Next Article in Journal
Increased Humidity Improved Desert Riparian Ecosystems in the Tarim River Basin, Northwest China, from 1990 to 2020
Previous Article in Journal
How to Promote a Destination’s Sustainable Development? The Influence of Service Encounters on Tourists’ Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914093
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism Development: The Case of the Cross-Border Area of Greece–Republic of Northern Macedonia

by
Dimitris Kourkouridis
* and
Asimenia Salepaki
Business and Exhibition Research and Development Institute, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14093; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914093
Submission received: 10 August 2023 / Revised: 18 September 2023 / Accepted: 21 September 2023 / Published: 22 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cross-border cooperation is an important factor for the sustainability of border areas, while the accessibility of tourism businesses enhances inclusiveness in tourism. This article presents the results obtained from the comparative analysis of the accessibility of tourism businesses in the cross-border area of Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia. The results show room for improvement, but also a great willingness to invest in business accessibility and staff training. Similarities and differences were also identified between the statuses of accessibility in the two countries. These results are particularly useful for the development of cooperation between the two countries, in order to create a single accessible tourist product, with the ultimate goal of differentiating the destinations and obtaining a competitive advantage, in the context of sustainable tourism development.

1. Introduction

Designing inclusive spaces presupposes accessibility, which is often hampered by environmental barriers that are essentially as much of a disability as the impairment itself [1,2]. Especially in the built environment, the existence of barriers limits the participation of persons with disabilities (PwD) in a large number of activities [3]. A particularly important human activity is tourism. The motivations of PwD to participate in tourism are common to other groups of the population, for example gaining emotional, intellectual, and social benefits. However, there are also some unique motivations in these individuals, such as a sense of independence [4,5]. Although PwD participate less in tourism than people without disabilities, research shows that they feel more life satisfaction from their participation, especially when the experience is more active [6].
Tourism for PwD is a research field that began to concern researchers in the late 1980s [7] when it was realized that although these people have equal rights to travel, they have to face a series of obstacles [8]. Within the broader approach of social tourism, it was found that opportunities for participation in tourism should be ensured for everyone in society, while access to tourism should be considered a right for all people [9]. Based on this ideological understanding, social tourism is seen as inherent in a sustainable tourism system [10]. According to the World Health Organization, accessibility is considered with a broader perspective that combines sustainable and social tourism, in a form of tourism that includes everyone [11].
By definition, social tourism refers to people for whom travel is a challenging experience [12]. The barriers and constraints faced by the elderly and PwD during their participation in tourism have been thoroughly studied [8,13,14,15]. The barriers vary greatly and affect PwD with varying intensity. However, barriers are found to be largely dependent on the type of disability [8]. The present article focuses on persons with mobility impairments, including seniors, who often face significant barriers that prevent them from participating in tourism. According to a European Commission study [16], almost half of PwD do not participate in tourism due to three factors: lack of reliable information, lack of financial resources, and previous unpleasant experiences. So, in part, the lower demand for tourism participation is due to inaccessible services [5,17,18,19], but also due to attitudinal barriers [19,20,21,22]. Behavioral barriers make it necessary to improve the training and education of staff to develop the skills needed to appropriately relate to PwD [23].
In the present study, we focus our interest on the cross-border region between Greece and the Republic of Northern Macedonia, in order to assess and compare the accessibility of tourism businesses in these two countries, focusing specifically on people with mobility impairments including the elderly. The research was carried out in the context of the project ‘ALTER TRIP: Alternative Touristic Experience’ which is implemented under the program INTERREG IPA CBC Greece—Republic of Northern Macedonia 2014–2020. The main goal of ALTER TRIP is to help transform the intervention area into a tourist destination accessible to all, without exclusions. In addition, the project seeks to support the sustainable tourism development of the cross-border region. The negative effects of state borders on cross-border areas are sought to be mitigated through cross-border cooperation, with the ultimate goal of improving the socio-economic status of the local population. The study of the cross-border region is an important step to establish the conditions that promote tourism cooperation in the cross-border region [24].
The present study is an original attempt to compare the accessibility of tourism businesses in the study area, which is considered important for the promotion of cross-border cooperation in this sector. The study of the current status of accessibility is an important step in the direction of future tourism development, as it identifies the areas that require changes [25]. This study is a continuation of the research of Kourkouridis et al. [26], where it was found that tourism businesses on the Greek side of the cross-border area are at a moderate level regarding accessibility. Here, our interest is focused on the possibility of cooperation between the two countries in order to create a single accessible tourism product in the cross-border area.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Tourism and PwD

The market of PwD and those with access needs is still underserved by the tourism industry, even though this market comprises about 10% of the world’s population. In several countries of the Western world this percentage reaches 15–20%, with a significant contribution of the aging population [27]. It is a fact that 35% of people over the age of 65 have some kind of disability [28]. In order for this market to be developed and meet this significant demand, barriers to participation must be removed [29]. The lack of accessibility is one of the main deterrents for these people to participate in tourism activities [5,17,18,19,30], as well as the lack of staff training in tourism businesses [19,20,21,22,23,30]. These are macro-systemic environmental factors of the destination that lie outside the sphere of influence of PwD [30].
The literature in recent years has increasingly focused attention on the supply side, with accessible tourism strongly linked to social tourism [31]. Social tourism is a policy that favors the inclusion of people with disabilities in tourism in a sustainable way [32], as by definition social tourism seeks to include people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to participate in tourism [33]. Social tourism is more socially oriented and not so economically; therefore, it has the potential to contribute to tourist destinations based on sustainability criteria. Given the potential of accessible tourism, the competitiveness of sustainable tourism development is related to innovations in the provision of tourism services for the elderly and PwD, while at the same time the challenges of social tourism should be addressed [34].
The realization of the need to include all people in the built environment led to Universal Design which from a broader perspective refers to ‘a process that enables and empowers a diverse population by improving human performance, health and wellness, and social participation’ [35]. In particular, tourism businesses should include all the necessary equipment to ensure that all visitors can experience unhindered the services they provide [36]. To assess the accessibility of buildings, some basic characteristics are used, such as parking areas, building entrances, and toilets [37]. More specifically in the hotel sector, some important accessibility features can be the following: wheelchair free movement, grab bars in the toilets, lower sinks, higher level toilets, cords for emergency use, visual aids (Braille, tactile signs, etc.), and audio guidance [38]. Moreover, the availability of accessible rooms is also an important accessibility factor for accommodation businesses [37].
At this point, it should be pointed out that the accessibility features of buildings in many cases facilitate their use not only by PwD but by all users. For example, when the entrance to a public building—such as a hotel—does not have height differences and uses a photocell to automatically open the door, then not only PwD are facilitated, but also customers carrying a suitcase, or a child’s stroller, etc. This is the World Health Organization’s [11] approach to accessibility, which actually serves a wide range of people, beyond PwD. This gives a competitive advantage to tourism businesses, as accessibility is an important quality factor of the tourist experience.
Apart from the physical accessibility of the buildings, however, the attitude of the staff of the businesses towards PwD is also found to be important as it is often an obstacle for their participation in tourism [19,20,21,22]. The training of tourism business staff is considered an important factor in properly serving people with disabilities [23,39], while it is shown that staff attitudes can be significantly improved by attending appropriate training programs [35]. The goal of training should be to acquire appropriate skills so that employees are able to offer their services to each customer, meeting their different and varied needs [32]. Eliminating discrimination should be the ultimate goal, through the adoption of principles that will actually change the business culture [40].

