The Moderating Role of Staff Training and Mediating Role of Venue Reputation in Accessible MICE Tourism: Effects on Business Event Satisfaction

Technical Summary: The Moderating Role of Staff Training and Mediating Role of Venue Reputation in Accessible MICE Tourism

Problem Statement and Research Gap
Despite the economic significance of the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences, and Exhibitions (MICE) sector and the growing global population of people with disabilities (approximately 15% of the world population), accessibility remains a critical yet under-researched dimension of MICE destination competitiveness. Existing literature largely treats destination readiness as a supply-side phenomenon focused on physical infrastructure, often overlooking the governance and institutional policies required to implement inclusive practices. Furthermore, while accessible tourism research exists for leisure contexts, there is a scarcity of empirical studies addressing the specific, high-pressure demands of MICE venues, such as tight schedules, professional networking, and large crowds.

The study addresses a specific gap: the lack of an integrative framework explaining how physical and information accessibility translate into business event satisfaction for attendees with disabilities. Specifically, the research investigates the mechanisms under which these accessibility dimensions affect satisfaction, questioning whether staff training acts as a moderator and whether venue reputation serves as a mediator.

Theoretical Framework
The study is grounded in two primary theories:

1. Social Exchange Theory (SET): Posits that attendees with disabilities evaluate their experience based on a cost-benefit analysis. Accessible environments reduce costs (effort, anxiety, frustration) and increase benefits (dignity, independence), thereby fostering satisfaction.
2. Signaling Theory (ST): Suggests that investments in observable accessibility features (infrastructure and training) serve as credible signals of unobservable organizational qualities (inclusion, quality, social responsibility), which enhance venue reputation and subsequently drive satisfaction.

Methodology

• Design: A quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was employed to test a moderated-mediation model.
• Sample: The target population consisted of individuals with disabilities or mobility issues who had attended MICE events in the last 12 months. Due to the difficulty of random sampling this demographic, a purposive sampling strategy was used, incorporating on-site sampling in Tashkent and Samarkand, online sampling via disability business networks, and snowball sampling.
• Data Collection: 300 questionnaires were distributed, yielding 262 usable responses. After screening for missing data and outliers, the final analytical sample comprised 250 respondents.
• Measures: Constructs were measured using 5-point Likert scales adapted from validated instruments:
  • Physical Accessibility: 10 items (entrances, ramps, restrooms, etc.).
  • Information Accessibility: 8 items (websites, signage, booking systems).
  • Staff Training: 8 items (communication skills, assistance methods).
  • Venue Reputation: 6 items (image, inclusivity).
  • Business Event Satisfaction: 8 items (overall satisfaction, networking, recommendation).
• Analysis: Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28 and PROCESS Macro version 4.2. The analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability checks (Cronbach's $\alpha$), Pearson correlations, hierarchical multiple regression for direct effects, and bootstrapped mediation/moderation analyses (Model 1 and Model 4 with 5,000 resamples). Common method bias was assessed via Harman's single-factor test.

Key Results
The study tested five hypotheses, four of which were supported:

1. Direct Effects (H1 & H2): Both physical accessibility ($\beta = 0.42, p < 0.001$) and information accessibility ($\beta = 0.38, p < 0.001$) have significant positive direct effects on business event satisfaction. Together, these dimensions explained 48% of the variance in satisfaction beyond control variables.
2. Moderation by Staff Training (H3): Staff training significantly moderates the relationship between accessibility and satisfaction. The positive impact of accessibility is amplified when staff training is high.
   • For physical accessibility, the effect size nearly doubles from low training ($\beta = 0.28$) to high training ($\beta = 0.56$).
   • For information accessibility, the effect increases from low training ($\beta = 0.26$) to high training ($\beta = 0.50$).
3. Mediation by Venue Reputation (H4): Venue reputation partially mediates the relationship between accessibility and satisfaction.
   • The indirect effect via reputation accounts for approximately 42% of the total effect for physical accessibility and 45% for information accessibility.
   • This confirms that accessibility investments improve the venue's reputation, which in turn drives satisfaction.
4. Comparative Strength (H5): Contrary to the hypothesis that information accessibility would have a stronger total effect than physical accessibility, the results showed no statistically significant difference between the two. The total effects were 0.67 (physical) and 0.64 (information), indicating that both dimensions are equally critical in the MICE context.

Significance and Contributions
The paper claims three primary contributions:

• Theoretical: It re-conceptualizes accessibility not as a social liability or mere compliance issue, but as a strategic dimension of MICE competitiveness. It extends Social Exchange Theory to marginalized communities within MICE, demonstrating that perceived benefits are contingent on both infrastructure and human interaction. Additionally, it provides empirical evidence for Signaling Theory in accessible tourism, showing that accessibility investments act as credible signals that enhance reputation.
• Practical:
  • For Venue Managers: The study emphasizes that physical infrastructure alone is insufficient; staff training is a necessity, not an option. Training acts as a multiplier, doubling the return on investment for accessibility infrastructure.
  • For Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs): Accessibility credentials should be marketed as indicators of overall quality and professionalism rather than niche features. Reputation management should leverage accessibility certifications (e.g., ISO 21902:2021) to attract a broader market.
  • For Policymakers: In emerging economies, policy interventions must address physical and information accessibility simultaneously. The study suggests that information systems and staff training may require relative importance equal to physical infrastructure, as all three form an integrated system where one element enhances the others.

Limitations
The authors acknowledge several limitations: the cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences; the sample excludes individuals who were completely discouraged from attending due to barriers (selection bias); the study is limited to a single emerging destination (Uzbekistan); and it does not differentiate between specific types of disabilities. Future research is suggested to employ longitudinal designs, include non-attendees, and test model invariance across different disability types.