A Quantitative Methodological Approach to the Universal Accessibility Analysis of Cultural Heritage Sites: A Case Study of the Ávila Region (Spain)

Abstract

This study presents a quantitative methodological approach for evaluating universal accessibility in cultural heritage sites, grounded in the DALCO criteria—Deambulation/Mobility, Apprehension, Location, and Communication. The methodology is designed to be broadly applicable across diverse geographic and cultural contexts, thus offering a generalizable framework for assessing accessibility. At the same time, the study applies this approach to the specific case of the Ávila region (Spain), a territory with a high concentration of Assets of Cultural Interest (ACIs), including sites recognized as UNESCO World Heritage. In this way, the research simultaneously pursues a methodological aim, by testing and refining the DALCO-based framework, and a diagnostic aim, by providing a comprehensive evaluation of accessibility conditions in Ávila. Using a structured questionnaire, each ACI was assessed to determine its accessibility level across four key dimensions. The results reveal significant physical, communicative, and cognitive barriers across the region, with notable disparities among territorial zones. The proposed methodology offers a replicable and scalable tool for researchers, cultural institutions, and public authorities committed to fostering inclusive heritage environments, and provides a technical foundation for implementing universal design principles aligned with the SDG 11.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Relevance

The protection and promotion of cultural heritage are fundamental to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 11.4, which calls for strengthened efforts to safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage [1]. At both the European and international levels, cultural heritage is increasingly understood as a collective resource and a key driver of sustainable development [2,3,4]. Despite regional differences, there is a growing recognition of the need for shared definitions, common management frameworks, and coordinated strategies—ranging from conservation practices to risk prevention and reduction measures—that can safeguard heritage while enhancing its social and cultural value [5]. At the same time, advances in digital technologies—such as geoinformatics, remote sensing, and spatial data tools—have unlocked new avenues for heritage conservation and monitoring, aligning with global sustainability agendas that require efficient, scalable, and data-informed methods for preserving cultural assets [6,7]. Furthermore, current global studies are exploring how heritage preservation can be integrated with sustainable tourism practices that respect both the authenticity of cultural sites and the needs of visitor inclusion and long-term community benefit [8,9]. Lastly, the evolving application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles within heritage education reflects a broader shift towards more inclusive, multimedia-based strategies aimed at engaging diverse audiences while fostering cultural transmission and accessibility [10,11].

In the Spanish context, this mandate is reflected in the legal framework established by Law 16/1985, which grants the highest level of protection to Assets of Cultural Interest (ACIs), encompassing monuments, archaeological sites, historic gardens, and urban ensembles of significant historical, artistic, or scientific value [12]. These heritage assets serve as pillars for cultural identity and memory transmission, while also fostering social cohesion and urban resilience [13]. Consequently, integrating heritage protection into broader sustainability strategies is essential for developing equitable and inclusive urban environments.

In this regard, ensuring universal accessibility—understood as the autonomous and safe use of spaces by all individuals, regardless of ability—emerges as both a legal requirement and an ethical imperative aligned with the principles of sustainable and inclusive development [14]. Beyond regulatory compliance, accessibility is now considered a cornerstone of social sustainability, directly linked to equity, cultural participation, and the reduction of exclusion [15]. Improving accessibility fosters inclusive cultural experiences, strengthens social cohesion, and enhances the vitality of historic urban areas [16]. Moreover, universal design approaches extend the scope of accessibility beyond physical adjustments, addressing sensory, communicative, and cognitive barriers, and promoting cultural environments that are truly inclusive and resilient [17].

1.2. Research Review

Several recent studies emphasize that improving accessibility in heritage sites is not only a legal or technical concern, but also an ethical imperative and a key component of social sustainability [18]. Accessibility measures ensure that individuals with both visible and invisible disabilities can participate in cultural life, thereby promoting inclusive experiences and fostering a stronger sense of belonging within historically significant environment. Moreover, accessible design and diversity-sensitive planning have been shown to positively influence the vitality of historic urban areas, contributing to more dynamic, socially integrated public spaces [19]. From an interdisciplinary perspective, the social value of built heritage is increasingly understood as being shaped by its capacity to be inclusive and accessible to all, thus reinforcing its relevance in contemporary society and aligning it with the principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [20,21,22].

At the same time, recent international research highlights specific challenges and opportunities in this field. Studies conducted in Central European museums have shown that while physical access is relatively well-managed, digital and sensory accessibility, particularly for visitors with visual and hearing impairments, remains insufficient [23]. Broader European analyses highlight persistent systemic barriers to cultural participation by people with disabilities, emphasizing the need for inclusive programming and interpretation [24]. Other works have introduced tools specifically designed to evaluate accessibility in open-air archaeological sites, incorporating sensory, cognitive, and physical dimensions within structured assessment frameworks [25]. In addition, investigations into heritage tourism underline that perceived value is strongly influenced not only by physical access, but also by emotional and interpretive experiences, which are critical for fostering inclusive cultural engagement [26].

The criteria of Deambulation/Mobility, Apprehension, Location, and Communication, collectively known by the acronym DALCO and shown in Figure 1, constitute the regulatory foundation for ensuring physical accessibility. These criteria are defined in the Spanish standard UNE 170001-1:2007 [27]. Implementing these principles requires adaptations that achieve a balance between inclusion and heritage conservation, as demonstrated in practical applications within historical museums [28]. These experiences confirm that it is possible to eliminate physical barriers while preserving the integrity and historical value of cultural assets [29]. However, these experiences also highlight the need to expand evaluation frameworks to incorporate non-physical dimensions such as communicative, sensory, and cognitive accessibility.

In recent years, accessibility has progressively advanced, and awareness of its necessity has gained increasing prominence. However, most interventions have focused primarily on removing physical barriers—such as steps, uneven surfaces, or level differences—while often neglecting sensory barriers (lack of visual contrasts, tactile elements, or audio guides), communicative barriers (inaccessible information or poor/nonexistent signage), and cognitive barriers (difficult-to-understand content) [30]. Many heritage sites present invisible obstacles for groups with intellectual or sensory disabilities that cannot be resolved through architectural or physical adaptations alone [17]. Likewise, other studies highlight that physical accessibility tends to overshadow other dimensions when applying technical evaluation criteria [31]. Nonetheless, there are examples where the use of alternative methodologies, adaptations, and the development of innovative strategies have supported both the preservation and access to cultural heritage [32].

Moreover, the state of the art reveals a scarcity of studies addressing universal accessibility from an integrated and holistic perspective that incorporates social, sensory, and cognitive dimensions [33], particularly concerning ACIs such as cities or sites protected by UNESCO as World Heritage. This gap or bias underscores the need for multidimensional technical assessments that serve as a foundation for developing inclusive and sustainable interventions.

1.3. Aim of the Study

Ávila (Spain), declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1985, constitutes a paradigmatic case where the pursuit of universal accessibility represents both a challenge and an opportunity. The city is internationally recognized for its medieval walled enclosure, its historic and religious urban ensemble, and its association with Christian mysticism through figures such as Saint Teresa of Jesus [34]. Consequently, the heritage of Ávila, particularly its ACIs requires a comprehensive approach grounded in the principle of universal access to promote the participation and enjoyment of all individuals in its rich cultural legacy. Considering this context, the present study aims to analyze the ACIs of Ávila and its province according to the DALCO criteria. Additionally, it offers a comprehensive and replicable approach to assessing universal accessibility in Ávila, a UNESCO World Heritage city with a patrimonial ensemble of great historical, symbolic, urban, and religious value.

In this study, the research follows a dual purpose: a methodological aim, by testing and further refining the DALCO-based framework as a tool for evaluating accessibility, and a diagnostic aim, by applying it to deliver a comprehensive assessment of accessibility conditions in Ávila. Unlike other approaches focused solely on physical barriers, this study integrates technical, communicative, and cognitive criteria to address functional diversity and reach all individuals from an inclusive and sustainable perspective. The applied methodology enables the identification of structural, communicative, cognitive, and sensory deficiencies and proposes potential improvements aligned with the SDGs. Therefore, this research can serve as a valuable tool for public administration and cultural and social policy makers. Furthermore, it provides a rigorous technical diagnosis that is transferable and adaptable to other heritage sites with similar characteristics by integrating the normative DALCO criteria and offering communicative, cognitive, and technical solutions.

Accordingly, this work is guided by the following research questions:

• RQ1: How can the DALCO-based framework be applied and refined as a methodological tool for evaluating universal accessibility in cultural heritage contexts?
• RQ2: To what extent do the Assets of Cultural Interest (ACIs) in Ávila and its province comply with the DALCO criteria, and what specific physical, communicative, sensory, and cognitive barriers persist?
• RQ3: In what ways can the insights derive from this multidimensional assessment contribute to the development of transferable strategies that reconcile heritage preservation with accessibility and sustainability objectives?

2. Materials and Methods

This research was carried out in five phases: (i) problem statement and definition of objectives, which addressed the relevance of studying accessibility in ACIs in the province of Ávila, its justification, and the specific objectives to be achieved; (ii) design of the survey used as the research instrument; (iii) data collection through the administration of the questionnaire; (iv) analysis and presentation of results, using descriptive statistics, group comparisons, and analysis of relationships between variables to identify significant patterns and trends; and (v) formulation of conclusions and discussion, where the obtained results were interpreted (Figure 2).

The research was structured into five methodological phases, with Phase II corresponding to the design of the instrument (Figure 2). A custom instrument was developed to analyze universal accessibility in the ACI of the Ávila region, using the DALCO criteria as a reference framework. The DALCO criteria define accessibility conditions based on the various activities individuals commonly perform: moving, communicating, reaching, understanding, using, and handling [35].

The questionnaire consisted of 20 questions addressing different variables related to the DALCO criteria (Figure 2, Phase II) by following the Spanish standard UNE 170001-1:2007 framework, as explained in the Introduction section [27]. The criteria analyzed were: (i) Deambulation/Mobility, (ii) Apprehension, (iii) Localization, and (iv) Communication. To obtain quantitative data (Figure 2, Phase IV), five Likert-scale questions were included under each criterion, numbered from 1 to 5, where 1 means “strongly disagree” (the evaluated criterion is not met at all), 2 means “disagree” (the criterion is partially met but requires significant improvements), 3 means “neutral” (the criterion is met in some cases but presents deficiencies that need to be addressed), 4 means “agree” (the criterion is adequately met with few areas for improvement), and 5 means “strongly agree” (the criterion is fully met without any barriers). Additionally, a “Not applicable” response option was included (

Table 1. Survey questions.

Criteria		Description	Response Options
Denomination	Nº
Deambulation/Mobility (D)	D1	The entrances to the monument are free of obstacles and accessible to people with reduced mobility	Likert (1–5) and Not Applicable
	D2	Internal routes allow wheelchairs and people with reduced mobility to move smoothly
	D3	There are ramps or elevators that allow access to all floors of the monument
	D4	The stairs have accessible handrails and non-slip bands on the edges
	D5	There is clear and accessible signage (visual and tactile) indicating routes to emergency exits and main services
Apprehension (A)	A1	The display cases and displays are at an accessible height for wheelchair users or those of short stature.
	A2	The monument’s interactive and tactile devices are accessible and easy to use for people with different motor abilities.
	A3	The rest spaces and services (benches, seats) are easily reachable and located at different points along the route.
	A4	There are assistive devices or technical aids available to facilitate the handling of objects or items for people with grasping difficulties.
	A5	Control mechanisms (such as switches, taps, or handles) are ergonomic and can be easily manipulated without requiring much force or manual dexterity.
Localization (L)	L1	The internal signage of the monument is clear, with symbols and texts understandable for people with visual or cognitive disabilities.
	L2	The monument has tactile or relief maps to orient the visually impaired.
	L3	The route inside the monument is clearly defined and signposted, avoiding confusion for people with mobility or reduced vision.
	L4	Signage is located in well-lit locations that are visible to people of any height, whether they are sitting, standing, or walking.
	L5	Contrasting colors are used between walls, floors and doors to facilitate the identification of the different elements and spaces in the environment.
Communication (C)	C1	The staff is trained to care for people with hearing, visual, or cognitive impairments.
	C2	The monument offers audio guides or texts in Braille for the visually impaired.
	C3	Videos or multimedia exhibitions are subtitled and/or include sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired.
	C4	Exhibits include easy-to-read and easy-to-understand descriptions, accessible to people with cognitive disabilities.
	C5	Emergency alarms at the memorial include visual and auditory cues accessible to people with different sensory disabilities.

). To ensure validity of the instrument, the questionnaire was reviewed by a panel of experts in universal accessibility and cultural heritage, and its structure was aligned with other validated tools used in research for other buildings [31,35]. The 20-item questionnaire was completed directly by the authors of this study, who applied it systematically to all 140 ACIs.

In this study, the accessibility of the 140 ACIs in the province of Ávila was analyzed through the application of an instrument based on the DALCO criteria, considering various aspects related to physical, informational, and sensory access to heritage. The province of Ávila is divided into several regions or geographical zones that group municipalities with shared historical, cultural, and territorial characteristics. These zones are: Zone 1: La Moraña (north, in green), an extensive agricultural plain; Zone 2: Valle Amblés and Sierra de Ávila (central area, in yellow), where the provincial capital is located; Zone 3: Valle del Alberche and Tierra de Pinares (southeast, in orange), characterized by a milder climate and abundant vegetation; Zone 4: Valle del Tiétar (south, in pink), a mountainous area with rural and touristic settlements; and Zone 5: Valle del Tormes (southwest, in dark green) (Figure 3), a transitional area between the mountain ranges and the northern plains. This zonal division is particularly useful for organizing and contextualizing territorial studies, such as the analysis of accessibility in cultural heritage.

To conduct the accessibility analysis of the 140 ACIs in the province of Ávila (Figure 2, Phase IV), following the application of an instrument based on the DALCO criteria, the mean scores for each criterion were first analyzed across the different zones of the province. Subsequently, a hypothesis test of mean differences was carried out to identify statistically significant variations among zones for the DALCO dimensions included in the instrument. Finally, to compare the results obtained in the defined areas, an ANOVA analysis was performed. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) is used to compare the means of three or more groups and determine whether there are statistically significant differences between them. ANOVA starts from the null hypothesis that all means are equal. If the p-value associated with the F statistic is less than 0.05, it is concluded that there are significant differences in at least one of the means between the groups analyzed. For this purpose, the survey data was subsequently processed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v.29) and Microsoft Excel (v.2406) software, which enabled the calculation of descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and comparative analyses across zones.

3. Results

This section presents the results of the accessibility assessment of Ávila’s ACIs. The findings are organized following the DALCO framework, allowing us to identify patterns and specific challenges in each accessibility dimension. Particular attention is given to contrasts between urban and rural sites, and to the balance between physical conservation requirements and inclusive design.

The ACIs in the province of Ávila are divided into several categories, as indicated in Figure 4: (i) monuments (53.9%), (ii) scrolls of justice (13.5%), (iii) castles (12.1%), (iv) archaeological sites (7.1%), (v) historic sites (5.0%), (vi) rock art, (5.0%) (vii) picturesque sites (1.4%), (viii) archives, museums, and libraries (0.6%), (ix) coats of arms (0.7%), and (x) ethnological sites (0.7%).

As stated in the previous section, the mean scores for each DALCO criterion were analyzed across the different zones of the province. Regarding the deambulation/mobility criterion, most zones reported mean scores below 2.0. Specifically, the Valle del Tormes (Zone 5) reported a mean of 2.0, the Valle del Alberche y Tierra de Pinares (Zone 3) had a mean of 2.3, the Valle Amblés y Sierra de Ávila (Zone 2) scored 2.0, La Moraña (Zone 1) reported 1.9, and the Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) had a mean score of 2.2 (Figure 5a). These results suggest that the average score across the province is approximately 2.0, indicating a high level of disagreement with the statements related to physical accessibility in the analyzed ACIs. These values reflect a perceived lack of adequate conditions for autonomous movement in most heritage assets. This suggests the presence of significant physical barriers, such as uneven terrain, stairs without accessible alternatives, irregular surfaces, or the absence of adapted pathways. The fact that this negative trend persists across all zones indicates that the accessibility issue is not isolated but structural, highlighting the urgent need for improvements to ensure universal access to the province’s cultural heritage. While mobility-related barriers were found to be the most frequent, issues of apprehension, particularly the absence of tactile and contrast-based elements, also emerged as significant, highlighting that accessibility cannot be understood exclusively in terms of movement.

Regarding the apprehension criterion—referring to the ability to understand and use the available information to access and navigate cultural assets—the results show slight variability among the different zones of the province. The highest mean scores were observed in the Valle del Tormes (Zone 5) (2.8) and the Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) (2.5), indicating a somewhat more favorable, though still moderate, assessment of information accessibility. Conversely, the Valle del Alberche y Tierra de Pinares (Zone 3) scored 1.8, already reflecting general disagreement with the positive statements. The lowest scores were found in the Valle Amblés y Sierra de Ávila (Zone 2) with a mean of 1.0, and La Moraña (Zone 1) with 0.9, where the perception of information comprehension and usefulness is clearly negative (Figure 5b). These results point to a significant lack of accessible informational resources—such as adapted signage, plain language, pictograms, or technological aids—especially in the northern and central zones of the province. This represents an added barrier for many visitors, particularly those with cognitive or sensory disabilities. Beyond perceptual aspects, challenges in localization, such as inadequate signage, absence of wayfinding systems, or poor spatial continuity, further constrain the independent use of heritage spaces, especially for visitors with sensory or cognitive disabilities.

For the location criterion—understood as the ease of finding and geographically accessing cultural sites—the results indicate consistently low ratings across all zones in the province of Ávila. The highest mean was observed in the Valle del Tormes (Zone 5), with a value of 2.3, suggesting a slightly more favorable perception, albeit still below the midpoint of the scale. This was followed by the Valle del Alberche y Tierra de Pinares (Zone 3) and the Valle Amblés y Sierra de Ávila (Zone 2), both with a mean of 1.8, indicating a generalized disagreement with the statements on accessible location. The Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) scored 1.7, and the lowest score was recorded in La Moraña (Zone 1), with 1.2, reflecting serious difficulties in identifying and accessing heritage sites (Figure 5c). These results highlight deficiencies in aspects such as road signage, visibility of access points, connection with public transportation, and the availability of clear geographic information, thereby hindering autonomous access to cultural heritage. Although spatial orientation and wayfinding are essential, the results show that accessibility also depends strongly on communication, since the absence of clear, multilingual, and inclusive information prevents visitors from fully understanding and engaging with cultural heritage.

Regarding the communication criterion—related to the availability and suitability of communicative resources that facilitate interaction with the heritage environment—the data reveal consistently low evaluations across all analyzed zones. The Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) obtained the highest mean score with 1.8, which, although slightly higher, still indicates general disagreement with the positive statements regarding communicative accessibility. This was followed by the Valle Amblés y Sierra de Ávila (Zone 2) with 1.7, the Valle del Alberche y Tierra de Pinares (Zone 3) with 1.6, and La Moraña (Zone 1) with 1.4. The lowest value was recorded in the Valle del Tormes (Zone 5), with a mean of 1.3 (Figure 5d). These scores reflect a widespread absence of accessible communication tools, such as easy-to-read panels, Braille information, audio description systems, or sign language interpreters, which severely limit the experience for many individuals, particularly those with sensory or cognitive impairments. The scarce presence of these resources constitutes a major barrier to the universal accessibility of the province’s cultural heritage.

The analysis carried out in this study, based on the application of accessibility criteria to the ACIs in the province of Ávila—disaggregated by comarca and using a Likert-type scale—reveals a generalized situation of inaccessibility across nearly all evaluated dimensions. The results show that mean values in most cases do not exceed level 2, indicating clear disagreement with positive accessibility statements and, therefore, a generally negative perception.

In terms of deambulation/mobility, the data reveal average scores below 2 in all comarcas, reflecting persistent physical barriers such as steps, uneven surfaces, lack of ramps or accessible pathways, and the absence of support measures for individuals with reduced mobility. The recurrence of this issue across all comarcas points to a structural deficiency rather than isolated or exceptional cases.

Regarding apprehension—understood as the ability to understand and use available information to access and navigate cultural sites—slightly better results are observed in Valle del Tormes (Zone 5) with 2.8, and Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) with 2.5. However, the remaining comarcas show significantly lower averages, such as La Moraña (Zone 1) with 0.9 and Valle Amblés y Sierra de Ávila (Zone 2) with 1.0. This disparity suggests an unequal distribution of accessible informational resources, as well as a potential lack of standardization in the information systems applied to cultural heritage.

For the location criterion—related to the ease of geographically finding and accessing sites—none of the comarcas reached a satisfactory rating. Valle del Tormes (Zone 5) reported the highest average (2.3), which barely surpasses the threshold for a negative perception, while other comarcas, such as La Moraña (Zone 1) with 1.2 and Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) with 1.7, highlight difficulties in geographical access, poor signage, or connectivity issues with rural settings where many ACIs are located.

Finally, for the communication criterion—associated with the availability and adequacy of communication resources that facilitate interaction with the heritage environment—the results are especially poor, with all comarcas scoring below 2. This indicates a widespread lack of communication aids such as accessible panels, sign language, braille, easy-to-read texts, or adapted multimedia content. Communicative accessibility, which is key to ensuring an inclusive visitor experience, appears to be one of the most neglected aspects.

Overall, the average scores for all criteria remain below 1.9, painting a concerning picture regarding universal accessibility to the cultural heritage of the province. While there are notable differences between comarcas, even the highest-rated areas fail to achieve truly positive levels. This situation highlights the urgent need to design and implement coordinated strategies—at both local and provincial levels—that prioritize inclusion and the elimination of barriers in heritage spaces, in accordance with the principles of universal design and current accessibility regulations.

Lastly, the ANOVA analysis conducted to examine differences in the mean values of the various DALCO criteria across the comarcas of Ávila reveals the existence of statistically significant differences. Here,

Table 2. Results obtained from ANOVA analysis on mean differences across various DALCO criteria and different zones of the province of Ávila.

Factor	F-Statistics	p-Value	Significant Differences
D1	1.451	0.2178	No
D2	2.313	0.0618	No
D3	0.923	0.4504	No
D4	0.613	0.6579	No
D5	0.629	0.6442	No
A1	7.418	0.0000	Yes
A2	2.618	0.0379	Yes
A3	12.958	0.0000	Yes
A4	4.540	0.0018	Yes
A5	6.461	0.0001	Yes
L1	3.683	0.0074	Yes
L2	6.027	0.0002	Yes
L3	10.099	0.0000	Yes
L4	7.798	0.0000	Yes
L5	4.062	0.0046	Yes
C1	9.955	0.0000	Yes
C2	0.747	0.5629	No
C3	2.304	0.0629	No
C4	3.032	0.0209	Yes
C5	3.530	0.0096	Yes

summarizes the results obtained from ANOVA analysis. Each row represents one of the evaluated DALCO criteria, while the columns represent F-statistics, p-value and the significant differences.

Although many comparisons do not show statistically significant differences, there are several DALCO parameters, where relevant differences are detected. Firstly, regarding the DALCO criteria, for deambulation/mobility (D), no significant differences are observed between the various zones. However, for the apprehension (A) and location (L) criteria, there are significant differences across the different zones of the province of Ávila. In some communication (C1, C4, and C5) there are significant differences.

When the analysis is conducted by zones, it is possible to identify significant differences among them—particularly between the zones of Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) and Valle del Tormes (Zone 5) in comparison with the rest. More specifically, La Moraña (Zone 1) shows significant differences with the other zones in most of the DALCO criteria, except for deambulation/mobility (D). The zones of Valle de Amblés and Sierra de Ávila (Zone 2) and Valle del Alberche and Tierra de Pinares (Zone 3) exhibit significant differences with Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) and Valle del Tormes (Zone 5), especially in the apprehension (A) criteria.

Based on this analysis, the low mean values across the DALCO criteria indicate a strong negative perception regarding access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage (Figure 6), pointing to persistent physical barriers to deambulation/mobility (D)—such as steps and the absence of ramps—that affect all zones structurally rather than sporadically. Furthermore, the apprehension (A) of information shows an uneven distribution, with zones such as Valle del Tormes (Zone 5) and Valle del Tiétar (Zone 4) performing better, while others report very low levels, suggesting a lack of standardization and accessible informational resources. Difficulties in location (L) and communication (C) are also evident throughout the province, with a notable lack of communication resources such as braille panels or sign language interpretation, which significantly hinder the inclusive experience of heritage sites.

The absence of significant differences in the deambulation/mobility (D) criterion between zones further supports the notion that physical barriers are a widespread problem across the province. The minimal differences in communication (C) indicate a uniform deficit in this area. Therefore, the capacity to convey and receive information related to cultural heritage—including accessible signage, braille panels, sign language, easy-to-read formats, or adapted multimedia resources—is significantly limited in the ACIs-designated cultural heritage of the province of Ávila.

4. Discussion

4.1. Positioning of the Results in the International Context

This study confirms that cultural heritage accessibility transcends technical compliance, embodying an ethical and social sustainability dimension. International frameworks highlight that true inclusivity requires accommodating individuals with both visible and invisible disabilities and enabling equal participation in cultural life—principles enshrined in instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and echoed in the 2030 Agenda’s call to “leave no one behind” [36]. Accessibility is increasingly regarded as intrinsic to the social value and resilience of UNESCO World Heritage Cities. The findings from Ávila reveal considerable inclusion gaps, emphasizing that advancing heritage accessibility aligns with a global movement toward equitable cultural environments.

4.2. Comparison with Recent Studies

When contrasted with recent international research, the limitations found in Ávila’s ACIs align with broader patterns while also revealing context-specific gaps. Studies on museums in Kraków report that mobility needs are comparatively well addressed, yet sensory and informational accessibility—especially for visitors with visual and hearing impairments—remain insufficient [23]. This contrasts with Ávila, where even baseline physical access shows substantial room for improvement, indicating a more foundational accessibility deficit.

Beyond museums, comparative evidence from archaeological and open-air UNESCO contexts highlights the role of digital strategies in complementing on-site adaptations. The Sarmizegetusa Regia case demonstrates how digital content and virtual reality can mitigate on-site constraints, expanding perceptual access and interpretive depth for diverse audiences [37]. Similarly, at the architectural object scale, HBIM-based workflows (e.g., Casa de Santa Maria, Cascais) show how multidisciplinary pipelines can encode accessibility-relevant information (wayfinding, interpretive data, spatial constraints) into integrated models that support both conservation and inclusive visitor experience [38]. Together, these examples indicate that digital/virtual solutions—when combined with physical adjustments—can meaningfully reduce communicative and cognitive barriers in constrained heritage environments.

At the methodological level, recent work proposes tool-supported audits to systematize decision-making in protected buildings. A support tool for heritage buildings operationalizes diagnosis-to-action pathways, offering structured criteria to prioritize feasible interventions without compromising authenticity [39]. At the urban/territorial scale, Cáceres (UNESCO) study integrates GIS-based accessibility indicators to evaluate spatial equity and connectivity, revealing how city-level morphology and network structure condition access to heritage ensembles [40]. In combination, these contributions illustrate the value of multi-scalar assessment (from building-specific audits to city-wide analyses) thereby complementing the DALCO approach applied in Ávila with actionable instruments for planning and policy.

Finally, comparative insights from non-European UNESCO contexts reinforce the transferability of inclusive frameworks. The Jantar Mantar (Jaipur) chapter foregrounds universal design and user involvement to reconcile physical and intellectual access within highly constrained, astronomically significant heritage settings [41]. Read alongside European cases, these results strengthen the argument that accessibility frameworks must adapt to site typology and conservation regimes, while consistently addressing deambulation, apprehension, localization, and communication in an integrated manner—precisely the multidimensional stance advanced in the present study.

4.3. Practical Implications for Heritage Management

The findings demonstrate that improving accessibility in cultural heritage management requires strategies that integrate inclusion alongside conservation, with policies going beyond legal compliance. Heritage managers must adopt universal design principles to ensure not only physical accessibility but also cognitive and communicative inclusion. For historical contexts, this can involve reversible solutions such as modular ramps, tactile paving, or digital interpretation systems, which preserve architectural authenticity while removing barriers. Recent studies emphasize the value of ICT-based tools—such as virtual reality, mobile navigation apps, and digital replicas—which can provide inclusive experiences for visitors unable to access fragile or restricted heritage areas [42,43]. Technological innovation can complement traditional accessibility interventions, making cultural heritage more inclusive without undermining its conservation.

Equally important are governance and participatory practices. Accessibility cannot be achieved solely through infrastructure but also depends on the active involvement of stakeholders, including disabled visitors and local communities, in decision-making processes. Evidence shows that co-design frameworks and collaborative governance significantly enhance both the usability and legitimacy of accessibility interventions [44]. Moreover, integrating accessibility into tourism and regional development plans fosters economic sustainability, as inclusive sites attract wider audiences such as elderly visitors, families, and international tourists with specific needs.