2.2. Cross-Border Cooperation and Tourism

Border regions are of special interest, not only at a national level but also in relation to cooperation between populations [37]. Thus, in recent years the issue of cross-border cooperation has been the subject of study both at the European Union level [41,42,43,44,45,46,47] and internationally, as in the case of the US–Mexico border [48,49] and Asia [50]. Borders are no longer considered as barriers to communication and relations between populations on either side of the border line, but as an opportunity for cooperation. The importance of establishing relationships with the other side of the border is of particular relevance for border areas, which are disadvantaged, compared to the hinterland [51], as borders cause processes of marginalization [52]. Cross-border flows, however, create a special space with significant growth potential [53], while the geopolitical importance often leads to dynamic tourist interest [54].
Cross-border cooperation, especially in the case of tourism, is closely related to the sustainable tourism development of these areas [55,56,57]. Moreover, this kind of cooperation can strengthen international relations between regions [58]. At the level of bilateral (or even tripartite in some cases) relations, a common type of cooperation between cross-border areas is that of cooperative tourism marketing that leads to mutual benefits for the countries involved [55,58,59]. Although this is a relatively recent field of research, the existing literature notes the benefits of such collaboration. Kozak and Buhalis [54] refer to a joint strategy of promoting cross-border destinations integrated into packages, especially for tourists from distant regions, which strengthens the competitiveness of the countries involved. Thus, the creation of clusters of similar tourism products in neighboring countries can offer specific types of tourism that can favor the participating countries in the international competitive environment [60].
Tosun et al. [55], studying the case of cooperation between Greece and the neighboring country of Turkey, found that cooperative tourism marketing strategies can lead to more efficient and effective marketing, but also ensure a stable and safe environment for visitors. Their study showed that significant challenges are the establishment of a joint tourism organization, the adequacy of financial resources, and the involvement of businesses and non-governmental organizations from both sides of the border.
Studying the case of cross-border cooperation between the USA and Canada in three international parks based on sustainable tourism development, Timothy [57] highlights the importance of bilateral treaties and less formal local cooperation in creating the foundations for sustainable management of cross-border tourism resources.
An interesting approach is that of Kirillova et al. [61], who highlight that in practice cooperation between tourism destinations is difficult, mainly due to the intense competition that exists between them. Thus, they use the “coopetition” approach for the relationships that can develop between cross-border destinations. According to this approach, the main “coopetitive” force is the resource heterogeneity between destinations, which is different but complementary. Their study, concerning the Greater Bay Area, reveals that a successful “coopetitive” brand should not downplay the unique characteristics of the destinations but focus on qualities that are common to both. Such a “coopetitive” approach aims to integrate the different destinations into a regional brand while allowing them to maintain their competitive positions in the region.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The study area includes nine regions in the cross-border area of Greece—Republic of North Macedonia, as shown in Figure 1. In particular, it includes five regions in Greece (Florina, Pella, Kilkis, Thessaloniki, and Serres), and four in the Republic of North Macedonia (Southwest, Pelagonia, Vardar, and Southeast).
Apart from the Regional Unit of Thessaloniki, which has a metropolitan character as it includes Thessaloniki, the country’s second most populous city [62], the rest are small peripheral regional units in both countries. Specifically, the population of the regional units that were included in the survey is as follows: Thessaloniki: 1,074,827 residents, Serres: 176,430 residents, Pella: 139,371 residents, Kilkis: 80,419 residents, Florina: 51,841 residents [63], Southwestern: 221,546 residents, Pelagonia: 238,136 residents, Vardar: 133,180 residents, and Southeast: 171,416 residents [64].
Regarding tourism development, Greece is a major tourist power with international arrivals in 2022 reaching almost 28 million [65,66], that is, approximately 2.8 tourists per resident, thus being ranked 9th worldwide by the World Tourism Organization [66]. Specifically for the tourism development of Thessaloniki, which is the largest city in the study area, it is based on the very important historical monuments from various historical periods (Byzantium, Ottoman Period, Modern Period, etc.). In addition, the tourism development of Thessaloniki is based on large cultural festivals with an international scope that are organized in the city, e.g., Thessaloniki International Film Festival [67], but also on the intense exhibition and conference activity [68]. However, tourism is distributed among the regions of Greece with a great degree of inequality, as the island regions attract a significantly greater number of tourists than other regions of the country [65]. Consequently, the differentiation and the acquisition of a competitive advantage of the country’s peripheral regions, especially the border regions, are a great challenge for the country.
The Republic of North Macedonia is not an internationally recognized tourist destination [69], as it is mainly a tourist transit country and less a tourist destination [70]. However, in recent years there has been a significant increase in international tourist arrivals, with total arrivals in 2021 of around 214,000, ranking the country in 122nd place worldwide [66]. An important similarity with the aforementioned case of Greece is the uneven spatial distribution of tourism development, resulting in the need for fairer distribution in the country [71].
As for the relations between the two countries, they are now at a promising level, especially after the Prespa Agreement in 2018, which, in addition to settling the name of the Republic of North Macedonia, also defined a number of directions for cooperation between the two countries, including tourism [72]. In general, the flows between the two countries are significant as Greece is the third most important trading partner and the fifth largest investor in North Macedonia (the figures refer to the whole of 2022) [70], while Greece is the choice of the citizens of North Macedonia for tourism, recreation, and shopping. At the same time, Greece is an important country of origin for foreign tourists for North Macedonia and is consistently among the first places in terms of arrivals in the country. To a large extent, incentives for Greeks to visit North Macedonia are to make cheap purchases of goods and services (e.g., dental), but also to visit the casinos in the south of the country [73].

