Original Scientific Article
Does Better Physical Accessibility
Lead to Higher Sales Revenues?
The Case of Slovenian Restaurant SMEs
Marko Kukanja
University of Primorska, Slovenia
marko.kukanja@fts.upr.si
Saša Planinc
University of Primorska, Slovenia
sasa.planinc@fts.upr.si
Despite the significance of accessibility for sustainable tourism development, little
is known about the relationship between physical accessibility and restaurant sales
revenues. Previous studies also did not consider restaurantmanagers’ perceptions of
accessibility, although they are responsible for implementing an accessible offer. The
objectives of the present study are (1) to investigate ifmanagers of small andmedium-
sized restaurant enterprises (smes) perceive restaurants as physically accessible and
(2) to determine if better physical accessibility generates higher sales revenues. This
study was performed in two steps. First, research on accessibility and relevant leg-
islation was analysed. Second, primary data was collected using a self-administered
questionnaire in field research from 149 restaurant managers, and secondary finan-
cial data for each sme was obtained through publicly available financial reports. To
express the perspectives of people with disabilities (pwds), disability organisation
representatives were included in the questionnaire development process. Descrip-
tive statistics and correlation analyses were used to analyse the data. Findings reveal
that managers have low knowledge of accessibility, perceive restaurants as relatively
poorly accessible, and that physical accessibility is not correlated to sales revenues.
Concerning the different layout areas,managers identified toilet facilities as themost
inaccessible restaurant area. Besides the legislative responsibility, managers should
also be aware of the economic potential of the disability market in tourism and the
fact that an accessible offer facilitates the use of restaurants for society as a whole.
The article ends with providing recommendations for the restaurant industry, poli-
cymakers, and academia.
Keywords: restaurant smes, disability, managers, physical accessibility, sales
revenue
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.16.257-275
Introduction
Tourism, including the restaurant sector, is a global
economic driver. In 2019, the tourism industry con-
tributed 10.3 of the world’s gross domestic product
(gdp). Similarly, in the Republic of Slovenia, one of the
smallest European (eu) economies, the contribution
of tourism to gdp in 2019 was 10.6 (World Travel
and Tourism Council, n.d.). The tourism industry has
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 257
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
also provided several opportunities for the growth of
micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (smes),
which accounted for 99.8 of all business entities in
the eu in 2021 (Eurostat, 2021).
Despite its economic significance, tourism also has
an essential social perspective, addressing human-
related challenges in the global economic environ-
ment. Apart from being a labour-intensive industry, in
developed (western) societies, ‘holidaying’ is consid-
ered a social right (Cockburn-Wootten & McIntosh,
2020). However, for people with disabilities (pwds),
it can present a source of inequality and frustration.
As the right to tourism engagement is considered
a social norm, tourism should provide equal opportu-
nities for all members of society (Cockburn-Wootten
&McIntosh, 2020). From this point of view, accessible
tourism (also known as barrier-free tourism) refers to
activities in which anyone can freely engage regard-
less of their health conditions, psychological needs,
or functional disabilities. Namely, pwds also desire
social participation and expect the same tourism ex-
periences as non-disabled customers (Boxall et al.,
2018). From this perspective, a growing body of litera-
ture recognises the importance of tourism for sustain-
able development, which should harmonise economic
growth with social inclusion and environmental pro-
tection. Accordingly, fighting inequality in tourism
is one of the sustainable development objectives of
tourism in the 2030 Agenda since everyone should
have equal access to tourism activities (World Tourism
Organization, n.d.).
It is interesting to note that, globally, the issue of
accessibility did not enter the political debate until
the late 20th century. Only in 2008 did the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (uncrpd) come into force (United Na-
tions, n.d.). In the eu, the uncrpd was ratified by
the eu only in December 2010. Interestingly, in the
United States of America (usa), the rights of pwds
were first protected in 1990 by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ada). However, there are still many
obstacles in the life of pwds. First, there are obstacles
in the built environment (physical barriers), those re-
lating to the connection between supply and demand
(communicational and functional barriers), and ob-
stacles relating to how pwds are perceived in society
as a whole (barriers related to social integration) (Lim,
2020). For pwds to enjoy tourism equally, these re-
strictions must be removed.
As a result of growing awareness of the issue, an
increased number of tourism researchers have been
focusing on this topic recently, with the majority of
studies focusing on the hotel sector. Most of the stud-
ies (e.g. Ferri Sanz et al., 2019; Kuo&Kalargyrou, 2014;
Lim, 2020; Zhang & Cole, 2016) analysed the demand
side, while the service providers’ (managerial) per-
spective was examined to a much lesser extent (e.g.
Grady & Ohlin, 2009; Nicolaisen et al., 2012). Inter-
estingly, only a few studies were found on restaurant
physical accessibility (e.g. Dias de Faria et al., 2012;
McClain et al., 1993; Wan-Chen & Chi-Chuan, 2012).
Due to the socioeconomic issues that humanity
is currently facing, accessibility is a topic that de-
serves special attention. According to statistical data,
more than 1 billion people (approximately 15 of the
global population) live with a disability (Eurostat,
2021). pwds represent 87million Europeans (approx-
imately 25 of the eu population). Similarly, pwds
represent 13 of the population in Slovenia, although
this number excludes those who experience various
types of temporary disabilities (Ministrstvo za delo,
družino, socialne zadeve in enakemožnosti, n.d.; Sen-
di, 2019). Considering a known connection between
population ageing and multiple disabilities, this num-
ber is expected to increase considerably in the coming
years (Ferri Sanz et al., 2019).
In terms of the share pwds represent in society
(approx. 25 of the eu population), to our knowl-
edge, no study has empirically investigated restaurant
managers’ perceptions of physical accessibility. More-
over, no studies analysing the relationship between
physical accessibility and sales revenue were found.
Given the lack of research, this study sought to deter-
mine how restaurant managers evaluate physical ac-
cessibility and its compliance with legislative require-
ments and professional recommendations. According
to Cockburn-Wootten and McIntosh (2020), service
providers are generally unaware that their facility is
not accessible to everyone. As managers’ awareness of
the actual state of restaurants’ physical (in)accessibility
258 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
presents the first step in implementing an accessible
offer, we pose the first research question (rq1): How
do restaurant managers perceive the physical accessi-
bility of restaurants they manage?
Besides its social perspective, the accessible tour-
ism market has also been identified as a growing seg-
ment that could provide additional economic ben-
efits. Namely, the disability market in tourism in-
cludes pwds and their friends and family members
who are emotionally connected to pwds. Accord-
ing to Donovan (2020), the global disability market
has approximately a population of 5.15 billion peo-
ple and is estimated to control over 13 trillion us dol-
lars in disposable income. Accordingly, many studies
(Buhalis & Darcy, 2011; Cockburn-Wootten & McIn-
tosh, 2020; Domínguez et al., 2013) investigated the
accessible tourism market and its economic impor-
tance for tourism destinations. A Spanish study by
Domínguez et al. (2013) revealed that pwds spend
significantly more than abled travellers.
Interestingly, studies investigating accessibility and
profitability in hotels (Baghdadi et al., 2017; Calvo-
Mora et al., 2015; Capitaine, 2016) provided contra-
dictory and inconsistent research findings about the
economic importance of an accessible tourism of-
fer. Surprisingly, to our knowledge, no research has
investigated the importance of physical accessibility
for restaurant business performance. Based on this
background, we sought to answer the second research
question (rq2):What is the impact of restaurant phys-
ical accessibility on restaurant sales revenues?
In particular, this study has two specific objectives:
(1) to empirically explore restaurantmanagers’ percep-
tions of restaurant physical accessibility and its reg-
ulatory compliance in a small eu economy, and (2)
to establish whether better (higher-perceived) physi-
cal accessibility positively influences restaurant sales
revenues. Hopefully, this research will provide new
insights into restaurant physical accessibility and de-
termine its importance for restaurant smes’ financial
performance. The findings should make an important
contribution to restaurant accessibility and revenue
management.
This study applied a mixed methodological ap-
proach to achieve its objectives. After the literature
review, theoretical findings and the identified physical
accessibility indicators were pre-discussed by disabil-
ity experts. In the next step, data were collected in field
research from 149 restaurant managers. A correlation
analysis using Spearman’s rank and Pearson’s corre-
lational coefficient was performed to investigate the
correlations between the observed indicators. Next,
research results were presented and discussed. The
paper concludes with implications for practice and
policy, a presentation of research limitations, and rec-
ommendations for future research.
Literature Review
Key Disability and Accessibility Definitions:
An International Perspective
Disability has been interpreted differently over time
and across various cultures. As a result, disability is
viewed as a complex, multidimensional, and evolving
concept (Boxall et al., 2018). Accordingly, there are
several definitions of disability, mainly used for statis-
tical purposes (Buhalis & Darcy, 2011).
From a scientific standpoint, two paradigms of dis-
ability (the medical and the social model) dominate
disability research (Dominguez et al., 2013). The med-
ical model emphasises each person’s medical situation
(an individual pathology). In contrast, the social (or
the collective) model emphasises limitations imposed
by society (Nicolaisen et al., 2012). According to the
social model, a person’s handicap results from the in-
teraction with the external environment, which might
exacerbate any underlying health issues an individ-
ual might have by preventing them from participating
equally in society (Ameri et al., 2020). Based on both
models, theWorldHealthOrganization (who) has es-
tablished the International Classification of Function-
ing, Disability, and Health (icf). Based on the icf’s
multidimensionality approach, there are various ways
to quantify disability, such as accounting for various
impairments, functional restrictions, or social integra-
tion problems (Dominguez et al., 2013).
Based on the social model of disability, the un-
crpd declaration introduced the un definition of
pwds and set the minimum requirements for their
rights and protection. The uncrpd, in Article 1, de-
fines pwds as ‘those who have long-term physical,
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 259
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in
interaction with various barriers may hinder their full
and effective participation in society on an equal basis
with others’ (United Nations, n.d.). According to this
definition disability is a long-term inability to engage
in ‘normal’ life activities due to psychological, men-
tal, or physical constraints (Cruz-Morato et al., 2021).
The fundamental principles of the uncrpd refer to
respecting a person’s dignity, autonomy and indepen-
dence, non-discrimination, participation and social
inclusion, equality of opportunity, and accessibility.
The concept of accessibility is, in terms of provid-
ing equal access to everyone, inextricably linked to
disability. Only with unhindered access to facilities
and services will pwds be included in society. In line
with Article 9 of the uncrpd, countries should iden-
tify and eliminate all obstacles and barriers to ensure
that pwds can assess their environment, transporta-
tion, public facilities, services, and it technologies
(United Nations, n.d.). Furthermore, to protect hu-
man rights, prevent inequalities, and build inclusive
societies, the un General Assembly, in 2015, adopted
a critical document entitled ‘Transforming our world:
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’ The
document outlines 17 sustainable development goals
(sdg) the un member states should achieve. Among
them, the 11th goal is to ensure free access of pwds to
living space (United Nations, 2015).
Accordingly, physical accessibility can be defined
as a set of characteristics thatmake buildings, environ-
ments, and products generally accessible (Calvo-Mora
et al., 2015). Furthermore, besides being generally ac-
cessible, the physical environments should be safe and
healthy, practical, understandable and respectful of
diversity, and aesthetically pleasing (Watchorn et al.,
2021). Therefore, accessibility is not just about elimi-
nating physical barriers but also about designing and
involving solutions that make the offer generally ac-
cessible. This approach is also known as the Universal
Design Principle (Calvo-Mora et al., 2015; Watchorn
et al., 2021).
However,measuring accessibility is not that simple,
as the different legislative bodies and research associa-
tions use the concept of accessibility according to their
research intentions and traditions (Domínguez et al.,
2013). Applying different methodologies means that
research results are often difficult to compare among
the various sectors and countries (Nicolaisen et al.,
2012). For this study, based on the uncrpd defini-
tion of disability and by following the meaningful in-
terpretation of the eu Accessibility Act, we will con-
sider physical accessibility as an essential feature of the
built environment that allows access, use, and equiv-
alent experience in restaurant facilities (disability and
accessibility studies are presented in the following sec-
tion).
Disability and Accessibility Studies
in the Hospitality Industry
Hotel Studies
Studies on accessibility in the hospitality sector have
mainly focused on hotel guests. Nevertheless, only
some studies examined the service providers’ (the
managerial) perspective. For example, Grady and Oh-
lin (2009) examined hotels’ compliance with ada;
Darcy and Pegg (2011) examined managers’ percep-
tions of the availability of disability services; andCruz-
Morato et al. (2021) examined the labour inclusion of
pwds in hotels.
Concerning physical accessibility andfinancial per-
formance in hotels, we only came across a small num-
ber of articles, that provide inconsistent research find-
ings. For example, Calvo-Mora et al. (2015) found that
hotel managers in Seville (Spain) were highly aware
of accessibility potentials for hotel financial perfor-
mance. In contrast, Capitaine (2016) reported that ho-
tel managers in Quebec (Canada) were mainly scepti-
cal about the economic value of the disability market.
Similarly, Darcy and Pegg (2011) reported that hotel
managers in Australia needed to be more intelligent
and responsible in providing access to pwds and ex-
ploiting the economic potential of this market.
A negative view of the relationship between ho-
tel accessibility and feasibility was also identified in
the study of Lebanese hotels by Baghdadi et al. (2017).
Authors reported that hotel managers mostly believe
that pwd-friendly facilities negatively influence the
satisfaction of the abled customer population, con-
sequently negatively impacting hotel popularity and
profitability in the long term. Nevertheless, based on
260 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
calculating the different revenue scenarios, the authors
(ibid.) theoretically demonstrated the economic feasi-
bility of an accessible hotel offer.
Restaurant Studies
Only a few studies covering the various issues of dis-
ability in the restaurant industry could be found, such
as an analysis of Oklahomamanagers’ attitudes toward
hiring pwds (Chi & Qu, 2005); employment of peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities in the case of a casual
dining restaurant operating in Ohio (Feerasta, 2017);
utilisation of restaurants by pwds in Korea (Joo &
Cho, 2012); and the possibility of employing pwds
with dementia in Japanese restaurants (Jiang et al.,
2021). In a study on discrimination in the us restau-
rant industry, Riesch and Kleiner (2005) reported that
racial and disability-based discrimination are the two
most common forms.
Specifically, concerning restaurant physical acces-
sibility, we have found only a few studies. One of the
first studies dates to the nineties when McClain et al.
(1993) investigated restaurant wheelchair accessibil-
ity in the usa and found notable differences between
the different types of restaurants. Significant problems
with providing an appropriate dining environment for
blind people in Taiwanese restaurants were reported
by Wan-Chen and Chi-Chuan (2012). According to
Dias de Faria et al. (2012), the ideal restaurant for vi-
sually impaired customers would be one where the
waiter reads the menu, the staff is compassionate and
where careful, low-intensity lighting and sounds, and
round tables are used, and the server can be called
by pressing a button. Similarly, Sokolenko (2018) re-
ported significant problems with infrastructure de-
velopment for pwds in the case of Ukrainian restau-
rants. Finally, to our knowledge, no studies have inves-
tigated the relationship between physical accessibility
and restaurant smes’ financial performance. More-
over, we have not identified any studies analysingman-
agers’ perceptions of restaurant accessibility within the
eu.
Financial Performance Analysis
The primary data source for creating financial analy-
ses are financial statements, such as balance sheets and
the profit and loss account. Numerous data, which can
be seen from both reports, enable the calculating of a
wide range of financial performance indicators such as
revenue, assets, and profit analyses.
