Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, you have to rewrite the keywords to remove the compound ones and reduce them. The abstract must show the main conclusion of the work, it must be incorporated.

 In the introduction it is necessary to identify the main objective of the work, which is presumed in the title, as well as some secondary objective derived from it. It jumps to the methodology without establishing hypotheses, H1, H2…etc.

The results of the interviews are little explained. Otherwise the work is quite good, so congratulate the authors for its originality.

Finally, it would be convenient to add more international jcr bibliography.

Author Response

Authors: We are grateful for all the constructive suggestions and comments, and for the time spent analysing and, most of all, contributing to the quality of this new version. Thank you very much.

In my opinion, you have to rewrite the keywords to remove the compound ones and reduce them. The abstract must show the main conclusion of the work, it must be incorporated.

R: Thank you for the suggestions. We agree with both. We eliminated the keywords that were present in the title and substituted by new ones. The now keywords are: Competitiveness; Accessibility; Reduced Mobility; Accessibilities; Niche Tourism; Sustainability. Regarding the abstract, we revised the contributions and revised the text to make them clearer. Is is now stated like this: Our findings reveal that entertainment, general and tourism infrastructures, accommodation, the various activities and cultural resources and the quality of services, are the ones that present greater accessibility for people with reduced mobility. The factors with less importance were: the marketing of a destination, the accessibilities and the natural resources.

 In the introduction it is necessary to identify the main objective of the work, which is presumed in the title, as well as some secondary objective derived from it. It jumps to the methodology without establishing hypotheses, H1, H2…etc.

R: Thank you for pointing this out. We now expanded the introduction to include a short description of the research gap based on existing literature as well to include the research objectives. Please see paragraph 1 and 2 of the introduction. Regarding the hypotheses they are now incorporated in the literature review. Please see pages 10 and 11.

The results of the interviews are little explained. Otherwise the work is quite good, so congratulate the authors for its originality.

R: Thank you for the supportive comment. Regarding the results of the interviews we revised the methodology section and replaced previous section 3.2. and 3.3 into a new one ‘3.2. Research approach’ which we believe respond to these two topics. Please note that the Delphi method was used using a selection and sorting approach, were the participants selected and ranked the topics. For this reason we can’t present the interviews in the ‘first person’.

Finally, it would be convenient to add more international jcr bibliography.

R: We agree with the reviewer. We expanded the references and included 8 new articles from JCR.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

Tourismhosp-1709341: Inclusive Tourism: Assessing the Accessibility of Lisbon as a Tourist Destination

 

This study examines an interesting issue. This analyze the accessibility of the city of Lisbon as a Tourism Destination. Considering the main objective of the study, interviews will be carried out with experts/researchers and with tourism and inclusive tourism associations, in order to analyse and evaluate their opinions. The Delphi method was used to answer the following objectives: to analyse the competitiveness of a destination for people with reduced mobility, to analyse if Lisbon is attractive and inclusive taking into account the infrastructures, services, hospitality, tourist attractions and accessibility, in order to answer the general objective - to verify the accessibility and attractiveness of the city of Lisbon as a tourist destination. The results obtained in the study show that Lisbon's factors and resources are increasingly accessible to people with reduced mobility. It was concluded that entertainment, general and tourism infrastructures, accommodation, the various activities and cultural resources and the quality of services, are the ones that present greater accessibility for people with reduced mobility, unlike the marketing of a destination, the accessibilities and the natural resources.

 

 

1. The authors should be added in the Introduction to the study's main contribution to the literature of this field. 
2. What is the difference between this study in relation to existing literature. The authors should set out the motivation behind their paper.
3. I recommend the authors extend the literature review. The authors should enrich the literature review with relevant papers such as Gillovic et al. (2018), Konstantakopoulou (2022). 
4. At the same time, authors should link more to their paper to be consistent. It is crucial to have coherence in section 2.1. 
5. The paper should be improved in the direction of coherence.
6. The authors should justify their selection of empirical methodology. 
7. Finally, to clarify the approach on the subject, the authors could insert a paragraph that underlines the technical purpose of the paper, as well as the research steps. 
8. The conclusions of the paper should be more specific. Some points of the conclusions should be moved to section 4.
9. The authors noted for chapters in lines 647, 859, 947, and 1011, but it is paper. These need to be corrected.

 

References

Gillovic, B., McIntosh, A., Cockburn-Wootten, C.,  Darcy, S., 2018. Having a voice in inclusive tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 71, 54-56.

 

Konstantakopoulou, I., 2022. Does health quality affect tourism? Evidence from system GMM estimates. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 425-440.

 

 

Author Response

Authors: We are grateful for all the constructive suggestions and comments, and for the time spent analysing and, most of all, contributing to the quality of this new version. Thank you very much.

The authors should be added in the Introduction to the study's main contribution to the literature of this field.

R: We agree with the reviewer. We now added the contributions in the last paragraph of the introduction.

What is the difference between this study in relation to existing literature. The authors should set out the motivation behind their paper.

R: Thank you for pointing this out. We now expanded the introduction to include a short description of the research gap based on existing literature as well to include the research objectives. Please see paragraph 1 and 2 of the introduction.

I recommend the authors extend the literature review. The authors should enrich the literature review with relevant papers such as Gillovic et al. (2018), Konstantakopoulou (2022). At the same time, authors should link more to their paper to be consistent. It is crucial to have coherence in section 2.1.

R: Thank you for the suggested references. Both of them are very pertinent for this article and were incorporated and included in a consistent way. You can see this in pag. 1 and 5.

The paper should be improved in the direction of coherence.

1. Thank you for the suggestion. The article was revised based on the reviewers’ suggestions and a final analysis of the article for coherence. Some parts were eliminated and others were added, including the hypothesis.

The authors should justify their selection of empirical methodology. Finally, to clarify the approach on the subject, the authors could insert a paragraph that underlines the technical purpose of the paper, as well as the research steps.

3. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that our previous presentation of the methodological approach as well a description of the research steps. Accordingly, we revised the methodology section and replaced previous section 3.2. and 3.3 into a new one ‘3.2. Research approach’ which we believe respond to these two topics.

The conclusions of the paper should be more specific. Some points of the conclusions should be moved to section 4.

R: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the conclusion and moved a part that we believe must be part of the previous section, turning the conclusions more specific.

The authors noted for chapters in lines 647, 859, 947, and 1011, but it is paper. These need to be corrected.

R: We agree with the reviewer. The word ‘chapter’ was replaced by ‘section’.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you for the supportive comment.