (H4.2) among PwD.
The perceived value factor of IA positively influences LOY in the WHS of Quito (H5.1) and Cuenca (H5.2) among PwD.
Methodology
A quantitative methodology was applied through a structured questionnaire based on previous studies, as shown in Table 1. The questions and factors/items in the questionnaire were taken from the previous studies specified in this table and were adapted and reworded according to the conclusions of the focus group, as explained below.
First, a focus group was conducted online in March 2020 with the aim of adapting the items from previous studies (Table 1) to this research. The participants were 11 senior university researchers who have previous experience in accessible tourism projects and WHS. An initial list of items to evaluate the conceptual components of the behavioural model (i.e. perceived value, SAT and LOY) extracted from previous literature was presented in the focus group to discuss them. Participants were asked about the appropriateness of these items and the need to include additional elements to cover these behavioural components. This focus group resulted in the adaptation of the items for PwD in WHS and the incorporation of two new factors of perceived value: TOA and IA.
Second, an on-site survey of PwD was developed with the following structure. Initially, the perceived value, SAT and LOY questions were formulated on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Then, the multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions related to sociodemographic aspects were formulated. Finally, the disability profile questions included the type and level of disability, the need for an assistant and the need for devices.
Data were collected in situ by two interviewers trained for the occasion on weekdays and weekends in October, November and the first week of December 2020. In Quito, 150 valid questionnaires were collected, and in Cuenca, 184 valid questionnaires were considered for the data analysis. Only tourists with disabilities were part of the sample. A sample of national tourists with disabilities was contacted through support centres for PwD in Ecuador, and national and international tourists were contacted through hotels in the destination. The surveys were agreed to be taken after they visited and were leaving the tourist attractions in the city of Quito and the Historic Centre of Cuenca to ensure they could evaluate the perceived value after having the tourism experience. The classification of disability levels and typologies used in this study were based on their own perception of the constrained abilities and to what extent they felt them.
The estimation of minimum sample size has been calculated using Soper’s statistics calculator, which is required for this study because it applies a SEM (Soper, 2022). Regarding the number of observed variables (24), the number of latent variables (7), the anticipated effect size (0.3), the desired statistical power level (0.8) and the probability level (0.05), the minimum sample size for model structure was deemed to be 145 for each destination.
The SPSS statistical software (version 25) was used for the descriptive analysis of the sample. In contrast, the AMOS software (version 24) was used for the CFA, and the hypotheses were tested via SEM. The constructs' reliability and validity were measured using composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and discriminant validity.
Results
This section uses CFA to assess the reliability and validity of perceived value, SAT and LOY. Then, SEM is used to test the hypotheses of the study.
Sample profile
Regarding the respondents’ profile, there are more males than females in the WHS of Quito and Cuenca (55.3% and 55.4%, respectively). Similarly, more than half of visitors with disabilities of both WHS are more than 60 years old (57.3% and 65.7% for Quito and Cuenca, respectively), as seen in Table 2. Finally, the general profile of the visitors with disabilities is shown in Table 3.
Testing of model
The CFA is used to confirm the factor loadings of the three constructs: perceived value factors, SAT and LOY, and to evaluate the model fit. First, the standardised factor loadings of items were found to be significant (p < 0.001) for the two groups with disabilities for the perceived value (see Table 4). Thus, the perceived value factors were validated in this study. The standardised factor loadings of SAT and LOY included in the analysis were statistically significant (p < 0.001) in the different destinations (i.e. Quito and Cuenca), as seen in Tables 5 and 6.
The fit indices evaluate the model’s adequacy. Accordingly, the model fit shows that the measurement model is within the acceptable level for the city of Quito: (x2 = 344.234, df = 209, x2/df = 1.647, TLI = 0.932, CFI = 0.944, p-value = 0.021, SRMR = 0.061, RMSEA = 0.066). Similarly, the model fit for Cuenca is within the acceptable level (x2 = 369.285, df = 210, x2/df = 1.758, TLI = 0.951, CFI = 0.959, p-value = 0.017, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.064). Furthermore, CFA results demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity.
Second, the composite reliability for Quito ranges from 0.811 to 0.969 and for Cuenca from 0.840 to 0.965, along with their coefficients of Cronbach’s alpha, surpassing the critical value of 0.7 and representing adequate estimations for both WHS, as seen in Tables 7 and 8. Third, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all the constructs for Quito ranges between 0.512 and 0.939, and for Cuenca, between 0.637 and 0.921. Both values are above the recommended value of 0.5. Finally, all the coefficients of the construct’s square root of the AVE were higher than their intercorrelation coefficients in both WHS. Hence, the measurement models for both heritage sites are consistent and significant in evaluating the structural association among the constructs.
Structural equation model
The SEM is conducted with a maximum likelihood estimation method to test the causal relationship between perceived value factors, SAT and LOY. The structural model results indicate an acceptable level of the model fit for Quito and Cuenca, as seen in Table 9.
Regarding the second objective of this study, the results showed some differences in behaviour between tourists with disabilities depending on the destination (Table 10). Accordingly, the factors of perceived value generating a positive impact on SAT tended to be different in Quito than in Cuenca, except for the MNC factor, which is the only factor that has a positive and significant impact on the SAT of PwD in both heritage destinations. On the one hand, the WHS of Quito has TOA and SSQ as the significant factors contributing to SAT. On the other hand, the WHS of Cuenca has IA and DA as the significant influencing factors on SAT. Nevertheless, no differences were found when evaluating the perceived value factors influencing LOY. Both groups asserted that TOA was the only significant factor of perceived value that determines LOY. Additionally, SAT has a positive and significant impact on LOY in both destinations.
Figures 2 and 3 summarise the results of hypothesis testing in terms of intensity. Results show that MNC was the most salient predictor of SAT for PwD in Quito; contrary to Cuenca, the most contributing factor of SAT was IA. The analysis also shows that TOA is the only significant predictor of LOY for PwD in both destinations.
Conclusions and implications
This study’s first aim concerns the factors that constitute the perceived value of PwD in heritage sites. Findings suggested a five-dimensional structural framework of perceived value, including these factors: monetary and non-monetary costs, SSQ, DA, TOA and IA. These results are similar to those of Valverde-Roda et al. (2022), Pandža Bajs (2015) and Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006).
In general, when testing the relationships in the models, results show which factors of perceived value influence SAT and LOY of PwD. The results coincide with previous research on the following precedents of SAT and LOY: monetary and non-monetary costs (Burnett and Baker, 2001; Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019); tourist offer accessibility (Buhalis and Darcy, 2011; Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016); SSQ (Chang and Chen, 2012; Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019; Zhang and Cole, 2016); IA (Buhalis and Darcy, 2011; Eichhorn et al., 2008); and DA (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020). In addition, in general, a positive and significant effect of SAT on LOY is found. This result is in line with previous studies that showed that PwD are loyal to tourist offerings when they are satisfied with the service and products received (Bowtell, 2015; Burnett and Baker, 2001; Domínguez Vila et al., 2019; Humagain and Singleton, 2021).
Despite these coincidences with previous research, when testing this study’s second aim, which is about examining the differences in behaviour of PwD in different WHS in Ecuador (i.e. Quito and Cuenca), some differences are found.
First, findings showed that the perceived value factors that impact SAT differed between the two destinations, except for the factor of monetary and non-monetary costs. In Quito, this perceived value is based on tourist offer accessibility and service quality, while in Cuenca, it is based on IA and DA. This means that Quito and Cuenca may satisfy different types of tourists with varying preferences and expectations. On the one hand, in Quito, SSQ and TOA exert a positive impact on SAT of PwD visiting the city. This corroborates that accessibility must go beyond physical infrastructure evaluation and improvement (Michopoulou and Buhalis, 2013) and that accessible tourism experience development must be ensured (Darcy et al., 2020). In Quito, where recent policies and strategies may have been focused on physical infrastructure improvement and accessibility and staff training as well, they are now seeing PwD visiting the city and perceiving other benefits in their experiences that go beyond that, such as accessible information provision and attractiveness at this WHS. On the other hand, in Cuenca, DA and IA exert a direct influence on SAT among PwD. This corroborates that content integration, personalisation and accessible online information are basic to ensuring dignified tourism experiences (Michopoulou and Buhalis, 2013). It also coincides with the fact that DA is important, but only when visitors’ special needs are accommodated can the extension and diversification of accessible facilities and services be addressed (Lee and King, 2019). In Cuenca, this may be because they are still focusing on information provision and DA. However, because these are still not significant to predict their SAT among PwD, they need to focus on the provision of accessible products and services and on staff training in the future.
Second, predecessors of LOY in the two WHS were similar. On the one hand, TOA is the only item of perceived value with direct and significant effect on LOY, and, on the other hand, SAT positively influences LOY in both WHS. This result coincides with past research (Ambrose et al., 2012; Navarro et al., 2014), which found that offering accessible experiences increases PwD LOY. In this context, it seems that the characteristics and differences between destinations do not change the importance of ensuring a good and accessible tourist offer when predicting their positive future intentions. So, as stated in other studies (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016), PwD express positive behavioural intentions once their needs are met and they are satisfied.
Theoretical contributions
Among the theoretical contributions, this study is the first attempt to evaluate the perceived value of tourists with disabilities at cultural heritage destinations, where the disability market often has less of an experience than tourists without disabilities. Thus, this research extends the tourism literature by incorporating five validated factors of the perceived value of tourists with disabilities in heritage destinations: monetary and non-monetary costs, SSQ, DA, TOA and IA. Also, this study contributes to the literature by identifying that the monetary and non-monetary and IA factors contribute most to creating SAT for tourists with disabilities in cultural heritage destinations. Thus, this study provides evidence that effective price policies, the reduction of time and effort in acquiring the tourist offering, and the quantity and quality of accessible information are the more prominent factors for consumers with disabilities when evaluating the tourism experiences in cultural heritage destinations. Also, this study contributes to the extant literature by identifying the TOA factor in creating LOY among tourists with disabilities in cultural heritage sites. In other words, the fact that tourists with disabilities perceive good accessibility is crucial for them to make recommendations, say positive things and return to the destination. Furthermore, prior research has advocated for assessing the behaviour of tourists with disabilities in various destinations, including their perceptions, SAT and LOY, while considering the potential variations that may emerge (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016). This study aimed to fill this research gap by examining the differences in behaviour between two specific destinations and providing evidence to support the existence of these variations.
Practical implications
As for practical implications, this study’s main contribution to companies is that it shows which factors of perceived value led to SAT for tourists with disabilities in Quito (monetary and non-monetary costs, SSQ and TOA) and in Cuenca (MNC, DA and IA). This information is helpful for tourism companies of Quito to improve their pricing policies and reduce time and effort for tourists with disabilities, as well as for disability organisations and national entities with tourist companies to provide customer service training to receive PwD. This information is also of interest to Quito’s private and public tourism companies that want to implement accessibility in their tourism offerings. In coordination with the municipality of Quito, the national tourism authority should also periodically monitor the accessibility of tourist offerings, transportation and services to make tourism accessible and cultural destinations more inclusive. For example, it could be done through periodical internal or external audits and the subsequent analysis of PwD perceptions of the implemented changes. This close monitoring is important to quickly respond to changes in the market, both related to supply and demand needs and preferences.
Tourism companies in Cuenca should create pricing strategies and reduce the time and effort spent acquiring tourist offerings to appeal to tourists with disabilities. The destination management organisation of Cuenca should also promote a variety of cultural, urban, natural and historical attractions to ensure that tourists with disabilities have a satisfying visit. Furthermore, tourism companies should provide accessible tourist offerings (e.g. visits to churches and museums) through their websites by mentioning what types of disabilities are accommodated by their tourist services and announcing whether the places they promote are accessible. In that way, tourists with disabilities can organise their trips better. Furthermore, the national tourism authority should keep providing information through its “virtual accessible tourism guide” webpage. Policymakers and DMOs should also consider web accessibility for tourists with disabilities, as this is a heterogeneous group with different types of disabilities. In this sense, they need to both consider the accessible tourism services and products offered and the accessible format of the information provided. Finally, the tourism companies of Quito and Cuenca should make their tourist offerings accessible and, for example, adapt the physical environment for people with special access needs (e.g. ramps, hand railings, etc.). This is crucial to creating LOY in the disability market at cultural heritage sites.
The findings of this study propose that TOA is the factor that contributes most to LOY. Therefore, incorporating accessibility measures in a heritage destination is a means of effectively honouring and safeguarding the fundamental rights of PwD to participate in cultural life. Recognising the rights of PwD is one of the most important goals for modern society. Accessible tourist offerings facilitate the social integration of PwD into the broader community, encouraging interaction, understanding and acceptance among people of different abilities and promoting a more inclusive society.
