Study estimates willingness to pay for accessibility attributes in individuals with disabilities, indicating strong preference for certifications over star ratings.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to estimate the preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) of people with disabilities for tourism accessibility attributes, comparing accessibility certifications (UNE 170001, ISO 21902) and hotel categories (star ratings), using a discrete choice experiment and a mixed logit model. Design/methodology/approach The sample consists of residents with disabilities in Extremadura (Spain). A D-efficient fractional factorial design and a cheap talk script were used to mitigate hypothetical bias. Price was modelled as a continuous variable. Parameters were estimated by simulated maximum likelihood. Findings Price significantly decreased utility. The “no-choice” alternative had a negative and highly heterogeneous constant, indicating a tendency to select available options. Both UNE 170001 and ISO 21902 certifications significantly increased utility and showed positive WTP, with UNE 170001 emerging as the attribute with the highest monetary valuation. In contrast, the hotel star rating attribute did not display a monotonic pattern; except for the 2-star level − which showed a negative and significant WTP − other levels were not statistically different from the baseline. Research limitations/implications Pricing strategies should be grounded in the perceived value of accessibility. Star ratings should be repositioned as complementary rather than substitutive attributes to certified accessibility. Originality/value Accessibility certifications are the primary drivers of value for travellers with disabilities, surpassing generic quality signals such as star ratings. Investment in certifications, clear communication of their scope and supply segmentation based on detected heterogeneity are recommended. Public policies supporting co-funding of certifications, standardisation of accessibility information and improvements in the accessible environment can strengthen the destination’s competitiveness and inclusiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franco et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: