ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF SMART ON THE ACCESSIBILITY OF PEOPLE LIVING WITH MOBILITY DISABILITIES

A thesis submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.

By

Barbara Apaalabono Atanga

May 2020

©Copyright 2020 by Barbara Apaalabono Atanga All Rights Reserved

ii Thesis written by

Barbara Apaalabono Atanga

B.A, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, 2017

MSC, Kent State University, 2020

Approved by

______Director, Master’s Thesis Committee Seon Jeong Lee

______Member, Master’s Thesis Committee Aviad A. Israeli

______Member, Master’s Thesis Committee Kiwon Lee

Accepted by

______Director, School of Foundations, Kimberly Schimmel Leadership and Administration

______Dean, College of Education, Health and James C. Hannon Human Services

iii ATANGA, BARBARA APAALABONO, MSC, May 2020 FOUNDATION, LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF SMART TOURISM ON THE ACCESSIBILITY OF PEOPLE LIVING WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES (49 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Seon Jeong Lee, PhD

Several researchers have conducted studies investigating the challenges faced by people living with disabilities when they participate in tourism activities. Some of these barriers have been removed due to the implementation of the Americans with Disability

Act. However informational challenges still exist even with the popularity of technology.

Smart tourism has gained a lot of attention in recent times due to its potential to provide useful information that can remove the informational barriers that still exits. This research explores the characteristics of smart tourism platforms that are most important to people living with mobility challenges. In order to achieve this objective, this study adopted a qualitative approach. The researcher collected information from participants using in depth interviews. Five participants with mobility challenges were interviewed.

Prior to the interview, participants downloaded the Disney experience app which has smart tourism features. Participants were encouraged to familiarize themselves with the app before the interview. Data collected were analyzed using the five-step approach for analyzing qualitative data designed by O’Connor and Gibson (2003). Direct quotations were also used to support finding. The results of the study revealed that information quality, personalization, and interactivity were the most important features to people living with mobility challenges when they used smart tourism platforms like that of

Disney. Hospitality and tourism organizations therefore need to provide specific information about accessibility and desist from using the umbrella term “ADA accessible.” Also, personalization and interactivity must not be taken for granted.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, my sincere thanks goes to the Almighty God for seeing me through my master’s program at Kent State University. Also, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Supervisor, Dr. Seong Jeong Lee, and my committee members,

Dr. Aviad A. Israeli and Dr. Kiwon Lee for their patience, support, inspiration, zeal, and immense knowledge throughout my research. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family who provided me with their unwavering support throughout my entire study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Study Background ...... 1 Problem Statement ...... 4 Expected Contributions ...... 6

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 8 Smart Tourism ...... 8 Americans with Disability Act ...... 9 Informational Needs of People With Disabilities ...... 11 Disability in the Tourism Research ...... 13

III. METHODOLOGY ...... 16 Research Design...... 16 Data Collection ...... 16 Sampling Procedure ...... 18 Interview Development ...... 18 Data Analysis ...... 19

IV. FINDINGS ...... 21 Demographics ...... 21 Themes ...... 22 Information Quality ...... 22 Information Reliability ...... 23 Richness of Information ...... 24 Personalization ...... 26 Interactivity ...... 27

V. DISCUSSION ...... 29

VI. CONCLUSION...... 33 Theoretical Implications ...... 35 Managerial Implications ...... 35 Limitations and Suggestions ...... 36

v

APPENDICES ...... 37 APPENDIX A. INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY ...... 38 APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 41

REFERENCES ...... 43

vi 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Study Background

The number of people living with disabilities is large and this is expected to substantially increase in the next 30 years (Colby & Ortman, 2014). Buhalis, Eichhorn,

Michopoulou, and Miller (2005) reported that there were 12.75 million people experiencing mobility challenges in the European Union. These individuals together with their caregivers have up to 166 billion Euros that can be spent on tourism. Fertility rates have increased and the elderly population is increasing at a faster rate than the younger population (Colby & Ortman, 2014). Also, due to breakthroughs in technology and health, life expectancy at older ages is increasing (Mattke, Kelley, Scherer, Hurst, &

Lapetra, 2006). Old age has a positive relationship with mobile disability, implying that with time there will be more people with physical disabilities willing to participate in tourism activities as time goes by (Jette & Branch, 1981).

According to the International classification of functioning, disability and health

(ICF), disability is multidimensional and serves as an umbrella term that includes several domains. According to Altman (2014), disability has been used in several situations to refer to impairments that come about as a result of disease and injury, mental, physical and emotional limitations or even the challenges that an individual face as a result of his impairment. However, for the purpose of this research, disability is defined as a social construct that arises as a result of the social and physical environment within which the individual lives (Braveman & Gottlieb, 2014). Physical disability refers to a situation

2 which limits an individual physically and lasts for at least one year (Liou, Pi-Sunyer, &

Laferrere, 2005). The characteristics of physical disability include lack of manual dexterity, upper and lower limb loss, and the lack of coordination with different parts of the body. People with physical disabilities usually have aids such as crutches and wheelchairs. The degree of physical disability varies greatly and people with such impairments are highly susceptible to stress and frustration when trying to perform activities (Daniels, Rodgers, & Wiggins, 2005).

Several barriers have been identified to discourage people living with disabilities from engaging in tourism. These barriers include physical and informational barriers, such as architectural barriers and lack of useful information provided. Even though much progress has not been made in the developing world, developed countries have made tremendous progress in removing most of the physical barriers. The Americans with

Disability Act of the USA (1990), the Equality Act of England (2010), the Disability

Discrimination Act of Korea (2007), and the Disability Discrimination Act of Australia

(1992) have all been implemented to discourage discrimination and encourage inclusion of all persons so that no one is left behind (B. K. Lee, Agarwal, & Kim, 2012). These legislations have made it compulsory for all tourism and hospitality ventures to consider inclusion and be physically accessible to all.

With regards to making information readily available on the Internet for people living with disabilities, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) was provided. The initiative demonstrates how the World Wide Web can be made accessible to people with unique needs (WAI, 2005). Even though all these interventions have removed

3 infrastructural barriers to some extent, informational barriers still exist. For instance, information detailing the accessibility of destinations which is critical to the planning stage is still not adequate (Michopoulou & Buhalis, 2013). Infrastructural barriers at destinations can be removed and the Internet can be made adaptive to people with different types of needs but if the required information is not provided, people with disabilities will be unable to effectively and efficiently engage in active .

Smart tourism is a popular term used in recent times to describe the dependence of the tourism and on Information and Communication Technology

(ICT). According to Wang, Jin, and Zhou (2012, p. 10), “smart tourism is an overall, transparent, precise, easy, prompt and an omnipresent application of tourism information.” Smart tourism allows for the transformation of massive data into meaningful information for potential tourists with the aim of improving tourist satisfaction and the attractiveness of tourism and hospitality ventures (Gretzel, Koo,

Sigala, & Xiang, 2015). In this study smart tourism is defined according to Gretzel,

Werthner, Koo, and Lamsfus’s study (2015). According to them, smart tourism is the use of technology to develop mobile applications that integrates data that is derived from physical infrastructure. An example of a smart tourism app is the smart Taiwan app. The app is described on Google Play store as a smart trip tool that provides information before, during, and after a trip in Taiwan (Yoo, Goo, Huang, Nam & Woo, 2017). The app provides users with comprehensive travel information and reduces the amount of time that one will typically use in searching for such information. It identifies the

4 geographical location of users and provides relevant information, individualized suggestions, proactive reminders, and several personalized travel related guides.

Information systems like smart tourism provide information to tourists during the pre- and-post planning stages (Huang, Goo, Nam & Yoo, 2017). Many travelers have already identified the Internet as a credible source of information. Its user-generated content even makes it more important and beneficial to both potential tourists and tourism and hospitality ventures (Drews & Schemer, 2010). The community-driven content of information provided also makes it a viable tool in removing the information barriers faced by people with disabilities. Specifically, smart tourism can be used in addressing the informational needs of people with disabilities because of its transparency, precision, easiness, promptness, and interactivity (Wang, Jin, & Zhou, 2012). However, information systems such as smart tourism can only be successful when user satisfaction is achieved. The key to achieving this user satisfaction is the correct identification of the needs of people with disabilities. According to Eichhorn, Miller, Michopoulou, and

Buhalis (2008), to achieve user satisfaction for people with disabilities, there should be a sophisticated understanding of the unique needs of different disabilities such as people with visual and hearing impairment. Failure of most systems can be attributed to the failure to identify the right information requirements for unique disabilities (Michopoulou

& Buhalis, 2013).

Problem Statement

Several legislations have been passed in developed countries to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities. However, most facilities make these infrastructural changes

5 just to comply with the laws without realizing the potential of the market (Burnett &

Baker, 2001). People living with disabilities together with their families and friends constitute a large market from which tourism and hospitality ventures can benefit

(O’Neill & Knight, 2000). Businesses that do not invest in understanding the needs of this market segment might miss out on the numerous benefits associated with this segment.

There is a general assumption that the dominance of technology has provided a leveled playing field for people with disabilities. However, Foley and Ferri’s (2012) study indicates that the relationship between technology and disability is not a straightforward one. Their study concluded that even though people generally associate technology with access and inclusion, it can also create its own barriers. This notion is supported by Goggin, Newell, and Newell (2003), who believe technology creates new forms of disability rather than eliminating it. It is therefore very important to analyze how technology has impacted disability (Michopolou, Darcy, Ambrose, & Buhalis,

2015). As noted by McGuire, Dottavio, and O’Leary (1986), the challenges faced by people living with disabilities are not stable, it is adaptive. Therefore, there is the constant need to research new forms of technology and its challenges.

There has been considerable research investigating the informational needs of people living with disabilities and the various sources of information preferred by people living with disabilities. Several researchers have also focused on the impact of smart tourism on the travel decision support of the general population, the usefulness of smart tourism, and how smart tourism impacts tourist satisfaction (Yoo et al., 2017). Yoo et

6 al.’s study investigates how smart tourism enables the general population to achieve satisfaction. The results of the study indicated that interactive and credible smart tourism platforms enable users to achieve travel decision support satisfaction. Several studies have also identified the challenges faced by people with disabilities when travelling (B.

K. Lee et al., 2012). One study that investigates the challenges faced by people living with disabilities concluded that the challenges can be categorized into intrapersonal and structural constraints (Daniels et al., 2005). The challenges that were considered intrapersonal included emotional constraint and knowledge negotiation. Even though all these studies have been conducted, there is no research investigating the characteristics of smart tourism platforms that people living with disabilities look out for when they use such platforms.

The objective of this research is to explore the characteristics of smart tourism platforms that are most important to people with mobility challenges. To achieve this objective, an in-depth interview was employed. Interviews were conducted with people with mobility challenges.

Expected Contributions

The findings of this research make contributions to the literature of smart tourism and disability studies. Even though Yoo et al. (2017) have analyzed how the general population achieve travel decision support satisfaction by using smart tourism technology, no research has extended smart tourism to people living with disabilities.

This study therefore adds knowledge to the literature on smart tourism and also extends smart tourism to people with disabilities. This research helps understand the

7 characteristics of smart tourism that are most important to people living with disabilities and also sets the platform for future studies. Findings from this research draws the attention of researchers to important aspects of smart tourism and disability studies.

The numerous advantages associated with technology can play an important role in bridging the gap between people with disabilities and their participation in tourism. To be able to bridge this gap, research should be conducted to determine the features of smart tourism that are important to people living with physical disabilities. This research therefore helps determine the features of smart tourism platforms that are valuable to people living with physical disabilities.

8

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Smart Tourism

The development and dissemination of information technology led to the concept of smart tourism (Lazer, Brewer, Christakis, Fowler, & King, 2009). According to

Gretzel, Werthner, et al. (2015), smart tourism is highly dependent on the adoption of social media, mobile technologies, smart devices, and sensors to accumulate large amounts of data in order to create new value propositions for consumers. The emergence of smart tourism is directly related to the concept, and at the crux of smart tourism is sustainability. Smart tourism does not only provide useful information to tourists, it also helps improves the sustainability of destinations (Khan, Woo, Nam &

Chathoth, 2017). Smart tourism aims at developing distribution and communication channels in order to improve tourist experience and the competitiveness of tourism organizations (Gretzel, Werthner, et al., 2015).

Smart tourism refers to the use of technological solutions with the development of mobile applications in the context of travelling phases (pre-trip, during trip and post-trip) by integrating data derived from physical infrastructure (Gretzel, Werthner, et al., 2015).

It is also defined by Baidu online encyclopedia as the use of networking, cloud computing, and other new technologies with a portable terminal through the Internet to obtain information about tourism resources. The major objective of smart tourism is to provide a common platform where both visitors and destinations can interact for responsive orientation towards solving specific needs (Khan et al., 2017). This enables

9 tourists to acquire the right information in a timely manner in order make the appropriate and required travel arrangements. Smart tourism is considered as the overall, precise, transparent, prompt, easy, and omnipresent use of tourism information (Li, Hu, Huang, &

Duan, 2017).

Knowledge and information are essential for the competitiveness and innovativeness of the tourism industry (Hall & Williams, 2008). This makes smart tourism an important aspect of tourism in regard to information dissemination. This is supported by Li et al. (2017) who believes smart tourism was developed to meet the specific needs of tourists and also to improve tourist experience.

According to Yao and Lu (2013), smart tourism makes it possible for tourism resources and information to be integrated. This is believed to enable organizations to enter a new stage known as tourism informatization. Smart tourism revolves around tourism information; without information there is no smart tourism (Li et al., 2017). All stakeholders in the tourism industry have accepted the growing importance of information in the industry. The availability of information to people living with disabilities does not only lead to satisfaction but it also acts as an enabler to travel (Chung

& Buhalis, 2008).

Americans with Disability Act

The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) became law in 1990. The ADA was passed as a civil rights law that prevents people living with disabilities from being discriminated against in all areas of public life including education, jobs, transportation,

10 and all public and private places that are open to the general public (ADA National

Network, n.d.).

The ADA has made it compulsory for several public and private places to be accessible to people living with disabilities. The Act makes it unlawful for public services to be inaccessible to people living with disabilities. Also, accommodation and commercial facilities such as , , attractions, and other tourism ventures are also required by the law to remove existing physical barriers that prevent people living with disabilities from accessing the facility (Perritt, 2002). Based on the provisions made by the ADA, it is illegal for tourism ventures to be inaccessible to people because of their disabilities. It has been 30 years since the passing of the ADA and therefore, if not all destinations, the majority of destinations will have disability friendly designs.

Due to the demands of the ADA, accessibility of public places such as tourist attractions and destinations does not need much attention as it used to. The passing of the

ADA has forced a lot of public facilities into adopting disability friendly designs.

However, when it comes to the issue of Information and Communication Technology

(ICT), there are still pressing issues. According to Simpson (2009), ICT can improve the accessibility of people living with disabilities and at the same time contribute to creating barriers. Unfortunately, the relationship between the ADA and ICT is a bit unclear.

Some people believe the ADA is applicable to websites and other online based platforms.

There have been several court cases regarding the applicability of the ADA to websites.

Unfortunately, there has been no ruling that specifically enforces the application of the

ADA guidelines to websites (Simpson, 2009). Even though the majority of public

11 facilities are disability friendly, people with disabilities still need access to information in order to travel making ICT very important.

Informational Needs of People with Disabilities

Smith (1987) conducted a comprehensive research identifying the barriers preventing people living with disabilities from engaging in tourism activities. The barriers identified included environmental, interactive, and intrinsic barriers. He believed these barriers can be removed and once they are removed, the participation of people living with disabilities in tourism activities will increase. Since then several efforts have been made by the governments of different countries to improve accessibility. In the

United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed to protect people with disabilities from employment and public discrimination. This Act also removed architectural barriers that existed which made it difficult for people with disabilities to access facilities open to the public. Tremendous progress has been made since these barriers were identified, yet the participation of people with disabilities is still low compared to people without disabilities.

Puhretmair (2004) argued that even though the removal of all those barriers are important, the dissemination of information is equally important. The elimination of physical barriers will not yield any results if information regarding a destination’s accessibility is not communicated (Daruwalla & Darcy, 2005). According to McKercher,

Parker, Yau, and Lam (2003), participation in tourism activities involves complex interactions and therefore the removal of just physical barriers is not enough to increase

12 participation. To enable people living with disabilities to have access to facilities, they must be empowered through information.

Research has revealed that two main conditions influence touristic choices and satisfaction. The awareness of society and tourism providers about the varying informational needs of people with disabilities and the development of effective means of communicating the necessary information to people with disabilities is very important if satisfaction is to be achieved (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004). Generally, people assume that information and communication technology help break the barriers faced by people living with disabilities ignoring the fact that information and communication technology can also create unexpected barriers (Foley & Ferri, 2012). This makes it very essential to analyze smart tourism in relation to people living with disabilities.

The tourism system is an amalgam of several independent players and therefore for people with disabilities to actively participate in travel, they need information from all these players. According to Leiper (1995), the tourism system consists of five elements: generating region, destination region, transit region, travel and tourism industry, and an external environment. Information is needed from all these elements in order to deliver tourism products and services (Eichhorn et al., 2008). This becomes difficult because the different stakeholders involved might have conflicting interests. This even becomes more challenging because for people living with disabilities, they require more detailed information.

The lack of information is a major challenge faced by people living with disabilities (Smith, 1987). People living with disabilities have more things to consider

13 than people without disabilities and impairments (Yau, McKercher, & Packer, 2004).

People living with disabilities do not need only basic information about the location of a , type of service, and number of stars. They need extra information that convinces them that the entire destination is accessible, and facilities have all the services they require (Bizjak, Knežević, & Cvetrežnik, 2011). Deficiency in information provision has been identified by Darcy (1998) and it includes lack of accuracy and detail in information and inappropriate information format. People with disabilities require appropriate travel information sources, rich and reliable information, as well as customer-oriented communication services (Eichhorn et al., 2008). Due to the massive information needs of people with disabilities, most of them are unable to visit destinations of their choice (Yau et al., 2004).

Current research conducted by Kołodziejczak (2019) indicates that even though allows people living with disabilities to access public places, facilities and tourist services, information provision is still very important. With the popularity of the Internet, one might be misled into thinking that information is readily available.

However, research conducted by B. K. Lee et al. (2012) concluded that the lack of information and the trustworthiness of available information is just second to prevailing attitudes. This indicates that the lack of information is still a major challenge to people living with disabilities.

Disability in the Tourism Research

There are still arguments concerning how disability should be defined. This has resulted in the proposition of several definitions. Based on the various definitions

14 proposed, disability can be defined from three perspectives; medical, functional, and social (Francis & Silvers, 2016). Disability is generally defined as any type of impairment an individual has that results in personal or social consequences (Wasserman,

Asch, Blustein & Putnam, 2011). Socially, disability is seen as the relationship between an individual and his environment. For the purpose of this research, disability is viewed from the social perspective. The social model regards people with disabilities as normal people with a unique lifestyle. Disability is the challenges people face in the society as a result of their impairment (Wasserman, Asch, Blustein & Putnam, 2016). Several researchers have distinguished between disability and impairment. According to

Braddock and Parish (2001), disability is not the presence of an impairment, rather it is a socially constructed phenomenon.

Disabilities can be categorized into four; intellectual, physical or motor, hearing, and visual (World Health Organization, 2001). Different types of disabilities present different challenges and difficulties. It is therefore wrong to define all people with disabilities as a single segment (Blichfeldt & Nicolaisen, 2011). The majority of past tourism research that focuses on people with disabilities usually make generalizations without taking into consideration the different types of disabilities (Ray & Ryder, 2003).

According to Figueiredo, Eusebio, and Kastenholz (2012), much of the research concerning the participation of people with disabilities in tourism considers people with disabilities as a homogenous group. People living with disabilities are seen as a group that face the same challenges and have to overcome the same barriers in order to engage in tourism activities. This has led to the adoption of a one size fits all strategy in dealing

15 with constraints (McKercher & Darcy, 2018). This has hindered the removal of barriers faced by people with different impairments. Tourism stakeholders do not have a proper understanding of the different challenges faced by people with disabilities (Eichhorn &

Buhalis, 2011). Even though people with different types of impairments are considered living with disabilities, they have different decision-making processes (Israeli, 2002).

Due to this problem, there is disinformation on the supply side (Agovino, Casaccia,

Garofalo, & Marchesano, 2017). This implies that tourism and hospitality providers do not have accurate information about the needs of the disabled market.

16

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This research employed the qualitative approach. According to Strauss and

Corbin (1990, p. 17), qualitative research refers to “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification.” Qualitative research was used in order to gain a better understanding and illumination of the phenomenon. There are several advantages associated with using the qualitative approach. According to Poria, Reichel, and Brandt (2010), a qualitative methodology is recommended when the topic under investigation is complex and also there is the lack of existing data. Also, it is recommended when studying minority groups such as people living with disabilities. The qualitative research provides participants the opportunity to voice out their personal experiences and allows researchers to position themselves as learners. This approach was therefore chosen due to the group under study and the other numerous benefits of using a qualitative approach.

An in-depth interview was employed to collect information from people living with mobility challenges about their experiences with smart tourism platforms.

Data Collection

An interview was used for data collection. An interview refers to a conversation between an interviewer and an interviewee for the purpose of gathering information

(Easwaramoorthy & Zarinpoush, 2006). For the purpose of this research an in-depth interview was used. This type of interview was used in order to get a deeper

17 understanding of the ideas, behaviors, and thoughts of people living with mobility challenges. According to Austin (1981), interviews can also help overcome the poor response rates of a questionnaire or survey. Generally, interviews help interviewers evaluate the validity of the responses received using non-verbal cues which is very useful when discussing sensitive issues (Gorden, 1975).

For the purposes of this interview, the My Disney Experience app was used. The app has a lot of smart tourism features and provides information that is useful prior to and during a tourist visit. This app can simply be downloaded from Google play store or

Apple store. Participants were encouraged to download this app from the play store before the day of the interview so they can familiarize themselves with the app.

However, the interviewer had the app on her phone on the day of the interview so participants who were not able to download the app earlier used a few minutes before the interview to familiarize themselves with the app. Participants were given $15 gift cards for their time.

Interviews were held on February 4th, 7th, and 9th at a Starbucks store in Dayton,

Ohio. Participants D and E were both interviewed on the 9th of March whiles

Participants B and C were interviewed on the 7th of March. All interviews were held approximately at 4:00pm. Interviews were recorded and notes were taken by the interviewer throughout the interview. All interviews happened in the evenings, after work due to the busy schedules of respondents. The interviews lasted for approximately

30 to 45 minutes per respondent.

18

Sampling Procedure

Purposive sampling was used in selecting respondents for this study. Purposive sampling method allows the researcher to interact with people who can provide the right information based on experience or knowledge (Lewis & Sheppard, 2006). Since this study seeks to deal with people who have mobility challenges, interviews were held with people who have identified with this group. To be able to reach people with mobility challenges, the department of student accessibility services of Kent State University,

Cleveland State disability services, and Ohio State student accessibility services were contacted via email. Also, churches around Kent were contacted. Emails containing the link to a number of questions about their contact information and availability were sent to individuals who have registered with the department of accessibility services. Individuals interested in being interviewed had the opportunity to click on the link and leave their contact information and their availability. Individuals with mobility challenges who expressed interest were then selected and interviewed.

Interview Development

The interview consisted of three major parts. The first part consisted of the consent form. This form educated respondents about their rights. The consent form also explained the objectives of the research and the content of the interview. Participants were required to sign the consent form to indicate that, knowing their rights and what the research entails, they were still interested in participating in the research. They signed consent form was then returned to the interviewer (see Appendix A for the informed

19 consent form). The research was only administered after the interviewer received a written approval letter from the Institutional Review Board of Kent State.

The second part of the interview asked questions about demographics.

Information was collected about respondents’ age, income, number of times travelled in a year, their familiarity with smart tourism and who makes travel decisions for them. Since smart tourism is a new phenomenon, it was very likely some participants did not have an understanding of what it was. Therefore, before the interview began, participants were given the opportunity to explore the Disney Experience app which has smart tourism features. Participants were given the opportunity to use the app for about 5 minutes and then were interviewed about their experience afterwards. Questions used for this interview were developed based on existing literature on smart tourism. Questions were adapted from Huang et al. (2017) and Yoo et al. (2017) and modified in order to meet the objectives of this study (see Appendix B for the structured interview questions).

Data Analysis

The aim of this study was to explore the important characteristics of smart tourism that people with mobility challenges look out for when they use smart tourism.

To be able to achieve this objective, an in-depth interview was held with people with mobility challenges.

Data collected were analyzed using a five-step approach designed by O’Connor and Gibson (2003). According to O’Connor and Gibson’s five-step approach, responses obtained from participants must first be organized. The organization of responses enables the data collected to be arranged systematically and be focused enough (Miles,

20

Huberman, Huberman, & Huberman, 1994). Secondly, important and salient themes, ideas, and patterns that run across majority of the responses should be identified. Then frequently used terms and concepts should be coded and categorized. Overarching themes should be developed to cover all the similar categories developed. Finally, emergent findings must be identified and verified.

After the interview, the interviewer first transcribed the interview verbatim. The interviewer then read through the transcription several times and responses were reorganized to make the identification of themes easier. The interviewer then identified the salient themes and categorized it. Overarching themes were then created. The process was repeated in order to verify the themes. The direct quotations of respondents were also used. According to Corden and Sainsbury (2006), direct quotations of respondents are used to support findings, give a better understanding, give participants a voice, and enhance readability.

21

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Demographics

The study sample included a total of 5 participants who have mobility challenges.

Three of the participants were females whereas 2 were males. All 5 participants were between the ages of 26 and 35 years. Four of the participants were alumni of Ohio State

University and one was still doing her postgraduate studies at Ohio State. Two of the participants had an income between $20,000 and $29,000 whereas the other 3 had an income between $40,000 and $49,000. All participants had at least a bachelor’s degree.

All participants were technologically savvy and used the Internet more than 5 hours a week. Participants A, B and C travel 2 to 3 times on average a year whereas participants D and E travel 3 to 4 times on average. All participants said they rely on the

Internet when they travel and also made decisions regarding travel. Table 1 describes the sample characteristics of participants.

Participants were asked about who makes their travel decisions. All the participants said they made all important decisions regarding their travel. However, since they were all not independent enough to travel alone, they always have to talk to their caregivers about their availability. All participants said due to the unavailability of their caregivers sometimes, they are not able to travel as much as they want to.

22

Table 1

Demographics of the Respondents

Occupation Frequency Status Age Travel of Internet Participants (years) Gender Income ($) Times Use (hours) Education per year Employed A 28 Female 40,000- 2-3 5 or more Bachelor’s 49000 degree

B 30 Male 20,000- 2-3 5 or more Bachelor’s Employed 29,000 degree

C 28 Female 40,000- 2-3 5 or more Post graduate Student 49000 degree

D 26 Female 20,000- 3-4 5 or more Bachelor’s Employed 29,000 degree

Employed E 29 Male 40,000- 3-4 5 or more Bachelor’s 49,000 degree

Themes

The analysis of the information collected through interviews from people with mobility challenges revealed three salient themes. The themes that emerged are information quality, personalization and interactivity.

Information Quality

According to Petty and Cacioppo (1986, p. 136) information quality refers to “a subject’s perception that a message’s argument is strong and cogent.” The availability of quality information; rich and reliable information is an important need that has to be

23 fulfilled in order to enable people living with disabilities to engage in tourism (Cavinato

& Cuckovich, 1992).

Information Reliability

Quality information was one of the salient themes that emerged during the interview with participants. According to participants, quality information was very important to them when they used apps such as the Disney app. According to participants, they expect to get all information regarding the accessibility of the attractions and the destination in general.

Participants were asked about the quality of information provided by the Disney app. According to the majority of participants, reliability of information derived when using the app was very impressive to some extent. When asked about the reliability of information they found on apps such as the Disney app, four of the participants said information they got from the official apps of destinations were usually reliable.