Furthermore, accessible tourist offerings cater not only to PwD but also to a broader range of people who will enjoy universal access to these destinations, such as families with young children, pregnant women, people with temporary mobility disabilities, etc., leaving no one behind.
Limitations and future research
This study is not without its limitations. A convenience sample was used in the data collection because of the ease of access to the data during the pandemic of COVID-19. Additionally, as this study was conducted in the low season, our findings were limited to that season. Future researchers can perform a similar analysis during the high season and compare the behaviour of tourists with disabilities during the low and high seasons in a heritage destination. In addition, perceived value has been measured by considering factors linked to the generic definition of costs and benefits. However, other dimensions or items that may be specific or different for PwD and, consequently, capture the essence of this group (e.g. social or emotional perceived value) should be considered in further studies.
This study has focused on two WHS of Ecuador (Quito and Cuenca); further studies can focus on other WHS to understand their variations in perception of values and their influence on SAT and behavioural intentions among tourists with disabilities. In addition, future research should focus on the individualities and needs of PwD according to type/degree of disability, etc. Finally, further inquiry into group differences between tourists with and without disabilities will be necessary to better understand if the perceived value factors affect tourists’ behaviour, depending on whether they have a disability or not.
Figures
Measurement for constructs and literature sources
| Constructs and factors | Measurement item sources |
|---|---|
| Perceived value | |
| Tourist offer accessibility (TOA) | Gassiot-Melian et al. (2016) |
| Information accessibility (IA) | Burnett and Baker (2001), Zhang et al. (2022) |
| Destination appearance (DA) | Pandža Bajs (2015) |
| Staff service quality (SSQ) | Cronin et al. (2000), Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) |
| Monetary and non-monetary costs (MNC) | Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006), Zhang et al. (2022) |
| Pandža Bajs (2015); Wu and Li (2017) | |
| Satisfaction (SAT) | Forgas-Coll et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2007) |
| Loyalty (LOY) | Wang and Leou (2015), Wu and Li (2017) |
Source: Created by authors
Demographics aspects
| Demographics | Categories | N = 150 (%) Quito |
N = 184 (%) Cuenca |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 83 (55.3) | 102 (55.4) |
| Female | 67 (44.7) | 82 (44.6) | |
| Age | <20 | 3 (2.0) | 8 (4.3) |
| 20–29 | 11 (7.3) | 34 (18.5) | |
| 30–39 | 12 (8.0) | 23 (12.5) | |
| 40–49 | 17 (11.3) | 20 (10.9) | |
| 50–59 | 21 (14.0) | 13 (7.1) | |
| >60 | 86 (57.3) | 86 (46.7) |
Source: Created by authors
Profile of the visitors with disabilities
| Variables | Categories | N = 158 (%) Quito |
N = 204 (%) Cuenca |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of disability | Hearing impairment | 19 (12.0) | 30 (14.7) |
| Visual | 58 (36.7) | 134 (65.7) | |
| Vocal (speaks) | 0 (0) | 4 (2.0) | |
| Motor disability | 55 (34.8) | 36 (17.6) | |
| Mental impairment | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | |
| Others | 25 (15.8) | 0 (0) | |
| Level of disability | Low | 37 (23.4) | 143 (70.1) |
| Moderate | 58 (36.7) | 53 (26.0) | |
| Serious | 63 (39.9) | 8 (3.9) | |
| N = 150 (%) | N = 184 (%) | ||
| Need for assistant | Yes | 31 (20.7) | 7 (3.8) |
| Not | 119 (79.3) | 177 (96.2) | |
| Need for devices | Yes | 100 (66.7) | 131 (71.2) |
| Not | 50 (33.3) | 53 (28.8) |
Source: Created by authors
Summary of the confirmatory factor analysis result of perceived value
| Factors | Items | Standardised factor loading | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quito | Cuenca | ||
| Monetary and non-monetary costs | Physical effort invested in the trip was reasonable | 0.656*** | 0.918*** |
| The time cost of planning the trip was reasonable | 0.604*** | 0.732*** | |
| Prices for transportation within the destination | 0.703*** | 0.903*** | |
| The cost associated with the full payment was reasonable | 0.859*** | 0.824*** | |
| Entrance fees to cultural sites were reasonable | 0.717*** | 0.777*** | |
| Staff service quality | Generally, the employees of the tourist sites visited make an effort to understand my needs | 0.953*** | 0.846*** |
| Generally, the employees of the tourist sites visited listen to me, and we understand each other | 0.967*** | 0.763*** | |
| Generally, the food service provided was at the right time | 0.799*** | 0.784*** | |
| Destination attractiveness | There are interesting cultural places in Quito/Cuenca (museums, exhibitions, art galleries, etc.) | 0.779*** | 0.949*** |
| Quito/ Cuenca has urban attractions | 0.748*** | 0.891*** | |
| The historic centre of Quito/Cuenca is an interesting place to visit | 0.696*** | 0.827*** | |
| Quito/Cuenca has natural attractions | 0.650*** | 0.914*** | |
| Tourist offer accessibility | Accessibility to cultural tourist sites | 0.887*** | 0.630*** |
| The accessibility of restaurants, cafes and bars | 0.831*** | 0.974*** | |
| The accessibility of shopping centres | 0.700*** | 0.889*** | |
| Information accessibility | The availability of tourist information | 0.940*** | 0.921*** |
| Accessibility to tourist information | 0.998*** | 0.997*** | |
p < 0.001
Source: Created by authors
Summary of the confirmatory factor analysis results of satisfaction
| Factor | Items | Standardised factor loading | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quito | Cuenca | ||
| Satisfaction | I am satisfied with my visit to Quito/Cuenca, considering the time and effort dedicated | 0.979*** | 0.919*** |
| My expectations of Quito/ Cuenca have been fulfilled | 0.846*** | 0.908*** | |
| Overall, I am satisfied with my visit to Quito/Cuenca | 0.851*** | 0.925*** | |
p < 0.001
Source: Created by authors
Summary of the confirmatory factor analysis results of loyalty
| Factor | Items | Standardised factor loading | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quito | Cuenca | ||
| Loyalty | I will recommend the tourist destination to family and friends | 0.890*** | 0.965*** |
| I would return to the same tourist destination in the future | 0.891*** | 0.928*** | |
| I will say positive things about Quito/Cuenca to my acquaintances | 0.853*** | 0.958*** | |
p < 0.001
Source: Created by authors
Discriminant validity results for the disability measurement model of Quito
| Quito | MNC | SSQ | DA | TOA | IA | SAT | LOY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNC | 0.715 | ||||||
| SSQ | 0.624*** | 0.909 | |||||
| DA | 0.166† | 0.054 | 0.720 | ||||
| TOA | 0.274** | 0.298*** | −0.029 | 0.809 | |||
| IA | 0.036 | 0.222** | 0.054 | 0.209* | 0.969 | ||
| SAT | 0.452*** | 0.439*** | 0.126 | 0.316*** | 0.168* | 0.896 | |
| LOY | 0.431*** | 0.433*** | 0.159† | 0.383*** | 0.200* | 0.693*** | 0.878 |
| α | 0.851 | 0.929 | 0.803 | 0.826 | 0.968 | 0.920 | 0.907 |
| CR | 0.838 | 0.934 | 0.811 | 0.850 | 0.969 | 0.924 | 0.910 |
| AVE | 0.512 | 0.827 | 0.518 | 0.655 | 0.939 | 0.802 | 0.772 |
CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; α = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient;
p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; †p < 0.100
Source: Created by authors
Discriminant validity results for the disability measurement model of Cuenca
| Cuenca | MNC | DA | TOA | SSQ | IA | SAT | LOY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNC | 0.834 | ||||||
| DA | 0.244*** | 0.897 | |||||
| TOA | 0.037 | 0.102 | 0.842 | ||||
| SSQ | 0.439*** | 0.376*** | 0.081 | 0.798 | |||
| IA | 0.115 | 0.276*** | 0.173* | 0.248** | 0.960 | ||
| SAT | 0.279*** | 0.359*** | 0.149* | 0.321*** | 0.642*** | 0.917 | |
| LOY | 0.203** | 0.289*** | 0.351*** | 0.242** | 0.570*** | 0.774*** | 0.950 |
| α | 0.915 | 0.942 | 0.858 | 0.839 | 0.957 | 0.940 | 0.965 |
| CR | 0.919 | 0.942 | 0.876 | 0.840 | 0.959 | 0.941 | 0.965 |
| AVE | 0.695 | 0.804 | 0.710 | 0.637 | 0.921 | 0.841 | 0.903 |
CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; α stand for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient;
p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Source: Created by authors
Comparison of model fit measures for tourists with disabilities from Quito and Cuenca subsamples
| Model | x2 | df | x2/df | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quito | 344.234 | 209 | 1.647 | 0.944 | 0.932 | 0.061 | 0.066 | 0.021 |
| Cuenca | 369.285 | 210 | 1.758 | 0.959 | 0.951 | 0.045 | 0.064 | 0.017 |
Source: Created by authors
Comparison of model fit measures for tourist with disabilities from Quito and Cuenca
| Quito (HX.1) | Cuenca (HX.2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | MNC → SAT | Supported | Supported |
| H2 | SSQ → SAT | Supported | Not supported |
| H3 | DA → SAT | Not supported | Supported |
| H4 | TOA → SAT | Supported | Not supported |
| H5 | IA → SAT | Not supported | Supported |
| H6 | SAT → LOY | Supported | Supported |
| H7 | MNC → LOY | Not supported | Not supported |
| H8 | SSQ → LOY | Not supported | Not supported |
| H9 | DA → LOY | Not supported | Not supported |
| H10 | TOA → LOY | Supported | Supported |
| H11 | IA → LOY | Not supported | Not supported |
Source: Created by authors
References
Ambrose, I., Darcy, S. and Buhalis, D. (2012), “Introduction”, in Buhalis, D., Darcy, S. and Ambrose., V. (Eds.), Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 13-14.
Bowtell, J. (2015), “Assessing the value and market attractiveness of the accessible tourism industry in Europe: a focus on major travel and leisure companies”, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 203-222, doi: 10.1108/JTF-03-2015-0012.
Buhalis, D. and Darcy, S. (2011), Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues, Channel View Publications, Bristol.
Burnett, J.J. and Baker, H.B. (2001), “Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the mobility-disabled consumer”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 4-11, doi: 10.1177/004728750104000102.
Cancillería del Ecuador (2015), “Ecuador recibe premio por política para las discapacidades en Francia”, Cancillería, available at: www.cancilleria.gob.ec/chile/2015/04/01/ecuador-recibe-premio-por-politica-para-las-discapacidades-en-francia/ (accessed 20 May 2020).
Carrascosa-López, C., Carvache-Franco, M. and Carvache-Franco, W. (2021), “Perceived value and its predictive relationship with satisfaction and loyalty in ecotourism: a study in the Posets-Maladeta natural park in Spain”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 14, p. 7860, doi: 10.3390/su13147860.
Chang, Y.-C. and Chen, C.-F. (2012), “Meeting the needs of disabled air passengers: factors that facilitate help from airlines and airports”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 529-536, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.002.
Chen, C.-F. and Chen, F.-S. (2010), “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008.
Chen, C.-F. and Chen, P.-C. (2012), “Exploring tourists’ stated preferences for heritage tourism services – the case of Tainan city, Taiwan”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 457-464, doi: 10.5367/te.2012.0123.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2.
Damanik, J. and Yusuf, M. (2022), “Effects of perceived value, expectation, visitor management, and visitor satisfaction on revisit intention to Borobudur temple, Indonesia”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 174-189, doi: 10.1080/1743873X.2021.1950164.
Darcy, S., McKercher, B. and Schweinsberg, S. (2020), “From tourism and disability to accessible tourism: a perspective article”, Tourism Review, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 140-144, doi: 10.1108/TR-07-2019-0323.
Domínguez Vila, T., Alén González, E. and Darcy, S. (2019), “Accessible tourism online resources: a Northern European perspective”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 140-156, doi: 10.1080/15022250.2018.1478325.
Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E. and Buhalis, D. (2008), “Enabling access to tourism through information schemes?”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 189-210, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2007.07.005.
Eid, R. (2015), “Integrating Muslim customer perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and retention in the tourism industry: an empirical study”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 249-260, doi: 10.1002/jtr.1982.
El-Adly, M.I. (2019), “Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50, pp. 322-332, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.007.
Forgas-Coll, S., Palau-Saumell, R., Sánchez-García, J. and Callarisa-Fiol, L.J. (2012), “Urban destination loyalty drivers and cross-national moderator effects: the case of Barcelona”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1309-1320, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.013.
Gallarza, M.G. and Gil Saura, I. (2006), “Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 437-452, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002.
Gallarza, M.G. and Gil, I. (2008), “The concept of value and its dimensions: a tool for analysing tourism experiences”, Tourism Review, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 4-20, doi: 10.1108/16605370810901553.
Gassiot, A., Prats, L. and Coromina, L. (2018), “Tourism constraints for Spanish tourists with disabilities: scale development and validation”, Documents D'Anàlisi Geogràfica, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 49-71, doi: 10.5565/rev/dag.364.
Gassiot-Melian, A., Prats, L. and Coromina, L. (2016), “The perceived value of accessibility in religious sites – do disabled and non-disabled travellers behave differently?”, Tourism Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 105-117, doi: 10.1108/TR-11-2015-0057.
Goodall, B. (2006), “Disabled access and heritage attractions”, Tourism Culture & Communication, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 57-78, doi: 10.3727/109830406778493551.
Humagain, P. andand Singleton, P.A. (2021), “Examining relationships between COVID-19 destination practices, value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for tourists’ outdoor recreation trips”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 22, p. 100665, doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100665.
Lee, C.F. and King, B. (2019), “Determinants of attractiveness for a seniors-friendly destination: a hierarchical approach”, Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 71-90, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2016.1250725.
Lee, C.-K., Yoon, Y.-S. and Lee, S.-K. (2007), “Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: the case of the Korean DMZ”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 204-214, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.017.
Mastrogiuseppe, M., Span, S. and Bortolotti, E. (2021), “Improving accessibility to cultural heritage for people with intellectual disabilities: a tool for observing the obstacles and facilitators for the access to knowledge”, Alter, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 113-123, doi: 10.1016/j.alter.2020.06.016.
Michopoulou, E. and Buhalis, D. (2013), “Information provision for challenging markets: the case of the accessibility requiring market in the context of tourism”, Information and Management, Elsevier B.V, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 229-239, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.04.001.
Navarro, S., Andreu, L. and Cervera, A. (2014), “Value co-creation among hotels and disabled customers: an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 813-818, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.050.
Nguyen Viet, B., Dang, H.P. and Nguyen, H.H. (2020), “Revisit intention and satisfaction: the role of destination image, perceived risk, and cultural contact”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1796249.
Pandža Bajs, I. (2015), “Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 122-134, doi: 10.1177/0047287513513158.
Paulose, D. and Shakeel, A. (2022), “Perceived experience, perceived value and customer satisfaction as antecedents to loyalty among hotel guests”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Routledge, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 447-481, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2021.1884930.
Pearn, M. (2010), “Heritage sites: Attitudinal and experimental differences of disabled and able-bodied visitors”, in Buhalis, D. and Darcy, S. (Eds.), Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues, Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 201-213.
Pegg, S. and Stumbo, N.J. (2008), “Creating opportunities and ensuring access to desirable heritage and cultural tourist services and leisure experiences”, in Prideaux, B., Timothy, D.J. and Chon, K. (Eds.), Cultural and Heritage Tourism in Asia and the Pacific, 1st ed. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 250-256.
Pegg, S. and Stumbo, N. (2012), “Accessing heritage tourism services”, in Buhalis, D., Darcy, S. and Ambrose, I. (Eds.), Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 285-296.
Pomeroy, C. (2021), “A tsunami of disability is coming as a result of ‘long COVID”, available at: www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-tsunami-of-disability-is-coming-as-a-result-of-lsquo-long-covid-rsquo/ (accessed 10 December 2022).
Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V.N. and Naidoo, P. (2015), “Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 175 No. 230, pp. 252-259, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1198.
Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Dahalan, N. and Jaafar, M. (2016), “Tourists’ perceived value and satisfaction in a community-based homestay in the Lenggong Valley World Heritage Site”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 72-81, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.01.005.
Rather, R.A., Tehseen, S., Itoo, M.H. and Parrey, S.H. (2019), “Customer brand identification, affective commitment, customer satisfaction, and brand trust as antecedents of customer behavioral intention of loyalty: an empirical study in the hospitality sector”, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 196-217, doi: 10.1080/21639159.2019.1577694.
Sarmah, B., Kamboj, S. and Chatterjee, R. (2022), “Linking the intrinsic and environmental constraints with PwD tourists ‘ behavioral intentions toward a travel destination: mediating role of learned helplessness”, Journal of Tourism Futures, doi: 10.1108/JTF-02-2021-0053.
