Examining the structural relationships between perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty among disabled tourists in two world heritage sites

Tourism is a significant global revenue source, with over 960 million international travellers in 2022, marking a remarkable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic (UNWTO, 2022, 2023a). Accessible tourism is also a business opportunity (UNWTO, 2023b), given that an estimated 1.3 billion people have disabilities. This number indicates that one in three older adults is a person with a disability, with the highest prevalence observed in Europe and America (WHO, 2022).

This study is focused on World Heritage Sites (WHS), the designation given to locations that possess outstanding universal value to humanity (UNESCO, 2023). Cultural heritage sites, museums and galleries play a special role in encouraging immersion in cultural life and fostering social cohesion and inclusion (Mastrogiuseppe et al., 2021). Recognising the right of people with disabilities (PwD) to participate in cultural life on an equal basis with people without disabilities (United Nations, 2006) is essential to creating products and services appropriate for all at the heritage destination. Tourists with disabilities should be able to visit heritage attractions on equal terms and have comparable experiences to all other visitors (Goodall, 2006).

Academic interest in accessible tourism has increased over the last two decades (Chen and Chen, 2012; Sarmah et al., 2022; Stumbo and Pegg, 2005), and this market is still growing due to the potential of COVID-19 long-term health impacts that may increase the prevalence of disability (Pomeroy, 2021).

The perceived value, satisfaction (SAT) and loyalty (LOY) of tourists without disabilities have been studied in the tourism literature (Chen and Chen, 2010; Pandža Bajs, 2015; Valverde-Roda et al., 2022; Wu and Li, 2017; Zhang et al., 2022). The relationships between perceived value, SAT and LOY have been addressed in previous studies to compare the behaviour of people with and without disabilities. These are focused on religious destinations (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016) and outdoor recreation (Humagain and Singleton, 2021). However, there seems to be a lack of research to understand the behaviour of tourists with disabilities in heritage sites and to analyse the impact of perceived value factors on SAT and LOY. If they understood tourists’ behaviour, destination tourism managers would have a better idea about how to develop their marketing strategies to optimise the efficient use of their available resources (Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2015). Specifically, the evaluation of the behaviour of PwD is critical for the improvement of the accessibility of products and services in tourism destinations (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2022), and it may be crucial in the cultural context of WHS. Consequently, this research may be especially useful for cultural tourism stakeholders, such as curators or public cultural entities, to understand PwD needs (Mastrogiuseppe et al., 2021) and create safe environments for them.

In light of this, the objective of this study is twofold:

1. to explore the dimensions of perceived value in heritage sites so as to understand how tourists with disabilities value these places; and

2. to examine the differences in behaviour in different WHS (i.e. Quito and Cuenca) and establish which factors of perceived value influence tourists with disabilities’ SAT and LOY.

This research is based on two WHS located in Ecuador. The city of Quito was declared a WHS in 1978 and the Historic Centre of Cuenca in 1999 (UNESCO, 2021). Ecuador is also the first Latin American country to receive an award for universal accessibility from the French Design for All Foundation, demonstrating that accessibility has been important for the country’s strategy recently (Cancillería del Ecuador, 2015).

After this introduction, a review is conducted of the theoretical background of the constructs of perceived value, SAT and LOY and their relationships, and the research hypotheses are formulated. Then, the methodological approach is presented. The components of this research are developed considering previous literature (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006; Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016; Pandža Bajs, 2015; Zhang et al., 2022), and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM) are developed to confirm the dimensions of these components and test their relationships. Finally, results, conclusions, a discussion and implications are presented.

PwD are defined as those with long-term mental, physical, intellectual or sensory impairments (United Nations, 2006). PwD experiences are often very different from those of people without disabilities. In heritage sites, it is usually less of an experience due to numerous diversions and inaccessible areas (Pearn, 2010). In addition, the disability market has been acknowledged as the largest and the fastest-growing market segment of the travel and tourism industry (Gassiot et al., 2018; WHO, 2022; World Tourism Organization, 2016), specifically within the cultural and heritage sector (Pegg and Stumbo, 2008). It has been identified as a growing group of paying and discerning customers looking for opportunities to participate in several heritage tourism activities. This literature review focuses on three main aspects of PwD behaviour and their relationships: perceived value, SAT and LOY.

The construct of perceived value results from assessing costs and benefits related to an offering (Paulose and Shakeel, 2022). This construct helps tourism companies know how visitors value their services (Carrascosa-López et al., 2021). Previous studies have focused on the perceived value of tourists in general. Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) examine the underlying factors affecting perceived value of university students’ travel behaviour. The results identified service quality, social value, play and aesthetics as contributing dimensions to perceived value. Similarly, a previous study analysed the behaviour of tourists in a Croatian historical heritage city, Pandža Bajs (2015). It found six dimensions: quality of tourist services, destination appearance, emotional experience, reputation and monetary and non-monetary costs (MNC). In addition, for the general behaviour of tourists in WHS, in a study about perceived value, Valverde-Roda et al. (2022) found that it included 15 indicators related to beauty, accessibility to buildings and monuments, tourist information, service and quality, value for money, diversity, cleanliness, opportunity to buy handicrafts, complementary offer, security, transport services and heritage conservation.

Although perceived value is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage, it varies across people and situations (Gallarza and Gil, 2008). While tourists with and without disabilities have the same desire to travel, travelling poses unique challenges for tourists with disabilities (Yau et al., 2004). Consequently, heritage tourism operators, to differentiate themselves, must be willing to offer better-perceived value for PwD than their competitors (Pegg and Stumbo, 2012). Despite this relevance, research on perceived value among PwD is scarce. Gassiot-Melian et al. (2016) evaluate and compare the perceived value of accessibility for people with and without disabilities at religious destinations (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016) but, to date, no studies have been found that analyse the multidimensional construct of the perceived value of PwD in WHS. In this context, it is essential to consider that there are needs and services that, if fulfilled and improved appropriately, will create a high perceived value in heritage tourism (Pegg and Stumbo, 2012).

In summary, previous studies have analysed relevant factors such as MNC, staff service quality (SSQ) and destination attractiveness (DA) for the non-disability market in tourist destinations. In comparison, no studies have analysed the perceived value factors of disabled tourists in WHS. In this study, before explaining the effects of perceived value on other components of PwD behaviour, and as stated in the first objective of this paper, perceived value dimensions are addressed.

SAT refers to an assessment made by the consumer between earlier formed expectations and the result derived from the consumption of that product or service (Forgas-Coll et al., 2012).

Previous research has studied the relationship between perceived value and SAT in the tourism sector in general and proved that perceived value has a positive impact on SAT (Carrascosa-López et al., 2021; Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006; Lee et al., 2007; Pandža Bajs, 2015; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2016). In these studies, specific perceived value dimensions linked to price (Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019), DA (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020) and quality factors (Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019) have a positive impact on SAT.

Notwithstanding, there are prior studies that identify the attributes that can add value and produce a high level of SAT in the tourism experience for PwD. On the one hand, Buhalis and Darcy (2011) state that the accessibility of the destination and the information are decisive elements to have satisfactory holiday experiences in the destination, and Gassiot-Melian et al. (2016) suggest that the perceived value of accessibility has a positive and direct impact on SAT. On the other hand, pricing decisions (Burnett and Baker, 2001), staff attitudes towards disabled tourists (Chang and Chen, 2012; Zhang and Cole, 2016) and the fulfilment of information needs (Eichhorn et al., 2008) may also lead to higher SAT.

Despite all this research on PwD, until now, the factors of perceived value that impact their SAT and their relationship have not been assessed in a WHS, which encourages the formulation of the following hypotheses:

The research model posited is reflected in Figure 1.