The majority of participants also said that information about washrooms conforming to ADA standards is very broad and therefore how accessible a place to an individual is subjective. According to Participant A,

An app like the Disney experience app is not always accurate because it might say

ADA accessible, but ADA is an umbrella term so like the height of toilet seats or

height of paper towels and where you wash your hands can be accessible in

accordance to ADA but might not be accessible to some individuals. I can’t reach

a lot of them and have to jump or wait for someone to do for me.

24

Majority of the participants were very concerned about the information provided about washrooms. Some participants used wheelchairs whereas others used powerchairs and these two categories had different concerns about the washrooms. Participants who used wheelchairs wanted information about the height of toilet seats and paper towels and location of grab bars whereas those who used powerchairs were more concerned about the size of washroom cubicles and availability of adult changing stations. Participants who used power chairs said it was difficult turning around in the majority of washrooms.

Participant C said even with some of the ADA conformed washrooms, she still couldn’t reach paper towels and had to rely on the good deeds of others. All participants agreed that detailed information regarding accessibility of washrooms is usually not on apps like the Disney world app.

Richness of Information

Another important information that four of the participants said was lacking was information about the features of the individual attractions on the app. Participants said some of the rides at certain destinations are more friendly to wheelchair users than others.

According to participants, some wheelchair users are not allowed on certain rides after waiting for several minutes just to get the chance to have a ride. Participants said they were not allowed on certain rides at attractions such as Disney and this was very frustrating because they still must go through a long queue just for them to be told they cannot enjoy the ride due to safety reasons. According to Participant A,

25

I recently visited Cedar Point and I was kind of horrified how inaccessible it was

and how hard it was to access accessibility without having to go through a whole

process and then they banning you from certain rides based on your answers.

Participants believe these set of questions that are asked at the entrance of certain rides can be put as a survey on the Disney app in order to save them the frustration and hassle they have to go through just to be denied the opportunity to enjoy a ride.

Another detail that was important to participants was information regarding adult changing tables. Participants who used the adult changing table raised concern about how that is usually overlooked. According to participants, even though the availability of an adult changing table is not a requirement, it is a need for some of them and therefore information regarding its availability is very useful. Participants said some huge attractions do have it in some washrooms but information detailing which washroom has it is not available.

Participants were very impressed with the provision of specific directions within the park. Participant A expressed the importance of the provision of specific directions within the park by saying,

The personalization feature was really cool because I was able to get specific

directions within the park because if I was walking versus using the power chair, I

will like to know the shortest accessible path and having the app tell me that will

be way accurate than me trying to read a map or trying to figure it out.

All participants mentioned that due to the lack of some of the necessary information discussed above, they usually have a third website such as accessiblego.com

26 which is specifically designed to serve the needs of people living with disabilities. Sixty percent of participants said that after using apps like the Disney experience app, they usually visit at least one other website that is specifically meant for people living with disabilities in order to get the information they couldn’t access on the app.

McKercher et al. (2003) discovered in his research that many people living with disabilities use multiple information sources at the planning stage of travel. This is because information given in a single source is usually not sufficient. The provision of complete and relevant information through smart tourism will enable potential tourists to achieve satisfaction when using smart tourism platforms without having to search for extra information.

Personalization

People living with disabilities spend a great deal of time searching for specific information that suit their needs. To eliminate this time consuming and daunting activity, personalization was introduced. It refers to a technique that enables unique content to be generated for each individual depending on his or her needs (Greer & Murtaza, 2003).

Personalization has also been defined as the customization of information (Park &

Gretzel, 2007).

One major theme that emerged was the personalization feature available on the

Disney app. All participants said the filter tool on the app which enables them to select the specific disability they have is very useful. Eighty percent of participants mentioned that they were most impressed with the opportunity to further select whether one may remain in wheelchair, must be ambulatory, or must transfer from wheelchair. According

27 to Participant D, subsections under the specific mobility is very important because it will help further delineate the informational needs. According to Participant C, it is always helpful to have check boxes under a specific disability to enable customers to be more specific. Participant B emphasized this by saying,

“Not only do I have mobility challenges, but my hands are also impacted and that

has impacted my accessibility and that’s different from how standard ADA looks

at it. Standard ADA looks at it from you can’t walk perspective, but not only can’t

I walk but I also have upper limb mobility issues so having a way to see all that

on the app is very important.”

A study conducted by Greenwald and Albert (1968) indicated that people prefer messages that they generate by themselves to suit their needs than generally provided information. Individuals are more likely to achieve satisfaction with smart tourism when personalization features such as the filter tool are available on smart tourism platforms.

Interactivity

Interactivity is an essential information requirement for people with disabilities since each individual has his or her own specific needs. Interactivity allows information provided to be tailored to the specific needs of consumers. According to Huang et al.

(2017), interactivity is the facilitation of the actions of consumers through smart tourism by providing prompt feedback and active communication.

According to the majority of the participants, the app was not as interactive as they expected. Participants said there was not a “live agent tab” which is quite common on a lot of apps they use. They believe that even though from their experience they do

28 not usually get all their questions answered from those chats, it is still very important.

Even though there is a help feature on the app that enables potential customers to send emails if they need any assistance, this feature does not give participants the immediate response they may want. According to Participant C,

“If there was a way to get a live agent on there, I didn’t see it but that would be

helpful. It will give you specifics to accessibility.”

Some participants who have used apps like My Disney Experience that had the chat with a live agent tab said it wasn’t as useful as expected. Some participants shared their experiences about how the live agents couldn’t give them the needed information.

Some participants said they even went further to call the number on apps similar to the one by Disney and they were transferred to more than four people because none of these people knew the answer to their questions. According to participants, the majority of the individuals who interact with them are usually clueless about people with mobility challenges.

Interactivity has been considered as an important aspect of online information.

Interactivity improves communication, manipulates images, and helps customize information (Fiore, Jin, & Kim, 2005). Interactivity has been credited with increasing potential customers’ intention to search for more information and purchase services

(Fiore & Jin, 2003). Interactive platforms tend to make information more credible and specific to the potential customer. According to Yoo, Kim, and Sanders (2015), the overall satisfaction of an individual is dependent on the interactivity of a platform.

29

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

During the interview, participants emphasized that information quality, personalization, and interactivity were the characteristics of platforms such as the Disney app that was most important to them. Several studies have been conducted on the informational needs of people living with a disability. According to a study of 153 academic papers by Park and Gretzel (2007), the most frequently used attributes of online tourism information include information quality, ease of use, security/privacy, interactivity, accessibility, and personalization.

According to this research, it can be concluded that the information quality provided on the Disney app is impressive to some extent. According to participants, information that is usually provided by the official apps or websites of destinations is usually reliable. However, participants believe that the term “ADA accessible” is a broad term and is used very loosely. Therefore, even though platforms like that of the Disney app usually refer to their facilities as ADA accessible, they sometimes get there just to realize that even though it is indeed ADA accessible, it is still not accessible to them.

Participants therefore believe it is very necessary to include specific information rather than just the term “ADA accessible.”

Interactivity also emerged as another important theme. According to interviewees, the app was not as interactive as they expected it to be. Participants believe the app can be made more interactive to enable them to get their specific questions answered in a timely manner. Even though the app gave users the opportunity to send an

30 email if they needed assistance, participants believe that this is an old and slow form of communication and would prefer that they were given the opportunity to chat with a live agent. Participants expressed their frustration with other apps that even had live agents.

Participants believe the majority of the live agents do not have a proper understanding of the needs of people with mobility challenges and therefore training is needed.

Participants were extremely pleased with the filter tool on the app. Participants loved that the app gave them the opportunity to select their specific needs. Participants believe that there are different categories of mobility challenges and therefore having the chance to choose exactly what one needs is very necessary and saves time.

During the study when participants were asked about the ease of use, privacy and accessibility, the majority of participants said those features were not important to them.

This could be a result of the age range of participants. Participants used in this study were between the ages of 26 and 35. People within this age range are very likely to be technologically inclined compared to the older generation.

Yoo et al. (2017) conducted a research on smart tourism using the elaboration likelihood model. Based on this theory, Yoo et al. examined the relationship between information quality, credibility, interactivity, accessibility, and satisfaction. The study examined how self-efficacy moderated the relationship between information quality, credibility, interactivity, accessibility and satisfaction. The study revealed that information quality, credibility, interactivity and accessibility had a positive relationship with the satisfaction derived from using smart tourism. The study emphasized the importance of information quality to people with high self-efficacy. The respondents

31 used in this study were technologically savvy and that could be a possible reason for their increased concern about information quality when it comes to smart tourism. The study also indicated that accessibility is necessary for people living with disabilities; however, this was not the case in this study. Table 2 summarizes the themes that emerged during the analysis of data and how they were defined in this study.

Table 2

Summarization of Themes

Constructs Definition

Information Quality The availability of quality information; rich and reliable information is an important need that has to be fulfilled in order to enable people living with disabilities engage in tourism (Cavinato & Cuckovich, 1992).

Personalization It refers to a technique that enables unique content to be generated for each individual depending on his or her needs (Greer & Murtaza, 2003).

Interactivity Interactivity is the facilitation of the actions of consumers through smart tourism by providing prompt feedback and active communication (Huang et al., 2017).

The themes identified in this study is similar to the Technology Acceptance

Model (TAM). The TAM was proposed by Davis (1985). The model’s core variables are perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and attitude towards technology (Davis,

1985). The TAM predicts that the acceptance of technologies is as a result of the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the technology (Diek, Jung & Moon,

2015). This research revealed that information quality, interactivity, and personalization influence the use of smart tourism. Prior research identifies these features influence the

32 perceived usefulness of smart tourism (Abdullah, Shariff, Bahari, & Nor, 2017; Hanjaya,

Kom, & Gunawan, 2019). The perceived ease of use which is a major construct in TAM was not applicable in this study since the participants were technology savvy. They had no concerns about how easy it is to use the app.

33

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

Smart tourism is an interesting phenomenon that has gained popularity. This could be as a result of its potential to provide a common platform where both visitors and destinations can interact for responsive orientation towards solving specific needs (Khan et al., 2017). Smart tourism provides very useful information not only for the general population but also people living with physical disabilities. Information has been identified as a major challenge preventing people living with disabilities from traveling.

The ability of smart tourism to provide a platform for both visitors and destinations to share useful information makes it a viable tool for removing the informational challenges faced by people living with physical disabilities.

This study sought to explore the important characteristics of smart tourism platforms that people living with mobility challenges look out for when they use such platforms. To achieve this objective, a qualitative approach was adopted. Interviews were held with people living with mobility challenges. Participants interviewed for this study were chosen using purposive sampling. Data obtained from interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Direct quotations were used to support findings obtained after content analysis.

The quality of information was measured using the richness and reliability of information. The study revealed that the reliability of information provided by smart tourism was impressive. The majority of the participants agreed that information usually obtained from smart tourism platforms are usually a true reflection of the conditions

34 available at the website. However, the richness of information still seems inadequate.

According to the participants, information provided about the accessibility of destinations lacks specificity.

Participants were very satisfied with the personalization feature of the My Disney

Experience app. According to participants, the opportunity to further select their specific disability so that information is tailored to their specific needs is wonderful.

Interactivity is another important feature of smart tourism and therefore participants were asked about how interactive the platform is. The majority of participants said they were unsatisfied with the interactivity of the platform. They said they would prefer a well-trained live agent who can provide with responses promptly.

Based on the results derived, efforts must be made by destinations to increase the quality of information provided on their platforms. Efforts must be devoted to providing the necessary information needed by people with mobility challenges. Detailed information such as the restrictions associated with certain rides should be available on the platform.

The interactivity of smart tourism platforms should be given more attention.

Potential customers should have the opportunity to receive prompt responses.

Participants said they were unsatisfied with how interactive the app used for this interview. They believe the use of emails to get response to concerns is highly out of date especially if they are basic concerns.

35

Theoretical Implications

Altogether, this study makes meaningful contribution to literature. Based on the results that information quality, personalization, and interactivity are very important features that people living with mobility challenges value when they use smart tourism platforms, this study illustrates that it is very important to make information very specific and detailed. Platforms should also be very interactive and more personalized in order to meet the needs of people living with disabilities.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) has been used to examine the general population and the satisfaction they derive from using smart tourism technology by Yoo et al. (2017). To be able to conduct a similar research to examine the satisfaction derived by people living with disabilities when they use smart tourism, the features of smart tourism valued by people with mobility challenges must be understood. This research therefore adds to the theory of ELM in the field of tourism disability studies.

Managerial Implications

Based on the findings of this study, it is very important for destinations that seek to attract people with mobility challenges to address the needs of this group of travelers.

To enable people with mobility challenges to feel more comfortable traveling, smart tourism apps must provide specific information and not general information. If possible, pictures and videos of washrooms should be included.

Smart tourism platforms like the Disney app should be more interactive. Even though a live agent tab will greatly improve the interactivity feature of the platform, it will come with some financial burden. In order to reduce this financial burden, architects

36 of the platform can consider a way of responding to the concerns of people living with mobility challenges in a timely manner.

Also, personalization should be taken seriously. Features that enable respondents to tailor information to suit their own needs must be included. Options under the filter tool should not be broadly categorized. Specific disabilities should be listed to enable users to generate specific information.

Limitations and Suggestions

Although this research provides theoretical and practical implications, this study entails limitations that open the agenda for future research. First one of the major difficulties was getting respondents for data collection. Generally, people living with a disability are considered a minority group and this research specifically wanted to focus on people living with mobility challenges. This made it even more difficult to get the expected number of participants needed for this study.

Second, the results of this study do not represent the entire population. It is therefore suggested that future researchers consider using a more diverse population of people living with mobility challenges. Third, this study explored important features of smart tourism, but this study did not examine outcomes of having those features in the smart tourism applications. Future research should consider using a quantitative approach to analyze the relationships among the features identified, customers’ satisfaction with smart tourism, and their intention to travel.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

39

Appendix A

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study

Study Title: Assessing the impact of smart tourism on the accessibility of people living with physical disabilities. Principal Investigator: Dr. Seon Jeong Lee

You are being invited to participate in a research study. This consent form will provide you with information on the research project, what you will need to do, and the associated risks and benefits of the research. Your participation is voluntary. Please read this form carefully. It is important that you ask questions and fully understand the research in order to make an informed decision. You will receive a copy of this document to take with you.

Purpose There is a heavy dependence of the tourism and hospitality industry on technology. The recent popularity of smart tourism has gained the attention of many due to its ability to provide quality information. Informational challenges have been identified as one of the major barriers preventing people living with disabilities from participating in tourism activities. This research therefore seeks to assess how the popularity of smart tourism has influenced the accessibility of people living with disabilities.

Procedures The interview will last for approximately 45 minutes. The interview will consist of three major parts. The first part will consist of consent form. This form will educate respondents about their rights. The second part of the interview will ask questions about demographics. Respondents will also be asked whether they make decisions regarding travel or not, age, income, marital status, number of times travelled in a year and their familiarity with smart tourism. Since smart tourism is a new phenomenon, it is very likely some participants will have little understanding of what it is. Therefore, before the interview begins, participants will be given the opportunity to explore the Disney Experience app which has smart tourism features. Participants will be given the opportunity to use the app for about 5 mins and then will be interviewed about their experience afterwards.

Audio and Video Recording and Photography The interview will be audio recorded to enable researcher obtain responses that might have not been written down during interview. Recordings will be destroyed after transcription and data analysis for this study has been completed. You have the right to refuse to be recorded.

I agree to be audio recorded: YES____ NO ____

40

Benefits This research will not benefit you directly. However, your participation in this study will help us to better understand the informational needs of people with mobility challenges when planning to travel.

Risks and Discomforts There are no anticipated risks beyond those encountered in everyday life.

Privacy and Confidentiality Your signed consent form will be kept separate from your study data, and responses will not be linked to you. Your research information may, in certain circumstances, be disclosed to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which oversees research at Kent State University, or to certain federal agencies. Confidentiality may not be maintained if you indicate that you may do harm to yourself or others.

Compensation You will receive a 15-dollar gift card after you complete the interview. Your participation is voluntary, refusal to take part in the study involves no penalty or loss of benefits to which participants are otherwise entitled, and you may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

Voluntary Participation Taking part in this research study is entirely up to you. You may choose not to participate, or you may discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You will be informed of any new, relevant information that may affect your health, welfare, or willingness to continue your study participation.

Contact Information If you have any questions or concerns about this research, you may contact Barbara Atanga at 330-672-0594. This project has been approved by the Kent State University Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant or complaints about the research, you may call the IRB at 330-672-2704.

Consent Statement and Signature I have read this consent form and have had the opportunity to have my questions answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I understand that a copy of this consent will be provided to me for future reference.

______Participant Signature Date

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW GUIDE

42

Appendix B

Interview Guide

1. When do you think smart tourism provides the necessary information needed?

2. What important characteristics do you look out for when using apps like the

Disney app?

3. What features on the app makes you think the information is credible or not?

4. How easy is it interact with the platform?

5. Based on your experience with the app, would you say all your concerns are

addressed?

6. Does the information provided suit your traveling needs?

7. Does the filter tool located in the app allow you to tailor the information provided

to your need?

8. Overall, are you satisfied with the information provided by the app?

9. What influences you to continue using apps like this?

10. What other important information or features do you think can be incorporated

into the app?

REFERENCES

44

REFERENCES

Abdullah, D., Jayaraman, K., Shariff, D. N., Bahari, K. A., & Nor, N. M. (2017). The

effects of perceived interactivity, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness

on online hotel booking intention: A conceptual framework. International

Academic Research Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 16-23.

ADA National Network. (n.d.). What is the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)?

Retrieved from https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

Agovino, M., Casaccia, M., Garofalo, A., & Marchesano, K. (2017). Tourism and

disability in Italy. Limits and opportunities. Tourism Management Perspectives,

23, 58-67. doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.05.001

Altman, B. M. (2014). Definitions, concepts, and measures of disability. Annals of

Epidemiology, 24(1), 2-7.

Austin, E. K. (1981). Guidelines for the development of continuing education offerings

for nurses. Appleton-Century-Crofts and Fleschner Publishing Company.

Bizjak, B., Knežević, M., & Cvetrežnik, S. (2011). Attitude change towards guests with

disabilities: Reflections from tourism students. Annals of Tourism Research,

38(3), 842-857. doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.11.017

Blichfeldt, B. S., & Nicolaisen, J. (2011). Disabled travel: Not easy, but doable. Current

Issues in Tourism, 14(1), 79-102.

Braddock, D., & Parish, S. (2001). Disability history from antiquity to the Americans

with Disabilities Act. Handbook of Disability Studies, 11-68.

45

Braveman, P., & Gottlieb, L. (2014). The social determinants of health: It's time to

consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Reports, 129, 19-31.

Buhalis, D., Michopoulou, E., Eichhorn, V., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market

and stakeholder analysis-One-Stop-Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe

(OSSATE). Surrey, United Kingdom: University of Surrey.

Burnett, J. J., & Baker, H. B. (2001). Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the

mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 4-11.

Cavinato, J. L., & Cuckovich, M. L. (1992). Transportation and tourism for the disabled:

An assessment. Transportation Journal, 46-53.

Chung, J. Y., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Information needs in online social networks.

Information Technology & Tourism, 10(4), 267-281.

doi.org/10.3727/109830508788403123

Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2014). The Baby Boom Cohort in the United States: 2012

to 2060. Current Population Reports, P25-1141. U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington, DC.

Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative

social research: Researchers' views (pp. 11-14). York: University of York.

Daniels, M. J., Rodgers, E. B. D., & Wiggins, B. P. (2005). “Travel Tales”: An

interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as

experienced by persons with physical disabilities. Tourism Management, 26(6),

919-930.

46

Darcy, S. (1998). Anxiety to access: Tourism patterns and experiences of New South

Wales people with a physical disability. Tourism New South Wales.

Daruwalla, P., & Darcy, S. (2005). Personal and societal attitudes to disability. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(3), 549-570. doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.10.008

Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user

information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology).

Drews, W., & Schemer, C. (2010). eTourism for all? Online travel planning of disabled

people. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010, 507-518.

Easwaramoorthy, M., & Zarinpoush, F. (2006). Interviewing for research. Canada

Volunteerism Initiative, 1-2.

Eichhorn, V., & Buhalis, D. (2011). Accessibility: A key objective for the tourism

industry. Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues, 46-61.

Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Enabling access to

tourism through information schemes? Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 189-

210. doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.07.005

Figueiredo, E., Eusébio, C., & Kastenholz, E. (2012). How diverse are tourists with

disabilities? A pilot study on accessible leisure tourism experiences in Portugal.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(6), 531-550.

doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1913

Fiore, A. M., & Jin, H. J. (2003). Influence of image interactivity on approach responses

towards an online retailer. Internet Research.

47

Fiore, A. M., Jin, H. J., & Kim, J. (2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image

interactivity and responses toward an online store. Psychology & Marketing,

22(8), 669-694.