3.2. Research Method and Hypothesis

In order to evaluate and compare the accessibility status in the study area, a quantitative survey was conducted with the same questionnaire in the two countries. A total of 50 tourism businesses from the Republic of North Macedonia (NM) and 134 from Greece (GR) participated in the survey, which was conducted online. In the Republic of North Macedonia there are 132 hotels in the four regions of our study (Pelagonia region: 22, Vardar: 13, Southwest: 79, and Southeast: 18) [74]. In Greece there are 288 hotels in the regions of our study (Thessaloniki: 143, Kilkis: 17, Serres: 33, Pella: 62, and Florina: 33) [75]. Food and beverage businesses are a lot more in the study area: 8970 in the Greek part of the area [76], and 4378 in the part of North Macedonia [77]. So in total there are 13,768 tourism businesses in the study area. However, the survey was designed to be conducted online, so the population resulted in 9352 tourism businesses, as the rest did not have a publicly accessible email address or the email address was incorrect. The sample size resulted in 184 companies that constituted the companies that completed the questionnaire, with a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 6%.
The questionnaire includes twenty items. The first eight concern the main characteristics of the businesses (type of business; number of employees; years of operation; customers origin; accommodation category; accommodation capacity; food and beverage category; and food and beverage size). Then, it includes a scale measuring both the accessibility of the facilities and the level of knowledge and training of the company’s staff. The facility accessibility scale was created based on the requirements of the Greek legislation for the accessibility of public buildings [78,79] that is based on Universal Design principles. In particular, there are five items resulting from the Greek legislation (accessible entrance; wheelchair free movement; parking for PwD; accessible elevator; and toilet for PwD), and one item about the accessibility of their websites; although there is no such requirement in law, recent studies include it as an important element of accessibility [80,81]. The staff scale was created based on the literature regarding the importance of the attitude of business staff towards PwD, and includes four items (accessibility legislation awareness; management of PwD knowledge; management of PwD experience; and education about accessibility).
Table 1 presents the results about the reliability of the variables used, where we see that Cronbach’s α coefficient was greater than 0.7 (thus acceptable) and even greater than 0.9 (thus excellent) in both variables of the model [82,83]. Therefore, we can use these two variables as functions of the specific items. As Iseris [82] states, in the case of an acceptable Cronbach’s α coefficient, the questionnaire actually measures the concept it purports to measure. In this case, the items we included in the questionnaire actually measure the two variables under consideration.
To compare the results obtained from the measurements carried out in the two countries, the “N-1” chi-square method for comparing proportions was used, as described by Campbel [84] and Richardson [85].
The main hypothesis of the research is that Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia have the possibility to cooperate in order to develop a common brand of accessible tourism in the cross-border region. We examine the similarity of the accessibility status in the neighboring regions, being a first attempt to approach the development of a common sustainable accessible tourism product in the cross-border region. So, we hypothesize that despite the differences at the social and cultural level between the two countries, the approach to accessibility presents significant similarities. This became clear during the project ‘ALTER TRIP: Alternative Touristic Experience’, where the collaboration between the two parties showed the similar accessibility status prevailing in the study area. The present research aims to scientifically document this finding, but also to identify the specific points where the supposed similarity exists or not.

4. Results

4.1. Tourism Businesses’ Characteristics

The main characteristics of the tourism businesses that participated in the research are presented in Table 2. We see that they are accommodation businesses (52.0% GR, 38.1% NM), food and beverage businesses (33.0% GR, 4.8% NM), sports activities businesses (3.0% GR, 0.0% NM), a combination of the above (7% GR, 57.1% NM), and other tourism businesses (0.0% GR, 5.0% NM). In the Republic of North Macedonia they are mainly large companies employing more than fifteen employees (29.9% GR, 52.4% NM), while in Greece they are mainly small with fewer than five employees (44.8% GR, 14.3% NM). The tourism businesses operate more than 15 years (52.2% GR, 38.1% NM). Regarding the customers’ origin, they serve both domestic and foreign customers in both countries (61.2% GR, 71.4% NM).
Accommodation businesses are mainly in the 3-star category (51.4% GR, 47.4% NM), while their capacity is mainly from 10 to 20 rooms in the Republic of North Macedonia (14.3% GR, 50.0% NM), and fewer than 10 rooms in Greece (25.7% GR, 20.0% NM). Food and beverage businesses are mainly restaurants and taverns (63.6% GR, 95.2% NM) and they are large in size (more than 100 sq.m./80 seats), mostly in the Republic of North Macedonia (45.5% GR, 85.7% NM).