LOY is conceptualised and evaluated by both behavioural and attitudinal measures (Rather et al., 2019). SAT is found to affect LOY directly and positively (Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019). For PwD, previous studies confirm that they are more loyal to the offerings when satisfied (Bowtell, 2015; Burnett and Baker, 2001; Domínguez Vila et al., 2019). Therefore, in line with the previous literature, a hypothesis is proposed as follows:

In general, multiple studies have been accumulated on the relationship between perceived value and LOY (Damanik and Yusuf, 2022; Lee et al., 2007; Paulose and Shakeel, 2022; Valverde-Roda et al., 2022).

In the perceived value models of people without disabilities, price (El-Adly, 2019), service quality (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006) and DA factors (Um et al., 2006; Vigolo, 2015) have a positive impact on LOY. Even though studies have been carried out on the relationship between factors of perceived value and LOY of tourists without disabilities, to date, there is little research in the literature that evaluates perceived value factors and their direct impact on LOY of PwD. In a study on outdoor recreation trips, Humagain and Singleton (2021) found that the overall perceived value and SAT significantly impact the recommendation intention. This relationship between perceived value and LOY is interesting to analyse as, for example, PwD return to the providers that offer a completely accessible experience, increasing LOY (Ambrose et al., 2012), and once functional and accessible facilities and services are ensured, they recommend and promote them to their friends and relatives (Navarro et al., 2014). Therefore, to explore the effect of perceived value on LOY, the hypotheses arise as follows:

A quantitative methodology was applied through a structured questionnaire based on previous studies, as shown in Table 1. The questions and factors/items in the questionnaire were taken from the previous studies specified in this table and were adapted and reworded according to the conclusions of the focus group, as explained below.

First, a focus group was conducted online in March 2020 with the aim of adapting the items from previous studies (Table 1) to this research. The participants were 11 senior university researchers who have previous experience in accessible tourism projects and WHS. An initial list of items to evaluate the conceptual components of the behavioural model (i.e. perceived value, SAT and LOY) extracted from previous literature was presented in the focus group to discuss them. Participants were asked about the appropriateness of these items and the need to include additional elements to cover these behavioural components. This focus group resulted in the adaptation of the items for PwD in WHS and the incorporation of two new factors of perceived value: TOA and IA.

Second, an on-site survey of PwD was developed with the following structure. Initially, the perceived value, SAT and LOY questions were formulated on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Then, the multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions related to sociodemographic aspects were formulated. Finally, the disability profile questions included the type and level of disability, the need for an assistant and the need for devices.

Data were collected in situ by two interviewers trained for the occasion on weekdays and weekends in October, November and the first week of December 2020. In Quito, 150 valid questionnaires were collected, and in Cuenca, 184 valid questionnaires were considered for the data analysis. Only tourists with disabilities were part of the sample. A sample of national tourists with disabilities was contacted through support centres for PwD in Ecuador, and national and international tourists were contacted through hotels in the destination. The surveys were agreed to be taken after they visited and were leaving the tourist attractions in the city of Quito and the Historic Centre of Cuenca to ensure they could evaluate the perceived value after having the tourism experience. The classification of disability levels and typologies used in this study were based on their own perception of the constrained abilities and to what extent they felt them.

The estimation of minimum sample size has been calculated using Soper’s statistics calculator, which is required for this study because it applies a SEM (Soper, 2022). Regarding the number of observed variables (24), the number of latent variables (7), the anticipated effect size (0.3), the desired statistical power level (0.8) and the probability level (0.05), the minimum sample size for model structure was deemed to be 145 for each destination.

The SPSS statistical software (version 25) was used for the descriptive analysis of the sample. In contrast, the AMOS software (version 24) was used for the CFA, and the hypotheses were tested via SEM. The constructs' reliability and validity were measured using composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and discriminant validity.

This section uses CFA to assess the reliability and validity of perceived value, SAT and LOY. Then, SEM is used to test the hypotheses of the study.

Regarding the respondents’ profile, there are more males than females in the WHS of Quito and Cuenca (55.3% and 55.4%, respectively). Similarly, more than half of visitors with disabilities of both WHS are more than 60 years old (57.3% and 65.7% for Quito and Cuenca, respectively), as seen in Table 2. Finally, the general profile of the visitors with disabilities is shown in Table 3.

The CFA is used to confirm the factor loadings of the three constructs: perceived value factors, SAT and LOY, and to evaluate the model fit. First, the standardised factor loadings of items were found to be significant (p < 0.001) for the two groups with disabilities for the perceived value (see Table 4). Thus, the perceived value factors were validated in this study. The standardised factor loadings of SAT and LOY included in the analysis were statistically significant (p < 0.001) in the different destinations (i.e. Quito and Cuenca), as seen in Tables 5 and 6.

The fit indices evaluate the model’s adequacy. Accordingly, the model fit shows that the measurement model is within the acceptable level for the city of Quito: (x² = 344.234, df = 209, x²/df = 1.647, TLI = 0.932, CFI = 0.944, p-value = 0.021, SRMR = 0.061, RMSEA = 0.066). Similarly, the model fit for Cuenca is within the acceptable level (x² = 369.285, df = 210, x²/df = 1.758, TLI = 0.951, CFI = 0.959, p-value = 0.017, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.064). Furthermore, CFA results demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity.

Second, the composite reliability for Quito ranges from 0.811 to 0.969 and for Cuenca from 0.840 to 0.965, along with their coefficients of Cronbach’s alpha, surpassing the critical value of 0.7 and representing adequate estimations for both WHS, as seen in Tables 7 and 8. Third, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all the constructs for Quito ranges between 0.512 and 0.939, and for Cuenca, between 0.637 and 0.921. Both values are above the recommended value of 0.5. Finally, all the coefficients of the construct’s square root of the AVE were higher than their intercorrelation coefficients in both WHS. Hence, the measurement models for both heritage sites are consistent and significant in evaluating the structural association among the constructs.

The SEM is conducted with a maximum likelihood estimation method to test the causal relationship between perceived value factors, SAT and LOY. The structural model results indicate an acceptable level of the model fit for Quito and Cuenca, as seen in Table 9.

Regarding the second objective of this study, the results showed some differences in behaviour between tourists with disabilities depending on the destination (Table 10). Accordingly, the factors of perceived value generating a positive impact on SAT tended to be different in Quito than in Cuenca, except for the MNC factor, which is the only factor that has a positive and significant impact on the SAT of PwD in both heritage destinations. On the one hand, the WHS of Quito has TOA and SSQ as the significant factors contributing to SAT. On the other hand, the WHS of Cuenca has IA and DA as the significant influencing factors on SAT. Nevertheless, no differences were found when evaluating the perceived value factors influencing LOY. Both groups asserted that TOA was the only significant factor of perceived value that determines LOY. Additionally, SAT has a positive and significant impact on LOY in both destinations.

Figures 2 and 3 summarise the results of hypothesis testing in terms of intensity. Results show that MNC was the most salient predictor of SAT for PwD in Quito; contrary to Cuenca, the most contributing factor of SAT was IA. The analysis also shows that TOA is the only significant predictor of LOY for PwD in both destinations.

This study’s first aim concerns the factors that constitute the perceived value of PwD in heritage sites. Findings suggested a five-dimensional structural framework of perceived value, including these factors: monetary and non-monetary costs, SSQ, DA, TOA and IA. These results are similar to those of Valverde-Roda et al. (2022), Pandža Bajs (2015) and Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006).

In general, when testing the relationships in the models, results show which factors of perceived value influence SAT and LOY of PwD. The results coincide with previous research on the following precedents of SAT and LOY: monetary and non-monetary costs (Burnett and Baker, 2001; Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019); tourist offer accessibility (Buhalis and Darcy, 2011; Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016); SSQ (Chang and Chen, 2012; Eid, 2015; El-Adly, 2019; Zhang and Cole, 2016); IA (Buhalis and Darcy, 2011; Eichhorn et al., 2008); and DA (Nguyen Viet et al., 2020). In addition, in general, a positive and significant effect of SAT on LOY is found. This result is in line with previous studies that showed that PwD are loyal to tourist offerings when they are satisfied with the service and products received (Bowtell, 2015; Burnett and Baker, 2001; Domínguez Vila et al., 2019; Humagain and Singleton, 2021).

Despite these coincidences with previous research, when testing this study’s second aim, which is about examining the differences in behaviour of PwD in different WHS in Ecuador (i.e. Quito and Cuenca), some differences are found.

First, findings showed that the perceived value factors that impact SAT differed between the two destinations, except for the factor of monetary and non-monetary costs. In Quito, this perceived value is based on tourist offer accessibility and service quality, while in Cuenca, it is based on IA and DA. This means that Quito and Cuenca may satisfy different types of tourists with varying preferences and expectations. On the one hand, in Quito, SSQ and TOA exert a positive impact on SAT of PwD visiting the city. This corroborates that accessibility must go beyond physical infrastructure evaluation and improvement (Michopoulou and Buhalis, 2013) and that accessible tourism experience development must be ensured (Darcy et al., 2020). In Quito, where recent policies and strategies may have been focused on physical infrastructure improvement and accessibility and staff training as well, they are now seeing PwD visiting the city and perceiving other benefits in their experiences that go beyond that, such as accessible information provision and attractiveness at this WHS. On the other hand, in Cuenca, DA and IA exert a direct influence on SAT among PwD. This corroborates that content integration, personalisation and accessible online information are basic to ensuring dignified tourism experiences (Michopoulou and Buhalis, 2013). It also coincides with the fact that DA is important, but only when visitors’ special needs are accommodated can the extension and diversification of accessible facilities and services be addressed (Lee and King, 2019). In Cuenca, this may be because they are still focusing on information provision and DA. However, because these are still not significant to predict their SAT among PwD, they need to focus on the provision of accessible products and services and on staff training in the future.

Second, predecessors of LOY in the two WHS were similar. On the one hand, TOA is the only item of perceived value with direct and significant effect on LOY, and, on the other hand, SAT positively influences LOY in both WHS. This result coincides with past research (Ambrose et al., 2012; Navarro et al., 2014), which found that offering accessible experiences increases PwD LOY. In this context, it seems that the characteristics and differences between destinations do not change the importance of ensuring a good and accessible tourist offer when predicting their positive future intentions. So, as stated in other studies (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016), PwD express positive behavioural intentions once their needs are met and they are satisfied.

Among the theoretical contributions, this study is the first attempt to evaluate the perceived value of tourists with disabilities at cultural heritage destinations, where the disability market often has less of an experience than tourists without disabilities. Thus, this research extends the tourism literature by incorporating five validated factors of the perceived value of tourists with disabilities in heritage destinations: monetary and non-monetary costs, SSQ, DA, TOA and IA. Also, this study contributes to the literature by identifying that the monetary and non-monetary and IA factors contribute most to creating SAT for tourists with disabilities in cultural heritage destinations. Thus, this study provides evidence that effective price policies, the reduction of time and effort in acquiring the tourist offering, and the quantity and quality of accessible information are the more prominent factors for consumers with disabilities when evaluating the tourism experiences in cultural heritage destinations. Also, this study contributes to the extant literature by identifying the TOA factor in creating LOY among tourists with disabilities in cultural heritage sites. In other words, the fact that tourists with disabilities perceive good accessibility is crucial for them to make recommendations, say positive things and return to the destination. Furthermore, prior research has advocated for assessing the behaviour of tourists with disabilities in various destinations, including their perceptions, SAT and LOY, while considering the potential variations that may emerge (Gassiot-Melian et al., 2016). This study aimed to fill this research gap by examining the differences in behaviour between two specific destinations and providing evidence to support the existence of these variations.

