Appropriate Planning Policies for the Development of Accessible and Inclusive Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the paper is interesting and presents valuable issues, which are actual and needed in face of ageing societies. Abstract contains all the needed information;

methods used in the paper could be a little more sophisticated but the survey quaestionnaire is used in social sciences, so it provides noteworthy data;

the results and conclusions are accurate and apt;

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Author

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the paper is interesting and presents valuable issues, which are actual and needed in face of ageing societies. Abstract contains all the needed information; methods used in the paper could be a little more sophisticated but the survey quaestionnaire is used in social sciences, so it provides noteworthy data;the results and conclusions are accurate and apt;

 

Thank you for your appreciation. I am grateful that you found the paper valuable for publication and to your liking.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors must explain the sample selection process and the methodology used for collecting data

Please explain this selection process: “The selection was made on the basis of the fact that each disability requires different types of adaptation to accessibility.” (line 244)

Line 255: It is essential to present data in graphical form to effectively analyze and interpret the study's conclusions. Graphical representations enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of the data, allowing for easier identification of patterns, trends, and correlations. These visual aids facilitate a more intuitive understanding of complex information, thereby supporting more robust and accurate conclusions.

Line 309: The discussion of “Table 1: Obstacles and Positive Factors on Which to Focus Accessible Tourism Planning' is not addressed." It should be addressed to enable a more comprehensive debate.

The discussion of this study is weakened by the lack of data presentation. Without visual and statistical representation of the data, it becomes challenging to substantiate the findings and draw meaningful conclusions. Presenting the data is crucial for validating the analysis, providing transparency, and allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the study's results. The data presentation and discussion of results ensures that the scientific dialogue is robust, credible, and effectively communicates the implications of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Author

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors must explain the sample selection process and the methodology used for collecting data

Please explain this selection process: “The selection was made on the basis of the fact that each disability requires different types of adaptation to accessibility.” (line 244)

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I changed. I further explained how the group of people participating in the study was identified in line 245-250

Line 255: It is essential to present data in graphical form to effectively analyze and interpret the study's conclusions. Graphical representations enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of the data, allowing for easier identification of patterns, trends, and correlations. These visual aids facilitate a more intuitive understanding of complex information, thereby supporting more robust and accurate conclusions.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I changed. I expanded the results part with graphs. The graphs includes the questions and the answers for greater clarity and comprehensibility of the data

 

Line 309: The discussion of “Table 1: Obstacles and Positive Factors on Which to Focus Accessible Tourism Planning' is not addressed." It should be addressed to enable a more comprehensive debate.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I changed. I added the discussion of “Table 1: Obstacles and Positive Factors on Which to Focus Accessible Tourism Planning'.

 

The discussion of this study is weakened by the lack of data presentation. Without visual and statistical representation of the data, it becomes challenging to substantiate the findings and draw meaningful conclusions. Presenting the data is crucial for validating the analysis, providing transparency, and allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the study's results. The data presentation and discussion of results ensures that the scientific dialogue is robust, credible, and effectively communicates the implications of the study.

 

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I changed. I have expanded the discussion paragraph with reference to data and literature

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Suitable Planning Policies for the Advancement of Accessible and Inclusive Tourism" addresses an important and relevant topic: making tourism accessible for individuals with disabilities. The author emphasizes major challenges encountered by those with mobility and sensory disabilities, especially in Italy, and suggests policy measures to enhance the inclusiveness of the tourism industry. Although the subject is certainly pertinent, the article contains multiple significant flaws that undermine its scholarly integrity and influence.

A major problem is the lack of adequate interaction with current literature. While the article cites several important works, including those by Darcy & Dickson (2009) and Buhalis et al. (2012), the range of sources remains insufficient. The conversation lacks substance and fails to place the study within a wider global context, making it challenging to evaluate how Italy stands relative to other nations regarding accessible tourism policies. Furthermore, the article fails to critically address earlier studies in the discussion section, losing a chance to support its conclusions with established theoretical perspectives. A broader examination of pertinent research, encompassing studies on inclusive mobility and accessibility frameworks, would greatly enhance the scholarly basis of the work.

A significant flaw in the article is its ambiguous methodological framework. While it references the use of surveys and interviews, it does not clarify the research design—whether it employs a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. In the absence of this clarification, the legitimacy of the results stays uncertain. Additionally, the sampling technique is poorly detailed. The research is based on feedback from 200 participants, but there is no detail on how these individuals were chosen or if they accurately reflect the larger community of disabled travelers in Italy. Furthermore, the examination of the survey data is restricted to fundamental descriptive statistics, lacking any reference to significance testing or additional analytical methods that might offer more profound insights. The article similarly does not utilize triangulation, depending only on survey and interview feedback without validating results with secondary data, expert insights, or case analyses. This single-faceted approach diminishes the dependability of the conclusions.

Another significant gap is the absence of conversation regarding shared mobility solutions, vital for enhancing accessibility in tourism. The impact of car-sharing, ride-sharing, and other adaptable transportation options is overlooked, despite their ability to greatly improve mobility for individuals with disabilities. Tackling this issue would bring the article in line with modern trends in transport accessibility. A significant source on this topic is From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing—The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model, which examines how technological innovation and open data can enhance access to transportation services that are shared. Moreover, the idea of open innovation in tourism, as explored in Open Innovation in the Tourism Field: A Systematic Literature Review, may offer valuable perspectives on how partnerships, stakeholder involvement, and data-sharing efforts can enhance inclusivity within the tourism industry. Incorporating these viewpoints would not only increase the article's significance but also offer policymakers tangible suggestions for utilizing innovation to enhance accessibility.

Besides these significant issues, the article has editorial and formatting flaws. The text lacks justification, which adversely affects readability. Additionally, the references do not adhere to the formatting guidelines set by MDPI, potentially resulting in rejection upon submission. The writing style requires improvement, since certain portions are poorly organized, redundant, and excessively complicated. Streamlining sentence structures and guaranteeing a clear, logical progression would significantly enhance readability.

To improve the article's quality and boost its likelihood of publication, certain essential enhancements are required. The literature review needs to be broadened to incorporate a larger variety of international sources, offering a more robust theoretical basis for the research. The methodology needs to be explained, including specific information about the research approach, sampling criteria, and data analysis techniques. The conversation ought to critically interact with earlier research instead of just recapping results. Additionally, the significance of shared mobility and open innovation in accessibility needs to be investigated, as these elements are essential to contemporary strategies for inclusive transport and tourism. The conclusion must be extended to add limitations and further research plans on this topic.  Ultimately, the text needs to go through editorial adjustments to guarantee correct formatting, adherence to citation standards, and enhanced clarity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Author

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Suitable Planning Policies for the Advancement of Accessible and Inclusive Tourism" addresses an important and relevant topic: making tourism accessible for individuals with disabilities. The author emphasizes major challenges encountered by those with mobility and sensory disabilities, especially in Italy, and suggests policy measures to enhance the inclusiveness of the tourism industry. Although the subject is certainly pertinent, the article contains multiple significant flaws that undermine its scholarly integrity and influence.

A major problem is the lack of adequate interaction with current literature. While the article cites several important works, including those by Darcy & Dickson (2009) and Buhalis et al. (2012), the range of sources remains insufficient. The conversation lacks substance and fails to place the study within a wider global context, making it challenging to evaluate how Italy stands relative to other nations regarding accessible tourism policies. Furthermore, the article fails to critically address earlier studies in the discussion section, losing a chance to support its conclusions with established theoretical perspectives. A broader examination of pertinent research, encompassing studies on inclusive mobility and accessibility frameworks, would greatly enhance the scholarly basis of the work.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper.I expanded the literature, highlighted Italy's position in relation to other nations. I expanded the discussion, critically considered previous studies based on the results of my study.

A significant flaw in the article is its ambiguous methodological framework. While it references the use of surveys and interviews, it does not clarify the research design—whether it employs a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. In the absence of this clarification, the legitimacy of the results stays uncertain. Additionally, the sampling technique is poorly detailed. The research is based on feedback from 200 participants, but there is no detail on how these individuals were chosen or if they accurately reflect the larger community of disabled travelers in Italy. Furthermore, the examination of the survey data is restricted to fundamental descriptive statistics, lacking any reference to significance testing or additional analytical methods that might offer more profound insights. The article similarly does not utilize triangulation, depending only on survey and interview feedback without validating results with secondary data, expert insights, or case analyses. This single-faceted approach diminishes the dependability of the conclusions.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I further explained how the group of people participating in the study was identified in line 245-250. I better explained the methodological framework... I have expanded the discussion paragraph with reference to data and literature using triangulation.

Another significant gap is the absence of conversation regarding shared mobility solutions, vital for enhancing accessibility in tourism. The impact of car-sharing, ride-sharing, and other adaptable transportation options is overlooked, despite their ability to greatly improve mobility for individuals with disabilities. Tackling this issue would bring the article in line with modern trends in transport accessibility. A significant source on this topic is From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing—The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model, which examines how technological innovation and open data can enhance access to transportation services that are shared. Moreover, the idea of open innovation in tourism, as explored in Open Innovation in the Tourism Field: A Systematic Literature Review, may offer valuable perspectives on how partnerships, stakeholder involvement, and data-sharing efforts can enhance inclusivity within the tourism industry. Incorporating these viewpoints would not only increase the article's significance but also offer policymakers tangible suggestions for utilizing innovation to enhance accessibility.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I added the importance of shared mobility solutions to the discussion. To go into the shared mobility aspect in detail would require more space and the paper would become too long.

Besides these significant issues, the article has editorial and formatting flaws. The text lacks justification, which adversely affects readability. Additionally, the references do not adhere to the formatting guidelines set by MDPI, potentially resulting in rejection upon submission. The writing style requires improvement, since certain portions are poorly organized, redundant, and excessively complicated. Streamlining sentence structures and guaranteeing a clear, logical progression would significantly enhance readability.

To improve the article's quality and boost its likelihood of publication, certain essential enhancements are required. The literature review needs to be broadened to incorporate a larger variety of international sources, offering a more robust theoretical basis for the research. The methodology needs to be explained, including specific information about the research approach, sampling criteria, and data analysis techniques. The conversation ought to critically interact with earlier research instead of just recapping results. Additionally, the significance of shared mobility and open innovation in accessibility needs to be investigated, as these elements are essential to contemporary strategies for inclusive transport and tourism. The conclusion must be extended to add limitations and further research plans on this topic.  Ultimately, the text needs to go through editorial adjustments to guarantee correct formatting, adherence to citation standards, and enhanced clarity.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I improved the editing. I expanded the literature. I better explained the methodology. I expanded the discussion by making it critically interact with previous research and the results of my study. I highlighted the importance of shared mobility and innovation in accessibility.  I added the limitations of the study in the conclusion.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Please explain precisely the term "ghettoising" used in lines 127.

2.      Incorrect numbering of chapter 4.1 (line 313)

3.      Please think of synonyms for the phrase "accessible tourism"

4.      In chapter 4.1 there are repetitions of paragraphs 322-325 and 326 – 328.

5.      Chapter 4 discussion appears to be a working document, with misnumbering, repetitions, and inconsistencies. This section requires extensive editing before it can be accepted for publication.

6.      The discussion lacks sufficient linkage to the cited literature. It would be worthwhile to discuss in more detail how the study's findings confirm or contradict previous research.

7.      Please change the nomenclature from "disabled people" to "people with disabilities".

8.      The summary lacks a precise reference to the hypotheses put forward in the initial part of the article.

9.      Please clarify the wording used in Table 1 "Internal barriers to confined spaces".

10.   The changes regarding digitization mentioned around line 170 may be expanded to include the author of the research’s assessment in the context of their impact, for example, on older people with disabilities.

11.   The work contains content that indicates a working nature, there are repetitions (e.g. "and and" in line 127) or grammatical errors. Selected examples of literature are presented in the work twice (e.g. WTO 2020).

12.   In line 230 the author mentions qualitative data, emphasizing the importance of taking them into account, but the work lacks any discussion of them. Why?

13.   The results presented are very general and do not provide any basic parameters, e.g. mean or standard deviation.

14.   On what basis was the group of people participating in the study selected?

15.   There is no presentation of the structure of the questions and the answers that could have been given to them.

16.   Suggests preparing a diagram presenting the methodology for working with this study.

Author Response

Caro recensore 4,

Grazie mille per aver dedicato del tempo a rivedere questo manoscritto. Si prega di trovare le risposte dettagliate di seguito e le revisioni/correzioni corrispondenti evidenziate/in traccia le modifiche nei file ri-inviati.

Risposta punto per punto ai commenti e ai suggerimenti per l'autore

 

Commenti e suggerimenti per gli autori

1. Per favore, spiega con precisione il termine "ghettizzazione" usato nei versi 127.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho cambiato il termine in "emarginazione" che ritengo più appropriato

2. Numerazione errata del capitolo 4.1 (riga 313)

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho corretto la numerazione errata.

3. Si prega di pensare ai sinonimi per l'espressione "turismo accessibile"

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho corretto con turismo inclusivo

4. Nel capitolo 4.1 ci sono ripetizioni dei paragrafi 322-325 e 326-328.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho eliminato le ripetizioni.

5. La discussione del capitolo 4 sembra essere un documento di lavoro, con errori di numerazione, ripetizioni e incongruenze. Questa sezione richiede un'ampia modifica prima di poter essere accettata per la pubblicazione.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho ampiamente modificato la discussione nel Capitolo 4. Inoltre, ho corretto errori di numerazione, eliminato ripetizioni e incongruenze.

6. La discussione manca di un collegamento sufficiente con la letteratura citata. Varrebbe la pena discutere più dettagliatamente in che modo i risultati dello studio confermano o contraddicono le ricerche precedenti.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho ampiamente modificato la discussione evidenziando come i risultati dello studio confermino o contraddicano la ricerca precedente.

7. Si prega di modificare la nomenclatura da "persone disabili" a "persone con disabilità".

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho corretto con persone con disabilità (righe 217-218)

8. Il riassunto manca di un riferimento preciso alle ipotesi avanzate nella parte iniziale dell'articolo.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Li ho inseriti.

9. Si prega di chiarire la formulazione utilizzata nella tabella 1 "Barriere interne agli spazi confinati".

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho modificato: "Spazi confinati caratterizzati da un'accessibilità limitata (es. chiusi, stretti, piccoli, con difficoltà di entrata e uscita, ecc.).

10. Le modifiche relative alla digitalizzazione menzionate intorno alla riga 170 possono essere ampliate per includere la valutazione dell'autore della ricerca nel contesto del loro impatto, ad esempio, sulle persone anziane con disabilità.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Li ho inseriti nella discussione

11. L'opera contiene contenuti che indicano una natura lavorativa, ci sono ripetizioni (ad esempio "e e" nella riga 127) o errori grammaticali. Esempi selezionati di letteratura sono presentati nell'opera due volte (ad es. WTO 2020).

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho eliminato la doppia "e" nella riga 127 e la doppia "WTO 2020"

12. Alla riga 230 l'autore cita i dati qualitativi, sottolineando l'importanza di tenerne conto, ma l'opera manca di qualsiasi discussione su di essi. Perché?

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. . Li ho inseriti nella discussione

13. I risultati presentati sono molto generali e non forniscono alcun parametro di base, ad esempio la media o la deviazione standard.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho ampliato la parte dei risultati con i grafici.

14. Su quali basi è stato selezionato il gruppo di persone che hanno partecipato allo studio?

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho inoltre spiegato come il gruppo di persone partecipanti allo studio è stato identificato nella riga 245-250

15. Non c'è alcuna presentazione della struttura delle domande e delle risposte che avrebbero potuto essere date ad esse.

Sono d'accordo. Di conseguenza, ho rivisto il mio articolo. Ho ampliato la parte dei risultati con i grafici. I grafici includono le domande e le risposte

16. Suggerisce di preparare un diagramma che presenti la metodologia per lavorare con questo studio.

La metodologia è ampiamente spiegata e aggiungendo un diagramma 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the author of the paper revised the document, my comments were not fully incorporated into the text. I recommend that the paper be revised in accordance with my review. In its current form, the article does not receive my recommendation for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Author

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Suitable Planning Policies for the Advancement of Accessible and Inclusive Tourism" addresses an important and relevant topic: making tourism accessible for individuals with disabilities. The author emphasizes major challenges encountered by those with mobility and sensory disabilities, especially in Italy, and suggests policy measures to enhance the inclusiveness of the tourism industry. Although the subject is certainly pertinent, the article contains multiple significant flaws that undermine its scholarly integrity and influence.

A major problem is the lack of adequate interaction with current literature. While the article cites several important works, including those by Darcy & Dickson (2009) and Buhalis et al. (2012), the range of sources remains insufficient.

Compared to the first version of the paper, the range of sources has been expanded. The bibliography has been expanded.

The conversation lacks substance and fails to place the study within a wider global context, making it challenging to evaluate how Italy stands relative to other nations regarding accessible tourism policies.

The study is placed in a broader global context in general form. Italy's position on accessible tourism policies is examined. A comparison with other nations is not foreseen because this would mean a parallel study on other specific contexts that are not the object of the research.

Furthermore, the article fails to critically address earlier studies in the discussion section, losing a chance to support its conclusions with established theoretical perspectives.

I agree. I have, therefore, revised my article from the initial version. I have expanded the literature. I have expanded the discussion. I have critically considered previous studies based on the results of my study. In the discussion session, previous studies are critically addressed in relation to the research results. Thus, the conclusions are supported by consolidated theoretical perspectives.

A broader examination of pertinent research, encompassing studies on inclusive mobility and accessibility frameworks, would greatly enhance the scholarly basis of the work.

I added some references on inclusive mobility even if it is not the subject of the research. To address this topic in detail would mean doing another parallel study.

A significant flaw in the article is its ambiguous methodological framework.

The methodological framework is very clear

While it references the use of surveys and interviews, it does not clarify the research design—whether it employs a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. In the absence of this clarification, the legitimacy of the results stays uncertain.

Compared to the first version of the paper, it has been better clarified that a mixed approach is used

Additionally, the sampling technique is poorly detailed. The research is based on feedback from 200 participants, but there is no detail on how these individuals were chosen or if they accurately reflect the larger community of disabled travelers in Italy.

I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I further explained how the group of people participating in the study was identified in line 256-263.

Furthermore, the examination of the survey data is restricted to fundamental descriptive statistics, lacking any reference to significance testing or additional analytical methods that might offer more profound insights.

All analytical methods used in the study are explained (line 216-289) There are also significance testing (281-285) and additional analytical methods (246-249).

The article similarly does not utilize triangulation, depending only on survey and interview feedback without validating results with secondary data, expert insights, or case analyses. This single-faceted approach diminishes the dependability of the conclusions.

I revised my article. I inserted a paragraph on triangulation validating the study results with secondary data increasing the reliability of the conclusions

Another significant gap is the absence of conversation regarding shared mobility solutions, vital for enhancing accessibility in tourism. The impact of car-sharing, ride-sharing, and other adaptable transportation options is overlooked, despite their ability to greatly improve mobility for individuals with disabilities. Tackling this issue would bring the article in line with modern trends in transport accessibility. A significant source on this topic is From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing—The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model, which examines how technological innovation and open data can enhance access to transportation services that are shared. Moreover, the idea of open innovation in tourism, as explored in Open Innovation in the Tourism Field: A Systematic Literature Review, may offer valuable perspectives on how partnerships, stakeholder involvement, and data-sharing efforts can enhance inclusivity within the tourism industry. Incorporating these viewpoints would not only increase the article's significance but also offer policymakers tangible suggestions for utilizing innovation to enhance accessibility.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I added the importance of shared mobility solutions and open innovation in the tourism field to the discussion. (Line 376-391) (line 424-429)

Besides these significant issues, the article has editorial and formatting flaws. The text lacks justification, which adversely affects readability. Additionally, the references do not adhere to the formatting guidelines set by MDPI, potentially resulting in rejection upon submission. The writing style requires improvement, since certain portions are poorly organized, redundant, and excessively complicated. Streamlining sentence structures and guaranteeing a clear, logical progression would significantly enhance readability.

I improved my writing style by simplifying sentences and eliminating redundant concepts. I improved also editing.

To improve the article's quality and boost its likelihood of publication, certain essential enhancements are required. The literature review needs to be broadened to incorporate a larger variety of international sources, offering a more robust theoretical basis for the research. The methodology needs to be explained, including specific information about the research approach, sampling criteria, and data analysis techniques. The conversation ought to critically interact with earlier research instead of just recapping results. Additionally, the significance of shared mobility and open innovation in accessibility needs to be investigated, as these elements are essential to contemporary strategies for inclusive transport and tourism. The conclusion must be extended to add limitations and further research plans on this topic.  Ultimately, the text needs to go through editorial adjustments to guarantee correct formatting, adherence to citation standards, and enhanced clarity.

I agree. I have, accordingly,revised my paper. I improved the editing. I expanded the literature. I better explained the methodology. I expanded the discussion by making it critically interact with previous research and the results of my study. I highlighted the importance of shared mobility and innovation in accessibility.  I added the limitations of the study in the conclusion.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, thank you very much for sending another version of the article and for your replies to previous comments. I really appreciate your effort to develop the methodological part and add some new references in the literature review that you made. However, after a thorough analysis of the third version of the work, I have to say with regret that the key comments made in the previous reviews were only superficially taken into account, which unfortunately limits the scientific potential of this work and still requires significant corrections.
From the substantive point of view, we still have a too superficial approach to the issues of innovation. The introduction of references to shared mobility and open innovation in tourism has only been signaled - their role in the context of accessibility remains unexplained and marginal. Meanwhile, solutions such as car-sharing, ride-sharing, on-demand accessibility, or innovative models of transport services are of key importance for people with mobility limitations, especially in the context of independent travel. Both the transport literature and research on open innovation in public and tourism services provide a specific framework that could strengthen the theoretical part of the article and deepen the practical conclusions. It seems that in recent years, there have been works published that directly concern the role of innovative forms of mobility in increasing inclusiveness – it is worth including them, especially since they were already signalled earlier. Adding a more analytical discussion of this issue, which I mentioned in the previous review, would allow to embed the research in the current context of mobility transformation and the importance of an open approach in designing tourism services. Although the bibliography has been expanded, I regret to note that some of the key sources repeatedly recommended in the reviews have still not been included. This applies especially to works on modern models of shared mobility and the integration of transport services with tourist accessibility.

The methodology has been improved, but is still too general. Statistical analyses are described very briefly, without discussing, for example, independent variables in ANOVA tests. Triangulation, although mentioned, has not been really integrated into the presentation of results. In this form, the methodology remains weakly embedded in the structure of the article and does not sufficiently enhance its credibility.

From an editorial perspective, the work has unjustified text. The formatting of references is also inconsistent with MDPI requirements. I recommend thoroughly revising the work in this respect as well.

The article concerns an important and current topic, but its current version does not yet meet the standards of a scientific publication in a scientific journal. I kindly ask you to conduct a detailed review in accordance with my recommendations.

Author Response

I do not agree at all and I think the article is fine in this form.  The paper aims to answer two fundamental research questions to improve the conditions of the Italian tourism system: What is the perception of people with disabilities regarding their ability to travel in Italy? Which parameters should be considered for a proper planning of accessible and inclusive tourism in Italy?

The paper points out that shared mobility and open innovation in tourism play a role in the context of accessibility but this is not the main focus of the paper. While we agree that solutions such as car-sharing, ride-sharing, on-demand accessibility or innovative models of transport services are of fundamental importance for people with mobility limitations, especially in the context of independent travel. I point out that transport and mobility are only one aspect of the paper. To go into these aspects in detail would mean doing another paper.  I do not see the need for further exploration. The paper is already long enough and the theoretical part of the paper is satisfactory.  The discussion is analytical and concerns the research results. The specific discussion on the transformation of mobility and the importance of an open approach in the design of tourism services would require another paper answering other research questions. The bibliography has been expanded to include key sources she recommended in the reviews relating to work on modern shared mobility models and the integration of transport services with tourist accessibility (see Correia Cardoso et al., Yun et al., etc.).

The methodology has been improved and is by no means generic. Statistical analyses are described. triangulation, it was done according to the results. I think the methodology in this form is perfect.

From an editorial point of view, the text has been revised, any further updates will be made at the printing stage.

All your recommendations have been followed as far as possible.