4.2. Comparison of Tourism Businesses’ Accessibility

The accessibility of tourism businesses in the two countries was assessed based on specific structural characteristics. In particular, the accessibility features for all the categories of companies that were examined are as follows: (a) Accessible Entrance, (b) Wheelchair Free Movement, (c) Parking for PwD, (d) Accessible Elevator, (e) Toilet for PwD, and (f) Accessible Website. The results of the comparison between the two countries are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that the significance level was calculated using the N-1 chi-squared test as suggested by Campbell [84] and Richardson [85] for comparing proportions.
From the results presented in Table 3, it can be seen that the tourism businesses in the two countries are at a good level of accessibility in terms of accessible entrances (73.1% GR, 90.5% NM) and the free movement of wheelchairs inside them (75.0% GR, 79.4% NM). At a moderate level is the accessibility of elevators (where available) (65.2% GR, 33.9% NM), while at significantly low level is the accessibility of toilets (40.3% GR, 28.6% NM), parking (where available) (41.4% GR, 37.0% NM), and websites (36.4% GR, 25.0% NM).
Comparing the accessibility of the variables examined in the two countries, it is found that the samples differ significantly on the Accessible Entrance variable (p = 0.0117 < 0.05): North Macedonia has a higher level of accessibility (90.5%) than Greece (73.1%). Moreover, the samples differ significantly on the Parking for PwD variable (p = 0.0275 < 0.05): Greece has a higher level of accessibility (41.4%) than North Macedonia (37.0%). Also, the samples differ significantly on the Accessible Elevator variable (p = 0.0282 < 0.05): Greece has a higher level of accessibility (65.2%) than North Macedonia (33.9%). Finally, the samples do not differ significantly on the variables Wheelchair Free Movement and Toilet for PwD, as in these cases the significance level was found to be greater than 0.05.
Another aspect that has been studied is the staff knowledge and experience in serving PwD. In particular, the staff features for all the categories of companies are as follows: (a) Accessibility Legislation Awareness, (b) Management of PwD Knowledge, (c) Management of PwD Experience, and (d) Education about Accessibility. The results of the comparison between the two countries are presented in Table 4.
From the results presented in Table 4, it can be seen that the staff of the tourism businesses in the two countries state that they know at least a little about the PwD legislation (72.9% GR, 66.4% NM), that they know how to manage PwD at least a little (88.1% GR, 100.0% NM), and consider to a significant extent that they have some relevant experience (89.6% GR, 100.0% NM). However, few have attended a relevant training program (19.0% GR, 12.5% NM).
Comparing the accessibility of each variable we examined in the two countries, it is found that the samples differ significantly on the Management of PwD Knowledge variable (p = 0.0109 < 0.05): North Macedonia has a higher level of accessibility (100.0%) than Greece (88.1%). Moreover, we found that the samples differ significantly on the Management of PwD Experience variable (p = 0.0180 < 0.05): North Macedonia has a higher level of accessibility (100.0%) than Greece (89.6%). The samples do not differ significantly on the variables Accessibility Legislation Awareness and Education about Accessibility, as in these cases the significance level was greater than 0.05.
Finally, we examined the willingness of the participants to be educated and trained about accessibility and their willingness to invest money in the business to make it more accessible to PwD. In particular, the following variables were measured and compared: (a) Willingness to be Educated, and (b) Willingness to Invest. The results of the comparison between the two countries are presented in Table 5.
From the results presented in Table 5, it can be seen that that there is a great willingness on the part of entrepreneurs both to train staff (92.9% GR, 95.3% NM), and to invest money in the business to make it more accessible (89.5% GR, 100.0% NM). This is true in both countries, as it was found that the samples do not differ significantly (in each case the significance level was found to be greater than 0.05).

5. Discussion

Both the accessible tourism market and cross-border cooperation are directly linked to the sustainability of tourism. In an intensely competitive international environment, differentiation through partnerships and specifically through collaborative tourism marketing is an important opportunity for cross-border regions. This becomes even more important as marketing strategies increasingly focus on niche markets [56] such as the market of accessible tourism [23].
Moreover, as Kozak and Buhalis [59] pointed out, tourism collaboration is of particular importance for cross-border countries that seek the future restoration of their relations after political disagreements. One such case is the cross-border region of Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia, where, after the settling of the naming issue, cooperation is sought in various sectors. One of them is tourism, where from this research it was found that there are great prospects for the development of accessible tourism.
Research results showed that the building and attitudinal accessibility of the tourism businesses of the two countries is at a moderate level. There is significant room for improvement, mainly in the following variables: (a) Parking for PwD; (b) Accessible Elevators; (c) Toilets for PwD; and (d) Accessible Websites. The accessibility status was found to be at a better level in the following variables: (a) Accessible Entrance; and (b) Wheelchair Free Movement. However, it should be noted that the ultimate goal is for tourism businesses to be fully accessible, so measures and actions are required in all areas under consideration.
Regarding the behavioral variables that were examined, most of them were found to be at high levels (legislation awareness, knowledge and experience). But even though the participants declared a lot of knowledge and experience in this field, they are significantly behind in their education.
Perhaps the most encouraging finding of the survey is that participants are particularly willing to invest money in the accessibility of businesses, but also in the training of their staff.
An important contribution of this study are the similarities and differences that were found in the accessibility variables studied, which contributes to the formulation of a single strategy to improve accessibility in these two destinations. In particular, we found that North Macedonia presents a higher level of accessibility in the variables Accessible Entrance, Management of PwD Experience, and Management of PwD Knowledge, while Greece in the variables Accessible Elevator, and Parking for PwD. In the rest of the variables (Wheelchair Free Movement, Toilet for PwD, Accessible Website, Accessibility Legislation Awareness, Education about Accessibility, Willingness to be Educated, and Willingness to Invest), no significant differences in accessibility levels were found between the two countries.
Thus, we can say that there are positive indications for the formation of a common marketing strategy between the two destinations in order to develop a common brand of accessible tourism in the cross-border area, provided that there will be appropriate interventions to achieve the goal of accessibility in both countries, within the framework of cooperation for the exchange of know-how and experience in the areas where one country surpasses the other. However, the uniqueness of each destination should be taken into account through a “coopetitive” approach [61], as these are two regions with distinct histories, cultures, and natural features. Other areas that emerge from the literature that are of major importance for successful collaboration and should be seriously considered are the establishment of a joint tourism organization, the adequacy of financial resources, the involvement of businesses and non-governmental organizations from both sides of the border [51], bilateral treaties, and less formal local cooperation [57].
The main limitation of this research is the limited number of tourism businesses that participated. Conducting email surveys is generally a method with a low response rate [86], but it is also true in some cases that the pursuit of a high response rate is costly and not very scientifically useful [87]. However, for a future successful implementation of an accessibility strategy, more detailed data will be required for all tourism businesses, something that goes beyond the purpose of this study and concerns the creation of a relevant report. Moreover, we believe that the lack of qualitative data limits the results of this study; This is an important future research approach that will elucidate the gaps that may exist in the exclusively quantitative approach.
Research should be carried out further to determine the willingness of stakeholders to participate in such a collaboration. This research highlighted entrepreneurs’ willingness to invest in accessibility; however, their view on promoting accessible tourism as a common brand in the cross-border region was not examined. This also requires the commitment of public bodies in both countries, which should also be explored. Finally, research must also be carried out in the direction of financing, as social tourism is basically a social issue that requires specific sources of financing, which were not considered in this study.

