Are Potential Tourists Willing to Pay More for Improved Accessibility? Preliminary Evidence from the Gargano National Park

Abstract

Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, tourist destinations have been increasingly selected on the basis of health, safety and social distancing criteria. In this framework, protected natural areas represent ideal tourist destinations due to the presence of wide and open spaces, services for tourists and attention to nature. The present paper focused on accessible tourism, a subset of sustainable tourism that is increasingly gaining greater importance within the tourism sector. By applying the Contingent Valuation Method, the study investigated whether potential tourists are effectively willing to pay extra money to be granted more accessible facilities in a natural area. To this end, a logit model was estimated to determine the probability that tourists exhibit a higher WTP for accessible tourism facilities. The analysis was carried out in the Gargano National Park, Southern Italy, an area traditionally characterised by large tourist flows that have increased further during the recent pandemic. The results showed that only a limited percentage of the respondents are willing to pay a higher amount for improved accessibility. These results represent an interesting starting point to outline an adequate strategy for the tourism valorisation of the natural area.

1. Introduction

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the economic, social and psychological spheres both at the national and global level [1]. Many individuals—frightened of the health situation—have modified their consumption patterns, pouring their anxieties even into the choice of tourist destinations [2,3,4]. Indeed, after periods of isolation due to the hard lockdown, people have developed a very strong desire to travel, trying anyway to respect the rules imposed to limit the risk of contagion. Accordingly, tourist destinations have been increasingly selected on the basis of health, safety and social distancing criteria [5].

In this framework, protected natural areas represent ideal tourist destinations in times of pandemics due to the presence of wide and open spaces, services for tourists and attention to nature [6]. In addition to more traditional benefits associated with their establishment, such as the preservation of the natural landscape and cultural heritage, wildlife population, habitats as well as communities’ cultural traditions, biodiversity conservation, poverty alleviation and economic growth, these areas assure compliance with the health regulations designed to limit the spread of the pandemic, thus providing the most sceptical visitors with psychological and mental safety guarantees [7]. The literature [6,7,8] highlights the driving role of protected areas in stimulating tourism, economic diversification, job creation and sustainable food production, thus strengthening rural communities and fostering rural development. Many of these areas guarantee an integrated perspective to rural development, including all environmental, social, economic, historical and cultural aspects of the rural territory and local communities. Moreover, they exhibit an unexplored and unexploited natural and cultural capital that can be used to attract tourists and that meets the imagination of alternative tourism models [9]. Therefore, even if these areas are recognised as a source of tourism and territorial development, the traditional relationship between them and tourism sometimes becomes very conflicting.

To this extent, in the management of protected areas, innovative approaches, models and strategies could strongly contribute to improve the livelihoods of rural communities and achieve the objectives of nature conservation and sustainable development [9]. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda aim explicitly to protect the planet, ensure prosperity, and achieve equality among people. In this context, in which no one is left behind, disability should not limit or discriminate against the free and active participation in tourism; in contrast, the model of accessible and inclusive tourism allows one to create the conditions to make tourist destinations enjoyable for everyone [10]. Specifically, in the framework of the 2030 Agenda, accessible tourism represents a key factor in creating the conditions to make tourism possible to everyone. Tourism accessibility becomes an intrinsic factor in responsibility, sustainability and tourism quality that should not only be conceived as a requirement that a specific service or tourist destination has to meet to facilitate access for people with reduced mobility or disabilities anymore.

In this framework, protected natural areas represent ideal places to grant accessible tourism [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Along with the well-known contribution provided to environmental and social sustainability, these areas play a significant ethical role and can be exploited as tourism attractors in times of pandemics as they would allow one to achieve the goal of nature conservation, as well as to meet the tourist demand for outdoor spaces where it is possible to respect social distancing for public health safety reasons [17,18,19].