As for practical implications, this study’s main contribution to companies is that it shows which factors of perceived value led to SAT for tourists with disabilities in Quito (monetary and non-monetary costs, SSQ and TOA) and in Cuenca (MNC, DA and IA). This information is helpful for tourism companies of Quito to improve their pricing policies and reduce time and effort for tourists with disabilities, as well as for disability organisations and national entities with tourist companies to provide customer service training to receive PwD. This information is also of interest to Quito’s private and public tourism companies that want to implement accessibility in their tourism offerings. In coordination with the municipality of Quito, the national tourism authority should also periodically monitor the accessibility of tourist offerings, transportation and services to make tourism accessible and cultural destinations more inclusive. For example, it could be done through periodical internal or external audits and the subsequent analysis of PwD perceptions of the implemented changes. This close monitoring is important to quickly respond to changes in the market, both related to supply and demand needs and preferences.

Tourism companies in Cuenca should create pricing strategies and reduce the time and effort spent acquiring tourist offerings to appeal to tourists with disabilities. The destination management organisation of Cuenca should also promote a variety of cultural, urban, natural and historical attractions to ensure that tourists with disabilities have a satisfying visit. Furthermore, tourism companies should provide accessible tourist offerings (e.g. visits to churches and museums) through their websites by mentioning what types of disabilities are accommodated by their tourist services and announcing whether the places they promote are accessible. In that way, tourists with disabilities can organise their trips better. Furthermore, the national tourism authority should keep providing information through its “virtual accessible tourism guide” webpage. Policymakers and DMOs should also consider web accessibility for tourists with disabilities, as this is a heterogeneous group with different types of disabilities. In this sense, they need to both consider the accessible tourism services and products offered and the accessible format of the information provided. Finally, the tourism companies of Quito and Cuenca should make their tourist offerings accessible and, for example, adapt the physical environment for people with special access needs (e.g. ramps, hand railings, etc.). This is crucial to creating LOY in the disability market at cultural heritage sites.

The findings of this study propose that TOA is the factor that contributes most to LOY. Therefore, incorporating accessibility measures in a heritage destination is a means of effectively honouring and safeguarding the fundamental rights of PwD to participate in cultural life. Recognising the rights of PwD is one of the most important goals for modern society. Accessible tourist offerings facilitate the social integration of PwD into the broader community, encouraging interaction, understanding and acceptance among people of different abilities and promoting a more inclusive society.

Furthermore, accessible tourist offerings cater not only to PwD but also to a broader range of people who will enjoy universal access to these destinations, such as families with young children, pregnant women, people with temporary mobility disabilities, etc., leaving no one behind.

This study is not without its limitations. A convenience sample was used in the data collection because of the ease of access to the data during the pandemic of COVID-19. Additionally, as this study was conducted in the low season, our findings were limited to that season. Future researchers can perform a similar analysis during the high season and compare the behaviour of tourists with disabilities during the low and high seasons in a heritage destination. In addition, perceived value has been measured by considering factors linked to the generic definition of costs and benefits. However, other dimensions or items that may be specific or different for PwD and, consequently, capture the essence of this group (e.g. social or emotional perceived value) should be considered in further studies.

This study has focused on two WHS of Ecuador (Quito and Cuenca); further studies can focus on other WHS to understand their variations in perception of values and their influence on SAT and behavioural intentions among tourists with disabilities. In addition, future research should focus on the individualities and needs of PwD according to type/degree of disability, etc. Finally, further inquiry into group differences between tourists with and without disabilities will be necessary to better understand if the perceived value factors affect tourists’ behaviour, depending on whether they have a disability or not.

Funding: Open Access funding was provided thanks to the CSUC–UdG agreement with Emerald.