Accessibility of Cultural Heritage Sites for People with Disabilities: A Case Study on Krakow Museums
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have recently had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Accessibility of cultural heritage sites for people with disabili-2 ties. Case study – Krakow museums” submitted to Sustainability. I appreciate the effort and dedication you have put into your research, and I would like to provide you with some feedback based on my review.
The manuscript appears to offer original contributions to the field of cultural tourism and accessibility, particularly in the context of museums in Krakow. The research brings a unique perspective to the accessibility discourse within cultural tourism, particularly focusing on a specific geographical location and considering various dimensions of accessibility. The structure of the manuscript appears well-organized and follows a logical flow, facilitating the comprehension of the research conducted. Each section is appropriately developed, with a balance between descriptive and analytical content.
While the English in the provided excerpts is generally correct, I recommend a thorough review of the entire manuscript to ensure consistency and adherence to academic writing conventions.
In literature review, given the significance of the Covid-19 impact on technology use for accessibility, consider expanding this section with more examples and insights, potentially dedicating a separate subsection to it.
In Museums and cultural attractions in Krakow and their use, although visitor numbers for 2022 are provided, consider including a broader temporal context, such as trends over the years or changes in visitor patterns, to offer a more comprehensive understanding. Incorporating visuals like charts or graphs to illustrate the growth in visitor numbers over the years could enhance the presentation of data. Given the focus of the paper on accessibility, consider briefly mentioning how the museums have addressed accessibility concerns for visitors, setting the stage for the subsequent assessment.
In Materials and Methods, clarify how participants responsible for museum accessibility were selected and ensure that they have relevant knowledge and authority to provide accurate information. Discuss potential limitations of the research method, such as any biases in self-reported data or limitations in the TAW Accessibility Checker software.
In Results, while the section mentions Polish law and digital accessibility requirements, consider providing a brief explanation of the key principles or standards, such as WCAG, to help readers understand the context better. For the museums with the highest and lowest number of website accessibility problems, consider a brief discussion or analysis of the potential reasons behind these discrepancies. Since virtual tours are not widely offered by museums, consider exploring potential reasons for this and discussing the advantages and challenges of implementing virtual tours in cultural institutions.
The discussion is well-structured, covering various facets of cultural tourism, accessibility, and digitalization. It successfully combines statistical information with qualitative analysis, providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and progress in making museums more accessible. The inclusion of global and local perspectives enhances the depth of the discussion. Consideration of future trends and potential areas for improvement could further enrich the section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
While the English in the provided excerpts is generally correct, I recommend a thorough review of the entire manuscript to ensure consistency and adherence to academic writing conventions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the reviews, appreciation of the value of the article and all the suggestions for improving it that the authors have used. Anyway:
The literature review has supplemented the use of technology during the COVID-19 pandemic with new articles and results. Charts illustrating the development of tourist arrivals to Krakow in the years 2010 – 2023 and changes in attendance at top museums in the years 2019 – 2022 have also been added.
In the methodology section, information about the competences of the people interviewed in museums has been added. Information on WCAG criteria has also been supplemented, as well as the analysis of website accessibility and the organization of virtual tours has been enriched. In the Discussion section, the anticipated tendencies in shaping the accessibility of museums for all visitors are indicated. Corrected and new fragments are marked in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The aim of the paper is to assess the accessibility for people with disabilities of flagship cultural attractions; that is museums located in Krakow; a city with a rich historical heritage entered onto the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage List and distinguished by the Access City Award. The research shows to what degree the museums have been adapted to receive visitors with disabilities. Assessment was also conducted of access to the museums’ websites; and the possibility for virtual tours of their collections.
The research problem is an important one in the tourism industry. However, the article lacks depth. An assessment is made, with no guidance on how to improve the accessibility of the museums studied.
1 Please indicate the statistical significance of the research results presented.
2. please write a more in-depth discussion.
3. please indicate possible solutions for improving the accessibility of museum exhibitions for people with disabilities.
Please correct several aspects in your article:
1. The topic id relevant in the field but in the introduction chapter clearly write what the research gap is.
2. Please indicate the statistical significance of the research results presented (figure 1-5). Such presentation of data resembles a bachelor's thesis rather than a scientific article.
3. Figure 4 needs improvement. There are no data labels shown on them.
4. Please write a more in-depth discussion (line 366-433).
5. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed but please write possible solutions for improving the accessibility of museum exhibitions for people with disabilities.
6. The references are appropriate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the reviews, appreciation of the value of the article and all the suggestions for improving it that the authors have used. And so: Figure 4 (now Figure 6) has been corrected, U significance tests have been carried out for Figures 4 and 6, i.e. for the facilities and the degree of adaptation of museums for groups with disabilities, taking into account the division into top museums and those with lower attendance. The discussion was expanded, and future trends in the development of inclusive tourism were also indicated. All changes to the manuscript are marked in red.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript makes a significant contribution to inclusive tourism literature by focusing on the assessment of museum accessibility in Krakow. The dual evaluation approach, encompassing both physical and virtual accessibility, adds depth and comprehensiveness to the study. The recognition of strengths in accommodating physical disabilities and leveraging technology for virtual tours demonstrates a nuanced understanding of contemporary accessibility dynamics.
However, before it could be published the followings is to augment the depth of recommendations,
1. consider a more detailed exploration of specific barriers and corresponding solutions for distinct disability cohorts. Elaborate further on effective technical, organizational, and informational amenities to bolster the robustness of research findings.
2. Contemplate broadening the research scope beyond museums with a specific annual visitation threshold for a more inclusive analysis.
3. A more in-depth exploration of the social context surrounding museums, including managerial attitudes and visitor perspectives, would contribute to a holistic understanding.
Here are some questions must be clarified. For examples, in the chapter 4. The aim of research and research question are confused, and the research methods and tools is not clearly. In addition to, there are some missing or not fitting the format such as Line 101and 114.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the reviews, appreciation of the value of the article and all the suggestions for improving it that the authors have used. Anyway:
On the example of the flagship National Museum and the Museum of Krakow, the actions taken by the managers of these facilities to improve accessibility for selected groups of recipients, especially in the field of technical and sensory facilities, were indicated. The analysis of the availability of attractions other than museums and accommodation facilities is the subject of another study, prepared as part of a report on international research on accessibility in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The formulated objectives of the research and the adopted methodology were agreed by the coordinator of the research project Application of the principles of inclusion in tourism in V4 countries. Lines 101 – 114 contain information about the digital accessibility of museums and virtual tours, other reviews suggested strengthening this sequence as very important from the point of view of the accessibility of museums for people with disabilities. All grains are marked in red in the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled „Accessibility of cultural heritage sites for people with disabilities. Case study – Krakow museums."
I have reviewed your paper and found it to be relevant and generally aligned with scientific writing norms. However, I recommend some minor revisions to enhance its overall quality. Below, I have outlined my observations and recommendations:
Abstract: The abstract is well-structured. However, I encourage the authors to emphasize which museums were examined and how many of them there were.
Introduction: The introduction is solid and well-justified. I recommend that the authors clearly articulate the research gap they intend to address.
Results: The results are well-presented. However, I suggest standardizing the presentation of percentage data in tables and figures as numbers with one number after a dot. Numerical data is missing in Figure 4.
Overall, well-written, and a good manuscript. I wish the authors the best of luck with the revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the reviews, appreciation of the value of the article and all the suggestions for improving it that the authors have used. And so: information about the studied museums was supplemented in the abstract, a research gap was indicated in the methodology, and missing information in Figure 4 (currently 6) was completed. All additions are marked in red in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors corrected the article in accordance with the reviewer's comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your kind suggestions that should improve quality of our paper. We would like thank you for acceptance of our corrections.
Best regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThnaks for authors to revise the manuscript to make it more academic.
My suggestion is change the pie chart to bar chart for more clearly to comapre the results, in Figure 5.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion, the pie chart has been replaced with a bar chart, which allows for comparison with other charts.