In recent years, as largely highlighted in the literature [7,8,20], the concept of universal accessibility is gaining greater importance for the tourism sector, and the demand for accessible tourism is increasingly rising and is expected to grow further in the next few years. This progress shows the acceleration of changes the tourism sector is experiencing, especially in those destinations where competitiveness and quality are fundamental guidelines of their tourism policies. However, although, in everyday life, all of us are surrounded by messages promoting inclusiveness and granting accessibility, these slogans are not accompanied by a real awareness of the population towards these issues, and tourists with disabilities continue experiencing problems and facing barriers that negatively affect their tourism opportunities [21].

Starting from these premises, the present study investigated whether potential tourists are effectively willing to pay extra money for being granted more accessible facilities in protected natural areas. In this regard, it is worth noting that the empirical literature has separately investigated the Willingness To Pay (WTP) applied to: (i) tourist destinations [22,23,24]; (ii) protected natural areas [17,25]; and (iii) accessible travel products [26].

To the best of our knowledge, the present study represents, therefore, the first attempt to jointly investigate the WTP for granting and being granted tourism accessibility in a natural area, thus filling such a gap in the literature. By applying the Contingent Valuation Method, a logit model was estimated to determine the probability that tourists are willing to pay extra money for accessible tourism facilities.

The analysis has been carried out in the Gargano National Park, Southern Italy, an area traditionally characterised by large tourist flows which have increased further during the recent pandemic [12].

The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 describes the relationship between accessible tourism and natural protected areas. In Section 3, materials and methods are described. Section 4 reports the main results achieved so far from the data analysis. Finally, Section 5 ends with some concluding remarks.

2. Tourism Accessibility and Protected Natural Areas

The literature [9,27] highlights the relevant role played by natural protected areas, i.e., those clearly defined geographical spaces “recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” [28] (p. 2), especially national and regional parks, in creating living landscapes and vibrant rural areas and in maintaining local communities in these territories. These sites of high ecological value generally encompass a significant amount of natural resources which make them particularly relevant for biodiversity conservation [1]. Through their support to sustainable tourism, they work actively and concretely against land abandonment and depopulation of rural areas and contribute to mitigate many socio-economic problems affecting such areas (poverty, identity loss, unemployment, etc.). Moreover, protected areas contribute to preserving a healthy environment, to guaranteeing a healthy food production, and to achieving human well-being [27].

The interaction of human activities with protected areas is complex and often adversarial, even if this conflict changes according to the level and economic value of natural resources to preserve, as well as the category of protected areas, moving from the strict nature reserves to protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources (see https://www.iucn.org/ (accessed on 18 October 2021). Among the possible interactions between human actions and protected areas, tourism is one of the oldest, most debated and critical activities to consider [9]. Indeed, mass tourism can be very detrimental to the local natural environment and represents a concrete threat to ecosystems.

In contrast, as recognized by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Tourism Organization [29], sustainable tourism “[…] takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities”. Moving along the accountable and ethical behaviour perspective, a relevant segment of sustainable tourism is represented by accessible tourism, i.e., “tourism activated in public spaces in the absence of any kind of barrier (architectural, cultural, sensorial, attitudinal, communicational, or informational) that remains a significant challenge for the tourism industry” [30,31].

Accessible tourism is therefore fully in line with the ethical goals of protected areas and enables persons with permanent or temporary impairments to enjoy, independently and fully, a tourist destination [32,33,34]. As highlighted in the literature [35,36,37], such impairments go beyond the mere physical conditions that may affect a person’s mobility as they also include: (i) language, cognitive, sensory and/or mental limitations which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder the full and effective participation of people on an equal basis with others; (ii) various types of chronic diseases, such as allergies, intolerances and coeliac disease; (iii) temporary limitations involving pregnant women, parents with strollers, etc.; (iv) limitations related to age, as in the case of children and elderly people.

The problem of accessibility to tourist destinations is receiving an increasing deal of attention, and the relevance of the tourism market for people with accessibility problems is constantly growing. In Italy, for instance, people with mild or severe disabilities amount to approximately 12.8 million [38]. At the global level, according to the World Health Organization [39], 15% of the world’s population (1 billion people) is estimated to live with some form of disability and, when members of their families are considered too, these figures increase up to more than 2 billion, i.e., almost a third of the world’s population.

On the basis of these figures and according to the findings achieved by some studies concerning a higher WTP for more accessible facilities [13,24,26,32], accessible tourism may represent a very profitable segment. On the other hand, it must be emphasised that ensuring the accessibility of tourist destinations is very challenging and requires a significant compliance from tourist suppliers not only in terms of the costly adaptation of tourist facilities to specific standards, but also in terms of a greater attention and tailored services towards travellers [20].

This tourism segment can represent a relevant opportunity of development for protected natural areas, as well as the possible precondition for most of rural tourism strategic actions and policies [11,12,15,40,41]. From a sustainability perspective, accessible tourism—as with any form of sustainable and controlled exploitation of the territory—can be a notable key of development for natural areas. Therefore, planning and offering more accessible facilities instead of increasing exclusively large-scale and mass tourism can represent a meaningful source of competitive advantage for them and, in general, for rural territories, by allowing it to trigger a multiplier effect [36] and, at the same time, to protect their landscape and cultural heritage [2,42]. This is indeed fully consistent with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations contained in the 2030 Agenda, which aim to achieve equality among people, to protect the planet and to ensure prosperity [10].

Therefore, in light of the significant role played by protected areas on several fronts (environmental, social and ethical) and of their relevance to outline rural development strategies, it is worth investigating the WTP and the awareness of potential tourists about accessibility to these areas [36].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The analysis was carried out in the Gargano National Park (https://www.parcogargano.it (accessed on 7 October 2021), which is one of the most renowned tourist destinations in Southern Italy (Figure 1).

The Park—established in 1991—encompasses an area of approximately 120,000 hectares and includes 18 municipalities with several tourist attractions, including coastal towns (e.g., Mattinata, Peschici, Rodi Garganico, Vieste), historical and religious sites (e.g., Manfredonia, Monte Sant’Angelo, San Giovanni Rotondo) and protected areas (e.g., the Umbra Forest, the Marine Reserve of the Tremiti Islands). Moreover, the Park preserves an extraordinary concentration of different habitats, including rare flower and wildlife species. In light of this, the Gargano National Park exhibits a manifold tourist supply and a strong tourism potential. After a period of stable and consolidated tourist flows, tourism demand suffered a sharp decline due to the COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, but it saw a very important increase immediately after the first reopenings. In 2021, in fact, the number of arrivals to the Gargano area has increased by 45% compared to the previous year [43,44] (Figure 2).

Moreover, the Park was recently involved in an Interreg European project (E-Parks—“Environmental and Administrative Knowledge Networks for a Better Tourist Attractiveness in Protected Natural Areas”), aimed at improving the tourism accessibility of the area. A relevant outcome arising from the project was the development of a special trademark (namely, the “E-Parks Trademark”) to those tourism suppliers which demonstrate to be particularly engaged in the improvement of tourism accessibility. In this perspective, it is relevant to explore the extent to which tourists actually recognise the increased efforts made by tourism suppliers to make their facilities more accessible.

3.2. Methodology

Economic valuation methods for nonmarket goods and services comprise a range of empirical approaches to estimate a monetary value for the trade-off a person would be willing to have increase the amount of a good or service for which there exists no market. These can be classified into stated-preference methods, based on what respondents state in interviews/questionnaires, and revealed-preference methods grounded on observed decisions.

Due to the lack of a real market for accessible tourism in protected natural areas, a stated-preferences method, specifically the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) [45,46], was adopted to elicit the WTP of potential tourists. This is one of the most widely used methods for the value appraisal of nonmarket goods, and despite the achievement of stated preferences instead of revealed ones, it contributes to providing an interesting overview of the actual readiness and sensitivity of the potential tourist demand [45]. In the stated preference method, respondents are asked how much they are willing to pay or accept for a service or product that does not yet exist on the market; therefore, the results are influenced by uncertainty. However, the greatest advantage of this method is the reliability of the survey results, provided that the product or service is clearly explained and that the payment forecasts are realistic [22,46]. Moreover, if strict procedures are followed and pretesting is carried out, CVM is the only method: available to a researcher who is looking for nonuse values; its figures usually incorporate consumer surplus; it allows one to quantify nonmarket environmental benefits and whose value simultaneously incorporates multiple components; it expresses a direct estimation of willingness to pay and/or to accept and represents a very versatile method [22,47]. Notwithstanding, CVM exhibits some weaknesses such as: embedding problems (i.e., difficulty in separating environmental values from wider values); operational biases of strategic, hypothetical, information and policy nature; credibility problems; risk for answers to be influenced by respondents’ budget constraints (income or standard of living) [48,49]. More importantly, part of the literature comparing stated and revealed preferences highlights that individuals tend to overstate their valuation of specific goods or services, leading to the misestimation of their relative values (so-called “hypothetical bias”, see [50,51,52]).

3.3. Model

Logistic regression models are commonly used to build a model from a linear predictor of the probability of the occurrence of an event; particularly, it is used to predict the probability for WTP to occur. In this method, the dependent variable is dichotomous and, specifically, is defined for Yi = 1 in the presence of a WTP and =0 otherwise.

According to Halkos [53], the discrete probability distribution is:

Pr(Yi, Θi) = Θi^Yi (1 − Θi)^1–Yi

(1)

Therefore, this model analyses the records of the binomial distribution Yi ~ B (pi, ni), for i = 1, …, n, wherein the probability of success pi is unknown and the number of Bernoulli tests ni is known [54].

The specification of the logit model is:

$$\mathrm{Logit}\mathrm{P}\left(\mathsf{\beta },\mathrm{Xi}\right)={\mathsf{\beta }}_0+{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}1}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_2{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}2}+\dots +{\mathsf{\beta }}_{\mathrm{k}}{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{ik}}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\mathrm{i}=1,\dots ,\mathrm{n}$$

(2)

By employing an algebraic transformation, it is possible to calculate the odds ratio. The corresponding Logit model is indeed a transformation of the probability Pr(Y = 1) that is specified as the natural logarithm of the WTP which results in E(Y = 1) [53].

In this way, the logit model allows the determination of the probability that a tourist shows a higher WTP for accessible tourism according to a number of different independent variables. In this regard, lassic socio-demographic and socio-economic aspects characterising tourists (age, sex, level of education, place of origin, income, etc.) are very frequently included as explanatory variables of WTP. However, the way by which these variables may affect the respondents’ WTP is not univocally recognised in the literature [54]. Moreover, some empirical studies have investigated the relationship between trip characteristics and visitor spending, analysing whether the type of tourist facility (hotel, restaurant, etc.) has some effect on expenditure [55,56]. Finally, consistent with the present study’s aims, a variable that would likely affect the WTP is represented by accessibility difficulties experienced by respondents.

In light of this, the econometric model estimated was the following:

$$\begin{gathered} \mathrm{WTP}={\mathsf{\beta }}_0+{\mathsf{\beta }}_1\mathrm{GEN}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_2\mathrm{AGE}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_3{\mathrm{AGE}}_{\mathrm{GEN}}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_4\mathrm{DIST}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_5\mathrm{EDU}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_6{\mathrm{OCC}}_1+{\mathsf{\beta }}_6{\mathrm{OCC}}_2+{\mathsf{\beta }}_6{\mathrm{OCC}}_3+{\mathsf{\beta }}_6{\mathrm{OCC}}_4+ \\ {\mathsf{\beta }}_7{\mathrm{OCC}}_5+{\mathsf{\beta }}_8\mathrm{INC}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_9\mathrm{ACC}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_{10}\mathrm{USE} \end{gathered}$$

(3)

where:

