D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
167
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
DESIGNING ACCESSIBLE TOURISM EXPERIENCES:
SLOW, SENSORY AND SMART FRAMEWORK
Dora Agapito. Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs)
and Faculty of Economics, Universidade do Algarve, Portugal dlagapito@ualg.pt
Manuela Guerreiro. Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being
(CinTurs) and Faculty of Economics, Universidade do Algarve, Portugal
mmguerre@ualg.pt
ABSTRACT
Slow tourism is an emergent research area focused on slowing the pace
of life during vacations. A comprehensive multi-sensory approach can
contribute to designing enhanced slow tourism experiences deemed
accessible, both in situ and remotely. There is a research gap in
considering multi-sensory stimuli in the design of accessible tourism
experiences using technology. As such, this research intends to propose
a theoretical framework focused on the development of slow tourism
through sensory cues and smart technologies. In so doing, a critical
approach to literature was carried out by intersecting three areas of
literature following the rationale of the Stimuli-Organism-Response
model: slow tourism, multi-sensory tourism experiences design, and
smart destinations. The significance of this framework is threefold: it
strengthens local identities and aids sustainable tourism by involving the
community; it promotes experiences deemed authentic considering
multiple stakeholders’ perspectives; and it addresses the visitor
experience before, during and after the visit to the destination in an
accessible manner using smart technologies. A framework with six steps
is offered based on participatory methods.
KEYWORDS:
Slow tourism, accessible tourism experiences, multi-sensory tourism;
smart destination; experience design; technology
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
168
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
1. INTRODUCTION
The interest in slow tourism (ST) from a research and practical perspective has
grown in the last decade (Manthiou et al., 2022; Mai et al., 2021). Following the
rationale of the slow movement that started in the 1980s, ST is a relatively new area
of study. While existing research is still limited and primarily theoretical or exploring
aspects associated with food, motivations, and modes of travel, in general, ST is
strongly linked to the idea of place attachment and sustainable development of
tourism destinations (Lin et al., 2020; Mai et al., 2021; Özdemir & Çelebi, 2018).
This emergent research area is based on the idea of slowing the pace of life during
the holidays, and it is characterised by the pleasure of discovery, learning, and
sharing experiences that can be perceived as authentic and distinctive (Ekinci, 2014;
Heitmann et al., 2011; Manthiou et al., 2022; Mai et al., 2021; Petrini, 2001).
Typically, the literature establishes technology as one of the promoters for a fast
pace of travel, which is associated with mass tourism forms (Mai et al., 2021),
especially in urban contexts. On the one hand, technology has been approached as
conflicting with the rationale of ST since it is recognised that both tourists and
residents need to switch off from technology. On the other hand, current research
stresses the advantages of using smart technologies to find solutions for
contemporary challenges in tourism destinations (Coca-Stefaniak 2020). Indeed,
technology can be utilised to contribute to withstand tourism during and after the
COVID-19 pandemic and achieve sustainable competitiveness (Del Chiappa &
Fotiadis, 2021; Errichiello & Micera, 2021). Also, smart technologies are key in
designing accessible experiences by following universal design principles (Darcy &
Dickson, 2009; Lam et al., 2020; Lauría, 2009). It is estimated that around 15% of
the world's population experiences a form of disability (World Health Organisation,
2011). The figures are likely to increase due to the phenomenon of ageing
populations (e.g., mobility issues) and chronic health diseases (UNWTO, 2016;
Singh et al., 2021). Research interest in tourism and disability has grown in the last
few years. This phenomenon is aligned with the tourism industry's concerns in
facilitating positive tourism experiences for all. In this context, a specific line of
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
169
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
research has been centred on accessible tourism, and it links to sustainability (Singh
et al., 2021).
A recent research strand argues that technology can be used to optimise multi-
sensory aspects of unique local resources (Agapito, 2022; Alyahya & McLean,
2022). This process can cater to more accessible experiences (Agapito, 2020;
Huang & Lau, 2020; Santos et al., 2022). Despite the dearth of studies, there is
some evidence related to the potential of a holistic approach to multiple sensory
components (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile) in developing
enhanced tourism experiences deemed accessible for all. This approach includes
visitors with mobility or sensory disabilities, remotely and during the visit (Agapito,
2020; Darcy & Dickson, 2009). Previous research emphasises the relevance and
opportunities of using virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), smartphone apps,
quick response codes (QR codes), virtual maps, and online platforms to enhance
visitors' experiences via specific sensory stimuli related to destinations, products and
services (Guttentag, 2010; Lam et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Yung et al., 2021). This
process can be optimised and customised through GPS and Geographic Information
System technologies. It can also be associated with social media platforms. Indeed,
the increasing impact of ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies)
shaped destination management approaches, characterised by the integration of
technology and data management, which requires adequate governance (Ivars-
Baidal et al., 2019).
All three research areas ST (e.g., Serdane et al., 2020), multi-sensory tourism
experiences design (e.g., Agapito, 2020), and smart destinations (Ivars-Baidal et al.,
2019) advocate that all stakeholders, including tourists and residents, should be
considered in major managerial decisions in a participatory manner to guarantee
sustainable tourism development. The process of linking this rationale to sustainable
forms of tourism, such as ST, contributes to meeting the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (https://sdgs.un.org/goals) in tourism destinations. Also, this
approach addresses the objective of slow cities network related to advocating "the
culture of good living through research, testing and application of solutions for the
research to understand the coexistence between the use of "fast" tools by tourists
(technology, internet), the slow mindset, and the philosophy related to slow
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
170
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
movement. Yet, there is a knowledge gap in the context of optimising multi-sensory
stimuli to design sustainable and accessible tourism experiences, considering the
slow movement and technology.
In light of existing literature, this research proposes a framework based on a holis-
tic process that combines multi-sensory stimuli centred on local resources, participa-
tory methods, and virtual and augmented environments in the context of ST. This
approach is informed by Stimuli-Organism-Response (SOR) theory in environmental
psychology (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Our rationale is that the experiencescape,
which relates to the external environment in destinations (e.g., sensory stimuli, tech-
nologies), can impact the tourist experience by making it more positive and accessi-
ble. This process can result in favourable outcomes for individuals and destinations
(Chen et al.,2020; Lin et al., 2022; Tasci & Pizam, 2020).
This research argues that this approach can enhance the opportunities for
appreciation and learning processes both in loco and remotely at a slower pace. This
rationale allows for designing tourism experiences considering different needs and
requirements. The theoretical contribution of this research is thus the integration of
multi-sensory experiences design, smart technologies and slow tourism into a
framework aiming to design tourism experiences that are accessible and
sustainable. On the other hand, this paper discusses governance and managerial
implications and proposes a practical six-step process to implement the resulting
theoretical framework.
2. KEY THEMES ON SLOW TOURISM, MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCES AND
SMART DESTINATIONS
2.1) SLOW FOOD, SLOW TRAVEL, AND SLOW PLACES
In a COVID-19 scenario, labour flexibility, the proliferation of low-cost airlines, and
the increase in the offer of accommodation, together with the pleasure of discovering
new places, led to a rise in leisure travel throughout the year, albeit for shorter
periods (Fleischer et al., 2011; Lenzen et al., 2018; Salmasi et al., 2012).
Recognised as an activity with strong ecological footprints (Dolnicar, 2020; Fleischer
et al., 2011), the entities responsible for mitigating climate change call for touristic
practices that are compatible with environmental sustainability criteria, namely the
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
171
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
use of sustainable modes of transport and extended stays (Gössling et al., 2018;
Losada & Mota, 2019). Within this context, the "slow" movement is anchored on the
slow food movement initiated in Italy in the 1980s. This movement focuses on
respecting nature's rhythms, traditional products' quality (Petrini, 2001), and the
environment (Ekinci, 2014; Fusté-Forné & Jamal, 2020).
Slow travel is an emerging concept related to the tourist's journey (Conway &
Timms, 2010). This approach emerges as a response to environmental concerns
associated with the ecological footprint caused by traditional modes of transport in
the scope of mass tourism (Fusté-Forné & Jamal, 2020). Slow travel is compatible
with the principles of sustainable travel and implies that tourists travel less, prefer
longer stays and enjoy their visits to places in a slower manner (Conway & Timms,
2010; Dickinson et al., 2010).
The slow movement has extended to cities, which led to the emergence of the
Slow Cities Movement. The latter represents the engagement of cities and places
with the adoption of policies encouraging tourists to engage with local communities
development of local communities, and the key values are the local identity,
uniqueness, and the sense of place (Jung et al., 2014; Manthiou et al., 2022; Mavri
et al., 2021). Slow Cities Movement embraces the objective of contributing to
improving residents' quality of life (Miele, 2008) and is framed in the principles of
sustainable travel (Le Busque et al., 2022). The Cittaslow network proliferates in
many countries with a particular focus on Europe and other continents (Perano et al.,
2019).
Against this background, ST is a form of tourism based on the principle of
deceleration. It considers holidays as a period of leisure and relaxation during which
tourists excel in respect for local culture, history, and the environment, valuing social
responsibility and celebrating the diversity and relationship between people (other
tourists and host communities).
2.2) SLOW TOURISM AND DESTINATIONS
To some authors, ST appears as a reaction to mass tourism (Conway & Timms,
2010; Meng & Choi, 2016; Oh et al., 2016). The former adopts a holistic perspective,
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
172
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
including several tourism activities at the destination (Conway & Timms, 2010; Meng
& Choi, 2016). Some examples are walking, cycling, guided walks, local attractions,
gastronomy, handicrafts, festivals and events, and local markets (Caffyn, 2012;
Conway & Timms, 2012; Meng & Choi, 2016; Werner et al., 2021). Tourists can
choose sustainable transport modes, spend more time in each place, immerse
themselves in local culture, and buy local products, thus minimising the ecological
footprint and contributing to local development (Caffyn, 2012; Dickinson, 2015;
Heitmann et al., 2011; Manthiou et al., 2022; Meng & Choi, 2016; Serdane et al.,
2020). These contexts encourage tourists to experience an authentic, higher quality
and more enjoyable experience (Conway & Timms, 2010; Meng & Choi, 2016; Oh et
al., 2016).
In previous studies, ST has been closely attached to nature-based tourism, rural
tourism (Serdane et al., 2020), cultural tourism (Pecsek, 2016), as well as food
tourism (Heitmann et al., 2011), The literature recognises that slow tourists are more
engaged with places and local people and more attached to the destination than
other tourists (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010; Han et al., 2019; Meng & Choi, 2016;
Shang et al., 2020). Therefore, ST is acknowledged as a trigger for promoting local
businesses and specific locations at destinations (Conway & Timms, 2010; Pecsek,
2016).
According to some authors, there is a connection between this approach and
ecology and sustainable development (Lin et al., 2020; Mai et al., 2021; Manthiou
et al., 2022; Özdemir & Çelebi, 2018). This rationale comes from an interest in place,
and green travel (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010). Kim et al. (2021) consider that
citizens' increased environmental awareness can lead to the adoption of more
sustainable behaviours. In response to this trend, governments try to implement
measures to preserve natural environments. The component of environmental
responsibility may indeed be an opportunity for ST. Other authors point out,
however, that attracting more visitors to slow destinations may contradict the
fundamentals of the Slow philosophy (Heitmann et al., 2011) and jeopardise the
desired sustainable development.
ST refers to the activities that tourists are involved in during their stay at the
destination (Conway & Timms, 2010; Conway & Timms, 2012). Therefore, tourism
providers endeavour to reinforce the sense of place and set the stage where tourists
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
173
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
are engaged with local culture (Pawlusinski & Kubal, 2018) towards deceleration
(Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011). Even in these contexts, it is recognised that slow
tourists are using technological devices associated with their usual lifestyle (Lannoy,
2016). Thus, it is relevant to conceptualise ways to make the slow philosophy
compatible with new technologies like laptops, tablets, and smartphones, which are
commonly associated with fast practices (Le Busque et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2020;
Manthiou et al., 2022; Markwell et al., 2012). The ST approach has received criticism
concerning the negative economic impact these options can have on destinations
(Boley, 2015). Still, choosing local options and increasing the length of stay trigger
positive multiplier effects that generate employment and income for local populations
(Caffyn, 2012; Serdane et al., 2020).
Academic research on the motivations of slow tourists found that those who
embark on ST proposals do so for self-interest and not, as might be expected, for the
reasons that underlie the Slow philosophy. Self-interest and experiential motivations
are common drivers of ST (Lin, 2017; Oh et al., 2016; Özdemir & Çelebi, 2018).
Although present in tourists' concerns, environmental reasons are not the primary
motivations (Dickinson et al., 2010). The slow mindset aligns with the principle of
experiencing the place and what it offers from a self-defined rhythm.
The concept of "slow destinations" emerges based on the idea of "a destination
with 'slow' potential that could optimise the rationale of 'slow' to become a
differentiated regional destination brand" (Shang et al., 2020, p. 2). This approach
highlights the importance of distinctive features, a sense of place and place identity
(Losada & Mota, 2019; Shang et al., 2020). In fact, previous studies found a
connection between ST, destination experience and place attachment (Dickinson &
Lumsdon, 2010; Han et al., 2019; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011; Shang et al., 2020).
As a slow destination, Latvia was one of the first places to apply the slow philosophy
at a national level and incorporate slowness in the destination brand (Serdane et al.,
2020).
A tourist's experience in an ST destination can be strongly engaging as the
traveller's sensory experiences are stimulated by natural sights, perceived authentic
environments, local flavours, engagement with locals, or special events. Specifically,
sensory experiences tend to be triggered by nature-based tours of the destination or
local gastronomic experiences, for example. These sensory experiences are drivers
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
174
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
of positive tourist outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, behavioural intentions, and place
attachment) (Kastenholz et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2020; Werner et al., 2021).
2.3) COMPONENTS OF SLOW TOURISM
ST is marked by environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviours associated with
eco-friendly transport, extended stays, and small-scale travel. Physical slowing down
and preference for local products (crafts, food, art and accommodation) guarantee
engagement with local life and the authenticity of an experience in which quality
comes at the expense of quantity (Fullagar, 2012; Lumsdon & McGrath, 2011;
Manthiou et al., 2022; Markwell et al., 2012; Paliki & Kubal, 2018; Petrini,
2001; Serdane et al., 2020; Sun & Lin, 2018; van Bommel & Spicer, 2011). The
various elements that characterise ST are systematised in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Characteristics of ST (Own elaboration based on Manthiou et al., 2022; Serdane et al., 2020).
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
175
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Informed by previous literature and empirical research focused on tourists and
tourism providers (public and private), Serdane et al. (2020) propose four
dimensions of ST: environmental, experiential, economic, and ethical (Figure 2).
According to the authors, although present, the environmental, ethical, and economic
dimensions proved to have less relevance and are considered natural consequences
of the practice of ST. The experiential dimension turned out to be the central aspect
of ST translated into immersion in the local culture and the interaction with hosts.
This finding is aligned with the primary experiential tourists' motivations for engaging
in ST (Lin, 2017; Oh et al., 2016; Özdemir & Çelebi, 2018).
Figure 2. Dimensions of ST (Own elaboration based on Serdane et al., 2020)
2.4) MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCES DESIGN
Individuals perceive environments through external surroundings stimuli through
their senses (e.g., sight, touch, smell). This process impacts emotions, cognition,
behaviours, attitudes, learning/memory (Krishna, 2012), and well-being (Tan et al.,
2020). A recent strand of research in tourism studies has acknowledged the role of
the senses as a critical dimension of tourism experiences. This contemporary line of
research stresses the relevance of multi-sensory stimuli in the design of tourism ex-
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
176
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
periences and sustainable destination development (Agapito, 2020; Agapito et al.,
2013; Buzova et al., 2021). The premise is that planning environments in an inte-
grated fashion can contribute to accruing perceived value and adding meaning to the
encounter between visitors, places and communities. The designing of relevant ex-
ternal stimuli, such as sensory inputs, both directly and virtually, can contribute to
some extent to shaping specific emotional responses (taking into consideration indi-
viduals goals and motivations) and prompt perceived authentic experiences and
sustainable behaviours towards destinations by focusing on local identities and re-
sources (Agapito, 2020; Huang & Lau, 2020; Kastenholz et al., 2020; Santos et al.,
2022).
Designing accessible experiences means enabling inclusive participation, allowing
all people to engage in tourism-related environments. Indeed, accessible tourism in-
volves the collaboration between stakeholders aiding individuals with "access re-
quirements, including mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive dimensions of access, to
function independently and with equity and dignity (Darcy & Dickson, 2009, p.43).
The use of multiple sensory stimuli (e.g., colours, shapes, signs, textures, scents,
sounds, flavours), both corporeal or virtual, are part of the experiencescape, i.e., the
surrounding environment where experiences emerge (Agapito, 2020). In fact, the
term sensescapes, carved in human geography, supports the notion that in addition
to landscapes, with primarily ocular connotations, other senses can be specially or-
dered or place related (Rodaway, 1994; Urry, 2002). Different experience scapes
(holistic scapes that compose the surrounding environment) can impact the tourist
experience by making it more positive and accessible, resulting in favoura-
ble/unfavourable outcomes for individuals, tourism companies, and destinations
(Chen et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022). This idea is aligned with the rationale of univer-
sal design (i.e., design for all people regardless their abilities or disabilities) and envi-
ronmental psychology theories showing that specific stimuli impact individuals (e.g.,
Stimuli-Organism-Response model). These effects can produce positive and nega-
tive responses (Tasci & Pizam, 2020).
Physical and online environments can be optimised with the aid of technology in
the process of managing the tourist experience more responsibly and compellingly
(Agapito, 2020; Agapito et al., 2013; Lauría, 2016). A systematic review of the sens-
es in tourism design showed that research opportunities are mostly related to sus-
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
177
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
tainability and technology (Agapito, 2020). ICTs can be connected with environmen-
tal design and sustainably enhance the experience with attractions and destinations
(Lam et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
2.5) TECHNOLOGY AND SMART DESTINATIONS
The term smart is used to signify resource optimisation using advanced
technologies and the interconnection between different technologies and artificial
intelligence. This concept has been applied to places (e.g., smart tourism
destinations, smart cities) and optimising resource production. The smart approach
to destinations reflects the emerging nature of the places that apply ICTs and
knowledge to improve the community's quality of life as well as the visitor experience
(Ivars-Baidal et al., 2019; Gretzel et al., 2015; Lata et al., 2022). This process can be
developed by aligning the ideas of participation, collaboration and innovation.
Indeed, Vargas-Sánchez (2016) advocates that a smart tourism destination is related
to the idea of a shared vision integrating technologies.
Accordingly, a recent strand in tourism research explores the potential of VR, AR,
apps for smartphones, new media, the internet of things, big data, QR Codes, and
the connection to GSP and GIS systems, for example, in managing destination
resources (Benckendorff et al., 2019; Ivars-Baidal et al., 2019; Guttentag, 2010; Lin
et al., 2020).
The term "virtual reality" (VR) refers to 3D computer-generated landscapes that
one may explore and interact with, simulating one or more of the user's five senses
in real time. AR can enhance this virtual environment by projecting computer-
generated images onto a real-world view (Guttentag, 2010), in loco or remotely,
using QR codes and smartphone apps. These tools can encourage visitors to learn
about and travel to specific places slower and more immersively.
VR allows for simulating environments and thus facilitates a visiting experience
that can have an impact on tourists' imagination, emotions, memories, attitudes and
behaviours (Alyahya & McLean, 2022; Burdea & Coiffet, 2003; Guttentag, 2010; Lin
et al., 2020; Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Therefore, this technology can be utilised as
an instrument in the context of sustainable management of local resources (Agapito
et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020). In marketing, the literature highlights the potential of VR
to facilitate the tourist experience through sensory information that allows
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
178
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
participants to customise their experience, immerse themselves in reality (places and
events), and adapt the process of interpretation to specific requirements. This
approach makes the experience accessible to all (Lam et al., 2020). Alyahya and
McLean (2022) found that different levels of sensory cues in VR experiences affect
not only mental imagery, but also the sense of presence in the experience, attitudes
and intentions of revisiting the destination. In their research on whether and how VR
influences potential visitors' behavioural intentions regarding a heritage city, Lin et al.
(2020) uncovered that engaging visitors through VR stimulated the desire to engage
in slower visits to destinations (Lin et al., 2020, p. 8).
The smart use of technology is apparent. On the one hand, virtual and augmented
reality technologies allow greater interactivity, opportunities for sensory immersion,
heritage preservation, and accessibility (Bec et al., 2019). On the other hand, the
Slow Cities movement encourages the use of technology-oriented
3. PROPOSING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1) STUDIES INTEGRATING SLOW TOURISM, SENSORY EXPERIENCES
AND SMART DESTINATIONS
Although the link between the rationale of ST, smart technologies and sensory-
informed experiences has been little explored, some studies highlight the potential of
this relationship in the design of accessible and sustainable tourism experiences
(e.g., Agapito, 2020; Coca-Stefaniak, 2020; Conway & Timms, 2010; Lam et al.,
2020; Lin et al., 2020; Sambhanthan & Good, 2014; Tan et al., 2020).
Conway and Timms (2010) stress the democratic role of ICTs even in remote
places with the participation of local communities. The authors state that information
technology networking and website development allow a centralised promotion of
local activities following the rationale of ST that can boost the overall collective
identity. This process contributes to the design of distinctive community-based
alternative tourism offerings (based on distinct stimuli) and participatory slow-based
experiences. These alternative activities to the sun and beach offerings encompass
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
179
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
sports tourism, heritage tourism, agrotourism and ecotourism events, which can
complement local food and community events based on local culture and heritage.
As prototypes of this approach, the authors probe several case examples, such as a)
activities developed in Treasure Beach in Jamaica, b) ST based on nature in central
Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, and c) activities conducted in the Grenadines
and other small islands in the Caribbean. This multi-stakeholder approach is deemed
sustainable, considering it tackles environmental, socio-cultural, participatory and
inclusiveness aspects.
Sambhanthan and Good (2014) propose a virtual community approach focusing
on tourism destinations. The system encourages all to enjoy the travelling
experience (both at the pre-purchase and consumption stages), including senior
individuals and visitors with panic disorders and mobility-related disabilities. The
study explores several case examples in sectors ranging from education, nursing,
health and business. In so doing, it argues that this approach can contribute to
destination competitiveness. Considering the interactive nature of VR, it can be a
powerful context for innovation and collaboration. The authors highlight the visual
and auditory forms of stimulation that can engage visitors and impact favourable
behaviours towards destinations.
Coca-Stefaniak (2020) proposes to rethink the "smartness" of urban destinations
by focusing on approaches such as ST and tackling social challenges experienced
by global tourism cities. Specifically, the author highlights the importance of
inequalities between host communities and visitors, wellness, resilience and mental
health. A holistic approach focused on the smart use of technology linked to the
rationale of ST activities can result in more people-centred and sustainable
cooperative strategies for tourism destinations. This perspective allows for the
optimisation of local stimuli uniqueness aiming at sustainable development and
innovation.
Lin et al. (2020) conducted a study to investigate how and why VR can work
effectively to promote sustainable tourism practices in a heritage context. The
researchers found that VR can significantly affect tourists' intentions to engage in ST
in an ancient city and the tourists' nostalgic feelings about the destination. Aside from
being motivated by the advantages of slower travel, visitors may be attracted by
appealing settings, including accessibility, design and sensory stimulations (Lin,
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
180
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
2018). Therefore, the surrounding environment (built and natural-based) plays a
central role in facilitating tourists' co-creation and experiences, which impacts the
intention to engage intentionally in slow leisure (Lin et al., 2020).
Tan et al. (2020) probe how communication factors, such as multi-sensory media,
influence individuals' mindfulness at a heritage site. The researchers explore how
new technology displays can be used to enhance visitors' mindfulness states at
leisure and tourism sites (e.g., heritage attractions), i.e., how it contributes to
boosting visitors' attention and full appreciation of sensory-informed details at a slow
pace. This process can result in better heritage conservation and promote
sustainability and perceived well-being (Bec et al., 2019). In this context, Martins et
al. (2017) proposed a multi-sensory virtual experience model for thematic tourism
focused on wine tourism by merging all elements into a single technological platform
based on the conventional five human senses. Indeed, gastronomy-based activities
(local food and beverage) have been highlighted as vital in ST approaches. In fact,
Santos et al. (2022) propose a global wine tourism system based on a holistic,
sustainable and inclusive approach. The idea is to integrate distinct sensory aspects
of local-based wine activities and technology in the planning and to manage
accessible tourism experiences. Wen and Leung (2021) also stress the influence of
offline and online embodiment in the process of designing immersive and engaging
wine tourism experiences. Accordingly, Flávian et al. (2021) found that pleasant
scents in VR experiences enhance sensory states as long there is congruence in
integrating sensory stimuli in digital experiences, permitting an imagery accessibility
approach.
Lam et al. (2020) explore insights into the contributions of technology and sensory
elements to sustainable and accessible tourism. This approach focuses on solutions
that can be customised in destination experience design for visitors with disabilities,
such as visual impairment. Huang and Lau (2020) probe the perspectives of
individuals with visual impairment towards tourism and how smart advanced
technology centred on gamification features can enhance their destination
experiences. The perspective of accessibility for all stakeholders through technology
(e.g., VR, AR, mobile apps) optimises sensory aspects of local resources, and aids
management focused on preservation and conservation (Caciora et al., 2021).
Although these studies are not on slow research, they are aligned with the rationale
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
181
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
of designing sustainable and accessible experiences based on unique sensory
aspects related to local resources. This process encourages visitors to learn about
local resources in situ or remotely at their rhythm. It provides space to appreciate
destination resources at different stages at a slower pace.
The systematic review conducted by Agapito (2020) around the senses and
tourism design shows that future research directions on this topic are related to
designing enhanced tourism experiences that are deemed sustainable. Research
should also encompass the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (e.g., public and
private sector, local community, tourists). The use of participatory methodologies,
such as focus groups, is encouraged. Technology, especially VR, is depicted as a
vital aspect in this area of research since it contributes to more accessible tourism
experiences for all, including individuals with disabilities. At the same time, it acts as
a means to optimise the distinctive qualities of local resources. In this light, ST
combines the characteristics to address this call for future research and practice.
In summary, the above studies advocate the rationale of ST is centred on local
identity, distinctive resources and sense of place, which are tangibilised by sensory
stimuli. Furthermore, ST should consider different stakeholders' crucial roles, needs,
and requirements in researching and designing sustainable tourism experiences. A
smart approach using technology (VR, AR, online platforms, mobile apps, QR codes)
allows the operationalisation, enhancement of stimuli, customisation, and making
experiences more accessible for all.
3.2) INTEGRATING SLOW TOURISM, SENSORY EXPERIENCES AND SMART
DESTINATIONS THROUGH SOR MODEL
The studies discussed in the previous sections suggest that the rationale of the
Stimuli-Organism-Response (SOR) theory (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) can be used
to integrate slow tourism, sensory experience and smart destinations into a
framework to be implemented in destinations. This theory was developed within
Environmental Psychology. The model poses that stimuli (S) in the environment (e.g.
sensory stimuli, technology) impact the organism (O), such as the perception of the
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
182
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
tourist experience itself (e.g., positive vs negative; accessible vs non-accessible),
which in turn affects individuals' responses (R). These responses can be related to
intentions to revisit, time spent at the destination, behaviours (e.g., environmentally
responsible), attitudes towards the hosts, and a sense of well-being (Tasci & Pizam,
2020). Experiencescape theory, which focuses on external stimuli in tourism
destinations and follows a holistic approach (e.g., integrated multi-sensory stimuli), is
aligned with the SOR rationale (Chen et al., 2020).
3.3) FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING ACCESSIBLE TOURISM EXPERIENCES:
A SLOW, SENSORY AND SMART APPROACH
This theoretical research adopted a critical literature review, which allowed the au-
thors to synthesise existing literature and propose a framework for designing acces-
sible tourism experiences by integrating slow, sensory and smart approaches. A crit-
ical review goes beyond mere description and includes some innovation. Typically,
this process results "in a hypothesis or a model" to be further evaluated in future re-
search (Grant & Booth, 2009: 93). After the critical literature review, five senior aca-
demic experts on accessible tourism experiences and sensory experiences were
consulted to gather exploratory feedback on the rationale of the proposed frame-
work. In so doing, each expert was shown a preliminary draft of the manuscript indi-
vidually. Further clarification was added to the framework based on the comments
provided by the five academics. This procedure permits adding robustness to theo-
retical research (Wen et al., 2022). In this light, a reflective perspective is present in
this research (Quintela et al., 2016).
Figure 3 shows the integration of multi-sensory and smart approaches to design
more accessible and sustainable tourism experiences in the context of slow tourism.
A six-step process is recommended to implement this framework in destinations from
a research and practical perspective.
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
183
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Figure 3. Slow, sensory and smart: A framework
FIRST STEP: Group sessions (e.g., focus group, nominal group technique) with
relevant stakeholders (e.g., local organisations, residents, tourists). This qualitative
methodological procedure (Delbecq et al., 1975) aims to capture the stimuli by each
sensory modality (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile). This process
considers the stimuli that different stakeholders believe characterise the destination
better, why the stimuli are important for local identity, where they are located, and
how people can slowly interact with them (Conway & Timms, 2010). Specifically, the
nominal group technique allows the moderator to ask participants specific questions
and to prioritise the contributions. This technique has advantages over the focus
group by preventing a single person's dominating the discussion. The process
encourages all group members to participate, resulting in prioritised solutions or
recommendations representing the group's preferences (Delbecq et al., 1975).
SECOND STEP: Validation of stimuli by experts. Following the identification of
stimuli per each sensory modality (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile),
these should be validated and ranked using instruments such as the Delphi method
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
184
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
(Ivars-Baidal et al., 2019; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). Panels can be composed of
national and international academics, relevant regional organisations and tourism
authorities. The main goal of this quantitative-based approach (questionnaire) is to
obtain a consensus from panels of experts regarding the stimuli to be highlighted in
slow tourism strategies. The Delphi method should be performed in three main
steps: a) the design and pre-testing of the questionnaire, b) the selection of the
experts and sending of the questionnaires, and c) the analysis of results. Using an
online instrument increases the opportunities to include international experts in the
panel.
THIRD STEP: Contents collection and organisation through the identification
and consultation of secondary sources (e.g., guides with an inventory of local
resources, books, videos, photos, and local repositories) and primary data (e.g.,
collecting information on sensory-based stimuli through storytelling from locals'
perspectives, developing videos and recordings (Bulkens et al., 2015). The
storytelling approach (Moscardo, 2020), focused on locals' reports and based on
specific local stimuli (e.g., local songs and myths), can be used as unique digital
content in designing slow tourism experiences.
FOURTH STEP: Geo-referencing validated stimuli. GIS-geographical
information system databases and maps (Agapito, 2020; Guttentag, 2010) should be
created based on stimuli validated in previous stages. This process is useful for
identifying areas where specific stimuli divided by sensory modalities are
predominant (e.g., smells). Mapping this sensory information is key to designing
slow-based tourist tours (Chan et al., 2022) with specific sensory requirements (e.g.,
visual or auditory impairment).
FIFTH STEP: Design and implementation of an online platform. An interactive
online platform should be developed based on the stimuli validated and mapped
through GIS (Agapito, 2020; Guttentag, 2010), including content collected in
previous stages. This platform allows access for all stakeholders, acts as a
repository of contents, and can be linked to a mobile app.
SIXTH STEP: A smartphone app can use virtual and augmented environments
and be linked to the online platform. Stakeholders can utilise the app to provide
tangible and intangible data related to sensory stimuli on heritage, nature, stories,
etc. The app can be downloaded to smartphones and, through AR information, be
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
185
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
accessed in specific areas in the destination, for example, via QR codes (Agapito,
2020; Ivars-Baidal et al., 2019). The online platform and mobile app can be used
locally and remotely. They should be interactive to permit users to customise their
experience, suggest stimuli and respond to surveys that can be cross-checked with
other data collection instruments.
This six-step proposal to implement the framework combining multi-sensory,
smart, and slow approaches aims to design more accessible and sustainable tourism
experiences in destinations. According to the literature, the proposed process is par-
ticipatory, addresses multiple stakeholders, is interactive, connects different technol-
ogies, is based on local resources, and permits customisation.
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The contribution of this research relies on articulating three research areas slow
tourism, multi-sensory tourism experiences design and smart destination by using
the rationale of SOR (Stimuli-Organism-Response) and experiencescape theories.
As a result, the literature is embedded into an integrative framework for designing
accessible tourism experiences. The framework takes into account the rationale that
a managerial approach to ST should focus on local identity, unique resources and a
sense of place (Jung et al., 2014; Mai et al., 2020; Serdane et al., 2020).
This holistic approach addresses a specific research gap related to the optimisation
of multi-sensory stimuli in designing more accessible and sustainable tourism expe-
riences, considering the slow movement and the advance of technology (Agapito,
2020; Manthiou et al., 2022). Indeed, the focus of research on slow tourism has been
on the absence of technology and not on how technology can enhance the experi-
ence for all without losing the rationale of slower pace activities. Since more tourists
are using new technology, not only in general but in slow tourism contexts in particu-
lar (Lin et al., 2020), this theoretical approach can contribute to advancing the theory
around tourism experience design.
This idea is in tune with the universal design concept. This concept has been lim-
ited to a small research strand on disability in tourism and less addressed in the
study of tourism experiences management in general (Singh et al., 2021). Indeed,
the idea of universal design focuses on using environmental stimuli to improve the
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
186
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
experience regardless of individuals' ability or disability (Darcy & Dickson, 2009). The
emphasis is on enhanced experiences for all. Furthermore, experiencescape theo-
ries (adopted recently in tourism experiences design research) are embedded in
knowledge derived from disciplines such as environmental psychology, human geog-
raphy and consumer behaviour. This knowledge supports a managerial approach to
tourism experiences focusing on the external environment (Chen et al., 2020), i.e.,
understanding how external stimuli impact the way experiences are perceived and
result in positive or negative responses from individuals (e.g., tourists, residents, lo-
cal businesses). Therefore, sensory stimuli within experiencescapes are a medium
suitable for analysing various tourism experience contexts, such as slow tourism. In
so doing, the proposed theoretical framework is informed by the SOR theory in envi-
ronmental psychology, which has been extensively used in consumption contexts
(Tasci & Pizam, 2020). The theory advocates the stimuli in the surroundings have an
impact on the individuals' organism, which in turn results in approach/avoidance re-
sponses. Our rationale is that the process of designing and managing the experi-
encescape in slow tourism contexts through distinct sensory stimuli and smart tech-
nologies can result in enhanced tourism experiences for stakeholders and destina-
tions.
Considering the focus on local multi-sensory stimuli and a participatory approach,
the proposed framework has practical implications for destinations and tourism or-
ganisations aiming to embark on a sustainable approach to tourism. In this light, re-
garding managerial implications, the process of implementing the proposed ap-
proach should be participatory, involving diverse local stakeholders (Darcy & Dick-
son, 2009) through participatory-based methodologies (e.g. focus groups and Delphi
instruments). The main idea is to tangibilise and customise multi-sensory aspects of
destination resources (e.g., endemic fauna and flora, unique scents, local textures,
and local songs and stories) via smart technologies (integration of online platforms,
VR, AR, and smartphones) (Agapito, 2020; Lam et al., 2020). This approach can en-
hance the pleasure of discovery and the process of learning for visitors. This process
is developed at a slow pace, which characterises the ST approach.
Also, this approach provides opportunities to blend physical and digital elements
(virtual and augmented reality) and optimise the experience on-site and off-site,
which can contribute to natural and cultural heritage preservation (Bec et al., 2019;
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
187
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Lin et al., 2020). Sensory-based geographical mapping permits the development of
slow-based tours addressed to tourists with specific sensory requirements (e.g.
visual, auditory) that can be personalised through a mobile app (Chan et al., 2020).
The connection to an online platform acting as a repository of multi-sensory content
provides opportunities to taste the destination before travel and allows all
stakeholders to contribute to the process of populating the platform with sensory-
based information.
The degree of depth in implementing the proposed framework depends on each
destination's approach. This instrument can be used by destinations aiming to posi-
tion themselves as a slow destination (e.g., Latvia, see Serdane et al., 2020) or to
include the rationale of ST in specific settings and activities in a complementary
manner (e.g., Caribbean, see Conway et al., 2010). Destinations with diverse posi-
tionings, such as sun and beach, can use the latter approach to diversify tourism of-
fers sustainably. Furthermore, this framework can be utilised by destinations already
included in the list of slow cities network, contributing to operationalising strategies
The approach, which is informed by the proposed framework, gives rise to a num-
ber of promising research avenues that deserve further attention. Studies probing
the impacts of technological-based instruments on visitors' experiences and out-
comes combining the rationale of slow, sensory and smart, including visitors with di-
verse disabilities (e.g., sensory, physical), are called for (Lam et al., 2020; Santos et
al., 2022). A multi-study experimental approach can assess the effects of multi-
sensory information through technology (Alyahya & Mclean, 2022). The extent to
which the implementation of such frameworks is perceived as accessible is a rele-
vant research area.
The effective impact of this approach on sustainability, such as environmentally
responsible behaviours towards destinations, combining the rationale of slow, senso-
ry and smart, is also an important research avenue (Agapito, 2020). Likewise, the
extent to which this approach can aid perceived well-being (Agapito, 2023) and tour-
ists' mindfulness is relevant for future studies (Tan et al., 2020).
This research is not free from limitations. Research tackling multiple stakeholders
should be used in the future to develop further and validate the proposed theoretical
framework since the present study used a critical approach to literature and consul-
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
188
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
tation with academic experts only. Furthermore, the integration of the proposed ap-
proach in the context of slow tourism research needs to be empirically tested by
considering specific governance and marketing destination strategies across multiple
settings (Lin et al., 2020).
Acknowledgements
This work is financed by National Funds provided by FCT - Foundation for Sci-
ence and Technology (Portugal) through project UIDB/04020/2020.
REFERENCES
Agapito, D. (2020). The senses in tourism design: A bibliometric review. Annals of
Tourism Research, 83, 102934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102934
Agapito, D. (2022). Senses. In D. Buhalis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Tourism Manage-
ment and Marketing (pp.34-37). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Agapito, D. (2023). Tourism, senses and well-being. In Vaz, E. (Ed.), Geography of
Happiness: A Spatial Analysis of Subjective Well-Being (pp. 161-176). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19871-7_8
Agapito, D, Mendes, J, & Valle. P. (2013). Exploring the conceptualisation of the
sensory dimension of tourist experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Man-
agement, 2 (2), 6273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.03.001
Alyahya, M., & McLean, G. (2022). Examining Tourism Consumers' Attitudes and the
Role of Sensory Information in Virtual Reality Experiences of a Tourist Destination.
Journal of Travel Research, 61(7), 1666-1681.
Barnes, S. J., Mattsson, J., & Sørensen, F. (2014). Destination brand experience
and visitor behavior: Testing a scale in the tourism context. Annals of Tourism
Research, 48, September, 121139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.002
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
189
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Bec, A., Moyle, B.D., Timms, K.P., Schaffer, V., Skavronskaya, L., & Little, C. (2019).
Management of immersive heritage tourism experiences: A conceptual
model. Tourism Management, 72, 117-120.
Benckendorff, P., Xiang, Z., & Sheldon, P.J. (2019). Tourism Information Technolo-
gy, 3rd edition. CABI. DOI: 10.1079/9781786393432.0000
Boley, B. B. (2015). To travel or not to travel? Both have implications for sustainable
tourism. Tourism Planning and Development, 12 (2), 208-224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2014.925489
Bulkens, M., Minca, C., & Muzaini, H. (2015). Storytelling as method in spatial plan-
ning. European Planning Studies, 23 (11), 2310-2326.
Burdea, G., & Coiffet, P. (2003). Virtual reality technology (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
9780471360896
Buzova, D., Sanz-Blas, S., & Cervera-Taulet, A. (2021). "Sensing" the destination:
Development of the destination sensescape index. Tourism Management, 87,
104362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104362
Caciora, T., Herman, G. V., Ilies, A., Baias, S., Ilies, D., Josan, I., & Hodor, N.
(2021). The Use of Virtual Reality to Promote Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of
Wooden Churches Historical Monuments from Romania. Remote Sensing, 13, 1758.
Caffyn, A. (2012). Advocating and implementing slow tourism. Tourism Recreation
Research, 37 (1), 77-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2012.11081690
Chan, C., Shek, K.F., & Agapito, D. (2022). The sensory experience of visitors with
hearing impairment in Hong Kong Wetland Park based on spatial sensory mapping
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
190
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
and self-reported textual analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 226, 104491.
Chen, Z., Suntikul, W., & King, B. (2020). Research on tourism experiencescapes:
The journey from art to science. Current Issues in Tourism, 23 (11), 1407-1425.
Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020). Beyond smart tourism cities towards a new genera-
tion of "wise" tourism destinations. Journal of Tourism Futures, 7 (2), 251-258.
Conway, D., & Timms, B.F. (2010). Re-branding alternative tourism in the Caribbe-
an: The case for 'slow tourism'. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10 (4), 329-344.
Conway, D., & Timms, B. F. (2012). Are slow travel and slow tourism misfits, com-
padres or different genres? Tourism Recreation Research, 37 (1), 7176.
Darcy, S., & Dickson, T. J. (2009). A whole-of-life approach to tourism: The case for
accessible tourism experiences. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16
(1), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.16.1.32
Del Chiappa, G., & Fotiadis, A. (2021). Contemporary issues in ensuring excellence
in tourism, travel and hospitality. European Journal of Tourism Research, 29, 2901.
Delbecq, A. L., VandeVen, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques for
Program Planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman
and Company. ISBN 0-673-07591-5
Dickinson, J. E. (2015). Slow travel. In C. M. Hall, S. Gossling, & D. Scott (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability (pp. 481489). Routledge.
Sustainability/Hall-Stefan-Scott/p/book/9781138071476
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
191
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Dickinson, J.E., & Lumsdon, L. (2010). Slow Travel and Tourism (1st ed.). Earthscan.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776493
Dickinson, J. E., & Robbins, D., & Lumsdon, L. (2010). Holiday travel discourses and
climate change. Journal of Transport Geography, 18 (3), 482489.
Dolnicar, S. (2020). Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 84, 102933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102933
Ekinci, M. B. (2014). The Cittaslow philosophy in the context of sustainable tourism
development: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 41, 178189.
Errichiello, L., & Micera, R. (2021). A process-based perspective of smart tourism
destination governance. European Journal of Tourism Research, 29, 2909.
Flávian, C., Ibanez-Sanchez, S., & Orús, C. (2021). The influence of scent on virtual
reality experiences: The role of aroma-content congruence. Journal of Business Re-
search, 123, 289301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.036
Fleischer, A., Peleg, G., & Rivlin, J. (2011). The impact of changes in household
vacation expenditures on the travel and hospitality industries. Tourism Management,
32, 815821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.07.003
Fullagar, S. (2012). Gender cultures of slow travel: Women's cycle touring as an
alternative hedonism. In S. Fullagar, K. Markwell & E. Wilson (Eds.), Slow tourism:
Experiences and mobilities (pp.99112). Channel View
Fusté-Forné, F., & Jamal, T. (2020). Slow food tourism: An ethical microtrend for the
anthropocene. Journal of Tourism Futures, 6 (3), 227232.
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
192
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Global trends in length of stay:
implications for destination management and climate change. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 26 (12), 2087-2101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1529771
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review
types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26,
91108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gretzel, U., Werthener, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations
for understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computer in Human Behavior, 50,
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism.
Tourism Management, 31, 637651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Han, J. H., Kim, J. S., Lee, C-K., & Kim, N. (2019). Role of place attachment
dimensions in tourists' decision-making process in Cittaslow. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 11, 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.12.008
Heitmann, S., Robinson, P., & Povey, G. (2011). Slow food, slow cities and slow
tourism. In P. Robinson, S. Robinson, & P. U. C. Dieke (Eds.), Research themes for
tourism (pp.114-127). CAB International.
Huang, L., & Lau, N. (2020). Enhancing the Smart Tourism Experience for People
with Visual Impairments by Gamified Application Approach through Needs Analysis
Ivars-Baidal, J.A., Celdrán-Bernabeu, M.A., Mazón, J., & Perles-Ivars, Á. (2019).
Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: a new scenario for destination man-
agement? Current Issues in Tourism, 22, 1581-1600.
Jung, T. H, Ineson, E. M., & Miller, A. (2014). The Slow Food Movement and
sustainable tourism development: a case study of Mold, Wales. International Journal
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
193
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8 (4), 432-445.
Kastenholz, E., Marques, C. P., & Carneiro, M. J. (2020). Place attachment through
sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 17, 100455.
Kim, Y-R, Yap, G., & Vertinsky, I. (2021). Can 'too much' trust slow tourism
development? An exploratory cross-country analysis. Current Issues in Tourism, 24
(13), 1803-1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1754353
Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses
to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22
(3), 332-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.003
Lam, K.L., Chan, C., & Peters, M. (2020). Understanding technological contributions
to accessible tourism from the perspective of destination design for visually impaired
visitors in Hong Kong. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 17,
100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100434
Lannoy, P. (2016). The slowness I cherish: An attempt at sociological and political
self-analysis. Dos Algarves: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal, 27, 5372.
Lata, S., Jasrotia, A., & Sharma, S. (2022). Sustainable development in tourism
destinations through smart cities: A case of urban planning in Jammu city.
Enlightening Tourism: A Pathmaking Journal, 12 (2), 661-690.
Lauría, A. (2016). "The Florence experience": A multimedia and multi-sensory
guidebook for cultural towns inspired by universal design approach. Work, 53 (4),
709-727. DOI: 10.3233/WOR-162256
Le Busque, B., Mingoia, J., & Litchfield, C. (2022). Slow tourism on Instagram: an
image content and geotag analysis. Tourism Recreation Research, 47 (5-6), 623-
630. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1927566
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
194
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y.Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y.P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The
carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature Climate Change, 8, 522-531.
Lin, H., Shi, S., & Gursoy, D. (2022). Destination experiencescape: conceptualisation
and scale development amid COVID-19 pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism, 25
(24), 4047-4074. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2075716
Lin, L.-P. (2017). Industrial tourists' behavioral intention toward slow travel in Taiwan.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25 (3), 379396.
Lin, L.P. (2018). How would the contextual features of a destination function together
with individual factors to enhance tourists' intention toward ST in Taiwan? Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 26 (9), 16251646.
Lin, L.-P., Huang, S-C., & Ho, Y-C. (2020). Could virtual reality effectively market
slow travel in a heritage destination? Tourism Management, 78, 104027.
Losada, N., & Mota, G. (2019). 'Slow down, your movie is too fast': Slow tourism
representations in the promotional videos of the Douro region (Northern Portugal).
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 11, 140149.
Lumsdon, L. M., & McGrath, P. (2011). Developing a conceptual framework for slow
travel: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19, 265279.
Manthiou, A., Klaus, P., & Luong, V. H. (2022). Slow tourism: Conceptualisation and
interpretation A travel vloggers' perspective. Tourism Management, 93, 104570.
Markwell, K., Fullagar, S., & Wilson, E. (2012). Reflecting upon slow travel and
tourism experiences. In S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, & E. Wilson (Eds.), Slow tourism:
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
195
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Experiences and mobilities (pp.227233). Channel View.
Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., Branco, F., Barbosa, L., Melo, M., & Bessa, M. A. (2017).
A multi-sensory virtual experience model for thematic tourism: A Port wine tourism
application proposal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6 (2), 103
Mai, B., emenol, M., & Akoa, O. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of slow
tourism. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 9 (1), 157-178.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MA:
Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2016). The role of authenticity in forming slow tourists'
intentions: Developing an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism
Management, 57, 397410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.003
Miele, M. (2008). Cittaslow: Producing slowness against the fast life. Space and
Polity, 12 (1), 135156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570801969572
Moscardo, G. (2020). Stories and design in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
83, 102950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102950
Oh, H., Assaf, A.G., & Baloglu, S. (2016). Motivations and goals of slow tourism.
Journal of Travel Research, 55 (2), 205219.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An ex-
ample, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42 (1),
Özdemir, G., & Çelebi, D. (2018). Exploring dimensions of slow tourism motivation.
Anatolia, 29 (4), 540552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2018.1460854
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
196
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Paliki, R., & Kbal, M. A (2018). A ne ake on an old ce? Creative and
slow tourism in Krakow (Poland). Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 16 (3),
265285. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2017.1330338
Pecsek, B. (2016). Revitalising tourism in small regional towns through folklore-
driven slow tourism: The example of Matyó land, Hungary. Dos Algarves: A Multidis-
ciplinary e-Journal, 27, 94119. https://doi.org/10.18089/DAMeJ.2016.27.5
Perano, M., Abbate, T., La Rocca, E. T., & Casali, G. L. (2019). Cittaslow & fast-
growing SMEs: evidence from Europe. Land Use Policy, 82, 195-203.
Petrini, C. (2001). Slow Food: The Case for Taste. Columbia University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7312/petr12844
Quintela, J. A., Costa, C., & Correia, A. (2016). Health, wellness and medical tourism
A conceptual approach. Enlightenment Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, 6(1),
2016, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.33776/et.v6i1.2814
Rodaway, P. (1994). Sensuous geographies: body, sense and place. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082546
Salmasi, L., Celidoni, M., & Procidano, I. (2012). Length of stay: Price and income
semi-elasticities at different destinations in Italy. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 14 (6), 515530. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1867
Sambhanthan, A., & Good, A. (2014). A second life based virtual community model
for enhancing tourism destination accessibility in developing countries. International
Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 3 (4) 269-286.
Santos, V., Ramos, P., Sousa, B., & Valeri, M. (2022). Towards a framework for the
global wine tourism system. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35 (2),
348-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2020-0362
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
197
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
Serdane, Z., Maccarrone-Eaglen, A., & Sharifi, S. (2020). Conceptualising slow tour-
ism: a perspective from Latvia. Tourism Recreation Research, 45 (3), 337-350.
Shang, W., Yuan, Q., & Chen, N. (2020). Examining structural relationships among
brand experience, existential authenticity, and place attachment in slow tourism des-
Singh, R., Sibi, P.S., Yost, E., & Mann, D.S. (2021). Tourism and disability: a biblio-
metric review. Tourism Recreation Research,
Singh, S. (2012). Slow travel and Indian culture: Philosophical and practical aspects.
In S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, & E. Wilson (Eds.), Slow tourism: Experiences and mo-
bilities (pp.214-226). Channel View.
Sun, Y.-Y., & Lin, Z.-W. (2018). Move fast, travel slow: The influence of high-speed
rail on tourism in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26 (3), 433450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1359279
Tan, P. L., Noor, S. M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Mustafa, H. (2020). Communication
and visitor factors contributing towards heritage visitors' mindfulness. Journal of Her-
itage Tourism, 15 (1), 2743. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2019.1586909
Tasci, A.D.A., & Pizam, A. (2020). An expanded nomological network of experi-
enscape. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32 (3),
9991040. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2018-0988
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & Dieck, M. C. D. (2018). Virtual reality,
presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism
Management, 66, 140154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003
UNWTO - United Nations World Tourism Organisation (2016). Manual on Accessible
Tourism for All: Principles, Tools and Best Practices – Module I: Accessible Tourism
D. Agapito; M. Guerreiro Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, Vol 13, No 1 (2023), pp. 167-
198
198
https://doi-org/10.33776/et.v13i1.7200
– Definition. Retrieved February 15, 2022, from https://www.e-
unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284418077
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Van Bommel, K. & Spicer. A. (2011). Hail the snail: Hegemonic struggles in the slow
food movement. Organisation Studies, 32(12), 17171744.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611425722
Vargas-Sánchez, A. (2016). Exploring the concept of smart tourist
destination. Enlightening Tourism: A Pathmaking Journal, 6 (2), 178-196.
Wen, H., & Leung, X. Y. (2021). Virtual wine tours and wine tasting: The influence of
offline and online embodiment integration on wine purchase decisions. Tourism
Management, 83, 104250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104250
Wen, J., Zheng, D., Hou, H., Phau, I., & Wang, W. (2022). Tourism as a dementia
treatment based on positive psychology. Tourism Management, 92, 104556.
Werner, K., Griese, K-M., & Bosse, C. (2021). The role of slow events for sustainable
destination development: a conceptual and empirical review. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 29, 1913-1931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1800021
World Health Organization (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved February 1,
Yung, R., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Potter, L. E. (2021). Virtual reality and tourism
marketing: conceptualising a framework on presence, emotion, and intention.
Current Issues in Tourism, 24 (11), 1505-1525.