Foley, A., & Ferri, B. A. (2012). Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access

and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 192-200.

doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01230.x

Francis, L., & Silvers, A. (2016). Perspectives on the meaning of “disability.” AMA

Journal of Ethics, 18(10), 1025-1033. doi:

10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.pfor2-1610

Goggin, G., Newell, G., & Newell, C. (2003). Digital disability: The social construction

of disability in new media. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gorden, R. L. (1975). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, IL:

“The” Dorsey Press.

Greenwald, A. G., & Albert, R. D. (1968). Acceptance and recall of improvised

arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1p1), 31.

Greer, T. H., & Murtaza, M. B. (2003). Web personalization: The impact of perceived

innovation characteristics on the intention to use personalization. Journal of

Computer Information Systems, 43(3), 50-55.

Gretzel, U., Koo, C., Sigala, M., & Xiang, Z. (2015). Special issue on smart tourism:

Convergence of information technologies, experiences, and theories. Electronic

Markets, 25(3), 175-177.

48

Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations for

understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,

558-563.

Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information

search behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353-373.

doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.004

Hall, M. C., & Williams, A. (2008). Tourism and innovation. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hanjaya, S. M., Kenny, S. K., & Gunawan, S. F. (2019). Understanding factors

influencing consumers online purchase intention via mobile app: perceived ease

of use, perceived usefulness, system quality, information quality, and service

quality. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 32(2), 175-205.

Huang, C. D., Goo, J., Nam, K., & Yoo, C. W. (2017). Smart tourism technologies in

travel planning: The role of exploration and exploitation. Information &

Management, 54(6), 757-770.

Israeli, A. A. (2002). A preliminary investigation of the importance of site accessibility

factors for disabled tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 101-104.

Jette, A. M., & Branch, L. G. (1981). The Framingham disability study: II. Physical

disability among the aging. American Journal of Public Health, 71(11), 1211-

1216.

Khan, M. S., Woo, M., Nam, K., & Chathoth, P. K. (2017). Smart city and smart tourism:

A case of Dubai. Sustainability, 9(12), 2279.

49

Kołodziejczak, A. (2019). Information as a factor of the development of accessible

tourism for people with disabilities. Quaestiones Geographicae, 38(2), 67-73.

Lazer, D., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Fowler, J., & King, G. (2009). Life in the network:

The coming age of computational social. Science, 323(5915), 721-723.

Lee, B. K., Agarwal, S., & Kim, H.J. (2012). Influences of travel constraints on the

people with disabilities’ intention to travel: An application of Seligman’s

helplessness theory. Tourism Management, 33(3), 569-579.

doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.011

Leiper, N. (1995) Tourism management. Victoria: TAFE Publications.

Lewis, J. L., & Sheppard, S. R. (2006). Culture and communication: Can landscape

visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous

communities? Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(3), 291-313.

Li, Y., Hu, C., Huang, C., & Duan, L. (2017). The concept of smart tourism in the

context of tourism information services. Tourism Management, 58, 293-300.

doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.014

Liou, T. H., Pi-Sunyer, F. X., & Laferrere, B. (2005). Physical disability and obesity.

Nutrition Reviews, 63(10), 321-331.

Mattke, S., Kelley, E., Scherer, P., Hurst, J., & Lapetra, M. G. (2006). Health care quality

indicators project: initial indicators report. Paris, Fr: Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development Health Working Papers.

50

McGuire, F. A., Dottavio, D., & O'Leary, J. T. (1986). Constraints to participation in

outdoor recreation across the life span: A nationwide study of limitors and

prohibitors. The Gerontologist, 26(5), 538-544.

McKercher, B., & Darcy, S. (2018). Re-conceptualizing barriers to travel by people with

disabilities. Tourism management perspectives, 26, 59-66.

doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.01.003

McKercher, B., Parker, T., Yau, M. K., & Lam, P. (2003). Travel agents as facilitators or

inhibitors of travel: perceptions of people with disabilities. Tourism Management,

24(4), 465-474.

Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Information provision for challenging markets:

The case of the accessibility requiring market in the context of tourism.

Information & Management, 50(5), 229-239. doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.04.001

Michopoulou, E., Darcy, S., Ambrose, I., & Buhalis, D. (2015). Accessible tourism

futures: The world we dream to live in and the opportunities we hope to have.

Journal of Tourism Futures, 1(3), 179-188.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Huberman, M. A., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative

data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O'Neill, M., & Knight, J. (2000). Disability tourism dollars in Western Australia hotels.

Hospitality Review, 18(2), 7.

O’Connor, H., & Gibson, N. (2003). A step-by-step guide to qualitative data analysis.

Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Indigenous and Aboriginal Community Health, 1(1),

63-90.

51

Park, Y. A., & Gretzel, U. (2007). Success factors for destination marketing web sites: A

qualitative meta-analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 46-63.

Perritt, H. H. (2002). Americans with Disabilities Act handbook. Aspen Publishers

Online.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In

Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer Series in Social

Psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2010). The flight experiences of people with

disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 216-227.

Pühretmair, F. (2004, July). It’s time to make eTourism accessible. In International

Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons (pp. 272-279). Berlin,

Heidelberg: Springer.

Ray, N. M., & Ryder, M. E. (2003). “Ebilities” tourism: An exploratory discussion of the

travel needs and motivations of the mobility-disabled. Tourism Management,

24(1), 57-72.

Simpson, J. (2009). Inclusive information and communication technologies for people

with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 29(1). Retrieved from https://dsq-

sds.org/article/view/167/167

Smith, R. (1987). Leisure of tourist with a disability: Barriers to travel. Annals of Tourism

Research, 14(3), 376-389.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

52

Wasserman, D., Asch, A., Blustein, J., & Putnam, D. (2011). Disability: Definitions,

models, experience. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disability/

Wasserman, D., Asch, A., Blustein, J., & Putnam, D. (2016). Disability: Health, well-

being, and personal relationships. Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy. Retrieved

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disability-health/

Wang, H., Jin, T., Zhou, B., et al. (2012). Smart tourism (pp. 10-12). Beijing: Tsinghua

University Press.

Web Accessibility Initiative [WAI]. (2005). Making the web accessible. Retrieved from

https://www.w3.org/WAI/

World Health Organization (WHO). 2001. International classification of functioning,

disability and health. Geneva: Author.

Yao, Z., & Lu, X. (2013) Smart tourism: The trends for tourism informationization.

Tourism. Beijing: Education Press.

Yau, M. K. S., McKercher, B., & Packer, T. L. (2004). Traveling with a disability: More

than an access issue. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 946-960.

Yoo, C. W., Goo, J., Huang, C. D., Nam, K., & Woo, M. (2017). Improving travel

decision support satisfaction with smart tourism technologies: A framework of

tourist elaboration likelihood and self-efficacy. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 123, 330-341. doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.071

Yoo, C. W., Kim, Y. J., & Sanders, G. L. (2015). The impact of interactivity of electronic

word of mouth systems and E-Quality on decision support in the context of the e-

marketplace. Information & Management, 52(4), 496-505.