• WTP is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is willing to pay extra money for being granted more accessible tourism facilities within the Gargano National Park; =0 if they is not willing;
• GEN is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is a man and 0 if it is a woman;
• AGE is a categorical variable ranging from 1 to 5, where =1 if the respondent is 18–25 years; =2 if 26–40; =3 if 41–55; =4 if 56–70; =5 if they are older than 70;
• AGE_GEN is an interaction variable obtained as AGE is multiplied by GEN, which captures the joint effect of both the variables;
• DIST represents the distance in kilometres between the respondent’s place of residence and the nearest access point to the Gargano National Park. In this regard, two possible access points were considered: the first was the municipality of Apricena, for respondents located in Northern and Central Italy; the second was the municipality of Manfredonia for respondents located in Southern Italy;
• EDU represents the respondent’s educational qualification and assumes values ranging from 1 for the lowest education level (i.e., primary school certificate) to 5 for the highest educational level (i.e., the master degree);
• OCC₁ is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is a public or private employee; =0, otherwise;
• OCC₂ is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is unemployed; =0, otherwise;
• OCC₃ is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is an entrepreneur or a freelancer; =0, otherwise;
• OCC₄ is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is retired; =0, otherwise;
• OCC₅ is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent is a student; =0, otherwise;
• INC represents the respondent’s monthly income. It is a categorical variable ranging from 1 to 6, where is 1 if the income is below EUR 1000; 2 if it is included between EUR 1001 and 2000; 3 if it is included between EUR 2001 and 3000; 4 if it is included between EUR 3001 and 4000; 5 if it is included between EUR 4001 and 5000; 6 if it is higher than EUR 5000;
• ACC is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent declared to have faced some difficulties accessing hotels and/or restaurants in the previous 24 months; =0, otherwise;
• USE is a dummy variable =1 if the respondent enjoyed at least a tourist service (hotels and/or restaurants) in the previous 24 months; =0 otherwise.

3.4. Data

In order to estimate model (3), data were collected by means of an ad hoc designed survey addressed through the CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) technology both to people with and without disabilities. More specifically, the questionnaire’s link was sent by email to tourism and disability stakeholders and posted on selected groups in the main social networks. Notwithstanding some shortcomings arising from online questionnaires (e.g., possible lack of attention of the interviewed persons during the compilation; the difficulty for respondents to understand questions that could result in some evaluation bias; impossibility to really recognise strategic or untruthful replies [57,58,59]), this tool exhibits a number of strengths. For instance, it enables distant respondents to take part in the survey, to reach difficult-to-contact individuals and to guarantee interviewees’ anonymity with an overall increase in the response rate. Moreover, online surveys reduce researchers’ time and effort due to the automatic data collection, as well as allow an almost instant response time [60,61,62]).

As the CVM results depend on the level of information detail provided to respondents about the area being valued, an exhaustive description of the Gargano National Park together with a picture of its more symbolic landscapes and well-known natural beauties are presented at the beginning of the questionnaire in order to limit the risk for respondents to give an incorrect WTP due to the lack of knowledge about the Park. Moreover, despite the lack of a widely accepted theory of hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys [63], some ex ante methods have been employed in the survey design, by emphasizing consequentiality of the survey and respondents’ choices and urging respondents to be honest and to act as though they really had to pay for improved accessibility.

The first section of the questionnaire collects general information about the respondents (gender, age, employment, income etc.) to outline the interviewees’ profile. A further question investigates the respondents’ distance from the Gargano National Park, distinguishing between different types of tourists, namely: (i) short-distance tourists (who live within a 50 km radius of the Park, making daily excursions without staying overnight); (ii) middle-distance tourists (who live within a 50–150 km radius and stay overnight); (iii) long-distance tourists (who live at more than 150 km away from the Park and stay overnight). In the second section, respondents are asked whether they experienced some accessibility problems in hotels or restaurants and if they believe that prices for more accessible tourist facilities should be higher. Finally, they are asked about their WTP some extra money to be granted with improved accessibility to Gargano National Park’s facilities.

A pilot questionnaire was administered in October 2021 to a small group of respondents, to check for the questions’ intelligibility and the survey’s logical structure. Afterwards, the final questionnaire (reported in Appendix A) was administered at the beginning of November 2021 and is still ongoing. So far, 323 valid responses, among which 82 were from respondents with some types of disabilities, have been collected, which provide an appropriate sample size as suggested by Mitchell and Carson [64].

Most of the respondents (65.6%) are women and 38.7% are aged between 41 and 55 years. Only 2.5% are over 70 years old. The level of education is very high: 45.2% of respondents have a degree, whereas only 0.6% have an elementary school certificate. Regarding employment, 42.7% are public/private employees, followed by 22.3% of students. With regard to income, respondents with a EUR 1000–2000 monthly salary amount to 31.3%, followed by individuals with a EUR 2001–3000 income (26.9%). In terms of geographical distribution, 43.0% are located between 0 and 50 km from the Gargano National Park. Almost all respondents have spent at least one night in a hotel/guest house/b&b and/or have enjoyed at least a meal in a restaurant over the previous 24 months. Finally, only 25.4% declared some difficulties in accessing accommodation facilities or restaurants. Further details about the respondents’ characteristics are reported in the next section (Table 2—column (a)).

4. Findings and Discussion

The econometric analysis was carried out by means of the STATA 16 software.

Table 1. The logistic regression output (dependent variable: WTP).

Variable	β	Standard Error	p-Value	Odds Ratios	Odds Ratios 95% Interval Confidence	Wald Test
GEN	−1.531	0.706	0.030	0.216	0.054–0.862	4.710
AGE	−0.257	0.199	0.195	0.773	0.524–1.141	1.680
AGE_GEN	0.523	0.255	0.040	1.688	1.024–2.781	4.220
DIST	0.001	0.001	0.618	1.000	0.999–1.001	0.250
EDU	−0.033	0.173	0.849	0.967	0.689–1.359	0.040
OCC1	0.675	0.412	0.101	1.965	0.877–4.405	2.690
OCC2	1.366	0.484	0.005	3.921	1.519–10.125	7.970
OCC3	0.024	0.499	0.961	1.025	0.386–2.724	0.000
OCC4	0.776	0.672	0.249	2.172	0.581–8.116	1.330
OCC5 a	0			1
INC	−0.012	0.089	0.890	0.988	0.828–1.178	0.020
ACC	−0.409	0.294	0.164	0.664	0.373–1.182	1.940
USE	1.115	0.957	0.244	3.050	0.467–19.918	1.360
Number of obs	320
McFadden’s R2	0.043
McKelvey and Zavoina’s R2	0.075
Cragg and Uhler’s R2	0.077
LR Test	18.990		0.089
Hosmer-Lemeshow Test	8.910		0.541

^a Reference category. Source: own processing based on obtained data.

shows the findings achieved from the estimation of model (3). Plots of significant coefficients are reported in Appendix B.

Table 1 shows that women are more willing to pay extra money for improved accessibility than men and that, for the same gender, the older the respondents are, the higher their WTP is. This result is in line with Lee and Yoo [65] who found evidence that elderly people exhibit a greater WTP than the younger group, but in contrast with Adamu et al. [17] and Jurado-Rivas and Sánchez-Rivero [22] who showed a higher probability of WTP for males than for females. Occupation status seems to influence WTP. It is worth noting the negative sign of the “Difficulty of access” variable which—weakly statistically insignificant—suggests that respondents who have experienced some access difficulties are paradoxically reluctant to pay extra money for being granted more accessibility. No differences in WTP can be observed for age, with the related coefficient not being statistically significant. This result resembles the ones obtained by other previous studies such as Jurado-Rivas and Sánchez-Rivero [22], López-Sánchez and Pulido-Fernández [54] and Halkos and Matsiori [66]. Similarly, the remaining variables do not influence the respondents’ WTP for improved accessibility. However, as argued in the introduction, this is the very first study to explore WTP applied simultaneously to three very “sensitive” and complex issues such as tourist destinations, protected natural areas, and accessible travel products. Therefore, comparing aseptically the empirical results to those achieved in previous studies that analysed these issues separately could lead to opposite findings due to an “overlapping effect” resulting in a different expression of the WTP by the interviewed person.

Further information arising from data collected so far show that most of interviewees that retain that accessibility to Gargano’s tourist facilities should not require the payment of extra money. Indeed, only 9% of potential tourists believe that prices for more accessible facilities in the Gargano National Park should be higher than the regular ones.

Table 2. Characteristics of respondents.

		(a)			(b)			(c)
Demographic Variable	Item	Whole Sample (%)	Median	Mode	WTP Sample (%)	Median	Mode	Control Group (%)	Median	Mode
GEN	1: Male	34.4	0	0	46.7	0	0	33.1	0	0
	0: Female	65.6			53.3			66.9
AGE	1: 18–25 years	19.2	3	3	16.7	3	3	19.5	3	3
	2: 26–40 years	27.5			26.7			27.6
	3: 41–55 years	38.7			30			39.6
	4: 56–70 years	12.1			23.3			10.9
	5: Above 70 years	2.5			3.3			2.4
DIST	1: 0–50 km	43	93	41	50	50.1	41	42.3	93.9	41
	2: 51–150 km	22.3			30			21.5
	3: above 150 km	34.1			20			35.5
	n.c.	0.6			0			0.7
EDU	1: Elementary school certificate	0.6	4	4	0	4	4	0.7	4	4
	2: Secondary school certificate	5			3.3			5.1
	3: High school diploma	30.9			23.3			31.7
	4: Degree	45.2			53.3			44.4
	5: Master’s degree	18.3			20.1			18.1
OCC	1: Public or private employee	42.7	2	1	40	2	1	43	2	1
	2: Unemployed	13.9			10			14.3
	3: Freelancers	13			16.7			12.6
	4: Retired	8.1			13.3			7.6
	5: Student	22.3			20			22.5
INC	1: Below EUR 1000	10.8	3	2	20	3	3	9.9	3	2
	2: EUR 1001–2000	31.3			13.3			33.1
	3: EUR 2001–3000	26.9			36.7			25.9
	4: EUR 3001–4000	12.1			10			12.3
	5: EUR 4001–5000	6.5			0			7.2
	6: Above EUR 5000	12.4			20			11.6
USE	1: Yes	98.1	1	1	100	1	1	97.9	1	1
	0: No	1.9			0			2.1
ACC	1: Yes	25.4	0	0	13.3	0	0	27.2	0	0
	0: No	72.7			86.7			72.8

Source: own processing based on obtained data.

reports the characteristics of the whole sample (column a), of the sub-sample of respondents who are willing to pay (column b) and of the subsample of respondents who are not (control group—column c).

Such a subsample is composed of approximately 53% women, 30% are aged from 41 to 55 years, while only 3.3% are over 70 years old. As for the whole sample, the level of education is generally high; people with a degree amount to more than 53%. Furthermore, 40% of respondents work in the public or private sector, followed by 20% of students. Unlike the entire sample, most of the respondents’ income (36.7%) is between EUR 2001 and 3000, followed by people with lower than EUR 1000 and higher than EUR 5000 income. The geographical origin of respondents shows that 50.0% are located between 0 and 50 km from the Gargano National Park. All individuals in the subsample used at least a tourist service (hotels and/or restaurants) in the previous 24 months. Very interestingly, only 13.3% of respondents declared some difficulty in accessing accommodation facilities and/or restaurants.

Table 3. The WTP for more accessible single rooms in hotels, double/twin/family rooms, and restaurants, respectively.

WTP	Mean	Standard Deviation	Min	Max
Single room	EUR 15.47	14.36	EUR 0	EUR 50
Double/twin/family room	EUR 20.00	14.20	EUR 0	EUR 50
Restaurant	EUR 7.73	5.79	EUR 0	EUR 20

Source: own processing based on obtained data.

shows how respondents are willing to pay an extra amount of approximately EUR 15.50 for single rooms, EUR 20 for double/twin/family rooms, and EUR 7.75 for a meal in a restaurant.

The analysis has revealed that respondents with the highest WTP are female, with an age between 18 and 40 years, secondary school certificate or high school diploma, less than EUR 2000 of monthly income, and living above 51 km away from the Gargano National Park. Moreover, those who experienced difficulties in access exhibit a higher WTP for staying in a single room and for eating a meal in a restaurant, while those without difficulties in accessing the accommodation facilities declared a higher WTP for double rooms.

5. Concluding Remarks

The findings achieved in the present preliminary study show that only a limited number of respondents are willing to pay some extra money to be granted easier access to the Gargano National Park’s tourism facilities. The low percentage in the WTP could stem from a number of reasons. First, the Italian mandatory requirements for tourist suppliers are strongly oriented towards safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities in order to allow them the full enjoyment of tourism activities. Similarly, respondents might consider accessibility as a service that should be guaranteed indiscriminately to all tourists and, therefore, they are not willing to pay additional amounts for it. Furthermore, temporary disability could not be perceived in such a pressing way as to affect WTP: from this viewpoint, people probably lack a “full culture” about the different dimensions of accessibility that is still considered a problem affecting only a few specific individuals and, specifically, wheelchair users. Finally, respondents might have perceived tourism facilities in the Gargano National Park as already easily accessible and, therefore, they did not feel the need to pay extra money to further improve their accessibility.

Another relevant result of the study concerns the existence of a direct relationship between the WTP for improved accessibility, age, gender and occupational status of tourists. In contrast, the empirical evidence shows that educational level, distance from the Gargano National Park, income, and the previous enjoyment of tourist services do not affect the WTP.

Overall, the study highlights that, although the concept of accessibility should be theoretically instilled in the mind of the tourists, its manifestation as WTP for improved accessibility is not yet widespread. The high percentage of the respondents declaring that they are not willing to pay more for more accessible tourist services reveals a poor degree of awareness about the consequences that tourist management could have far from the principles of accessibility. Consequently, these findings suggest that it is necessary to design campaigns for raising awareness among visitors to the Gargano National Park about tourism accessibility, regardless of their educational level and income. To this purpose, different kinds of instruments could be used to reach the entire population, not only the best educated and most wealthy. In this regard, mobile applications related to tourism and social networks can represent examples of awareness channels that could reach all sectors and classes of society. Therefore, the tourist market should be segmented according to the origin of the tourist and its socioeconomic level in order to implement tailored communication policies of improved accessibility actions and strategies.

Although, from a methodological point of view, the whole analysis carried out is replicable to other protected natural areas, we are aware that the results may differ on the basis of the specific characteristics of the areas under investigation, as well as according to the different sensitivity of the short-distance tourists. For these kinds of respondents, personal sensitivity could be even affected by the specificity of the place of origin they are from.

Due to the increasing ageing of the population with resources to travel and with more disabled people being active in society, the demand for accessible tourist facilities is significantly rising. Moreover, on the basis of the changes that the tourism sector is experiencing, especially in those destinations, such as the protected natural areas, where quality represents the key guideline for any tourism policy, diversified strategies need to be implemented to increase the competitiveness of these areas, particularly suitable to host sustainable and accessible tourism. This requires the adaptation of tourist services and facilities to reduce barriers and include persons with disabilities in a very early phase of tourism products’ design.

An interesting result is that the preliminary evidence shows, as a very low number of potential tourists, a higher WTP for tourism facilities of the Gargano National Park with improved access. This can be considered as a caveat to tourism operators. Indeed, if further studies should confirm that full tourism accessibility is considered as a fundamental right for which nobody has to pay more, the adaptation of tourist facilities represents an exceptional opportunity for both businesses and the tourism sector and the precondition of any sustainable tourism policy and strategy to remain competitive.

However, such an adaptation should take into consideration the emergence of a low WTP for a higher accessibility. Therefore, the amount of people willing to pay more to enjoy additional accessibility services and facilities with respect to the required ones would be insufficient to cover the adaptation expenses.

One of the limitations of the present study is that it estimates only stated preferences, and it does not include revealed preferences; a new study for estimating revealed preferences needs to be conducted. Moreover, due to the small number of respondents willing to pay a higher amount for improved accessibility, new surveys to deeply investigate the reasons for the low WTP, with the inclusion of other factors that could condition the aforementioned availability to pay, will be conducted.

Finally, as the study focuses on tourism and disability from the consumers’ perspective, and not so much from the suppliers’ viewpoint, a possible future direction is represented by the investigation of the tourism suppliers’ expectations.