4.4. Methodolical Contribution

A key methodological contribution of this research lies in the application of the DALCO (Deambulation/Mobility, Apprehension, Location, Communication) as a tool for assessing universal accessibility in cultural heritage. Unlike conventional audits that predominantly address architectural or mobility-related barriers, DALCO integrates dimensions of cognitive and communicative accessibility, thus encompassing the clarity of information, ease of orientation, and inclusiveness of interpretive media. This multidimensional approach responds to a recurrent limitation identified in previous studies, where accessibility evaluations disproportionately emphasized physical adaptations while neglecting perceptual and cognitive needs that significantly affect the visitor experience [17,39]. The inclusion of criteria such as signage legibility, tactile models, and availability of assistive technologies ensures that barriers often considered “invisible” are systematically documented, providing a more accurate representation of accessibility gaps within heritage contexts.

The explicit incorporation of apprehension and communication within the DALCO framework further demonstrates a forward-looking orientation, given that cognitive accessibility remains one of the least developed aspects of both policy and professional practice [45]. Recent research confirms that individuals with intellectual or cognitive disabilities continue to encounter overlooked obstacles in heritage settings, highlighting the need for more integrative approaches [19]. In this regard, DALCO bridges regulatory rigor with inclusive design principles, enabling the generation of data that informs balanced interventions across physical, sensory, communicative, and cognitive domains.

4.5. Future Research Directions

Future studies should extend the DALCO methodology to other UNESCO sites and heritage contexts for comparative evaluation. Longitudinal assessments in Ávila could track the effectiveness of interventions over time. Integrating participatory methods that include individuals with disabilities and testing digital tools, such as virtual reality or navigation apps, would enrich accessibility assessments. Finally, research should explore policy frameworks that reconcile accessibility with conservation imperatives and investigate how improved accessibility influences visitation patterns and public support for heritage preservation.

5. Conclusions

This study presents a quantitative approach to assess universal accessibility in cultural heritage spaces, based on the DALCO criteria (deambulation/mobility, apprehension, location, and communication). Although the methodology is designed to be flexible and adaptable to different geographical and cultural contexts, in this case, it is applied to the region of Ávila (Spain), an area with a high concentration of protected heritage sites, including numerous cultural heritage sites (ACIs) and some recognized by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites. Using a structured questionnaire, the accessibility of each ACI in the province of Ávila was systematically evaluated. The result is a scalable and replicable tool that can be used by cultural institutions, public authorities, and researchers committed to promoting heritage environments that are accessible to all.

The analysis revealed that compliance with DALCO remains partial and uneven: while mobility-related barriers (RQ1) persist across the territory, the most critical gaps were found in communicative and cognitive accessibility (RQ2), where the absence of adapted information, signage, and interpretive resources prevents inclusive cultural participation. By operationalizing DALCO in a multidimensional way, the study demonstrated its capacity to generate transferable strategies that reconcile heritage preservation with accessibility and sustainability objectives (RQ3).

The analysis of the accessibility of the ACIs in the province of Ávila reveals a structural issue that generally affects all assessed dimensions, from physical mobility to accessible communication. The persistence of physical barriers and the lack of adapted informational resources lead to an exclusionary experience for many people, showing that current interventions are neither sufficient nor consistent across the territory. The disparity between counties, particularly in criteria such as apprehension and location, highlights the need for a comprehensive approach that coordinates local and provincial efforts to ensure equitable access and full interaction with cultural heritage.

Moreover, the study acknowledges certain limitations: its focus on Ávila restricts direct generalization, on-site surveys may underrepresent digital accessibility aspects, and the inherent tension between conservation imperatives and inclusive adaptation poses methodological challenges. Nevertheless, the DALCO-based approach provides a replicable model that expands traditional evaluations beyond physical obstacles and systematically incorporates sensory, communicative, and cognitive dimensions.

Future research should extend this methodology to other UNESCO sites and urban ensembles for comparative analysis, integrate digital tools such as VR/AR and HBIM to complement physical interventions, and adopt participatory approaches involving people with disabilities in the design and testing of accessibility strategies. Overall, these findings underscore the need to design inclusive policies grounded in universal design principles and current accessibility regulations, aiming to eliminate barriers, standardize accessible information, and promote truly inclusive access to cultural heritage for all.