Inclusive Tourism: Assessing the Accessibility of Lisbon as a Tourist Destination
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Inclusive Tourism
2.1.1. Accessibility
Technological Accessibility
2.1.2. Inclusive Tourism from an Economic Perspective
2.1.3. Inclusive Tourism from a Social and Ethical Perspective
2.1.4. Policies for Inclusive Tourism in Europe and Portugal
2.2. Competitiveness
2.2.1. Competitiveness at the Micro and Macro Level
Micro-Environment
Macro-Environment
2.2.2. Competitiveness of Cities as Tourist Destinations
2.2.3. Competitiveness Strategies for Tourist Destinations
2.2.4. Tourism Destinations’ Competitiveness Indicators
2.2.5. Tourism Competitiveness Models
Diamond Model
Calgary Model
Integrated Model—New Conceptual Model by Kim and Dwyer
Heath’s Model
Hong’s Model
2.3. Tourist Destinations
2.3.1. Factors and Resources of a Tourist Destination
Universal Design
Linear Approach
Infrastructures
Services
Accessibility of Destinations
Hospitality
Tourist Attractions
2.3.2. Accessibility in Tourist Destinations
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Research Approach
3.3. Participants
3.4. Structure of Interviews
3.4.1. First Round of Interviews
3.4.2. Second Round of Interviews
4. Results
4.1. First Round of Delphi Panel
- Relevance of the indicator: an indicator was considered relevant if the average responses of the panel members, in the closed-ended questions, according to the Likert scale (from 1 to 5), were higher than 4.
- Consensus on the relevance of the indicator: it was considered that if 75% of the panel members agreed there would be consensus.
4.1.1. First Interview Domain—Analysis of the Tourism Competitiveness of a Tourist Destination
4.1.2. Second Interview Field-Lisbon’s Competitiveness as a Tourism Destination
4.1.3. Third Interview Domain—Analysing the Tourism Competitiveness of a Tourist Destination Considering the Factors of Inclusion
4.1.4. Conclusions of the First Round of the Delphi Method
4.2. Second Round of the Delphi Panel
4.2.1. First domain––Analysis of the Tourism Competitiveness of a Tourist Destination
4.2.2. Second Interview Field-Lisbon’s Competitiveness as a Tourism Destination
4.2.3. Third Interview Domain—Analysing the Tourism Competitiveness of a Tourist Destination Considering the Factors of Inclusion
4.2.4. Conclusions of the Second Round of the Delphi Method
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Devile, E. O Desenvolvimento do Turismo Acessível: Dos Argumentos Sociais aos Argumentos de Mercado. Rev. Tur. E Desenvolv. 2009, 11, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
- Gillovic, B.; McIntosh, A.; Darcy, S.; Cockburn-Wootten, C. Enabling the language of accessible tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 615–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michopoulou, E.; Buhalis, D. Stakeholder analysis of accessible tourism. In Acessible Tourism-Concepts and Issues; Darcy, S., Buhalis, D., Eds.; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011; pp. 260–273. [Google Scholar]
- Nyanjom, J.; Boxall, K.; Slaven, J. Towards inclusive tourism? Stakeholder collaboration in the development of accessible tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 20, 675–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheyvens, R.; Biddulph, R. Inclusive tourism development. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 20, 589–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morais de Brito, M.; Dias, A.; Patuleia, M. Managing, Marketing, and Maintaining Maritime and Coastal Tourism; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- WEF. Aqueduct, Measuring and Mapping Water Risk-Water Risk Atlas; WEF: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Darcy, S. Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People with a Physical Disability; Tourism New South Wales: Sydney, Australia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Darcy, S.; Dickson, T. A Whole-of-Life Approach to Tourism: The Case for Accessible Tourism Experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2009, 16, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turismo de Portugal. Manual de Gestão de Destinos Turísticos. Available online: http://business.turismodeportugal.pt/SiteCollectionDocuments/all-for-all/apresentacao-manual-destinos-turisticos-acessiveis-enat-mar-2017.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2022).
- Manguele, E.; Roque, V. Turismo Acessível: O caso de estudo da acessibilidade em hotéis portugueses. In Inovação, Gestão e Educação em Turismo e Hotelaria: Investigação Aplicada; Fernandes, G., Sardo, A., Martins, J.A., Melo, A., Eds.; Instituto Politécnico da Guarda: Guarda, Portugal, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gouveia, P.H.; Mendes, D.; Simões, J. Turismo Acessível em Portugal-lei, oportunidades económicas, informação. Inst. Nac. Para A Reabilitação IP Incl. Coleção Inf. 2010, 7, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Turismo de Portugal. Guia de Boas Práticas de Acessibilidade-Turismo Ativo; Federação Portuguesa de Desportos para Pessoas com Deficiência: Lisboa, Portugal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- SNRIPD. Acessibilidade para a Igualdade de Oportunidades–Guia de Boas Práticas; SNRIPD: Lisboa, Portugal, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Eichhorn, V.; Buhalis, D. A key objective for the tourism industry. In Accessible Tourism. Concept and Issues; Buhalis, D., Darcy, S., Eds.; Aspects of Tourism Series; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011; pp. 46–61. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. European Accessibility Act. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1202 (accessed on 22 January 2022).
- Gouveia, P.H.; Nave, P.; Simões, J.; Lopes, V.; Moço, S.; Rosado, S.; Cristóvão, H.; Marques, J.; Rodrigues, S. Plano de Acessibilidade Pedonal de Lisboa Fiscalização de Particulares Desafios Transversais. Available online: https://issuu.com/camara_municipal_lisboa/docs/plano_acessibilidade_vol_5_fiscaliz (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- Dias, Á.L.; Silva, R.; Patuleia, M.; Estêvão, J.; González-Rodríguez, M.R. Selecting lifestyle entrepreneurship recovery strategies: A response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2022, 22, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrose, I.; Garcia, A.; Papamichail, K.; Veitch, C. Manual de Gestão de Destinos Turísticos Acessíveis. Available online: https://www.chaves.pt/uploads/document/file/1460/manual-de-gestao-de-destinos-turisticos-acessiveis-pt.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- Turismo de Portugal. Guia de Boas Práticas de Acessibilidade na Hotelaria; Turismo de Portugal: Lisboa, Portugal, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- BMWA. Estímulos Económicos do Turismo Acessível para Todos. (Versão Portuguesa, Disponibilizada pelo Secretariado Nacional de Reabilitação e Integração da Pessoa com Deficiência); Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour: Berlin, Germany, 2004; não publicada. [Google Scholar]
- Turismo de Portugal. Turismo Acessível para Todos Recomendações da OMT. 20ª Assem Geral. Available online: https://business.turismodeportugal.pt/SiteCollectionDocuments/all-for-all/recomendacoes-omt-turismo-acessivel-para-todos.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- UNTWO. Manual on Accessible Tourism for All–Public-Private Partnerships and Good Practices. 2015. Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284416585 (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- Pereira, L.; Pinto, M.; Costa, R.L.D.; Dias, Á.; Gonçalves, R. The new SWOT for a sustainable world. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zsarnoczky, M. Accessible tourism in the European Union. In Proceedings of the 6th Central European Conference in Regional Science Conference Proceedings: “Engines of Urban and Regional Development”, Banska Bystrica, Slovak Republic, 20–22 September 2017; Faculty of Economics, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2017; pp. 30–39. [Google Scholar]
- UNWTO. Recommendations on Accessible Tourism for All; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2013; p. 3. [Google Scholar]
- Konstantakopoulou, I. Does health quality affect tourism? Evidence from system GMM estimates. Econ. Anal. Policy 2022, 73, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwyer, L.; Kim, C. Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Curr. Issues Tour. 2003, 6, 369–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritchie, J.R.; Crouch, G.I. A model of destination competitiveness/sustainability: Brazilian perspectives. Rev. De Adm. Pública 2010, 44, 1049–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kotler, P.; Bowen, J.; Makens, J. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Pereira, V.; Silva, G.M.; Dias, Á. Sustainability practices in hospitality: Case study of a luxury hotel in Arrábida Natural Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, Á.; Silva, G.M. Lifestyle Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Rural Areas: The Case of Tourism Entrepreneurs. J. Small Bus. Strategy 2021, 31, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 64–88. [Google Scholar]
- Fernando, I.N.; Long, W. New conceptual model on cluster competitiveness: A new paradigm for tourism? Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 7, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boes, K.; Buhalis, D.; Inversini, A. Smart tourism destinations: Ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2016, 2, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Townsend, A.M. Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, And the Quest for a New Utopia; W. W. Norton Company: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Rao, P. The price competitiveness oftravel and tourism: A comparison of 19 destinations. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huggins, R.; Thompson, P. Handbook of Regions and Competitiveness-Contemporary Theories and Perspectives on Economic Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Schwab, R. The Global Competitiveness Report. Committed to Improving the State of The World; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Omerzel, D.G. Competitiveness of Solvenia as a Tourist Destination. Manag. Glob. Transit. 2006, 4, 167–189. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, W.C. Global competitiveness measurement for the tourism sector. Curr. Issues Tour. 2009, 12, 105–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E. The competitive advantage of nations. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1990, 73, 91. [Google Scholar]
- Ritchie, J.; Crouch, G. The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, C.; Dwyer, L. Destination Competitiveness and Bilateral Tourism flows between Australia and Korea. J. Tour. Stud. 2003, 14, 55–67. [Google Scholar]
- Heath, E. Towards a model to enhance destination competitiveness: A Southern African perspective. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2003, 10, 124–141. [Google Scholar]
- Polat, N.; Hermans, E. A model proposed for sustainable accessible tourism (SAT). Tékhne 2016, 14, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Winters, L.A. Globalization, Infrastructure, and Inclusive Growth. ADBI Working Paper Series. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. 2014. Available online: http://www.adbi.org/workingpaper/2014/02/24/6176.globalization.infrastructure.inclusive.growth/ (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- Agarwal, S.; Shaw, G. Heritage, screen and literary tourism. In Heritage, Screen and Literary Tourism; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Go, F.M.; Govers, R. Integrated quality management for tourist destinations: A European perspective on achieving competitiveness. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiter, A. Liveable city–Sustainable quality of life as success driver for urban branding. In Trends and Issues in Tourism; Conrady, E.R., Buck, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 69–77. [Google Scholar]
- Castelli, G. Administração Hoteleira, 9th ed.; Coleção Hotelaria; EDUCS: Caxias do Sul, Brazil, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Balanzá, I.M. Organización Y Control del Alojamento; Internacional Thomas Editores Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Dalpiaz, R.C.C.; Dagostini, A.; Giacomini, D.M.; Giustina, M.G.S.D. A Hospitalidade no Turismo: O bem Receber. Available online: https://docplayer.com.br/185370-A-hospitalidade-no-turismo-o-bem-receber.html (accessed on 23 February 2022).
- MacCannell, D. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class; Schoken Books: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Gunn, G.A. Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions; Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas: Austin, TX, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Lew, A.A. A framework of tourist attraction research. Ann. Tour. Res. 1987, 14, 553–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sassaki, R.K. Inclusão No Lazer e No Turismo: Em Busca da Qualidade de Vida; Áurea Editora: São Paulo, Brazil, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Dias, Á.; Aldana, I.; Pereira, L.; Lopes da Costa, R.; António, N. A measure of tourist responsibility. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrod, B.; Fyall, A. Revisiting delphi: The delphi technique in tourism research. In Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice; Ritchie, B., Burns, P., Palmer, C., Eds.; CABI International: Wallingford, UK, 2005; pp. 85–98. [Google Scholar]
- Von Bergner, N.; Lohmann, M. Future Challenges for Global Tourism: A Delphi Survey. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, B.; Jones, M.; Hughes, D.; Williams, A. Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs information requirement. Health Soc. Care Community 1999, 7, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landeta, J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hara, T. Quantitative Tourism Industry Analysis. Introduction to Input-Output, Social Accounting Matrix Modeling and Tourism Satellite Accounts; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Wares, A.C.; Hadley, S.J. The Cluster Approach to Economic Development. Tech. Brief 2008, 7, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
Barrier Type | Presented Difficulty | Possible Solutions |
---|---|---|
Architectural | Physical Spaces e.g., lack of low kerbs or structures for easy access for people with reduced mobility. | Wide doors, adapted toilets, easy access, accessible means of transport |
Attitudinal | Attitude people show when relating to/serving tourists with disabilities e.g., discrimination. | Training courses for sector workers, service providers and decision-makers |
Communicational | Difficulty in communication with the disabled person e.g. lack of adequate signage and interpreters. | Use of raised or Braille signs and the hiring of staff with expertise in such areas. Innovation by managers, with the implementation of differentiated policies for different audiences. |
Methodological | Practices that do not take into account the needs of disabled people. | |
Instrumental | Tourist attractions that ignore the limitations of people with disabilities. | Suitability of appliances, equipment, tools and other devices that are part of the recreational facilities |
Programme | Prevent, or make it difficult, in practice for certain people to use leisure services. | Review of existing programmes, regulations, ordinances and standards, in order to ensure the exclusion of invisible barriers contained therein that may prevent or hinder the full participation of all persons, with or without disabilities, in leisure spaces and services |
Type of Entity | No. of Interviews |
---|---|
Public authorities (national, regional and local) | 2 |
Private entities | 3 |
Tourism Technical Consultant | 1 |
Professors and researchers specialised in tourism | 6 |
Total | 12 |
Type of Entities | No Reply |
---|---|
Public authorities (national, regional and local) | 2 |
Private entities | 4 |
Tourism Technical Consultant | 2 |
Professors and researchers specialised in tourism | 5 |
Total | 13 |
Dimension | Author | Author’s Issues | Adaptation to the Author’s Problematic Integrated in the Interview |
---|---|---|---|
Analyse the Tourist Competitiveness of a Tourist Destination | Hong’s model [41] | Investment in infrastructure, including accessibility projects, accommodation, transport, among others, are the most important functional bases of a destination, and are referred to as physical resources. | What factors and features influence tourists’ decision making towards a tourist destination? |
Wares and Hadley [65] | Competitiveness reflects a country’s ability to use resources in a way that enhances socio-economic competitiveness and people’s development. | In your opinion, what are Lisbon’s main competitors as a tourist destination? | |
Porter [42] | The model of competitiveness in tourism is the Diamond model, which represents how an economy, company and/or organisation can generate competitive advantage through four factors: Firm Strategy; Factor Conditions; Demand Conditions and Supporting Industries. | In your opinion the biggest competitors to the Portuguese Capital, are related to the local proximity in geographical terms, or to the similar dimensions to Lisbon? Why? | |
Lisbon’s competitiveness as a tourist destination | Schwas [39] | The analysis of the competitiveness of a tourist destination is presented by the tourism industry competitiveness index. The tourism industry competitiveness index is understood as the measurement of factors and policies that contribute to increasing the competitiveness of the tourism sector. | What are the fundamental elements to consider when analysing the tourist competitiveness of the city of Lisbon? |
Dwyer and Kim [28] | The competitiveness indicators of a destination can be categorised according to “Hard” (objectively or quantitatively measurable measures) or “Soft” (measures that relate to visitors’ perceptions and, therefore, tend to be more subjective or qualitative). | Taking into account the tourism destination competitiveness indicators of Dwyer and Kim (2003), how would you classify the following elements for the competitiveness of Lisbon (Likert Scale from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree) | |
Analyse the tourism competitiveness of a tourist destination taking into account the factors of inclusion | Manguele, and Roque, [11] | Inclusive tourism presupposes a transversal offer of infrastructures, facilities and services which allow everyone to enjoy travel, stay and leisure without barriers. A destination that is able to systematically ensure these conditions of accessibility will be called an accessible destination. | In your opinion, have the national and international entities made sufficient efforts to make infrastructures and services accessible to people with reduced mobility? |
Dweyer and Kim [28] | The competitiveness indicators of a destination can be categorised according to “Hard” (objectively or quantitatively measurable measures) or “Soft” (measures that relate to visitors’ perceptions and therefore tend to be more subjective or qualitative). | Taking into account the tourism destination competitiveness indicators of Dwyer and Kim (2003), how would you rate the following elements in terms of accessibility for people with reduced mobility? (Likert Scale from 1 to 5) | |
Turismo de Portugal [13] | The promotion of accessibility is an opportunity to innovate and to promote quality, sustainability and competitiveness, as well as a key point to achieve the four objectives referred to in the Lisbon European Council strategy: Increasing competitiveness; Achieving full employment; Strengthening social cohesion; Promoting sustainable development. | In your opinion, would Lisbon’s accessibility for people with reduced mobility influence its competitiveness as a tourist destination? |
Domain | Factors and Resources Influencing Tourists’ Decision-Making | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Analysis of the tourism competitiveness of a tourist destination | Costs and budgets available from the Tourist | 2 | 0.17 | 0.9 | 16.7% |
Country price–quality ratio (prices charged) | 7 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 58% | |
Tourist Experience/Living | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Motivations | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Tourist and Cultural Offer | 8 | 0.7 | 3.7 | 66.7% | |
Security | 8 | 0.7 | 3.7 | 66.7% | |
Health and Hygiene | 1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Quality of services and transport | 4 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 33% | |
Climate | 6 | 0.5 | 2.75 | 50% | |
Advertising and Marketing of the tourist destination | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Competitiveness reflects the ability of a country to use resources in a way that enhances socio-economic competitiveness and the development of people | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Southern European Cities | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Balance between hospitality and standard of living | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Cities with the same tourist offer | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Barcelona | 6 | 0.5 | 2.75 | 50% | |
London | 4 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 33.3% | |
Paris | 4 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 33.3% | |
Porto | 3 | 0.25 | 1.38 | 25% | |
Rome | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Madrid | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Are the biggest competitors to the Portuguese Capital, related to the local proximity in geographical terms, or to the similar dimensions to Lisbon? | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Both | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Time | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Costs | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Geographical Terms | 8 | 0.7 | 3.7 | 66.7% | |
Cultural Offer | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Accessibility | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% | |
Segments that the tourist dispute | 1 | 0.08 | 0.5 | 8.3% |
Dimension | Minimum Agreement (%) | Maximum Agreement (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Analyse the Tourist Competitiveness of a Tourist Destination | Factors and resources influencing tourists’ decision-making | 8.3% | 66.7% |
Competitiveness reflects the ability of a country to use resources in a way that enhances socio-economic competitiveness and the development of people. | 8.3% | 50% | |
Are the biggest competitors to the Portuguese Capital related to the local proximity in geographical terms, or to the similar dimensions to Lisbon? | 8.3% | 66.7% |
Domain | Key Elements to Consider in Tourism Competitiveness Analysis | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lisbon’s competitiveness as a tourist destination | Hospitality and reception conditions | 6 | 0.5 | 2.75 | 50% |
Affordable prices | 7 | 0.58 | 3.2 | 58.3% | |
Environmental sustainability | 1 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 8.3% | |
Security | 7 | 0.58 | 3.2 | 58.3% | |
Tourist, cultural and natural infrastructures and activities to be developed | 7 | 0.58 | 3.2 | 58.3% | |
Hygiene and Health | 1 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 8.3% | |
Accessibility | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Positioning, competition and target | 1 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 8.3% | |
Gastronomic Offer | 2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 16.7% | |
Climate | 1 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 8.3% | |
Elements for Lisbon’s competitiveness | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Natural Resources | 12 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 61.7% | |
Cultural Resources | 12 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 93.3% | |
Tourism Infrastructure | 12 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 73.3% | |
Range of Activities | 12 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 85% | |
General infrastructure | 12 | 3.7 | 0.8 | 73.3% | |
Quality of services | 12 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 81.7% | |
Accessibility | 12 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 68.3% | |
Hospitality | 12 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 95% | |
Entertainment | 12 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 78.4% | |
Market Links | 12 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 70% | |
Demand Factors | 12 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 70% | |
Tourism organisation and management | 12 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 71.7% | |
Marketing Management | 12 | 4 | 0.9 | 80% | |
Prices | 12 | 4.4 | 0.7 | 88.3% | |
Environment | 12 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 81.7% | |
Security | 12 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 85% |
Domain | Dimension | Minimum Agreement (%) | Maximum Agreement (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Lisbon’s competitiveness as a tourist destination | Key elements to consider in tourism competitiveness analysis | 8.33% | 58.33% |
Elements for Lisbon’s competitiveness | 68.30% | 95% |
Domain | National and International Bodies have made Sufficient Efforts to make Infrastructure and Services Accessible to People with Mobility | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Analyse the tourism competitiveness of a tourist destination taking into account the factors of inclusion | Yes | 3 | 0.25 | 1.4 | 25% |
No | 9 | 0.75 | 4.1 | 75% | |
How do the following elements rate in terms of accessibility for people with reduced mobility? | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Natural Resources | 12 | 2.75 | 0.98 | 55% | |
Cultural Resources | 12 | 3.33 | 0.99 | 66.7% | |
Tourism Infrastructure | 12 | 2.9 | 1.07 | 58.3% | |
Range of Activities | 12 | 2.4 | 0.82 | 48.3% | |
General infrastructure | 12 | 2.75 | 1.25 | 55% | |
Quality of services | 12 | 2.75 | 1.12 | 55% | |
Accessibility | 12 | 2.75 | 1.12 | 45% | |
Hospitality | 12 | 3.7 | 0.84 | 74.2% | |
Entertainment | 12 | 2.5 | 1.07 | 50% | |
Market Links | 12 | 2.75 | 0.42 | 55% | |
Demand Factors | 12 | 2.6 | 0.73 | 51.7% | |
Tourism organisation and management | 12 | 2.9 | 0.92 | 58.3% | |
Marketing Management | 12 | 2.1 | 0.99 | 41.7% | |
Prices | 12 | 3.2 | 0.95 | 63.3% | |
Environment | 12 | 3.25 | 1.47 | 65% | |
Security | 12 | 3.2 | 1.46 | 63.3% | |
Would Lisbon’s accessibility for people with reduced mobility influence its competitiveness as a tourist destination? | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Yes | 12 | 1 | 5.5 | 100 | |
No | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Domain | Dimension | Minimum Agreement (%) | Maximum Agreement (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Analyse the tourism competitiveness of a tourist destination taking into account the factors of inclusion | National and international bodies have made sufficient efforts to make infrastructure and services accessible to people with mobility | 25% | 75% |
How do the following elements rate in terms of accessibility for people with reduced mobility? | 41.67% | 74.17% | |
Would Lisbon’s accessibility for people with reduced mobility influence its competitiveness as a tourist destination? | 0% | 100% |
Elements Considered Fundamental for Lisbon’s Competitiveness: | Maximum Agreement (%) |
---|---|
-Cultural Resources; -Range of Activities; -Quality of services; -Hospitality; -Entertainment; -Marketing Management; -Prices; -Environment; -Safety. | 95% |
National and international entities have made sufficient efforts to make infrastructure and services accessible to persons with reduced mobility. | 75% |
The accessibility of the city of lisbon for people with reduced mobility influences the competitiveness of a destination. | 100% |
Domain | Classification of Factors and Resources that Influence Decision Making in Relation to a Tourist Destination | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Analysis of the tourism competitiveness of a tourist destination | Available costs/budgets | 12 | 4.1 | 0.3 | 81.7% |
Quality/price ratio | 12 | 4.6 | 0.5 | 91.7% | |
Experience living in the destination | 12 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 98.3% | |
Motivations | 12 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 95% | |
Terrain conditions to carry out activities (tourist and cultural offer) | 12 | 5 | 0 | 100% | |
Climatic conditions | 12 | 4 | 0.8 | 80% | |
Promotion and marketing of a tourist destination | 12 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 88.3% | |
Safety, Hygiene and Health | 12 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 96.7% | |
Importance of the elements to be considered in the analysis of tourism competitiveness | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Hospitality | 12 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 93.3% | |
Environmental Sustainability | 12 | 2.75 | 0.7 | 55% | |
Affordability/lower standard of living | 12 | 4.75 | 0.4 | 95% | |
Safety, hygiene and security | 12 | 4.75 | 0.4 | 95% | |
Tourist, cultural and natural infrastructures, activities to be developed | 12 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 90% | |
Accessibility and transport | 12 | 4.6 | 0.5 | 91.7% | |
Positioning | 12 | 5 | 0 | 100% | |
Gastronomic offer | 12 | 4 | 0 | 80% | |
Meteorological conditions | 12 | 4 | 0.4 | 80% |
Dimension | Minimum Agreement (%) | Maximum Agreement (%) | Average Responses |
---|---|---|---|
What are the factors and resources that most influence tourists’ decision making in relation to a tourist destination? | 80.00% | 98.30% | 4.6 |
The importance of the elements to be considered in analysing tourism competitiveness | 55.00% | 100.00% | 4.3 |
Domain | Which Cities Do You Consider Lisbon’s Biggest Competitors as a Tourist Destination | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lisbon’s competitiveness as a tourist destination | European Cities/Capitals with the same tourism offer | 12 | 4.8 | 0.35 | 96.7% |
Southern European Cities | 12 | 4.25 | 0.4 | 85% | |
Cities in Spain due to geographical proximity | 12 | 4 | 0.56 | 80% | |
Other Portuguese cities | 12 | 4.4 | 0.47 | 88.3 | |
What are the characteristics of these cities that are most important for competition with the Portuguese capital? | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
Geographical terms (proximity) | 12 | 4.8 | 0.35 | 96.7% | |
Socio-economic characteristics | 12 | 4.75 | 0.42 | 95% | |
Similar dimensions | 12 | 2.75 | 0.42 | 55% | |
Segment of tourist demand | 12 | 4 | 0 | 80% |
Dimension | Minimum Agreement (%) | Maximum Agreement (%) | Average Responses |
---|---|---|---|
Major cities competing with Lisbon as a tourist destination. | 80.00% | 96.70% | 4.4 |
Characteristics of these cities are more important for the competition of the Portuguese capital. | 55.00% | 96.70% | 4.1 |
Domain | Although National Entities Are Making Efforts to Make Tourism Infrastructures and Services Accessible, They Are Still Not Enough and It Should Be a Matter of Greater Importance | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 | 4.7 | 0.45 | 93.3% | ||
Analyse the tourism competitiveness of a tourist destination taking into account the inclusion factors | Most accessible elements for people with reduced mobility | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % |
Natural resources | 12 | 2.6 | 0.47 | 51.7% | |
Cultural resources | 12 | 3.75 | 0.69 | 75% | |
Tourism infrastructures | 12 | 4.2 | 0.36 | 83.3% | |
Range of activities | 12 | 3.8 | 0.36 | 76.7% | |
General Infrastructure | 12 | 4.3 | 0.45 | 86.7% | |
Quality of Services | 12 | 3.75 | 0.4 | 75% | |
Accessibility | 12 | 3.2 | 0.36 | 63% | |
Accommodation | 12 | 4.1 | 0.27 | 81.7% | |
Entertainment | 12 | 4.5 | 0.48 | 90% | |
Marketing Management | 12 | 3.25 | 0.41 | 65% | |
The city of Lisbon could do more to be accessible for people with reduced mobility | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
12 | 4.59 | 0.47 | 91.7% | ||
If the city of lisbon does more in terms of accessibility for people with reduced mobility it will be more competitive in relation to other european cities/capitals | N | Average | Standard Deviation | % | |
12 | 4.3 | 0.45 | 86.7% |
Dimension | Minimum Agreement (%) | Maximum Agreement (%) |
---|---|---|
Although national entities are making efforts to make tourism infrastructures and services accessible, they are still not enough and it should be a matter of greater importance. | --------- | 93% |
Elements that most present accessibility for people with reduced mobility? | 51.70% | 90% |
The city of Lisbon could do more to be accessible for people with reduced mobility. | ---------- | 92% |
If the city of lisbon does more in terms of accessibility for people with reduced mobility it will be more competitive in relation to other european cities/capitals. | ---------- | 86.70% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rebelo, S.; Patuleia, M.; Dias, Á. Inclusive Tourism: Assessing the Accessibility of Lisbon as a Tourist Destination. Tour. Hosp. 2022, 3, 466-495. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3020030
Rebelo S, Patuleia M, Dias Á. Inclusive Tourism: Assessing the Accessibility of Lisbon as a Tourist Destination. Tourism and Hospitality. 2022; 3(2):466-495. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3020030
Chicago/Turabian StyleRebelo, Sandra, Mafalda Patuleia, and Álvaro Dias. 2022. "Inclusive Tourism: Assessing the Accessibility of Lisbon as a Tourist Destination" Tourism and Hospitality 3, no. 2: 466-495. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3020030