Nevertheless, a Uniform System of Accounts for
Restaurants (usar) has been developed (Niemeier &
Hayes, 2005) to facilitate the financial performance
evaluation of restaurants.However, usar is not bind-
ing in the eu (nor in Slovenia), making it more chal-
lenging to create comparative analyses. Since sev-
eral financial indicators are available from financial
statements, according to Ferreira and Otley (2009),
choosing the most appropriate indicators for the fi-
nancial performance evaluation is crucial. With this
in mind, Planinc (2022) conducted a comprehensive
review of financial indicators used in restaurant in-
dustry studies and found that researchers measure the
financial performance of restaurant smes using vari-
ous financial indicators. According to Planinc (2022),
several researchers (e.g. Bera, 2021; Lee & Ha, 2012;
Hua, 2014) used sales revenue to analyse the finan-
cial performance of restaurant smes, as sales revenue
presents the fundamental metric of any financial per-
formance analysis. Moreover, several other industry-
specific Key Performance Indicators (kpis) can be cal-
culated based on sales revenue, such as average spend-
ing per person (asp), sales per employee per hour,
restaurant profit margin and efficiency analyses (Har-
ris, 2013). Therefore, for answering rq2, we decided
to use sales revenue as the key financial performance
indicator.
Methodology
Disability and Accessibility Legislation
The EU Legislation
In Tables 1 and 2, the key eu initiatives (international
treaties, strategies, and conventions) and the eu di-
rectives (common rules) related to the field of the
study are summarised in chronological order. The eu
has no separate disability act (such as ada). The eu
member states’ main challenge is implementing the
2021–2030 eu Strategy for the Rights of pwds, which
the Commission supports (European Commission,
2021).
Concerning restaurant accessibility, the eu Acces-
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 261
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Table 1 The eu Disability Initiatives
Year Initiatives Relevance
 eu Convention on Human Rights (echr) The first document to protect human rights and political
freedoms.
 Treaty of Amsterdam (now Article  of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the eu)
Protection of human rights against any form of discrimina-
tion.
 eu Charter of Fundamental Rights (cfr) Set of human rights that must be protected in the eu.
 Ratification of the uncrpd at the eu level An international perspective of promoting and protecting
the human rights of persons with disabilities.
 Lisbon Treaty amendment to the Treaty on the eu The cfr became a legally binding document within the eu
 eu Disability Strategy – The main instrument of the eu Commission to implement
the uncrpd policy.
 eu Pillar of Social Rights This document highlights the right of pwds to assess
goods and services available to the public and enable them
to participate equally in society.
 Strategy for the Rights of pwds – The goal is to ensure that Europeans with disabilities no
longer experience any form of discrimination and to build
a Union of equality.
Table 2 The eu Disability Directives
Year Directives Relevance
 The Equality Framework Directive Employment and Occupation (eu directive
//ec)
The minimum accessibil-
ity standards for pwds
in the areas of guest ser-
vice, employment, built
environment, transporta-
tion, information, and
communications.

and

Regulations on the Rights of Passengers with Reduced Mobility in main modes of
Transport (e.g. Air – Regulation (ec) No. /; Sea andWaterways – Regula-
tion (eu) No. /)
 eu web accessibility directive (eu directive /)
 eu Accessibility Act (eu directive //ec)
sibility Act will enter into force in 2025 andwill not ap-
ply to sme restaurants (European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union, 2019). Nevertheless,
restaurants are considered businesses open to the pub-
lic. Therefore, according to uncrpd, pwds have the
right to access all aspects of society equally with oth-
ers. Specifically, according to paragraph b. of Article
9 of the uncrpd (United Nations, n.d.), private enti-
ties offering services to the public should consider all
aspects of accessibility for pwds.
The National Legislation
TheRepublic of Slovenia has brought its disability laws
into compliance with the eu’s. Specifically, the Act rat-
ifying the uncrpd and the Optional Protocol to the
uncrpd stepped into force in 2008, while the Pro-
tection Against Discrimination Act was introduced in
2016. The law mentioned above, in Article 2, strictly
prohibits any discrimination regarding access to goods
and services available to the public (Zakon o varstvu
pred diskriminacijo (zvard), 2016).
Regarding restaurant accessibility, several acts cover
the different aspects of disability and accessibility pro-
vision. This section focuses on legislation and rec-
ommendations relevant to public restaurants’ acces-
sibility. Table 3 presents the relevant legislation and
documentation (national guidelines and action pro-
grammes) chronologically.
262 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Table 3 The National Legislation
Year Document Relevance
 National Guidelines to Improve the Built Environ-
ment, Information, and Communications Accessibil-
ity for pwds (Nacionalne usmeritve za izboljšanje
dostopnosti grajenega okolja, informacij in komu-
nikacij za invalide)
According to this document, non-discriminatory access to
public environments and services is considered a funda-
mental right of pwds.
 Act on the Equalisation of Opportunities for pwds
(Zakon o izenačevanju možnosti invalidov (zimi))
Based on this Act, discrimination due to disability in access
to goods and services available to the public is strictly pro-
hibited. Article  clearly defines the deadline for public fa-
cilities to eliminate all physical barriers by the end of .
 Rules on universal construction and the use of con-
struction works (Pravilnik o univerzalni graditvi in
uporabi objektov)
This rule specifies the essential requirements to ensure the
universal construction of facilities.
 Building Act (Gradbeni zakon (gz-)) This Act protects the public interest in the construction of
buildings by following the principle of equal opportunities.
 Spatial Management Act (Zakon o urejanju prostora
(zurep-))
This Act enables universal (non-discriminant) access to the
public infrastructure.
 Action Programme for pwds – (Akcijski
program za invalide)
The programme aims to promote, protect, and ensure the
full and equal enjoyment of the human rights of pwds
and to promote respect for their dignity.
 Consumer Protection Act (Zakon o varstvu
potrošnikov (zvpot-))
This Act demands accessibility, clarity, and unambiguous
provision of messages to all consumers.
Moreover, in the analysis of the national legisla-
tion, the following standards have also been consid-
ered: sist iso 21542:2022 (this document specifies a
range of requirements and recommendations related
to the design and constructional aspects of the usabil-
ity and accessibility of buildings); sist 1186:2016 (this
standard relates to the tactile surface indicators for the
blind and partially sighted); sist en 17210:2021, and
sist tp cen/tr 17621:2021 (these standards describe
minimum functional requirements for an accessible
built environment) (https://www.sist.si). In addition,
the different professional recommendations (manuals
and handbooks) were also taken into consideration,
such as the manual(s) for inclusive design and access
to information (Albreht, 2018), universal housing con-
struction (Albreht et al., 2017), accessibility of facili-
ties in public use (Sendi et al., 2015), and accessibility
of built environmental and informational technology
(Sendi, 2019).
Fromour research perspective, it is essential to em-
phasise that the Act on the Equalisation of Opportu-
nities for pwds (Zakon o izenačevanju možnosti in-
validov (zimi), 2010), in Article 38, determines the
deadline for all public facilities (including the exist-
ing restaurant providers) to eliminate all physical bar-
riers by the first reconstruction or at the longest byDe-
cember 2025. The Building Act (Gradbeni zakon (gz-
1), 2021) and the Rules on universal construction and
the use of construction works (Pravilnik o univerzalni
graditvi in uporabi objektov, 2018) prescribe construc-
tion following the universal accessibility guidelines for
new constructions.
Instrument Design
First, following the analysis of previous research and
legislation related to disability and legislative require-
ments presented in Table 3, indicators of physical
accessibility (44 indicators) were identified. In the
next step, the identified accessibility indicators were
prechecked by three pwd representatives (disability
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 263
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Table 4 Accessibility Indicators
Indicators Layout areas
 Five per cent of all parking spaces or at least one-are properly marked and no more than  m from
the entrance.
Parking
 There is an area for a car to stop safely for a short period if there are no available free parking spots.
 Parking space is unobstructed and allows wheelchair manoeuvring (min. length is . m and min.
width is . m).
 There is adequate lighting in the parking area.
 Between the parking area and the restaurant, there is a paved, non-slip surface. Access path
 The path is adequately marked with contrasting colours and informational signs.
 There are floor indicators.
 There are no physical obstacles.
 The width of the access path is adequate (min. . m).
 Good lighting is provided.
 Access from the nearest public transport station is safe and unobstructed.
 The entrance is visible and adequately marked. Entrance
 There is enough space for wheelchair manoeuvring.
 The entrance is unobstructed, the floor mats are at floor level, and the threshold is at most  cm high.
 The entrance has a canopy or windbreak.