Soper, D.S. (2022), “A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [software]”, Dr Daniel Soper, available at: www.danielsoper.com/statcalc (accessed 16 September 2020).
Stumbo, N.J. and Pegg, S. (2005), “Travelers and tourists with disabilities: a matter of priorities and loyalties”, Tourism Review International, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 195-209, doi: 10.3727/154427205774791537.
Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006), “Antecedents of revisit intention”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-1158, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.003.
UNESCO (2021), “Historic Centre of Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca”, available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/863/ (accessed 27 January 2021).
UNESCO (2023), “What is world heritage?”, available at: www.whc.unesco.org/en/faq/19 (accessed 31 May 2023).
United Nations (2006), “United nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities”, available at: www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf (accessed 2 April 2020).
UNWTO (2022), “Tourism grows 4% in 2021 but remains far below pre-pandemic levels”, available at: www.unwto.org/taxonomy/term/347 (accessed 29 May 2023).
UNWTO (2023a), “UNWTO world tourism barometer and statistical annex, May 2023”, available at: www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/wtobarometereng.2023.21.1.2 (accessed 30 May 2023).
UNWTO (2023b), “Accesible tourism”, available at: www.unwto.org/accessibility (accessed 31 May 2023).
Valverde-Roda, J., Moral-Cuadra, S., Aguilar-Rivero, M. and Solano-Sánchez, M.Á. (2022), “Perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty in a world heritage site alhambra and generalife (Granada, Spain)”, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 8 No. 4, doi: 10.1108/IJTC-08-2021-0174.
Vigolo, V. (2015), “Investigating the attractiveness of an emerging long-haul destination: implications for loyalty”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 564-576, doi: 10.1002/jtr.2024.
Wang, X. and Leou, C.H. (2015), “A study of tourism motivation, perceived value and destination loyalty for Macao cultural and heritage tourists”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 83-91, doi: 10.5539/ijms.v7n6p83.
WHO (2022), “Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities”, available at: www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063600 (accessed 20 May 2023).
World Tourism Organization (2016), Manual on Accessible Tourism for All: Principles, Tools and Best Practices – Module I: Accessible Tourism – Definition and Context, UNWTO, Madrid.
Wu, H.-C. and Li, T. (2017), “A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 904-944, doi: 10.1177/1096348014525638.
Yau, M.K., McKercher, B. and Packer, T.L. (2004), “Traveling with a disability: more than an access issue”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 946-960, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.03.007.
Zhang, Y. and Cole, S.T. (2016), “Dimensions of lodging guest satisfaction among guests with mobility challenges: a mixed-method analysis of web-based texts”, Tourism Management, Vol. 53, pp. 13-27, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.001.
Zhang, L., Yang, S., Wang, D. and Ma, E. (2022), “Perceived value of, and experience with, a world heritage site in China – the case of Kaiping Diaolou and villages in China”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 91-106, doi: 10.1080/1743873X.2020.1820014.
Acknowledgements
Funding: Open Access funding was provided thanks to the CSUC–UdG agreement with Emerald.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Jessenia Moreno-Manzo is based at the Department of Business Administration, Management and Product Design, University of Girona, Girona, Spain. She is a PhD student at the Faculty of Tourism, University of Girona, Spain. Her research interests focus on tourism behaviour at heritage destinations. She has published in related fields such as social sciences and art and humanities. She is also a reviewer of international journals.
Dr Lluís Coromina is based at the Department of Economics, University of Girona, Girona, Spain. He is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Tourism, University of Girona. He completed his PhD in 2006. His research is associated with cross-cultural comparison, quantitative research methodology and tourism behaviour. He also publishes in related fields such as sociology or political science. He is a reviewer of international journals, and his publications appear in Tourism Management and Current Issues in Tourism, among others.
Dr Ariadna Gassiot-Melian is based at the Department of Business Administration, Management and Product Design, University of Girona, Girona, Spain. She is a part-time Professor of Tourism and Marketing at the Department of Business Administration, Management and Product Design, University of Girona, and at the Business Department, EU Mediterrani, Barcelona. She completed her PhD in 2016, and her research is related to accessible tourism, consumer behaviour, cruise tourism and text mining.