6. Conclusions

The present research was essentially the first step in investigating the current status of accessibility in the cross-border region of Greece—Republic of North Macedonia, but also the willingness of entrepreneurs to invest in accessibility. The results contribute to the formation of a common brand of accessible tourism in the cross-border area, which will be an important impetus to further improve the relations between the two countries, and to promote the sustainability of the tourism product in the generally degraded border areas, in the context of European integration.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, D.K. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by INTERREG IPA CBC Greece—Republic of Northern Macedonia 2014–2020 (CCI: 2014TC16I5CB009) approved by the European Commission on 6 August 2015 by decision C (2015) 5655.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lepoglavec, K.; Papeš, O.; Lovrić, V.; Raspudić, A.; Nevečerel, H. Accessibility of Urban Forests and Parks for People with Disabilities in Wheelchairs, Considering the Surface and Longitudinal Slope of the Trails. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Oliver, M. Understanding Disability. From Theory to Practice; Macmillan Publishers Limited: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 1–192. [Google Scholar]
  3. Marín-Nicolás, J.; Sáez-Pérez, M.P. An Evaluation Tool for Physical Accessibility of Cultural Heritage Buildings. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shi, L.; Cole, S.; Chancellor, H.C. Understanding leisure travel motivations of travelers with acquired mobility impairments. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, Y.; Gao, J.; Cole, S.T.; Ricci, P. Beyond accessibility: Empowering mobility-impaired customers with motivation differentiation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 3503–3525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pagán, R. The contribution of holiday trips to life satisfaction: The case of people with disabilities. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 524–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Smith, R.W. Leisure of disable tourists: Barriers to participation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1987, 14, 376–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Devile, E.L.; Eusébio, C.; Moura, A. Traveling with special needs: Investigating constraints and negotiation strategies for engaging in tourism activities. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights, 2023; ahead of print. [Google Scholar]
  9. McCabe, S.; Diekmann, A. The rights to tourism: Reflections on social tourism and human rights. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2015, 40, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McCabe, S. Social tourism and its contribution to sustainable tourism. Cuad. Económicos Inf. Comer. Española 2018, 93, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. UNWTO. Manual on Accessible Tourism for All: Principles, Tools and Best Practices—Module I: Accessible Tourism—Definition and Context; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  12. Minnaert, L. Social tourism as opportunity for unplanned learning and behavior change. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Daniels, M.J.; Rodgers, E.B.D.; Wiggins, B.P. “Travel Tales”: An interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 919–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Card, J.A.; Cole, S.T.; Humphrey, A.H. A comparison of the accessibility and attitudinal barriers model: Travel providers and travelers with physical disabilities. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 11, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Devile, E.L.; Moura, A.A. Travel by people with physical disabilities: Constraints and influences in the decision-making process. In ICT Tools and Applications for Accessible Tourism; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 55–73. [Google Scholar]
  16. European Commission. Economic Impact and Travel Patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe—Final Report; GfK, University of Surrey, The Neumann Consulting and PRO Solutions: Surrey, BC, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cole, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Hu, C.M. The influence of accessibility and motivation on leisure travel participation of people with disabilities. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. Economic Impulses of Accesible Tourism for All; German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germamy, 2004.
  19. Eichhorn, V.; Buhalis, D. Accessibility: A key objective for the tourism industry. In Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues; Buhalis, D., Darcy, S., Eds.; Channel View Publication: Bristol, UK; Buffalo, NY, USA; Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011; pp. 46–61. [Google Scholar]
  20. Avis, A.H.; Card, J.A.; Cole, S.T. Accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by travelers with physical disabilities. Tour. Rev. Int. 2005, 8, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bi, Y.; Card, J.A.; Cole, S.T. Accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese travellers with physical disabilities. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2007, 9, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pasca, M.G.; Elmo, G.C.; Arcese, G.; Cappelletti, G.M.; Martucci, O. Accessible tourism in protected natural areas: An empirical study in the Lazio region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Darcy, S. Setting a Research Agenda for Accessible Tourism; CRC for Sustainable Tourism: Queensland, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dunets, A.N.; Ivanova, V.N.; Poltarykhin, A.L. Cross-border tourism cooperation as a basis for sustainable development: A case study. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 6, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Scheyvens, R.; Biddulph, R. Inclusive tourism development. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 20, 589–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kourkouridis, D.; Dalkrani, V.; Salepaki, A. Accessible Tourism Businesses in the Cross-Border Region of Greece—Republic of Northern Macedonia: The Case of Greece. In Tourism, Travel, and Hospitality in a Smart and Sustainable World IACuDiT 2022; Katsoni, V., Ed.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 519–535. [Google Scholar]
  27. Darcy, S.; Cameron, B.; Pegg, S. Accessible tourism and sustainability: A discussion and case study. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 515–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alén, E.; Domínguez, T.; Losada, N. New opportunities for the tourism market: Senior tourism and accessible tourism. In Visions for Global Tourism Industry: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Strategies; IntechOpen: Lundon, UK, 2012; pp. 139–166. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dwyer, L.; Darcy, S. Economic contribution of tourists with disabilities: An Australian approach and methodology. In Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues; Buhalis, D., Darcy, S., Eds.; Channel View Publication: Bristol, UK; Buffalo, NY, USA; Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011; pp. 213–239. [Google Scholar]