 The bell can be easily accessed from the wheelchair.
 There is a custom side entrance for pwds.
 A sign at the entrance indicates that the restaurant is appropriate for pwds.
 The corridors are suitably wide and allow unhindered movement. Connec. spaces
 Signposts are visible, legible, and of appropriate height.
 Room markings are visible, legible, and of appropriate height.
 The arrangement of the tables allows unimpeded movement in a wheelchair. Dining room
 At least part of the tables allows dining from a wheelchair (the bottom edge and depth of the table is
min. . m).
 All inscriptions are of appropriate size.
Continued on the next page
experts) to ensure that they matched the scope of the
study and were appropriate for inclusion in the ques-
tionnaire. All disability experts are members of the
National Council of Disability Organisations of Slove-
nia (a convenience sampling method for selecting the
experts was used). This non-governmental organisa-
tion unites representatives and other disability organ-
isations operating at the state level in the Republic of
Slovenia.
The next phase included designing a self-admin-
istered questionnaire with mostly binary questions
related to accessibility requirements. Physical acces-
sibility indicators were split into six main layout areas
of the restaurant (attributes) following the customer
movement path (accessibility indicators and attributes
are presented in Table 4). Indicators ranging from i1
to i29 are area specific. Indicators ranking from i30 to
i40 are considered generic and simultaneously apply
to different layout areas (entrance, connecting spaces,
dining room, and toilets). In contrast, indicators rank-
264 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Table 4 Continued from the previous page
Indicators Layout areas
 The sanitary area is marked with an international sign for the disabled. Toilets
 The space size is min . m × . m, and there is enough space for unhindered movement.
 The equipment is at a suitable height and easily accessible.
 Appropriate hand holders and accessories are installed.
 An emergency call device is installed.
 Doors are visible. Entrance, con-
necting spaces,
dining room,
toilets
 The doors are suitably (min. . m) wide.
 Doors open with ease and do not obstruct anyone.
 Hooks are visible and easily accessible.
 The doors stand out in contrast to the surrounding walls.
 There is sufficient space for wheelchair manoeuvring.
 The flooring is flat and non-slip.
 The lighting is adequate.
 There are information labels for pwds.
 Colours that contrast are used.
 Floor markings are provided.
 Steps are marked, with handrails, and of the proper width (min. . m) and height (max.  cm). Access path,
entrance, con-
necting spaces,
dining room,
toilets
 The wheelchair ramp is marked, accessible, and of the proper width (min. . m), slope (max. ),
and length that enable wheelchair manoeuvring.
 The lift is marked and accessible, and its min. Size is . m × . m, and the door is min. . m wide.
 The wheelchair lift platform is marked, easily accessible, and has the proper size (min. . m × . m)
and slope (max. ).
ing from i41 to i44 refer to potential level differences
in five layout areas (access between the parking and the
restaurant, entrance, connecting spaces, dining room,
and toilets). In case of level differences, the man-
ager subsequently indicated the areas to which they
refer.
Following the disability experts’ recommendations,
managers were also asked to indicate their self-per-
ceived accessibility knowledge (three indicators), com-
petencies (two indicators), the difficulty of adjusting
the offer for pwds (two indicators), and the availabil-
ity of external support for adjusting the offer (two in-
dicators). For all questions, a five-point Likert-type
ordinal scale was used (see also Table 6). Finally, man-
agers provided their demographic characteristics (pre-
sented as categorical variables) and basic information
about the restaurant facility. Furthermore, managers
were asked to indicate whether they had any friends or
family members with a disability (Kuo & Kalargyrou,
2014) and the estimated percentage of pwds in their
restaurants. After the questionnaire was developed,
three restaurant managers pre-tested it to determine
whether it was simple to understand.
Data Collection Process
Given the study’s objectives, primary data was col-
lected from 200 restaurants across Slovenia between
May and August 2022 from pre-trained data collec-
tors using convenience sampling. In 2021, 8,410 restau-
rant businesses (nace code I.56 – Food and Beverage
(F&B) service activities) were recorded in the Slove-
nian business register (https://pxweb.stat.si/sistat/en).
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 265
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Since the Slovenian national classification system of
the different types of restaurant facilities does not fully
comply with the eu coding system (nace), the au-
thors had to focus on those restaurant facilities with
comparable operational characteristics. As a result,
the sample frame consisted of sit-down restaurants
registered as smes that are not located in shopping
malls, do not have several branches (restaurant units),
and are not under monumental protection. Exam-
ples of these restaurants include traditional à la carte
restaurants, inns, casual and fast food sit-down restau-
rants, and coffee and pastry shops. Hotel and fran-
chise restaurants and other businesses serving pre-
dominately beverages (such as pubs and bars) were
excluded from the research. The data collectors pre-
checked randomly chosen restaurants to ensure that
all restaurants met the specified requirements. If the
restaurant met the research criteria, the manager was
kindly requested to complete the questionnaire, either
in the presence of the data collector (questionnaires
were hand-delivered to managers) or the data collec-
tor agreed to collect the completed questionnaire. In
cases where managers needed additional explanation
about the research, the data collectors provided the
requested information.
Nevertheless, some managers refused to partic-
ipate in the study for various reasons (mainly lack
of time). If the manager refused to participate, the
data collector selected another restaurant sme, cor-
responding to the above-presented research criteria.
The final analysis is based on 149 valid questionnaires
(the response rate was 74.5), representing 1.77 of
the i56 population in Slovenia.
In the next step, secondary financial data for each
restaurant sme was obtained from official financial
reports (profit and loss accounts for the year 2021),
which in Slovenia are in the public domain (https://
www.ajpes.si/fipo/default.asp).
Data Analysis
Data analyses were done using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (spss 26.0). Descriptive statistics
were used to analyse managers’ responses about their
demographic and restaurants’ physical characteristics.
A correlation analysis using Spearman’s rank andPear-
Table 5 Managers’ Assessment of Restaurant Accessibility
Accessibility attributes () () () ()
Parking  . . .
Access. between the parking
area and the restaurant
 . . .
Entrance  . . .
Connecting spaces  . . .
Dining room  . . .
Toilets  . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) no. of possible
positive responses (indicators) to each attribute, (2) aver-
age no. of positive responses-indicators, (3) percentage, (4)
stdandard deviation.
son’s correlational coefficient was performed to inves-
tigate the correlations between the observed indica-
tors.
Research Findings
Characteristics of the Sample
Most respondents (37) were between 36 and 45 years
of age, and the sample was predominantly composed
of male managers (62). Most managers (42) had
finished a vocational or secondary school. The high-
est percentage (35) reported having 11 and 20 years of
working experience. Almost seventy per cent (68.9)
of all managers reported owning the restaurant they
manage. Notably, 87 of managers indicated they had
no relatives or friends with a disability.
In terms of restaurants’ characteristics, à la carte
restaurants composed 32 of the sample, followed by
coffee and pastry shops (26), inns (27), and casual
and fast food restaurants (15). On average, restau-
rants had 8.2 employees, 102 seats, and 27.5 years of
business activity. The average age of the restaurants
was 67 years (referring to the year of construction); on
average, they were last renovated in 2011. Finally, the
average yearly sales revenue per restaurant sme was €
364,620.93.
Accessibility Evaluation
To answer rq1, managers’ self-evaluations of acces-
sibility were analysed according to the six-attribute
level.
266 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Table 6 Managers’ Self-Perceived Knowledge and Perceptions of the Different Accessibility Issues
Indicators Statements () ()
Knowledge We know the eu accessibility policy . .
We know accessibility legislation . .
We know the economic potential of the disability market in tourism . .
Competence We have the competence to adjust the offer to the needs of pwds . .
The staff has the competencies to adjust the offer to the needs of pwds . .
Difficulty Adjustment of the offer and removal of physical obstacles is difficult . .
Adjustment of the offer represents a large financial burden for the restaurant . .
External
support
There is enough official information to help us adjust the offer . .
There is enough professional support to help us adjust the offer . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) average, (2) standard deviation.
The findings are summarised in Table 5, where the
average number of indicators (managers’ positive re-
sponses) for each attribute is displayed. To better un-
derstand accessibility evaluation, the highest- and the
lowest-rated indicators were also presented (see text in
brackets below).
The two highest-rated attributes were the park-
ing area and entrance. The highest-rated indicators
were i3 (parking space is unobstructed), i12 (visible
and adequately marked entrance), and i14 (unob-
structed entrance). In contrast, the two lowest-rated
attributes were accessibility between the parking area
and the restaurant and toilets, with i7 (floor indica-
tors), i28 (hand holders and accessories), and i25 and
i29 (signs for disabled and emergency call devices in
toilets) as the lowest-rated indicators. Overall, these
results answered rq1 as they indicate that according
to managers’ perceptions, none of the six restaurant
accessibility attributes is perceived as fully accessible
for pwds. The next section of the survey evaluated
managers’ responses, indicating their self-perceived
knowledge and perceptions of the different accessibil-
ity issues. All indicators weremeasured on a five-point
Likert-type ordinal scale, ranging from 1 (very low or
do not agree) to 5 (very high or completely agree).
Results in Table 6 indicate that the highest-rated
indicators reveal managers’ perceptions about the fi-
nancial burden related to offering adjustment (m =
3.59) and their self-perceived competence to adjust
the offer to the needs of pwds (m = 3.50). In contrast,
the lowest-rated indicators show managers’ knowl-
edge of the eu policy on accessibility (m = 2.45) and
their knowledge of the economic potential of the dis-
ability market (m = 2.90).
Correlations Between Restaurant Accessibility,
Managers’ Characteristics, and Sales Revenue
Following the study’s second goal (rq2), correlations
between sales revenues and accessibility attributes
were calculated. We tested the hypothesis that bet-
ter physical accessibility positively correlates to higher
sales revenues. For the correlation analysis, acces-
sibility indicators were first merged into accessibil-
ity attributes (new numerical variables showing the
number of positive responses (indicators) for each at-
tribute). Accordingly, correlations were calculated us-
ing the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). The corre-
lation analysis revealed that none of the six accessi-
bility attributes is statistically significantly correlated
(p > 0.05) to sales revenue, which answered rq2. As
this was a surprising and unexpected result, we in-
vestigated further. Accordingly, we hypothesised that
restaurant sales revenue positively correlates to man-
agers’ demographic characteristics, perceptions, and
knowledge about accessibility issues. Since all vari-
ables related to managers’ characteristics (used in cor-
relations) were ordinal categorical variables, correla-
tions between managers’ characteristics and sales rev-
enue were calculated using Spearman’s rank correla-
tion coefficient (rs). The same coefficient was also used
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 267
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Table 7 Correlations between Restaurant Sales Revenue, Physical Accessibility, Managers’ Responses about Accessibility,
and Their Demographic Characteristics
Category Indicators r/rs p
Accessibility
attributes (r)
Parking –. .
Accessibility between the parking area and the restaurant –. .
Entrance –. .
Connecting spaces . .
Dining room . .
Sanitary facilities . .
Managers’
knowledge/
perceptions of
accessibility
(rs)
Knowledge of the eu policy on accessibility . .
Knowledge of accessibility legislation . .
Knowledge of the economic potential of the disability market in tourism . .
Adjustment of the offer and removal of all physical obstacles is difficult .* .
Adjustment of the offer represents a large financial burden –. .
We have enough competence to adjust the offer to the needs of pwds .* .
Staff is competent in adjusting the offer to the needs of pwds . .
There is enough official information to help us adjust the offer –. .
There is enough professional support to help us adjust the offer –. .
Managers’
demographic
characteristics
(rs)
Age –. .
Education .* .
Years of experience –. .
Family members or friends with a disability . .
Notes *Correlations are significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level (2-tailed).
to calculate the correlations between sales revenue and
managers’ responses about accessibility (Likert-type
ordinal scales). The results of the correlation analyses
are presented in Table 7.
There are statistically significant (p≤ 0.05) positive
correlations only between sales revenues and man-
agers’ responses related to the difficulty of removing
the physical obstacles (rs = 0.19; p = 0.026), their per-
ceived competence to adjust the offer (rs = 0.193; p =
0.022), and the level of their formal education (rs =
0.168; p = 0.041).
Since the Act on the Equalisation of Opportuni-
ties for pwds (Zakon o izenačevanju možnosti in-
validov (zimi), 2010) demands that the existing ser-
vice providers eliminate all physical barriers during
the process of the first reconstruction (or by 2025),
we decided to additionally test if a correlation ex-
ists between the perceived overall level of restaurant
accessibility and the reported years of construction,
and the last renovation. Accordingly, we hypothesised
that newer and renovated restaurants are more acces-
sible. Interestingly, results indicate that only the year
of construction (newer buildings) positively correlates
to restaurant accessibility (r = 0.252; p= 0.006), while
there is no correlation between the year of the last
renovation and restaurant accessibility (r = 0.096; p =
0.299). The following section, therefore, moves on to
discuss the findings.
Discussion
The research approach applied for this study focuses
on the social model of disability, which emphasises
how society approaches pwds, rather than viewing
disability as an individual pathology. The literature on
ensuring restaurant accessibility and its significance
for restaurant sales revenues was surprisingly sparse,
268 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
despite the importance of disability policy in the eu
political agenda.
Therefore, rq1 sought to determinewhetherman-
agers evaluate restaurants as fully accessible for pwds.
The questionnaire includes the legislative require-
ments and professional recommendations, indicators
identified in previous research, and indicators related
tomanagers’ self-perceived knowledge, competencies,
and perceptions about accessibility issues. Concerning
rq1, it was found that managers perceive restaurants
as relatively inaccessible. According to managers’ self-
evaluations, the most accessible are the following two
attributes – parking area and restaurant entrance. In
contrast, the lowest-rated attributes were the access
between parking and the restaurant and toilets. What
is surprising is that, in the middle of the eu, managers
perceive toilets as the most problematic accessibility
area in public restaurant facilities.
A more detailed review of accessibility indicators
reveals that the lowest scores relate to floor indica-
tors, availability of hand holders, and signs for pwds.
In contrast, the highest-rated indicators are unob-
structed parking availability and visible and unob-
structed restaurant entrance. It is difficult to explain
these results, but they might be related to the fact that
the lowest-rated indicators belong to the internal (in-
door) environment. In contrast, the highest-rated in-
dicators are publicly visible, which might influence
managers’ decisions to comply with the legislative re-
quirements. Overall, this self-evaluation study’s find-
ings align with earlier studies (Sokolenko, 2018; Wan-
Chen & Chi-Chuan, 2012), which also reported ac-
cessibility differences in the various restaurant layout
areas and were performed by external evaluators.
Another important findingwas thatmanagers rated
very low their knowledge of eu accessibility policy,
accessibility legislation, and the economic potential of
the disability market in tourism. A possible explana-
tion for relatively low accessibility evaluations (rq1)
might also be the consequence of managers’ low level
of accessibility knowledge (see Table 5). In this view, it
is surprising that managers believe adjusting the offer
presents a significant financial burden, though they re-
ported little knowledge about legislative requirements.
Paradoxically, managers also believe they have a high
level of competence to adjust the offer to the needs of
pwds. The inconsistency betweenmanagers’ low self-
perceived legislative knowledge and their high self-
perceived competence to adjust the offer may be be-
causemanagers generalise and simplify the complexity
of accessibility because they have little knowledge on
this matter. Another possible explanation for results
related to rq1 is thatmanagers are waiting till the very
last moment (till 2025) to adjust the offer.However, ac-
cording to their low self-perceived legislative knowl-
edge (see Table 5), we might wonder if they know the
deadline for adjusting the offer (although we did not
specifically check this in the research). As a result, we
may presume that the eu Commission’s dedication to
increasing disability awareness was not fully effective
(European Commission, 2021).
The second objective of this study was to investi-
gate the correlation between restaurant physical ac-
cessibility and sales revenue (rq2). The most promi-
nent finding from the analysis is that none of the six
accessibility attributes is statistically significantly cor-
related to sales revenue. It is difficult to explain this re-
sult due to the lack of research on the economic value
of accessibility in the restaurant industry. However,
these results agree with those obtained by Capitaine
(2016) and Darcy and Pegg (2011), who reported that
hotel managers are somewhat sceptical about the eco-
nomic value of the disabled market in tourism. Even
though this study has been unable to demonstrate
the economic benefit of physical accessibility for the
restaurant industry, these results might be partially
explained by the low percentage of pwds dining in
restaurants. Namely, managers reported that pwds,
especially those with a mobility impairment, present
4.8 of all customers, while blind people and the visu-
ally impaired constitute only 2.4 of their customer
base. At the same time, pwds might avoid public
restaurants or tend to be loyal to verified and acces-
sible restaurant providers. Another possible explana-
tion could be that restaurant managers do not take
into account the economic benefit of accessible offer-
ings as they do not have sufficient knowledge about
the economic potential of the disability market, which
according to Donovan (2020), is estimated to control
over 13 trillion us dollars globally.
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 269
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
In the next step, managers’ self-perceived knowl-
edge, perceptions of accessibility issues, and demo-
graphic characteristics were correlated to sales rev-
enues. We especially wanted to check if the observed
correlations better explain results related to rq2. Re-
sults indicate positive correlations between sales rev-
enue and three indicators – managers’ beliefs about
the difficulty of removing the obstacles, their self-
perceived competencies, and the perceived financial
burden of adjusting the offer. This finding is interest-
ing, though it is somewhat contradictory to results
related to the correlation between sales revenue and
accessibility, where no statistically significant corre-
lations were found. A possible explanation for this
finding might be that managers are somehow aware
(or afraid) of the complexity and the financial bur-
den of adjusting the physical environment for pwds
because they have little knowledge about accessibil-
ity. Therefore, they relativise its importance and focus
on other (e.g. functional) aspects of accessibility, po-
tentially influencing restaurant sales revenues (rq2).
For example, managers may try to compensate for the
shortcomings of the physical environment by focus-
ing on service provision (e.g. helpfulness, kindness,
and support to pwds), which they afterwards corre-
late with their competence to adjust the offer to pwds.
Theoretically, thismight eliminate pwds’momentary
discomfort with the shortcoming of the physical envi-
ronment and result in higher sales revenue. However,
it is neither reflected in the actual improvement of the
physical environment nor its correlation to sales rev-
enues. Nevertheless, cautionmust be applied when in-
terpreting these results, as further studies, which take
these variables into account, will need to be under-
taken.
Concerning the correlations between managers’
demographic characteristics and sales revenues, it was
found that only the level of formal education is posi-
tively correlated to sales revenues. This result means
that restaurant managers with higher education gen-
erate higher sales revenues. This finding is consistent
with that of Lee and Hallak (2018), who confirmed
the importance of education for restaurant profitabil-
ity. Interestingly no correlations were found between
managers’ years of experience and sales revenues. Ac-
cordingly, we might assume that the business’s meth-
ods are more or less continuous (and potentially sub-
optimal). As both managers’ self-perceived accessi-
bility competence (assumingly gained through infor-
mal education) and the level of their formal education
proved essential for restaurant sales revenues, addi-
tional studies will be needed to develop a complete
picture of the importance of the self-perceived acces-
sibility competence for restaurant profitability.
Interestingly, no statistically significant correlation
was found between the accessibility level and the re-
ported year of restaurant renovation. On the contrary,
a positive correlation was found between the year of
construction of the restaurant facility and accessibility,
indicating that newly constructed restaurants are per-
ceived as more accessible. This finding suggests that
during the last renovation of the restaurant, no sig-
nificant improvements in physical accessibility were
made. According to the Building Act (Gradbeni za-
kon (gz-1), 2021, Article 7), a building permit is not
required for performing maintenance or minor re-
construction works on existing facilities, nor is a new
use permit issued. In contrast, for new buildings, a
professional commission performs a technical (on-
site) inspection (Gradbeni zakon (gz-1), 2021, Article
82). Therefore, a possible explanation for these results
might be related to managers’ relatively poor knowl-
edge of legislative requirements (see also previous ex-
planation) and the fact that the Act on the Equali-
sation of Opportunities for pwds (Zakon o izenače-
vanjumožnosti invalidov (zimi), 2010) does not spec-
ify sanctions for those who failed (or will fail) to ad-
just the offer on time. From this perspective, this study
supports evidence from previous observations, which
also emphasised the poor accessibility of facilities in
public use in the Republic of Slovenia, such as a re-
cent report issued by the Slovenian Ombudsman on
the inaccessibility of the Centres for Social Services
work (Komisija za socialno varstvo, delo, zdravstvo in
invalide, 2023).
Finally, the current findings are important in at
least two significant ways.
First, from the social perspective, results indicate
that managers perceive restaurants as insufficiently
accessible. Even though the universal design concept
270 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
has been actively introduced in the hospitality indus-
try (Gillovic & McIntosh, 2020; Watchorn et al., 2021)
and the eu has taken a serious approach towards the
protection of pwds, the results of our study reveal
that basic infrastructure is still not fully provided for
pwds, which limits them from equally integrating
into society. Following the eu’s anti-discrimination
policy, the environmental characteristics should not
obstruct pwds. Even though the Act on the Equali-
sation of Opportunities for pwds (Zakon o izenače-
vanju možnosti invalidov (zimi), 2010) enables the
adjustment of the offer up till 2025, it is somehow dif-
ficult to understand that in the 21st century, in an eu
member state, managers perceive restaurant toilet ac-
cessibility as a significant obstacle for pwds. This re-
sult is also important because physical inaccessibility
represents a deeper form of discrimination (Ameri et
al., 2020). Physical barriers negatively affect the hu-
man will and limit individual freedom (Cruz-Morato
et al., 2021). While customers without disabilities can
easily find alternative solutions to environmental bar-
riers (or other unsatisfactory elements of the offer) by
choosing a different service provider, pwds cannot
be in the same position as others.
Second, the discussion of accessibility is linked
with the marketing literature. Namely, based on the
restaurant marketing and quality management the-
ory (Kukanja et al., 2017), better physical accessibility
should not encourage customers to dine at specific
restaurants. In this view, Darcy and Pegg (2011) re-
ported that even where hotel rooms have been made
accessible, they may not always be attractive to pwds.
According to previous studies (Kukanja et al., 2017),
for customers without disabilities, the physical en-
vironment presents a necessary (fundamental) at-
tribute, while other marketing attributes (e.g. Peo-
ple and Product) influence the choice to (re)purchase.
Similarly, Zhang andCole (2016) reported that staff at-
titude critically determined pwds’ overall satisfaction
with lodging services. Therefore, in terms of making
the offer generally accessible to the public, eliminat-
ing the physical barriers is not the same as making the
product more marketing-attractive.
From the financial perspective, results indicate that
restaurant accessibility is not correlated to sales rev-
enue. In the eu alone, the disability population is es-
timated at 123.9 million, with a disposable income of
547.1 billion us dollars (Donovan, 2020). Moreover,
several trends in society imply positive relationships
with accessible restaurant offers, such as the increased
importance of pwds in the population, availability
of finances and time, awareness of environmental is-
sues, and the demand for a sustainable and socially re-
sponsible tourism offer (Gillovic & McIntosh, 2020).
Financial benefits should not present an argument
for investing in accessibility. However, a timely ad-
justment of restaurant facilities according to the leg-
islative requirements and professional recommenda-
tions on physical accessibility (see also Table 4) could
(potentially) boost sales revenues and increase busi-
ness opportunities and employment in the restaurant
industry. Nevertheless, an accessible environment is
also more comfortable for the abled population (Lim,
2020), meaning that the community benefits from ac-
cessible offerings.
Conclusion
The main goals of the current study were to analyse
managers’ self-assessment of restaurant physical ac-
cessibility (rq1) and to investigate if (in)accessibility
influences restaurant sales revenues (rq2).
This study’s results indicate a lack of literature on
disability in the restaurant sector. Furthermore, re-
sults revealed that despite the eu legislative frame-
work (see Tables 1 and 2), which should prevent dis-
crimination against pwds, and the Slovenian legis-
lation (see Table 3), which allows for the adjustment
of the physical environment for the existing service
providers up till 2025, managers evaluate the Slovene
restaurant industry as relatively poorly accessible. The
second significant finding was that physical accessi-
bility does not influence restaurant sales revenue, al-
though, theoretically, pwds could (potentially) gen-
erate substantial revenue for the restaurant industry.
This study is (to our knowledge) the first to em-
pirically investigatemanagers’ evaluation of restaurant
physical accessibility and its correlation to sales rev-
enue. Furthermore, the accessibility shortcomings that
we have identified in our study should contribute to
the improvement of restaurant accessibility in Slovenia
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 271
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
and the implementation of the eu 2021–2030 Disabil-
ity Strategy in practice (European Commission, 2021).
This study should, in theory, provide an under-
standing of restaurant physical accessibility from the
managerial (the inner) perspective. However, since the
convenience sampling method was employed for this
study, the generalisability of results should be con-
sidered. Another limitation arises from the potential
geographical and cultural differences that could af-
fect the generalisability of research results since the
present study is focused on the Republic of Slovenia.
Third, accessibility evaluations might have been influ-
enced by managers’ subjective perceptions of restau-
rant accessibility. Fourth, this study focused on phys-
ical accessibility indicators and their correlation to
sales revenue using correlation analysis. Fifth, smes
often generate revenues from different business activ-
ities, even though they are primarily registered as f&b
service activities (i56). Accordingly, their financial re-
ports are aggregated, which might present a limitation
when taking sales revenue as a key financial indica-
tor. Finally, most respondents (restaurant managers)
reported owning the facility they manage. However,
in the case of tenants’ managers, investments in the
physical environment are often in the domain of the
facility’s owner.
Despite the presented limitations, this study sug-
gests several theoretical implications. The implement-
ed economic, social, and legislative norms are chang-
ing how our society is organised. Since physical inac-
cessibility in tourism is understood as a socially im-
posed restriction, society should strive to remove all
barriers that prevent pwds’ equal inclusion. Fighting
inequality is also one of the top priorities of tourism in
the 2030 Agenda (World Tourism Organization, n.d.).
Accordingly, more research on this topic is needed to
ensure that society is maturing regarding respecting
human rights.
Moreover, to better understand why restaurant
(in)accessibility does not influence sales revenue,more
investigations utilising controlled trials are required.
An eu cross-national study might offer more conclu-
sive evidence on this matter. A reasonable approach
to tackle this issue is to analyse pwds’ expectations
using the bottom-up approach, as Cockburn-Wootten
and McIntosh (2020) suggested. Accordingly, includ-
ing these indicators in future research could also help
us establish a greater accuracy on this matter. Finally,
testing a model that simultaneously considers the im-
portance of different internal and external variables
(e.g. by implementing structural equationmodelling –
sem) could also provide a deeper insight into the rela-
tionship between environmental andmanagerial char-
acteristics, managers’ and pwds accessibility percep-
tions, and restaurant business performance.
The findings of this study have several implications
for practice. Restaurant managers are responsible for
improving accessibility. According to the research re-
sults, much will have to be done quickly. Managers
should, therefore, understand the legislation well and
adjust their offer for pwds by removing all physical
barriers by 2025. Moreover, managers are also recom-
mended to introduce appropriate internal activities,
such as accessibility checklists and audits, to enable
constantmonitoring of restaurant accessibility. A sim-
ulation exercise for restaurant staff should also raise
awareness of the different problems pwds face. The
purpose of the accessible offer is not to provide care for
pwds but to facilitate their stay by providing freedom
of movement and easing the use of services provided.
In this view, unique campaigns, such as the promotion
of best practices, industry rewards for accessibility, and
the development of specialist platforms, could also
help to promote inclusion. Calvo-Mora et al. (2015) be-
lieve proper communication is crucial as pwds value
accurate accessibility information. Accordingly, on-
line platforms can benefit pwds, as they conduct ex-
tensive research to reduce uncertainties before dining
out (Cockburn-Wootten & McIntosh, 2020). Finally,
managers should go beyond the legal requirements of
providing physical accessibility by eliminating func-
tional and communicational barriers. Eliminating all
barriers would present a step towards an accessible
restaurant offer and an equal society.
Regarding recommendations for policymakers, it
is necessary to have adequate inspection controls. In
parallel, this intervention must be accompanied by
efficient, informative campaigns and educational sup-
port. In the long term, educational programmes about
social diversity, human rights, and inclusion should be
272 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
introduced at all educational levels. In support of the
2030 Agenda for SustainableDevelopment, favourable
financial loans could be provided for smes to adjust
the offer to pwds. Finally, collective empowerment
through active cooperation among the restaurant in-
dustry, disability organisations, academia, and the
public sector seems to be a way towards an equal soci-
ety. According to this perspective, in the restaurant in-
dustry, the distinction between pwds and customers
without disabilities should be considered a common
demographic characteristic, similar to how gender,
age, education level, and nationality are addressed in
accessibility. Finally, with this paper, we hope to fur-
ther contribute to the development of research in this
tourism sector and improve the accessibility of restau-
rant facilities.
References
Albreht, A. (2018). Strateško načrtovanje dostopnosti. Min-
istrstvo za okolje in prostor Republike Slovenije.
Albreht, A., Gavran, K., Simoneti, M., Wraber, T., & Jah-
jefendić, A. (2017). Univerzalna stanovanjska graditev.
Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor.
Ameri, M., Rogers, S. E., Schur, L., & Kruse, D. (2020). No
room at the inn? Disability access in the new sharing
economy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(2),
176–205.
Baghdadi, I. Z., Fahes, M., & Ramadan, M. Z. (2017). Dis-
abled friendly facility between feasibility and legality.Ap-
plied Economics and Finance, 4(5), 27–45.
Bera, S. (2021). An application of operational analytics: for
predicting sales revenue of restaurant. In S. K. Das, S. P.
Das, N. Dey, & A.-E. Hassanien (Eds.), Machine learn-
ing algorithms for industrial applications (pp. 209–235).
Springer.
Boxall, K., Nyanjom, J., & Slaven, J. (2018). Disability, hospi-
tality and the new sharing economy. International Jour-
nal of ContemporaryHospitalityManagement, 30(1), 539–
556.
Buhalis, D., & Darcy, S. (2011). Accessible tourism: Concepts
and issues. Channel View Publications.
Calvo-Mora, A., Navarro-García, A., & Periañez-Cristóbal,
R. (2015). Tourism for All and performance: An analysis
of accessibility management in hotels. In M. Peris-Ortiz,
J. Álvarez-García, & C. Rueda-Armengot (Eds.), Achiev-
ing competitive advantage through quality management
(pp. 111–132). Springer International Publishing.
Capitaine, V. (2016). Inciting tourist accommodation man-
agers to make their establishments accessible to people
with disabilities. Journal of Tourism Futures, 2(2), 196–
205.
Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2005). A study of differential employ-
ers’ attitude towards hiring people with physical, men-
tal, and sensory disabilities in restaurant industry. Jour-
nal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.1300/J171v03n02_01
Cockburn-Wootten, C., & McIntosh, A. (2020). Improving
the accessibility of the tourism industry in New Zealand.
Sustainability, 12(24), 10478.
Cruz-Morato, M. A., Dueñas-Zambrana, C., & García-Mes-
tanza, J. (2021). Disability, human resources and behav-
ioral economics. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7932.
Darcy, S., & Pegg, S. (2011). Towards strategic intent: Per-
ceptions of disability service provision amongst hotel ac-
commodation managers. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management, 30(2), 468–476.
Dias de Faria, M., Ferreira da Silva, J., & Brantes Ferreira,
J. (2012). The visually impaired and consumption in
restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hos-
pitality Management, 24(5), 721–734.
Domínguez, T., Fraiz, J. A., &Alén, E. (2013). economic prof-
itability of accessible tourism for the tourism sector in
Spain. Tourism Economics, 19(6), 1385–1399.
Donovan, R. (2020). Design delight from disability. Rod-
Group. https://www.rod-group.com/sites/default/files
/202020Annual20Report20-20The20Global
20Economics20of20Disability.pdf
Equinet. (2021, March 5). Strategy for the rights of persons
with disabilities 2021–2030: A view from equality bodies.
Equinet. https://equineteurope.org/summary-strategy
-for-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2021-2030
-a-view-from-equality-bodies
European Commission. (2021, March 3). Questions and an-
swers: Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities
2021–2030. https://ec.europa.eu/commission
/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_813
European Parliament and the Council of the European Uni-
on. (2019, June 7). Directive (eu) 2019/882 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on
the accessibility requirements for products and services
(Text with eea relevance). Official Journal of the Euro-
pean Union l 151.
Eurostat. (2021). Disability statistics introduced. Eurostat
Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Disability
_statistics_introduced
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 273
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
Feerasta, J. (2017). Individuals with intellectual disabilities
in the restaurant business: An exploratory study of at-
tributes for success. Journal of Human Resources in Hos-
pitality and Tourism, 16(1), 22–38.
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of per-
formance management systems: An extended frame-
work for analysis. Management Accounting Research,
20(4), 263–282.
Ferri Sanz,M., Durá Ferrandis, E., & Garcés Ferrer, J. (2019).
Service quality scales and tourists with special needs: A
systematic review. Sustainability, 11(14), 3844.
Gillovic, B., & McIntosh, A. (2020). Accessibility and in-
clusive tourism development: Current state and future
agenda. Sustainability, 12(22), 9722.
Gradbeni zakon (gz-1). (2021).Uradni list Republike Sloveni-
je, (199). https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop
=2021-01-3972
Grady, J., & Ohlin, J. B. (2009). Equal access to hospital-
ity services for guests with mobility impairments under
the Americans with Disabilities Act: Implications for the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(1), 161–169.
Harris, P. (2013). Profit planning: For hospitality and tourism
(3rd ed.). Goodfellow Publishers.
Hua, N. (2014). Benchmarking firm capabilities to turn
undesirable financial performance around in the us
restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Re-
search, 17(5), 390–409.
Jiang, P., Xu, T., Zhang, C., Chen, J., & Wang, T. (2021). Un-
forgettable restaurant: Helping older people who are liv-
ing with disability and dementia return to society. Gen-
eral Psychiatry, 34(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych
-2021-100657
Joo, N., & Cho, K. (2012). Study on the utilization of restau-
rant services by the disabled and their demand for better
access in Korea.Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
17(3), 338–353.
Komisija za socialno varstvo, delo, zdravstvo in invalide.
(2023).Mnenje k Posebnemu poročilu Varuha človekovih
pravic »Dostopnost Centrov za socialno delo za gibalno in
senzorno ovirane invalide«. https://ds-rs.si/sites/default
/files/dogodek/658-1m_25._redno_letno_por._vcp_rs
_za_leto_2019_epa_481-ix.pdf
Kukanja, M., Gomezelj Omerzel, D., & Kodrič, B. (2017).
Ensuring restaurant quality and guests’ loyalty: An inte-
grative model based on marketing (7p) approach. Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(13–14),
1509–1525.
Kuo, P.-J., & Kalargyrou, V. (2014). Consumers’ perspectives
on service staff with disabilities in the hospitality indus-
try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 26(2), 164–182.
Lee, C., & Hallak, R. (2018). Investigating the moderating
role of education on a structuralmodel of restaurant per-
formance using multi-group pls-sem analysis. Journal
of Business Research, 88, 298–305.
Lee, K., & Ha, I. S. (2012). Exploring the impacts of key eco-
nomic indicators and economic recessions in the restau-
rant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing andMan-
agement, 21(3), 330–343.
Lim, J.-E. (2020). Understanding the discrimination experi-
enced by customers with disabilities in the tourism and
hospitality industry: The case of Seoul in South Korea.
Sustainability, 12(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187328
McClain, L., Beringer, D., Kuhnert, H., Priest, J., Wilkes, E.,
Wilkinson, S., & Wyrick, L. (1993). Restaurant wheel-
chair accessibility. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 47(7), 619–623.
Ministrstvo za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake mož-
nosti. (n.d.). Akcijski program za invalide. https://www
.gov.si/zbirke/projekti-in-programi/akcijski-program
-za-invalide/
Nacionalne usmeritve za izboljšanje dostopnosti grajenega
okolja, informacij in komunikacij za invalide. (2005).
Uradni list Republike Slovenije, (113). https://www.uradni
-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2005-01-5023
Nicolaisen, J., Blichfeldt, B. S., & Sonnenschein, F. (2012).
Medical and social models of disability: A tourism pro-
viders’ perspective.World Leisure Journal, 54(3), 201–214.
Niemeier, J. D., & Hayes, D. K. (2005). Restaurant operations
management principles and practices. Pearson.
Planinc, T. (2022). Model spremljanja učinkovitosti in us-
pešnosti malih in srednje velikih podjetij v prehrambnem
gostinstvu: doktorska disertacija [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Primorska.
Pravilnik o univerzalni graditvi in uporabi objektov. (2018).
Uradni list Republike Slovenije, (41). https://www.uradni-
list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2018-01-2044
Riesch, C., & Kleiner, B. H. (2005). Discrimination towards
customers in the restaurant industry. Equal Opportuni-
ties International, 24(7/8), 29–37.
Sendi, R. (2019). Dostopnost grajenega okolja in informaci-
jskih tehnologij. Združenje izvajalcev zaposlitvene reha-
bilitacije v Republiki Sloveniji.
Sendi, S., Bizjak, I., Goršič,N., Kerbler, B.,Mujkić, S., &Tom-
inc, N. (2015). Priročnik o dostopnosti objektov v javni
rabi.Urbanistični inštitut Republike Slovenije.
Sokolenko, A. S. (2018). Ensuring accessibility of services of
274 | Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023
Marko Kukanja and Saša Planinc Does Better Physical Accessibility . . .
the restaurant industry facilities for people with special
needs in Ukraine. Business Inform, 10, 241–246.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030
agenda for sustainable development (a/res/70/1). https://
undocs.org/en/A/RES/70/1
United Nations. (n.d.). Convention on the rights of persons
with disabilities (crpd). https://social.desa.un.org/issues
/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-
with-disabilities-crpd
Wan-Chen, C., & Chi-Chuan, L. (2012). Barrier-free dining
environment for the visually impaired: A case study of
restaurant in Taichung, Taiwan. InA. Zainal, S.M. Radzi,
R. Hashim, C. T. Chik, & R. Abu (Eds.), Current issues
in hospitality and tourism: Research and innovations (pp.
125–127). crc Press.
Watchorn, V., Hitch, D., Grant, C., Tucker, R., Aedy, K., Ang,
S., & Frawley, P. (2021). An integrated literature review
of the current discourse around universal design in the
built environment: Is occupation the missing link? Dis-
ability and Rehabilitation, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1080
/09638288.2019.1612471
World Tourism Organization. (n.d.). Tourism in the 2030
Agenda. unwto. https://www.unwto.org/tourism-in-
2030-agenda
World Travel and Tourism Council. (n.d.). Economic impact
reports. https://wttc.org/research/economic-impact
Zakon o izenačevanju možnosti invalidov (zimi). (2010).
Uradni list Republike Slovenije, (94). https://www.uradni
-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2010-01-4936
Zakon o urejanju prostora (zurep-3). (2021).Uradni list Re-
publike Slovenije, (199). https://www.uradni-list.si/1
/objava.jsp?sop=2021-01-3971
Zakon o varstvu potrošnikov (zvpot-1). (2022). Uradni list
Republike Slovenije, (130). https://www.uradni-list.si/1
/objava.jsp?sop=2022-01-3083
Zakon o varstvu pred diskriminacijo (zvard). (2016).Urad-
ni list Republike Slovenije, (33). https://www.uradni-list
.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2016-01-1427
Zhang, Y., & Cole, S. T. (2016). Dimensions of lodging guest
satisfaction among guests with mobility challenges: A
mixed-method analysis of web-based texts. Tourism
Management, 53, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.tourman.2015.09.001
Academica Turistica, Year 16, No. 3, December 2023 | 275