  30. Huber, D.; Milne, S.; Hyde, K. Constraints and facilitators for senior tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 27, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. McCabe, S.; Qiao, G. A review of research into social tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Social Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 85, 103103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gillovic, B.; McIntosh, A. Accessibility and inclusive tourism development: Current state and future agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Minnaert, L.; Diekmann, A.; McCabe, S. Defining social tourism and its historical context. In Social Tourism in Europe: Theory and Practice; McCabe, S., Minnaert, L., Diekmann, A., Eds.; Channel View Publication: Bristol, UK; Buffalo, NY, USA; Toronto, ON, Canada, 2012; pp. 18–30. [Google Scholar]
  34. Streimikiene, D.; Svagzdiene, B.; Jasinskas, E.; Simanavicius, A. Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature review. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Steinfeld, E.; Maisel, J. Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; p. 29. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liasidou, S.; Fella, K.; Stylianou, C. A sustainable destination is an accessible destination: Examining the relationship as a remedy to seasonality. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2022, 14, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carlsson, G.; Slaug, B.; Schmidt, S.M.; Norin, L.; Ronchi, E.; Gefenaite, G. A scoping review of public building accessibility. Disabil. Health J. 2022, 15, 101227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sayed, M.S.; Elsaid, H. The Readiness of Accommodation Facilities to Provide Accessible Tourist Experiences in Cairo, Egypt. Int. J. Tour. Archaeol. Hosp. 2023, 3, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bizjak, B.; Knežević, M.; Cvetrežnik, S. Attitude change towards guests with disabilities: Reflections from tourism students. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 842–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Darcy, S.; Pegg, S. Towards strategic intent: Perceptions of disability service provision amongst hotel accommodation managers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 468–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Castanho, R.A.; Loures, L.; Cabezas, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L. Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) in southern europe—An iberian case study. The eurocity Elvas-Badajoz. Sustainability 2017, 9, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pinnavaia, L.; Berisha, E. The role of cross-border territorial development. Evidences from Albania. In Governing Territorial Development in the Western Balkans: Challenges and Prospects of Regional Cooperation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 309–332. [Google Scholar]
  43. Medeiros, E. Territorial impact assessment and cross-border cooperation. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2015, 2, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martín-Uceda, J.; Vicente Rufí, J. Territorial development and cross-border cooperation: A review of the consequences of European INTERREG policies on the Spanish–French border (2007–2020). Sustainability 2021, 13, 12017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Berzi, M. Cross-border cooperation and local development in the Pyrenees. The Case of Cerdanya. Eur. J. Geogr. 2013, 4, 47–60. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sousa, L.D. Understanding European cross-border cooperation: A framework for analysis. J. Eur. Integr. 2013, 35, 669–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Basboga, K. The role of open borders and cross-border cooperation in regional growth across Europe. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2020, 7, 532–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lara-Valencia, F. The “thickening” of the US–Mexico border: Prospects for cross-border networking and cooperation. J. Borderl. Stud. 2011, 26, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Herzog, L.A. Cross-border planning and cooperation. In The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment: A Road Map to Sustainable 2020; Ganster, P., Ed.; San Diego State University Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2020; pp. 139–161. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chan, R.C. Cross-border regional development in Southern China. GeoJournal 1998, 44, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Petrakos, G.; Psycharis, Y. Regional Development in Greece, 1st ed.; Kritiki: Athens, Greece, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  52. Syrett, S. Conceptualising marginalisation in cities and regions. In Regional Development in Northern Europe: Peripherality, Marginality and Border Issues, 1st ed.; Danson, M., De Souza, P., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 83–95. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dunets, A.N.; Gerasymchuk, N.A.; Kurikov, V.M.; Noeva, E.E.; Kuznetsova, M.Y.; Shichiyakh, R.A. Tourism management in border destinations: Regional aspects of sustainable development of protected natural areas. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 7, 3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Więckowski, M. How border tripoints offer opportunities for transboundary tourism development. Tour. Geogr. 2023, 25, 310–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tosun, C.; Timothy, D.J.; Parpairis, A.; MacDonald, D. Cross-border cooperation in tourism marketing growth strategies. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2005, 18, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kropinova, E. Transnational and cross-border cooperation for sustainable tourism development in the Baltic Sea Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Timothy, D.J. Cross-border partnership in tourism resource management: International parks along the US-Canada border. J. Sustain. Tour. 1999, 7, 182–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Timothy, D.J.; Saarinen, J. Cross-border co-operation and tourism in Europe. Trends Eur. Tour. Plan. Organ. 2013, 60, 64. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kozak, M.; Buhalis, D. Cross–border tourism destination marketing: Prerequisites and critical success factors. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 14, 100392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Apostolopoulos, Y.; Sοnmez, S. New directions in Mediterranean tourism: Restructuring and cooperative marketing in the era of globalization. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2000, 42, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kirillova, K.; Park, J.; Zhu, M.; Dioko, L.D.; Zeng, G. Developing the coopetitive destination brand for the Greater Bay Area. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 17, 100439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Frangopoulos, I.; Dalakis, N.; Kourkouridis, D. Urban Structure and Mobility in a Modern City: The Example of the Submerged Tunnel of Thessaloniki through the Empirical Investigation of the Citizens Opinion. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2009, 4, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hellenic Statistical Authority, Population and Housing Census. Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/en/2021-census-pop-hous (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  64. Statistical Council of the Republic of North Macedonia, Census of Population, Households and Dwellings. Available online: https://popis2021.stat.gov.mk/ (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  65. INSETE, Institute of Greek Tourism Confederation. Available online: https://insete.gr/ (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  66. UNWTO. World Tourism Barometer; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tsiftelidou, S.; Kourkouridis, D.; Xanthopoulou-Tsitsoni, V. Assessment of Impact-Contribution of Cultural Festival in the Tourism Development of Thessaloniki. In Tourism, Culture and Heritage in a Smart Economy, Third International Conference IACuDiT, Athens 2016; Katsoni, V., Upadhya, A., Stratigea, A., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 411–424. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kourkouridis, D.; Frangopoulos, Y.; Kapitsinis, N. Socio-economic effects of trade fairs on host cities from a citizens’ perspective: The case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Int. J. Event Festiv. Manag. 2023, 14, 113–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nestorosk, I. Identifying tourism potentials in Republic of Macedonia through regional approach. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 44, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zografou, A.; Xidia, A.; Gatzaras, V. 2022 Report on the Economy of North Macedonia and the Development of Economic and Trade Relations between Greece and North Macedonia; Embassy of the Hellenic Republic in Skopje, Office of Economic and Commercial Affairs: Athens, Greece, 2022.
  71. Nakovski, D.; Milenkovski, A.; Gjorgievski, M. Contemporary challenges of tourism. UTMS J. Econ. 2021, 12, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  72. Lembovska, M. Relations between (North) Macedonia and Greece after the Prespa Agreement—What Does the Future Hold? In Greece and Its Western Balkan Neighbours—Common Challenges in a Changing Europe; Jureković, P., Mandalenakis, E., Eds.; Republic of Austria/Federal Ministry of Defense: Wien, Austria, 2019; pp. 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  73. Larda, B. Tourism Greece—North Macedonia, 2021; Embassy of the Hellenic Republic in Skopje, Office of Economic and Commercial Affairs: Athens, Greece, 2021.
  74. Metodijeski, D.; Filiposki, O.; Janevski, L. Classification of hotel establishments: The case of Macedonia. In Conference Proceedings 6th International Conference “Ohrid—Vodici”, Vodici, North Macedonia, 24 October 2017; Zemon, D., Ed.; Institute for Socio—Cultural Anthropology of Macedonia: Vodici, North Macedonia, 2018; pp. 271–280. [Google Scholar]
  75. Hellenic Chamber of Hotels, Hotel Sector in Greece 2020 by Region–Prefecture–Island. Available online: https://www.grhotels.gr/ksenodocheiako-dynamiko-elladas-2020-ana-perifereia-nomo-nisi/ (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  76. Hellenic Statistical Authority, Evolution of Turnover of Enterprises in Accommodation and Food Service Activities. Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/en/infographic-ent-food-acc-2022 (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  77. State Statistical Office of the Republic of North Macedonia, Census of Catering Trade Capacities. Available online: https://www.stat.gov.mk/ (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  78. Law 4067/2012: New Building Regulation, OGG 79/02.04.2012. Hellenic Republic, Athens. Available online: https://www.et.gr/api/Download_Small/?fek_pdf=20120100079 (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  79. Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change. Designing Instructions ‘Designing for All’. Hellenic Republic, Athens. Available online: https://ypen.gov.gr/chorikos-schediasmos/astikos-schediasmos/politikes-kai-protypa/ (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  80. Williams, R.; Rattray, R. UK Hotel Web Page Accessibility for Disabled and Challenged Users. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2005, 5, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Teixeira, P.; Eusébio, C.; Teixeira, L. How diverse is hotel website accessibility? A study in the central region of Portugal using web diagnostic tools. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2022, 22, 180–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Iseris, G. Statistical Methods of Checking the Validity and Reliability of Questionnaires. The Case of CiGreece. Int. J. Lang. Transl. Intercult. Commun. 2016, 5, 187. [Google Scholar]
  83. Singh, A.S. Common procedures for development, validity and reliability of questionnaire. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2017, V, 790–801. [Google Scholar]
  84. Campbell, I. Chi-squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat. Med. 2007, 26, 3661–3675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Richardson, J.T. The analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables—Yet again. Stat. Med. 2011, 30, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shih, T.H.; Fan, X. Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2009, 4, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hendra, R.; Hill, A. Rethinking response rates: New evidence of little relationship between survey response rates and nonresponse bias. Eval. Rev. 2019, 43, 307–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14093 g001
Figure 1. Study area (source: https://www.ipa-cbc-programme.eu/home/, accessed on 20 September 2023).
Figure 1. Study area (source: https://www.ipa-cbc-programme.eu/home/, accessed on 20 September 2023).
Sustainability 15 14093 g001
Table 1. Cronbach Alpha.
Table 1. Cronbach Alpha.
VariableItemsCronbach’s Alpha
Accessibility FeatureAccessible Entrance
(Is there a special provision for the accessibility of PwD or reduced mobility (e.g., the elderly) at the entrance of your business?)		0.968
Wheelchair Free Movement
(Do you think that a wheelchair can move freely inside the business?)
Parking for PwD
(Is there a special parking space (or spaces) for people with disabilities in the parking lot?)
Accessible Elevator
(Is the elevator accessible for people with disabilities (suitable size for wheelchair and controls at the suitable height: 0.9–1.20 m from the ground)?)
Toilet for PwD
(Is there a toilet for people with disabilities in the business?)
Accessible Website
(Is the business website user-friendly for PwD (WCAG 2.0 protocol)?)
Staff FeatureAccessibility Legislation Awareness
(Are you or any other employee (or the owner) aware of the accessibility legislation for PwD and reduced mobility?)		0.902
Management of PwD Knowledge
(How would you rate the knowledge of the staff regarding the management of PwD or reduced mobility?)
Management of PwD Experience
(How would you rate the experience of the staff in managing PwD or reduced mobility?)
Education about Accessibility
(Have you or any other employee (or the owner) attended a seminar or other educational/informational activity on accessibility for PwD or reduced mobility?)
Table 2. Main characteristics of the tourism businesses that participated in the survey.
Table 2. Main characteristics of the tourism businesses that participated in the survey.
CharacteristicGRNM
Type of businessAccommodation52.0%38.1%
Food and beverage33.0%4.8%
Sports activities3.0%0.0%
Combination of the above7.0%57.1%
Other5.0%0.0%
Number of employeesMore than 1529.9%52.4%
From 11 to 1510.5%14.3%
From 5 to 1014.9%19.0%
Fewer than 544.8%14.3%
Years of operationMore than 1552.2%38.1%
From 11 to 1511.9%14.3%
From 5 to 1017.9%14.3%
Fewer than 517.9%23.6%
Customers’ originDomestic34.3%23.8%
Abroad4.5%4.8%
Both61.2%71.4%
Accommodation category1 star2.9%10.5%
2 stars11.4%15.8%
3 stars51.4%47.4%
4 stars14.3%26.3%
5 stars17.1%0.0%
None2.9%0.0%
Accommodation capacityFewer than 10 rooms25.7%20.0%
From 11 to 20 rooms14.3%50.0%
From 21 to 30 rooms14.3%15.0%
From 31 to 40 rooms14.3%0.0%
More than 40 rooms31.4%15.0%
Food and beverage categoryRestaurant/tavern63.6%95.2%
Café/bar27.3%0.0%
Other9.1%4.8%
Food and beverage sizeLess than 100 sq.m./80 seats54.6%14.3%
More than 100 sq.m./80 seats45.5%85.7%
Table 3. Comparison of structural accessibility features of tourism businesses.
Table 3. Comparison of structural accessibility features of tourism businesses.
Accessibility FeatureNMGRAccessibleSignificance Level
 NMGR
Accessible Entrance
(Is there a special provision for the accessibility of PwD or reduced mobility (e.g., the elderly) at the entrance of your business?)		No, the entrance is accessible (no altitude differences or other obstacles)19.0%23.9%Accessible90.5%73.1%0.0117
No, although there are altitude differences or other obstacles9.5%26.9%
Yes, there is a ramp23.8%35.8%Not
accessible		9.5%26.9%
Yes, there is a mechanical means for covering altitude difference (lift)4.8%0.0%
Yes, there is some other provision42.9%13.4%
Wheelchair Free Movement
(Do you think that a wheelchair can move freely inside the business?)		Yes52.4%67.2%Accessible *79.4%75.0%0.6016
No14.3%22.4%
Not
accessible *		21.7%25.0%
I do not know33.3%10.5%
Parking for PwD
(Is there a special parking space (or spaces) for people with disabilities in the parking lot?)		There is no parking lot in the business9.5%56.7%Accessible **37.0%41.4%0.0275
There is no special parking space for people with disabilities in the business parking lot57.1%17.9%
Not
accessible **		63.4%58.6%
There is a special parking space (spaces) for people with disabilities in the parking lot33.3%25.4%
Accessible Elevator
(Is the elevator accessible for people with disabilities (suitable size for wheelchair and controls at the suitable height: 0.9–1.20 m from the ground)?)		There is no elevator71.4%65.7%Accessible ***33.9%65.2%0.0282
The elevator is not the right size and the controls are not at the right height4.8%9.0%
The elevator is the right size but the controls are not at the right height14.3%3.0%
Not
accessible ***		68.2%34.8%
The elevator is the right size and the controls are at the right height9.5%22.4%
Toilet for PwD
(Is there a toilet for people with disabilities in the business?)		Yes28.6%40.3%Accessible28.6%40.3%0.1450
No, it is not provided by the legislation14.3%38.8%
No, it is provided by the legislation but the adjustment deadline has not come yet-it will be done in the future4.3%6.0%
Not
accessible		71.4%59.7%
No, I do not know if it is provided by law23.8%14.9%
No, for another reason28.6%0.0%
Accessible Website
(Is the business website user-friendly for PwD (WCAG 2.0 protocol)?)		Yes9.5%17.9%Accessible ****25.0%36.4%0.3576
No28.6%31.3%
Not
accessible ****		75.3%63.6%
I do not know61.9%50.8%
Note: * Of those who know if a wheelchair can move freely inside the business. ** Of those who have a parking lot in the business. *** Of those who have an elevator in the business. **** Of those who know if the website is user-friendly for PwD.
Table 4. Comparison of staff features regarding accessibility.
Table 4. Comparison of staff features regarding accessibility.
Staff FeatureNMGRAccessibleSignificance Level
 NMGR
Accessibility Legislation Awareness
(Are you or any other employee (or the owner) aware of the accessibility legislation for PwD and reduced mobility?)		No28.6%23.9%Accessible
(even a little) *		66.4%72.9%0.4220
Yes, a little33.3%29.9%
Yes, moderately19.0%20.9%Not
accessible *		33.3%27.1%
Yes, very well4.8%13.4%
I do not know14.3%11.9%
Management of PwD Knowledge
(How would you rate the knowledge of the staff regarding the management of PwD or reduced mobility?)		Excellent28.6%6.0%Accessible
(even limited)		100%88.1%0.0109
Very good4.7%29.9%
Moderate42.9%34.3%Not
accessible 		0.0%11.9%
Limited23.8%17.9%
Not at all good0.0%11.9%
Management of PwD Experience
(How would you rate the experience of the staff in managing PwD or reduced mobility?)		Excellent33.3%9.0%Accessible
(even limited)		100%89.6%0.0180
Very good19.0%32.8%
Moderate28.6%34.3%Not
accessible 		0.0%10.5%
Limited19.0%13.4%
Not at all good0.0%10.5%
Education about Accessibility
(Have you or any other employee (or the owner) attended a seminar or other educational/informational activity on accessibility for PwD or reduced mobility?)		Yes9.5%16.4%Accessible **12.5%19.0%0.3605
No66.7%70.2%
Not
accessible **		87.8%81.0%
I do not know23.8%13.4%
Note: * Of those who know if any employee (or the owner) is aware of the accessibility legislation for PwD and reduced mobility. ** Of those who know if any employee (or the owner) attended a seminar or other educational/informational activity on accessibility for PwD or reduced mobility.
Table 5. Comparison of willingness to be educated and to invest in accessibility.
Table 5. Comparison of willingness to be educated and to invest in accessibility.
Staff FeatureNMGRAccessibleSignificance Level
 NMGR
Willingness to be Educated
(Do you or any other employee (or the owner) want to attend a seminar or other educational/informational activity on accessibility for people with disabilities or reduced mobility in the future?)		Yes76.2%77.6%Accessible *95.3%92.9%0.5975
No4.8%6.0%
Not
accessible *		6.0%7.1%
I do not know19.0%16.4%
Willingness to Invest
(Would you like to invest money in the business to make it more accessible to PwD or reduced mobility?)		Very much9.5%11.9%Accessible
(even a little)		100%89.5%0.0538
A lot38.1%37.3%
Moderate33.3%32.8%Not
accessible		0.0%10.5%
A little19.0%7.5%
Not at all0.0%10.5%
Note: * Of those who know if any employee (or the owner) wants to attend a seminar or other educational/informational activity on accessibility for PwD or reduced mobility in the future.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kourkouridis, D.; Salepaki, A. Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism Development: The Case of the Cross-Border Area of Greece–Republic of Northern Macedonia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14093. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914093

AMA Style

Kourkouridis D, Salepaki A. Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism Development: The Case of the Cross-Border Area of Greece–Republic of Northern Macedonia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14093. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kourkouridis, Dimitris, and Asimenia Salepaki. 2023. "Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism Development: The Case of the Cross-Border Area of Greece–Republic of Northern Macedonia" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14093. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914093

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop