accessible tourism law

Accessibility and Accessible Tourism: The Conceptual Evolution Through the Analysis of the Literature

• First Online: 30 August 2023

Cite this chapter

• Chiara Rossato 4 &
• Rossella Baratta 5  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES))

172 Accesses

The desire for sustainable growth and inclusivity is increasing. Accessibility is a critical feature of inclusion, particularly in tourism, one of the world’s largest industries. The purpose of this chapter is to shed light on the conceptual evolution of accessible tourism in the light of technological developments through a review of the literature on the topic. This chapter first presents the theoretical background of the concepts of diversity, inclusion and accessibility in tourism. It then explains the methodology followed for the literature review and presents an analysis of the results. Finally, reflections and future research directions are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Accessible Tourism: A Review of Recent Research Trends and Future Agenda

Social Farms in Support of Local and Accessible Tourism

Keep It Smart and Sustainable: A Bibliometric Analysis

A. Bonfanti, G. Mion, F. Brunetti, A. Vargas-Sánchez, Bus. Strategy Environ. 1 (2022)

Google Scholar  

U. Gretzel, M. Sigala, Z. Xiang, C. Koo, Electron. Mark. 25 , 179 (2015)

Article   Google Scholar  

D. Buhalis, Tour. Rev. 75 , 267 (2020)

F. Cassia, P. Castellani, C. Rossato, C. Baccarani, TQM J. 33 , 205 (2021)

D. Buhalis, Y. Sinarta, J. Travel Tour. Mark. 36 , 563 (2019)

Y. Zhang, S.T. Cole, Tour. Manag. 53 , 13 (2016)

E. Fernández-Díaz, C. Jambrino-Maldonado, P.P. Iglesias-Sánchez, C. de las Heras-Pedrosa, Tour. Rev. 1 (2022)

J. Im, Y.K. Chung, Tour. Manage. 95 , 104662 (2023)

T. Cox, Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1993)

M.E. Mor-Barak, D.A. Cherin, Adm. Soc. Work 22 , 47 (1998)

R. Scheyvens, R. Biddulph, Tour. Geogr. 20 , 589 (2018)

A.H.Y. Hon, E. Gamor, Int. J. Tour. Res. 24 , 216 (2022)

S. Darcy, B. McKercher, S. Schweinsberg, Tour. Rev. 75 , 140 (2020)

D. Buhalis, S. Darcy, Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues (Channel View Publication, Bristol, 2011)

L. Nielsen, Personas—User Focused Design (Springer, London, 2013)

Book   Google Scholar  

M. Zsarnoczky, L. David, Z. Mukayev, R. Baiburiev, GeoJ. Tour. Geosites. 22 , 224 (2016)

G. Waitt, K. Markwell, Gay Tourism. Culture and Context (Routledge, Florence, 2014)

Y. Ram, A. Kama, I. Mizrachi, C.M. Hall, J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 14 , 100374 (2019)

T.B. Vongvisitsin, A.K.F. Wong, Tour. Manage. 86 , 104331 (2021)

E.C.L. Yang, C. Khoo-Lattimore, C. Arcodia, Tour. Manage. 68 , 32 (2018)

M.S. Klemm, J. Travel Res. 41 , 85 (2002)

M. Battour, F. Hakimian, M. Ismail, E. Boğan, J. Islamic Market. 9 , 823 (2018)

J. Jafari, N. Scott, Ann. Tour. Res. 44 , 1 (2014)

S. Gopalan, U. Khalid, Tour. Recreation Res. 1 (2022)

S. McCabe, Ann. Tour. Res. 36 , 667 (2009)

S. McCabe, S. Johnson, Ann. Tour. Res. 41 , 42 (2013)

L. Minnaert, R. Maitland, G. Miller, Ann. Tour. Res. 36 , 316 (2009)

J. Zheng, S. Liang, J. Ma, G. Liu, Y. Wu, Ann. Tour. Res. 93 , 103372 (2022)

B. Gillovic, A. McIntosh, Sustainability 12 , 9722 (2020)

J.L. Crompton, Ann. Tour. Res. 6 , 408 (1979)

T. Bornhorst, J.B. Ritchie, L. Sheehan, Tour. Manage. 31 , 572 (2010)

R. Sisto, G.M. Cappelletti, P. Bianchi, E. Sica, Curr. Issue Tour. 25 , 8 (2022)

G. Ozogul, G. Güçlütürk Baran, J. Tour. Futures 2 , 79 (2016)

G. Qiao, L. Ding, L. Zhang, H. Yan, Tour. Rev. 77 , 713 (2021)

S. Darcy, Tour. Manage. 31 , 6 (2010)

International Organization for Standardization, International Standard 21902. Tourism and Related Services—Accessible Tourism for All—Requirements and Recommendations (ISO, Geneva, 2021)

A. Tlili, F. Altinay, Z. Altinay, Y. Zhang, Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 33 , 4460 (2021)

K.L. Lam, C.S. Chan, M. Peters, J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 17 , 100434 (2020)

F.R. Ribeiro, A. Silva, F. Barbosa, A.P. Silva, J.C. Metrôlho, Inf. Technol. Tour. 19 , 29 (2018)

M. Altinay Özdemir, ICT tools and applications for accessible tourism, in Advances in Hospitality, Tourism, and the Service Industry , ed. by C. Eusébio, L. Teixeira, M. J. Carneiro (IGI Global Publisher, Hershey PA, 2021), p. 277

K.J. Lin, H. Ye, R. Law, J. Smart Tour. 2 , 5 (2022)

D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (SAGE Publications, London, 2009)

P. Jacsó, Online Inf. Rev. 35 , 3 (2011)

S. Stemler, Practical assessment. Res. Eval. 7 , 17 (2001)

L. Sen, S. Mayfield, Public Works Manag. Policy 8 , 4 (2004)

T. Vila, J.A.F. Brea, Revista Galega de Economia 18 , 1 (2009)

G. Agrawal, A. Dumka, M. Singh, A. Bijalwan, J. Sens. 2022 (2022)

D. Buhalis, E. Michopoulou, Curr. Issue Tour. 14 , 2 (2011)

P. Bianchi, G.M. Cappelletti, E. Mafrolla, E., Sica, R. Sisto, R., Sustainability 12 , 23 (2020)

B. Casais, C. Castro, J. Hospitality Tour. Technol. 12 , 2 (2021)

D. Mayordomo-Martínez, J.C. Sánchez-Aarnoutse, J.M. Carrillo-de-Gea, J.A. García-Berná, J.L. Fernández-Alemán, G. García-Mateos, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 , 12 (2019)

A. Zajadacz, Curr. Issue Tour. 17 , 5 (2014)

F. Ali, L. Cain, T.S. Legendre, L. Wu, J. Hospitality Tour. Res. 1 , 15 (2022)

C. Cockburn-Wootten, A. McIntosh, Sustainability 12 , 24 (2020)

A. McIntosh, Ann. Tour. Res. 81 , 102856 (2020)

M.P. Rosa, P. Pinto, H. Assunção, Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 15 , 6 (2020)

S.J. Bosch, A. Gharaveis, Appl. Ergon. 58 , 1 (2017)

G. Vieira, C. Manita, C., Ribeiro, M. P. Rosa, J. Accessibility Design All 12 , 2 (2022)

N.S. Lestari, R.D. Wiastuti, I. Triana, African Journal of Hospitality. Tourism and Leisure 8 , 4 (2019)

P. Teixeira, C. Eusébio, L. Teixeira, Tour. Hosp. Res. 22 , 2 (2022)

J. Alves, P. Teixeira, C. Eusébio, L. Teixeira, Appl. Sci. 12 , 8 (2022)

S. Darcy, Tour. Recreat. Res. 36 , 2 (2011)

T. Domínguez Vila, E. Alén González, S. Darcy, Scand. J. Hospitality Tour. 19 , 2 (2019)

T. Domínguez Vila, E. Alén González, S. Darcy, Disabil. Rehabil. 40 , 24 (2018)

J. Small, S. Darcy, T. Packer, Tour. Manage. 33 , 4 (2012)

Z. Altinay, T. Saner, N.M. Bahçelerli, F. Altinay, J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19 , 1 (2016)

A. F. Ferreira, Y. Akasaka, M. Greiner de Oliveira Pinheiro, S. J. Chang, Sustainability 12 , 23 (2020)

R. Singh, P.S. Sibi, E-Rev. Tour. Res. 18 , 5 (2021)

R. Singh, A. Ismail, Appl. Ubiquitous Comput. 13 , 35 (2021)

C. Eusébio, A. Silveiro, L. Teixeira, J. Accessibility Des. All 10 , 2 (2020)

A. Mangani, L. Bassi, Int. J. Tour. Policy 9 , 4 (2019)

M.G. Dinis, C. Eusébio, Z. Breda, Int J. Event Festiv. Manag. 11 , 1 (2020)

F.R. Ribeiro, A. Silva, J.C. Metrôlho, A.P. Silva, F.S. Barbosa, Int. J. Mob. Comput. Multimedia Commun. (IJMCMC) 9 , 2 (2018)

L. Huang, N. Lau, Sustainability 12 , 15 (2020)

C.S. Henríquez, A.J.R. Cano, J.H. Galán, Y.M. de la Fuente-Robles, J. Accessibility Design All 12 , 1 (2022)

A. Marasco, B. Balbi, E-Rev. Tour. Res. 17 , 3 (2019)

C. Njerekai, J. Herit. Tour. 15 , 5 (2020)

P. Teixeira, L. Teixeira, C. Eusébio, Handbook of Research on Social Media Applications for the Tourism and Hospitality Sector (IGI Global, Hershey PA, 2019)

A.P. Piechotka, N. Lukasik, A.O. Tryzno, M. Piechotka, K. Sawicka, Destination Management and Marketing: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice  (IGI Global, Hershey PA, 2020)

Z. Medarić, J. Sulyok, S. Kardos, J. Gabruč, Hung. Geog. Bull. 70 , 3 (2021)

E. Michopoulou, D. Buhalis, Inf. Manag. 50 , 5 (2013)

A. Kołodziejczak, Quaestiones Geographicae 38 , 2 (2019)

A.C. Rucci, N. Porto, Eur. J. Tour. Res. 31 , 1 (2022)

J.J. Nigg, M. Peters, J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 52 , 1 (2022)

Y.C.J. Wu, C.L. Chang, Y.J. Hsieh, J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 20 , 15 (2014)

P. Teixeira, C. Eusébio, L. Teixeira, Int. J. Tour. Policy 11 , 3 (2021)

M.H. Henriques, M.L. Canales, A. García-Frank, M. Gomez-Heras, M. Geoheritage 11 (2019)

L. Fryer, Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 20 , 4 (2021)

Y.M. De La Fuente-Robles, M.D. Muñoz-de-Dios, A.B. Mudarra-Fernández, A.J. Ricoy-Cano, Sustainability 12 , 24 (2020)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Verona, Verona, Italy

Chiara Rossato

University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

Rossella Baratta

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Rossato .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Management, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

Fabio Cassia

Paola Castellani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Rossato, C., Baratta, R. (2023). Accessibility and Accessible Tourism: The Conceptual Evolution Through the Analysis of the Literature. In: Cassia, F., Castellani, P., Rossato, C. (eds) Accessible Tourism in the Digital Ecosystem. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38782-1_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38782-1_1

Published : 30 August 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-38781-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-38782-1

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Accessible tourism futures: the world we dream to live in and the opportunities we hope to have

Journal of Tourism Futures

ISSN : 2055-5911

Article publication date: 14 September 2015

Accessible tourism is evolving as a field of academic research and industry practice, set within a dynamic social context. The field is interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary. The purpose of this paper is to examine key concepts and global initiatives that will shape accessible tourism futures.

Design/methodology/approach

Three of the authors have extensive academic experience in the area and the fourth author is the Managing Director of the pre-eminent European Network for Accessible Tourism. In taking a limited Delphi approach to canvassing key areas likely to shape accessible tourism futures, the following concepts and policy initiatives were examined: motivations, dreams and aspirations of people with disability; demography; UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; destination competitiveness; universal design (UD); and the UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.

A discussion of each of the above areas was placed in context to accessible tourism futures and to contextualise the papers that were selected for the special issue. The latter part of the paper outlines the contribution of each empirical paper to the issue discussing the approach, findings and implications. Stakeholder collaboration was identified as the key common theme of the papers and the factor for developing accessible tourism solutions, recognising the value of the market and capitalising on it. A collaborative approach is required to recognise the complementary nature of the different paradigms; to re-shape and transform the future of the accessible tourism industry. To assist in the development of accessible tourism futures, UD principles should provide a foundation to enhance the future competitiveness of tourism destinations and organisations.

Originality/value

The paper’s examination of the concepts and global policy considerations provides a strong academic and practitioner foundation for considering accessible tourism futures. In doing so, accessible tourism futures are shown to be affected by key concepts related to core tourism considerations and major policy initiatives on accessibility and sustainability. Yet, accessible tourism futures also have the potential to create their own momentum and contribute unique learnings on the diversity of tourism markets that will shape tourism concepts and global policy initiatives in their own right.

• Accessible tourism
• Tourism industry
• Organization practice
• Destination management

Michopoulou, E. , Darcy, S. , Ambrose, I. and Buhalis, D. (2015), "Accessible tourism futures: the world we dream to live in and the opportunities we hope to have", Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-08-2015-0043

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2015, Eleni Michopoulou, Simon Darcy, Ivor Ambrose and Dimitros Buhalis

Published in the Journal of Tourism Futures . This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

This special issue was designed to examine the future dimensions of the intersection of disability and tourism in the emerging field of accessible tourism. The special issue explores theoretical approaches, foundations and issues in the study of accessible tourism from a futures perspective. Accessible tourism, as with any area of academic study is an evolving field of academic research and industry practice, set within a dynamic social context. The field is interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary, and is influenced by geography, ageing and disability studies, economics, public policy, psychology, law, architecture, construction sciences, technology and marketing. Past research has attempted to view, explain and unpack the inherent complexities ( Darcy, 2010 ) within accessible tourism through a variety of lenses, including human rights, critical tourism, embodiment, customer segmentation and universal design (UD), to name a few (see Buhalis and Darcy, 2011 ; Buhalis et al. , 2012 ).

The special issue is timely given the operationalisation of the United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by 160 countries. Central to the convention is the right for tourists with disability to access transport and built environment in Article 9 and tourism experiences, goods and services within Article 30. It is therefore pertinent to look at the future of accessible tourism and contemplate a number of issues including (but not limited to) the role of technology in reshaping disability; if and how policy makers and planners are addressing the impact of accessible tourism in a sustainable manner; the political influence of people with disabilities, who make up the largest minority group in the USA, on the future of tourism; the science fiction of exoskeletons and gene therapy as a new form of adventure tourist; and the future state of embodied identity and accessible tourism.

The special issue provides the opportunity for contributors to take part in the current discourses on accessible tourism from a futures perspective, in order that we can understand, manage and contribute to the development of accessible tourism in the context of economically, socially and environmentally sustainable communities. Specific topics included conceptual and research papers, viewpoints and trend papers, both qualitative and quantitative, discussing topics relating to the future of accessible tourism. Papers include a range of issues including: inclusive destinations; accessible tourism in Development Planning (toward the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030); policy-making for accessible tourism; embodiment; representation; law and legislation; architecture and universal design; inclusion/exclusion from experiences; markets and needs analysis; accessible transport; accessible events; accessibility and culture/heritage; accessible accommodation; education/training; and technology and applications.

In contrast to the past 30 years, where disability and tourism research has been largely concerned with overcoming barriers that exclude certain people (see Smith, 1987 ), we can discern the contours of new movements in accessible tourism, whereby overarching principles and standards of sustainability, social responsibility and customer service. The delivery of equitable tourism experiences demand the attention of sector actors and stakeholders. Accessible tourism, in this context, should be seen in the future as much more than a range of supports to excluded target groups, becoming a set of ground rules and codes of practice which contribute to the development of all tourism offers and destinations in an inclusive way.

If we should gaze into the crystal ball for a moment, we could envisage that tourism will not be defined primarily in terms of different target groups, since principles of responsibility, sustainability and accessibility will in the future inform the quality criteria to which all destinations should comply and be judged as part of destination competitiveness in increasingly global context. Customers will become more aware of their individual rights and also the need to protect and sustain communities and the natural environment, influencing tourism service providers to follow generally accepted rules of service quality, genuine interactivity and engagement with the local culture, people and resources.

The capability of tourism providers to recognise those rights for all (e.g. of tourists with disabilities, Design for All, responsible behaviour, inclusion of the local communities in a transparent system of remuneration and participation, working opportunities for socially excluded group etc.) is going to be the threshold, which determines whether their offers will succeed or fail in the future. The tourism sector will increasingly be seen as having transformational power as “a shaper of society”, acting as a promoter of jobs and economic growth, a participant in regional and community planning and a partner in global development programmes. In addition, tourism should be developed as industry that promotes understanding, inclusion and well-being for all in an equitable way.

Businesses, destinations and networks, that are already active in the field of accessible tourism and/or representing markets with different specific requirements will participate more widely in the mainstream, bringing their expertise and knowledge to bear on all those issues that are still seen as “different types of tourism”. In the development of accessible destinations and experiences, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (2015) will be playing an increasingly supportive role, especially through its Global Code for Ethics in Tourism and the recently published Manuals on Accessible Tourism (2015) , produced by ONCE Foundation and the European Network for Accessible Tourism (2015b) .

Before discussing the papers that have been selected for publication we would like to set the scene by examining some major conceptual and policy development areas that we believe will have a significant influence on accessible tourism futures in the future. These include: dreams and aspirations of people with disability; demography; UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; destination competitiveness frameworks; UD; and the newly adopted UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Each of these areas of influence will now be outlined prior to the papers for the special edition being summarised for their contribution to the future of accessible tourism.

Defining and conceptualising accessible tourism

Accessible tourism is a form of tourism that involves collaborative processes between stakeholders that enables people with access requirements, including mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive dimensions of access, to function independently and with equity and dignity through the delivery of universally designed tourism products, services and environments. This definition adopts a whole of life approach where people through their lifespan benefit from accessible tourism provision. These include people with permanent and temporary disabilities, seniors, obese, families with young children and those working in safer and more socially sustainably designed environments (adapted from Darcy and Dickson, 2009, p. 34 in Buhalis and Darcy, 2011, pp. 10-11 ).

Importantly the definition recognises collaboration between stakeholders across demand, supply and coordination to recognise that disability is a complex construct involving mobility, vision, hearing, cognitive and other embodiments. The definition recognises that developing inclusive destinations and accessible tourism experiences also benefit other groups in the community. Hence, it contributes toward a greater social sustainability of the industry by including and, hence, providing for a much broader cross-section of consumers that has previously been considered by the industry. In understanding the importance of individuals with disability, the stakeholders they engage with and the influence of UD on the products, services and environments they wish to seek enabling experiences. Buhalis and Darcy (2011) suggests that to develop accessible tourism futures destination managers must strategically plan through the lens of UD. Figure 1 outlines the cyclical strategic approach to engaging UD approaches across disability and lifespan considerations as a foundation for developing future accessible destination experiences.

Dreams and aspirations of people with disability

The dreams and aspirations of individuals play a fundamental role in shaping the choices, which lead them to travel. Among people who live with a disability, the idea of leaving behind one’s everyday surroundings and going on a journey can create significant anxiety ( Darcy, 1998 ). People with disability often can design or influence their everyday environment whilst they have routines to negotiate any difficulties and thresholds that exist. This does not apply to new environments whilst travelling, where they do not have prior knowledge, networks or influence on the design nor the potential barriers that are to face and the way to overcome them. Indeed, a recent European survey ( GfK, 2015 ) suggests that up to half of people with disability do not travel on holiday, due to a combination of lack of reliable information, lack of funds and previous bad experiences. Yet, the desire to travel remains with studies showing that it is not a person’s impairment that impedes their travel but a series of interpersonal, attitudinal structural constraints ( Daniels et al. , 2005 ; Darcy, 2003 ). In recognising that a person's impairment does not constrain their travel motivations, the boundaries to what is regarded as accessible tourism destinations and experiences are continually pushed by the accessible explorers who forge new pathways for others to follow.

Human rights frameworks and social frameworks

The United Nations’ (2006) Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPWD) was introduced, recognizing that people with disability have a right to access services from all areas of citizenship including under Article 9 (related to transport and the built environment, and under Article 30 which relates to a “cultural life“ including leisure, sport and tourism). The CRPWD was written from a social model approach to disability that recognises that it is not the person’s impairment that “disables” someone from undertaking tourism experiences but the social, political and economic barriers that create the “disabling” tourism environment (see Barnes et al. , 2010 ; United Nations, 2006 ). This is very similar to Packer et al. (2007) research that discussed the interaction between those with disability, the tourism barriers they encounter including service attitudes that affect tourism participation adversely to people without disability. These types of it constraints and barriers in tourism have been the focus of a great deal of disability and tourism research, with the more recent research on accessible tourism seeking to focus on the development of “enabling” practice.

While “people with disability” suggests a homogenous group who can be dealt with as a “market segment”, the term belies a complexity that is multidimensional across mobility, vision, hearing, cognitive, mental health and other forms of embodiment ( Darcy and Buhalis, 2011 ; Small and Darcy, 2011 ). As outlined in the World Report on Disability, the underlying definitions of impairment and disability are contextual in the way they are operationalised across the globe ( World Health Organization and World Bank, 2011 ). What is not disputed is that about 15 per cent of the global population or some one billion people are living with a disability ( World Health Organization, 2013 ). Each person has unique abilities and disabilities, levels of support and assistive technology that creates a unique mix to consider with respect to the interaction with the tourism environment ( Packer et al. , 2007 ). Therefore the tourism environment of the future needs to be designed in a way that allows for interaction between a person’s abilities, their support needs and the assistive technologies to allow for the enjoyment of all.

Many people with disability can cite a plethora of examples of discrimination caused by negligent or unsuitable design or service provision. In the built environment, wheelchair users are frequently excluded by environmental barriers put in at the design stage: at railway platforms without lifts; at entrances to banks and businesses with revolving doors; and on pavements without dropped kerbs. The same design barriers, of course, are a challenge to parents with children in push-chairs and prams, shoppers with shopping bags, travellers with suitcases and employees occupational health and safety ( Darcy and Dickson, 2009 ). Past and current design practice leads in many ways to the discrimination of people with disability. Unsuitable design prevents access to goods and services and to major areas of social participation such as travel, work and full participation in civil, social and cultural life for the majority of people with disability. It also reduces their independence, dignity, equity and self-determination, thus giving rise to the misconception that disabled people are unable to travel by themselves.

respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;

non-discrimination;

full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;

equality of opportunity;

accessibility;

equality between men and women; and

respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

As stated, Article 9 provides a right to transportation and access to the built environment where Article 30 of the convention recognises the right to equal participation in tourism as an important part of any person’s citizenship. Some 160 nations have adopted the CRPWD. Yet, as already identified, people with disabilities participate less in all forms of citizenship where the transportation of people with disabilities to tourism destinations, access to accommodation and attractions is central to those rights. Yet, as documented in the USA, UK and Australia, a series of discriminatory tourism practices exist that curtail the potential of the citizenship rights ( Darcy and Taylor, 2009 ; Miller and Kirk, 2002 ; Ronald and Richard, 2001 ; Shaw et al. , 2007 ).

Millennium development goals (MDGs) and the UN global compact

Eradicating extreme poverty continues to be one of the main challenges of our time, and is a major concern of the international community. Ending this scourge will require the combined efforts of all, governments, civil society organizations and the private sector, in the context of a stronger and more effective global partnership for development. The Millennium Development Goals set timebound targets, by which progress in reducing income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter and exclusion – while promoting gender equality, health, education and environmental sustainability – can be measured. They also embody basic human rights – the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter and security. The Goals are ambitious but feasible and, together with the comprehensive United Nations development agenda, set the course for the world’s efforts to alleviate extreme poverty by 2015 (United Nations Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon).

The aim of the MDGs is to encourage development by improving social and economic conditions in the world’s poorest countries. Since the MDG’s were agreed to significant progress has been made. To date average overall incomes have increased by approximately 21 per cent. The number of people living in extreme poverty declined by an estimated 130 million. Chile mortality rates fell from 103 deaths per 1,000 live births a year to 88. Life expectancy rose from 63 years to 65 years. An additional 8 per cent of the developing world’s people received access to clean water and an additional 15 per cent acquired access to improved sanitation services. In 2015 the UN countries will adopt a new sustainable development agenda and a new global agreement on climate change. The actions taken in 2015 are expected to result in new sustainable development goals that build on the eight MDG’s ( United Nations, 2015 ).

Tourism has long been seen as having significant potential to help achieve the MDG’s in developing countries. For example in 1990 developing countries had 18 per cent of international tourism receipts. By 2005 this had risen to 30 per cent and to date it continues to rise. There has been significant promotion of the direct economic links between tourists and the poor. Tourism may provide employment opportunities for marginalised groups, may bring direct income to individual communities and may promote equality in developing countries ( Saarinen and Rogerson, 2013 ).

UD supports destination competitiveness

Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The intent of the universal design concept is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by more people at little or no extra cost. The universal design concept targets all people of all ages, sizes and abilities’. The Universal Design approach goes beyond traditional design, which tends to focus on the ‘average’ user. Universal Design is a design approach, reflecting a way of understanding people’s needs. It is not a list of particular solutions, measurements, or products – Universal Design is the way to reach the solution, contributing to social inclusion (cited in Center for Universal Design, 2009 ; and first articulated by Mace, 1985 ).

Applying the principles of UD can be seen as a way of developing tourism environments, transportation, services and offers, underpinning sustainable communities and businesses. Today, according to a recent study by European Network for Accessible Tourism (2015a) and partners, less than 10 per cent of tourism suppliers in Europe offer “accessible” tourism services, while demand for such services is set to increase due to the ageing population and continuing upward trend in market demand. Adopting UD enlarges the target markets of destinations as well as ensures that more pleasant experiences can be delivered. Therefore it can increase the market base, reduce seasonality and support the competitiveness of destinations ( Buhalis, 2000 ). Yet, few studies have examined accessible tourism in relation to destination management and only recently has accessible tourism been examined from destination competitiveness perspective ( Domínguez Vila et al. , 2015 ).

Papers in this issue

To address these concepts and developments this special issue is bringing a range of papers together that discuss research on many accessibility tourism aspects.

Naniopoulos and Tsalis (2015) discuss a methodology for addressing the accessibility of monuments. They focus on heritage attraction sites, highlighting the challenges with archaeological sites where interventions become problematic or even impossible. In doing so, they approached accessibility as a dual notion; accessibility of an area and its potential for independent physical access and movement around the monuments as well as perceived accessibility in terms of interpreting, understanding and learning from the environment. The methodology was applied to a number of byzantine monuments as part of a cultural route in the city of Thessaloniki in Greece, as case studies. Results provide both tools for assessing monument accessibility (process orientations and checklists) and insights into the needs of travellers with disabilities for more “usable” heritage attractions. Concluding remarks place a focus on the prerequisites of training and cooperation to allow for the future of accessible monuments to be realised.

Tsalis et al. (2015) provide an interesting study on the challenges of implementing accessibility solutions, also within the context of protection, conservation, and management of historical centres and monuments. Viewed from a tourism perspective, archaeological sites and monuments are location bound and exist only in their original place. Hence, access to such sites enables unique and authentic tourism experiences. Discourses on objective, constructive and existential authenticity are of paramount importance when accessibility is concerned. This study provides relevant examples of accessibility interventions on six monuments as well as considerations on the design of the tools that assisted site interpretation and interconnection in a cultural route. Results demonstrate how accessibility improvements can occur while respecting the history, architecture and character of the monuments. The study concludes by emphasizing that it is primarily through providing greater access, that the “socialisation” of these monuments will propagate authentic tourism experiences in the future.

Bowtell (2015) offers an examination of the market value and attractiveness of accessible tourism in Europe. Historic data were used to provide a forecast for 2025, while primary data obtained from travel and leisure companies provided insights into managerial perceptions. Findings show a very promising potential for accessible tourism market with significant projected revenues. However, a number of challenges including lack of awareness, cost of investments, complexity of customers’ needs and legal inconsistencies within the EU, create barriers toward developing comprehensive solutions for accessible tourism. Authors provide recommendations on bridging demand and supply.

Gillovic and McIntosh (2015) present an interesting study on stakeholder perspectives of the future of accessible tourism in New Zealand. The study provides insights into the current situation and the future propensity for an accessible tourism industry in New Zealand. A number of interviews with key stakeholders revealed that there is a need to develop a culture of accessibility that is perceived as the norm. Findings also include the business and demand arguments, but additionally highlighted the “ineptness” of upper industry levels to recognize the opportunity of accessible tourism, exhibiting apathy and complacency instead. Authors conclude with recommendations for the future of accessible tourism in New Zealand which can easily be generalised for other regions.

Zajadacz (2015) discusses the evolution of models of disability as a basis for the future development of accessible tourism. A review of medical, social, biopsychosocial, geographical and economic models of disability reveals the theoretical underpinnings and assumptions entailed in those. These are then linked to tourism, demonstrating that different models influence the tourism provision in terms of both products and services. Authors highlight the understanding of disability under different models toward diverse tourism experiences. Several suggestions are offered on the complementary of the models and the implications on the transformation of the accessible tourism industry in the future.

Cruces Portales (2015) uses a scenario planning approach to envisage alternative futures for accessible tourism. With a timeframe leading to 2050, four alternative futures are unravelled through storytelling. The scenarios are built on a matrix that includes the opposing forces of empathy – apathy, and fear of loss and certainty of benefits. The resulting, aptly named scenarios (Eden Gardens, Golden Bridge, Wasted Future and State of Hope) showcase different behaviours, schedules of changes and insights. Authors conclude with strategic ideas and proposals for the future of accessible tourism.

When exploring the future of tourism in this area two opposing trends can be observed: future societies are predicted to become more similar, more homogenous as a consequence of consumerism, globalisation and converging urban lifestyles. However, the accessible tourism market is characteristically diverse, with complex needs and the range of dreams and ambitions is boundless. Will future global travellers be able to access more varied and personal services or will increasing numbers of travellers give rise to greater standardization of services?

Accessible tourism as an emerging field of study will influence tourism destination competitiveness in the future, whether that be from a human rights, emerging market segment or service delivery perspective. In this conceptual examination, we have presented implications of number of theoretical constructs and lenses through which accessible tourism will be influenced in the future. In this special issue, a number of future dimensions are explored that demonstrate how the field has moved from an examination of the intersection of disability and tourism, to one that is clearly defined through conceptual and definitional approaches as accessible tourism. There is a common thread amongst all the papers presented in this special issue. They focus around stakeholder collaboration, as a foundation for the future development of accessible tourism. It has been explicitly suggested that raising awareness amongst stakeholders is essential to overcome barriers inhibiting the application of solutions that enhance access. The importance of stakeholder collaboration across the accessible tourism value chain has been emphasized in a number of ways in this special issue.

Improving accessibility of facilities, transportation, attractions and destinations more generally, demands the collaboration of a wide range of stakeholders including architects, designers, economists, local councils, policy makers, travellers with disabilities, historians and archaeologists to name a few. Therefore “socialising” tourism means that access can be granted only when a number of relevant stakeholders are in accord, work together and specifically developed strategies to target the accessible tourism market. Stakeholder collaboration is a key factor for developing accessible tourism solutions, recognising the value of the market and capitalising on it. Hence, a collaborative approach is required to recognise the complementary nature of the different paradigms; to re-shape and transform the future of the accessible tourism through influencing the tourism industry, contributing government organisations and the not-for-profit sectors. The strength and depth of stakeholder collaborations will determine alternative future realities; from a future where all cooperate and share benefits for all parties, to a fatalistic picture where each stakeholder is sailing alone because they consider their interests incompatible, and everything in between. UD should provide a better accessible tourism future that should enhance the competitiveness of tourism destinations and organisations.

Universal approaches

Barnes, C. , Mercer, G. and Shakespeare, T. ( 2010 ), Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction , Polity Press , Malden, MA .

Bowtell, J. ( 2015 ), “ Assessing the value and market attractiveness of the accessible tourism industry in Europe: a focus on major travel and leisure companies ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 201 - 20 .

Buhalis, D. ( 2000 ), “ Marketing the competitive destination of the future ”, Tourism Management , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 97 - 116 .

Buhalis, D. and Darcy, S. (Eds) ( 2011 ), Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues , Channel View Publications , Bristol .

Buhalis, D. , Darcy, S. and Ambrose, I. (Eds) ( 2012 ), Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism , Channel View Publications , Bristol .

Buhalis, D. , Michopoulou, E. , Eichhorn, V. and Miller, G. ( 2005 ), Accessibility Market and Stakeholder Analysis – One-Stop-Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe (OSSATE) , University of Surrey , Guildford .

Center for Universal Design ( 2009 ), “Universal design principles”, available at: www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm (accessed 20 May 2009) .

Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J.L. ( 1966 ), The Economics of Outdoor Recreation , Johns Hopkins Press , Baltimore, MD .

Cruces Portales, R. ( 2015 ), “ Removing ‘invisible’ barriers: opening paths towards the future of accessible tourism ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 267 - 82 .

Daniels, M.J. , Rodgers, E.B.D. and Wiggins, B.P. ( 2005 ), “ ‘Travel tales’: an interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities ”, Tourism Management , Vol. 26 No. 6 , pp. 919 - 30 .

Darcy, S. ( 1998 ), Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People with a Physical Disability , Tourism New South Wales , Sydney .

Darcy, S. ( 2003 ), “Disabling journeys: the tourism patterns of people with impairments in Australia”, paper presented at the Riding the Wave of Tourism and Hospitality Research, CAUTHE – Southern Cross University, Lismore, 5-8 February .

Darcy, S. ( 2010 ), “ Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences ”, Tourism Management , Vol. 31 No. 6 , pp. 816 - 26 .

Darcy, S. and Buhalis, D. ( 2011 ), “ Conceptualising disability ”, in Buhalis, D. and Darcy, S. (Eds) , Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues , Chapter 2 , Channel View Publications , Bristol , pp. 21 - 44 .

Darcy, S. and Dickson, T. ( 2009 ), “ A whole-of-life approach to tourism: the case for accessible tourism experiences ”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 32 - 44 .

Darcy, S. and Taylor, T. ( 2009 ), “ Disability citizenship: an Australian human rights analysis of the cultural industries ”, Leisure Studies , Vol. 28 No. 4 , pp. 419 - 41 .

Domínguez Vila, T. , Darcy, S. and Alén González, E. ( 2015 ), “ Competing for the disability tourism market – a comparative exploration of the factors of accessible tourism competitiveness in Spain and Australia ”, Tourism Management , Vol. 47 , pp. 261 - 72 .

European Network for Accessible Tourism ( 2015 a), Final Report: EU Study Mapping in Performance Check on the Supply of Accessible Tourism Services in Europe , European Network for Accessible Tourism , Brussels .

European Network for Accessible Tourism ( 2015 b), “Who we are”, available at: www.accessibletourism.org/?i=enat.en.who_we_are (accessed 15 August 2015) .

GfK ( 2015 ), Economic Impact on Travel Patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – Final Report , GfK, University of Surrey, The Neumann Consulting and PRO Solutions , Surrey .

Gillovic, B. and McIntosh, A. ( 2015 ), “ Stakeholder perspectives of the future of accessible tourism in New Zealand ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 221 - 37 .

Leiper, N. ( 2003 ), Tourism Management , 3rd ed. , Hospitality Press , Sydney .

Mace, R. ( 1985 ), Universal Design, Barrier Free Environments for Everyone , Designers West , Los Angeles, CA .

Miller, G.A. and Kirk, E. ( 2002 ), “ The disability discrimination act: time for the stick? ”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 82 - 8 .

Naniopoulos, A. and Tsalis, P. ( 2015 ), “ A methodology for facing the accessibility of monuments developed and realised in Thessaloniki, Greece ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 238 - 51 .

Naniopoulos, A. , Tsalis, P. , Papanikolaou, E. , Kalliagra, A. and Kourmpeti, C. ( 2015 ), “ Accessibility improvement interventions realised in Byzantine monuments of Thessaloniki, Greece ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 252 - 66 .

Packer, T.L. , McKercher, B. and Yau, M. ( 2007 ), “ Understanding the complex interplay between tourism, disability and environmental contexts ”, Disability & Rehabilitation , Vol. 29 No. 4 , pp. 281 - 92 .

Ronald, K. and Richard, P. ( 2001 ), “ Reasonable accommodation under the ADA: what’s an employer to do? ”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , Vol. 42 No. 5 , pp. 24 - 33 .

Saarinen, J. and Rogerson, C.M. ( 2013 ), “ Tourism and the millennium development goals: perspectives beyond 2015 ”, Tourism Geographies , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 23 - 30 .

Shaw, G. , Veitch, C. and Coles, T. ( 2007 ), “ Disability legislation and the empowerment of tourists with disabilities in the UK ”, in Church, A. and Coles, T. (Eds) , Tourism, Power and Space , Routledge , London , pp. 83 - 100 .

Small, J. and Darcy, S. ( 2010 ), “ Tourism, disability and mobility ”, in Cole, S. and Morgan, N. (Eds) , Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects , Chapter 4 , CABI , Wallingford , pp. 1 - 30 .

Small, J. and Darcy, S. ( 2011 ), “ Understanding tourist experience through embodiment: the contribution of critical tourism and disability studies ”, in Buhalis, D. and Darcy, S. (Eds) , Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues , Chapter 5 , Channel View Publications , Bristol , pp. 72 - 96 .

Smith, R.W. ( 1987 ), “ Leisure of disabled tourists – barriers to participation ”, Annals of Tourism Research , Vol. 14 , pp. 376 - 89 .

United Nations ( 2006 ), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , United Nations General Assembly A/61/611 – 6 December , New York, NY .

United Nations ( 2015 ), “Time for Global Action for people and planet”, available at: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed 14 August 2015) .

United Nations World Tourism Organisation ( 2015 ), Manuals on Accessible Tourism , United Nations World Tourism Organisation, ONCE & European Network for Accessible Tourism , Madrid .

World Health Organization ( 2013 ), “Disability – report by the Secretariat”, available at: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA66/A66_12-en.pdf (accessed 18 September 2015).

World Health Organization and World Bank ( 2011 ), “World report on disability”, available at: www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/index.html (accessed 18 September 2015).

Zajadacz, A. ( 2015 ), “ Evolution of models of disability as a basis for further policy changes in accessible tourism ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 187 - 200 .

Further reading

United Nations World Tourism Organization ( 1999 ), “Global code of ethics for tourism”, available at: http://ethics.unwto.org/en/content/global-code-ethics-tourism (accessed 21 August 2015) .

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Accessible tourism

Kangaroo Island, South Australia © Tourism Australia

Accessible tourism is the ongoing endeavour to ensure tourist destinations, products and services are accessible to all people, regardless of their physical limitations, disabilities, or age. 

The accessible tourism community can include people with a disability, long-term health condition, or mobility needs, along with their accompanying companions. This can include individuals with, limited mobility, including the use of wheelchairs and scooters, low vision, low hearing, cognitive impairment, autism, allergies, and intolerances. Other visitors can also benefit from improved access including, the elderly, those with temporary needs, mobility issues or medical conditions, parents with prams, multi-generational family groups.

Research shows the substantial economic impact to tourism of this segment. Tourism Research Australia’s National Visitor Survey shows that in 2021, travel groups including people with a disability or a long-term health condition in Australia accounted for $13.5 billion (17% of total) of domestic day and overnight trip spend. Tourism Australia’s Future of Demand Research (2022) also showed that around a quarter (24%) of international travellers considering Australia have an accessibility need and many more (86%) indicated that accessibility influences their choice of destination.

What is the difference between accessible and inclusive tourism?

Tourism Australia has a strategic focus on accessible and inclusive tourism. The organisation aims to raise awareness of and capability for accessible and inclusive tourism, to better deliver on the accessibility needs of visitors to Australia. It focuses on advocacy, thought leadership and education across it’s owned marketing channels and engagement with industry.  

Tourism Australia is a proud foundation partner of the Shift 20 Initiative launched by the Dylan Alcott Foundation in 2023. The initiative, founded by Friend of Australia  Dylan Alcott  AO, focuses on increasing disability representation, inclusion, and accessibility in Australian advertising. Alongside some of Australia’s well-known brands our focus is on improving the representation of accessibility and inclusivity in our tourism industry.

Accredited access consultants and architects can assist you with accessibility design in the built environment. Visit the Association of Consultants in Access Australia to find a consultant, or Australian Institute of Architects to find an architect for your project. Below is a range of consultancies specialising in tourism and travel.

Australia is for everyone. Get tips on travelling in Australia with a disability and learn how to make your trip unforgettable. Find out more about accessible travel around australia on Australia.com , or find a range of further resources below.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. Find out more .

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

• All Regions

UNWTO Recommendations on Accessible Tourism for All

share this content

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

Related Content

Am news | vol. 67 august 2024, am news | vol. 66 july 2024, un tourism news 86: un tourism's impact: boosting gastr..., un tourism news 85: from small islands to global leader....

Only 39% of Americans view national parks as accessible options. There's a simple fix.

• One in four U.S. adults has some form of disability.
• Only 39% of Americans view national parks as an accessible travel option for any level of ability or disability.
• Technology can help break down barriers for park goers with disabilities.

Kelly Dawson can't walk for long periods of time, but cerebral palsy doesn't stop her from adventuring through America’s national parks. She just has to get creative.

She’s seen the sweeping vistas of the Grand Canyon’s rims and has done short walks through the massive cacti at Saguaro National Park. One of her favorite experiences was exploring the plethora of wildlife in the Everglades by airboat, which was easy for her to get on and off.  

“The difference between what a disabled person wants to see and what a non-disabled person wants to see is very small; it’s just how we go about it,” Dawson, a writer and disability advocate based in Los Angeles, told USA TODAY.

One in four U.S. adults has some form of disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . For those with disabilities, exploring the nation’s most stunning natural landscapes via its more than 400 national parks can seem daunting and inaccessible.  

According to the recently published Outdoor Recreation Consumer Study by technology consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, only 39% of the 3,000 surveyed Americans view national parks as an accessible travel option for any level of ability or disability. The focal point of the survey, according to Will Healy, senior vice president at Booz Allen, was "to know the extent of the of the situation that's currently out there today.” 

Learn more: Best travel insurance

Dawson can see why. “I think a lot of it comes down to perception,” she said. “I think when people think of wide-open spaces and the beautiful opportunities of national parks, they’re thinking along the lines of hiking and camping and whitewater rafting – things that are very adventurous, very physical and very outside of everyday life.” 

This is where technology comes in, to help break down barriers for park goers with disabilities, the survey said. From crowdsourced insights to specific details, making park information more easily accessible online can empower more people to explore the parks in ways that suit their individual needs.  

National parks are for all of us: What national parks can do to make the outdoors more accessible to people with disabilities

The outdoors is for everyone

“Getting outside to your local park, going camping, going backpacking, like there's all these different levels of adventure, and everybody wants it, and everybody needs it,” said Healy. “Being able to make that available to more people, it's just a good thing overall. It's a good thing for our community. It's a good thing for our country. It's a good thing for the individual.” 

Making the national parks inclusive is not entirely new, and the National Park Service has stated a commitment to “ensuring people with disabilities have equal opportunity to benefit from our facilities, programs, services, and activities whether they are indoors or outdoors,” according to the NPS website . Every park in the park service has permanent accessibility coordinators .  

The National Park Access Pass offers free lifetime entry for U.S. citizens with a permanent disability. There’s also an interactive map that shows accessible features of different park sites, such as tactile models in visitor centers, ramps to restrooms and if a building is noisy.

“From the beginning, the national parks were intended for all Americans and as many Americans as possible to visit,” Dawson added. 

Closing the gap with technology 

Although accessibility at the parks is headed in the right direction, there’s still a long way to go. In the survey, 84% of respondents said that technology can lead to a more accessible park experience for everyone, including increasing awareness of wheelchair-accessible areas, crowdsourcing on individual experiences and allowing feedback that can lead to park improvements. 

These details could make a difference, with almost half of survey respondents saying they’d be “more likely” to visit a national park if they knew more about its accessibility levels. 

“I know accessibility is not one size fits all,” Dawson said. “What’s easy might not be easy, what’s deemed as difficult might be more accessible to me than what meets the eye.”  

When she plans her trips to national parks, Dawson starts by researching the must-do attractions and sees how she can best access them. She looks for shorter hikes, hikes with places to rest or other ways to explore the park that don’t involve walking long distances, such as driving. 

Since disabilities vary from person to person, it can be difficult to know how a trail or campsite will meet someone’s needs, even if it is considered ADA-accessible. Some travelers may need low-sensory, quieter campsites, and that information isn’t always readily available.  

Travelers currently need to do an extra leg of research on their own to check each individual campsite, like by reading visitor reviews. “The way I've described it is like if you walked into the library and you wanted to find a book, but you didn't have any guidance whatsoever, you'd have to look through every single book, right?” Healy said.  

Crowdsourcing from visitor reviews can help relieve the burden, with 40% of respondents saying they look for accessibility information through these reviews. Booz Allen hopes for the creation of a digital platform that consolidates this information would make it easier for travelers with specific needs. “What we want to do is we want to make people's experience more findable and then more helpful when you're trying to make decisions,” Healy said.

The Key Points at the top of this article were created with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and reviewed by a journalist before publication. No other parts of the article were generated using AI. Learn more .

Advertisement

Supported by

Texas Sues for Access to Records of Women Seeking Out-of-State Abortions

The lawsuit takes aim at federal privacy rules, including one enacted this year that Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, called “a backdoor attempt at weakening Texas’ laws.”

• Share full article

By Michael Wines

Texas has sued to block federal rules that prohibit investigators from viewing the medical records of women who travel out of state to seek abortions where the procedure is legal.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Lubbock, targets medical privacy regulations that were issued in 2000, and takes aim at a rule issued in April that specifically bans disclosing medical records for criminal or civil investigations into “the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating reproductive health care.”

Texas bans abortions in almost all circumstances . Women are not subject to criminal prosecution for obtaining abortions, but state law imposes penalties of as much as life in prison for those who aid in obtaining abortions.

The lawsuit claims that the privacy rules ignore federal law that lets states view medical records “for law enforcement purposes.”

In a statement on Wednesday, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, called the April rule “a backdoor attempt at weakening Texas’ laws.” He added: “The Biden administration’s motive is clear: to subvert lawful state investigations on issues that the courts have said the states may investigate.”

Officials with the federal Health and Human Services Department did not comment on the lawsuit, but told The Associated Press that the Biden administration “remains committed to protecting reproductive health privacy and ensuring that no woman’s medical records are used against her.”

The April regulation came in direct response to abortion bans enacted by many Republican state legislatures after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. A number of those states, including Texas and Alabama, have signaled their interest in extending those bans to include women who cross state lines to get an abortion.

The lawsuit filed on Wednesday also asserts that the rule covers “hormone and drug therapy for gender dysphoria, surgical procedures related to gender dysphoria, and gender experimentation.” Texas bars minors from obtaining gender-transition surgery and related care like hormone therapy .

Whether Texas investigators have sought records of women who traveled out of state for abortions is unclear. But Mr. Paxton, a Republican, has demanded records on gender-transition care from organizations in Washington State and Georgia . In March, a judge temporarily blocked Mr. Paxton from forcing an L.G.B.T.Q. organization to turn over documents.

The Texas lawsuit could set off a protracted legal battle over both abortion and medical privacy rules. In June, the Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedent that gave broad regulatory authority to federal agencies.

“Texas is arguing that the federal health agency doesn’t have the authority to determine what the scope of federal privacy is,” said David Donatti, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which has been active in fighting the state’s restrictions on abortion.

“That’s remarkable both as a frontal assault on the ability of H.H.S. to define medical privacy,” he said, referring to the Health and Human Services Department. “But it also demonstrates the lengths that Texas is willing to go to to eliminate abortion and reproductive health access — not just in Texas, but across the country.”

Federal health officials have regularly worked with states on criminal inquiries into matters like fraud that touch on medical privacy issues. But Mr. Donatti said that investigations into attempts to obtain a legal abortion raised constitutional questions on issues like the freedom to travel that did not apply in other circumstances.

Other states have bristled at attempts to track women who seek abortions outside state boundaries. Nearly two dozen states with Democratic legislatures or governors have enacted laws or executive orders that shield women and their doctors from investigations by states with abortion bans.

Michael Wines is a national correspondent, writing about voting and election issues. He is based in Washington, D.C. More about Michael Wines

Disney-obsessed couple lose lawsuit to get back into exclusive Club 33

• Copy Link URL Copied!

As members of Disney’s exclusive Club 33, Scott and Diana Anderson visited the two Anaheim theme parks 60 to 80 times a year.

The private club, with its wood-paneled trophy room and other amenities, was the center of their social life. They brought friends, acquaintances and business associates. As a couple, they went on the Haunted Mansion ride nearly 1,000 times.

For the record:

5:08 p.m. Sept. 4, 2024 A previous version of this article referred to Disneyland’s Haunted House ride. It is the Haunted Mansion ride.

The club’s yearly dues were $31,500, and with travel and hotel expenses, the Arizona couple were spending close to $125,000 annually to get their Disney fix.

All of it came to an end in 2017, when Disney revoked their membership in the club after an allegation that Scott Anderson was drunk in public. Diana Anderson, a hard-core Disney aficionado since childhood, called it “a stab in the heart.”

The Andersons, both 60, have spent the years since then — and hundreds of thousands of dollars — trying to get back into Club 33. On Tuesday, an Orange County jury rejected their claim that Disney ousted them improperly.

It had taken the Andersons more than a decade to gain membership in Club 33, which includes access to exclusive lounges, dining, VIP tours and special events.

They finally made it off the waiting list in 2012.

“They finally became part of this special place,” their attorney, Sean Macias, told jurors in the civil trial. “That was their spot. That was their happy place, their home.”

At about 9:50 p.m. on Sept. 3, 2017, security guards found Scott Anderson near the entrance of California Adventure displaying signs of what they took to be intoxication, including slurred speech and trouble standing, according to trial testimony.

“His breath smelled of alcohol quite a lot,” one of the guards said in court.

The club swiftly ousted them.

Macias said Scott Anderson had two to three drinks and that Disney did an incomplete and slipshod investigation, with no Breathalyzer or blood tests and no videos of Anderson’s behavior that night.

“They have not established that Mr. Anderson was intoxicated,” Macias said. Instead, he argued, Anderson’s symptoms were the result of a vestibular migraine, which can be triggered by red wine — among the drinks Anderson consumed that day.

In effect, Macias argued, Disney was punishing Anderson for a medical condition.

A medical expert testified for the Andersons that the symptoms of a vestibular migraine could be confused with intoxication, with a neurologist hired by Disney countering that Anderson’s behavior was more likely the consequence of drinking.

The September 2017 incident was not the first time the Andersons had run afoul of Club 33 management. The year before, Diana had been briefly suspended for “using some salty language … a couple F-words,” as Macias put it.

Macias told jurors that the Andersons filed suit against Disney to vindicate their reputation. “He doesn’t want to be known as a drunk,” Macias said. “They love that place. They took the fight to Disney because it’s his name.”

In their complaint, the Andersons asked to be reinstated to Club 33, with a $10,500 reimbursement for four months of unused membership in 2017. They also wanted $231,000 — roughly equal to seven years in the club.

Jonathan E. Phillips, an attorney representing Disney, said Club 33 membership guidelines forbid public intoxication.

“They did not want to pay the consequences of failing to follow the rules,” Phillips told jurors, adding that Scott’s conduct “cost his wife of 40 years her lifetime dream of having access to Club 33.”

The security guards, who no longer work for Disney, were more credible than the Andersons, Phillips said — “What possible reason did the security guards have to lie to you?”

In their original complaint, the Andersons alleged that Club 33 targeted them for retaliation because they had complained about a club member harassing other members and staff. But Superior Court Judge Deborah Servino curtailed that line of evidence, which the Andersons saw as the death knell for their case.

“My wife and I are both dead set that this is an absolute wrong, and we will fight this to the death,” Scott, who owns a golf course in Gilbert, Ariz., told The Times. “There is no way we’re letting this go.”

He said the lawsuit has cost him about $400,000.

“My retirement is set back five years,” he said. “I’m paying through the nose. Every day, I’m seeing another bill, and I’m about to keel over.” He said he will appeal.

His wife said she wants to keep fighting.

“I’ll sell a kidney,” Diana said. “I don’t care.”

More to Read

Disneyland fans with disabilities enraged by changes: ‘We had the worst day ever there’

Aug. 27, 2024

Disney fined $36,000 after crew member fell to his death on Marvel TV set

Aug. 23, 2024

Disney reverses course on wrongful-death lawsuit, agrees to let case proceed in court

Aug. 20, 2024

Sign up for Essential California

The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Christopher Goffard is an author and a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times. He shared in the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s Bell coverage and has twice been a Pulitzer finalist for feature writing, in 2007 and 2014. His novel “Snitch Jacket” was a finalist for the Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best First Novel. His book “You Will See Fire: A Search for Justice in Kenya,” based on his Times series, was published in 2011.

More From the Los Angeles Times

On Kamala Harris’ San Francisco home turf, old friends root for her on presidential debate night

Climate & Environment

A bear crashed a picnic and swiped a woman’s leg. Wildlife cops had a decision to make

Sept. 11, 2024

Man who fatally stabbed UCLA grad student Brianna Kupfer found guilty of murder

California is poised to ban octopus farming

Ulyanovsk Oblast map, satellite – loading . . .

🌍 ulyanovsk oblast map.

Can you donate $10 per month to support Democracy Now!’s independent journalism all year long? Since our very first broadcast in 1996, we’ve refused to take government or corporate funding, because nothing is more important to us than our editorial independence—especially in this unprecedented election year. When Democracy Now! covers war and peace or the climate crisis, we’re not brought to you by the weapons manufacturers or the oil, gas, coal or nuclear companies. Our journalism is powered by YOU. But that means we can’t do our work without your support. Our generous TRIPLE match has been extended, which means your $10 donation this month will be worth $30 to Democracy Now! Please do your part right now. We’re all in this together. Thank you so much. -Amy Goodman

Non-commercial news needs your support.

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

• Daily Shows
• Web Exclusives

• Daily Digest
• RSS & Podcasts
• Android App

Democracy Now!

• Get Involved
• For Broadcasters

• Kamala Harris
• 2024 Election
• Donald Trump
• Climate Crisis
• Immigration

Texas Sues to Gain Access to Medical Records of Patients Who Travel for Abortions

Texas is suing the Biden administration over federal privacy rules that bar investigators from viewing medical records of patients who travel out of state to have an abortion. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says the rule creates a “backdoor attempt at weakening Texas’s laws,” which ban nearly all abortions.

In Missouri, an amendment that could undo the state’s near-total abortion ban is at risk of being removed from the ballot after a Missouri judge ruled Friday the campaign to get the ballot measure did not sufficiently explain the amendment in the signature-gathering phase. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind the ballot measure, is arguing its case today before the state Supreme Court, which will need to make an immediate decision since today is also the deadline for any ballot changes before they are printed for mail-in voters.

Meanwhile, the Nebraska Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in lawsuits against two separate abortion ballot measures. Nebraska currently has a 12-week abortion ban.

And in more related news, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s “election police” unit has been investigating voters who signed ballot petitions for Amendment 4, Florida’s abortion rights measure which would toss out the state’s six-week abortion ban. Since it was formed in 2022, DeSantis’s election police has been deployed to intimidate voters, in particular likely Democratic voters.

• Reproductive Health
• Reproductive Rights
• Ron DeSantis

Daily News Digest

Election 2024 coverage.

Live from the DNC Aug 19-23

Amy Goodman and the Democracy Now! team will broadcast an extended daily two-hour show from Chicago, Illinois for the Democratic National Convention from Aug. 19-23.

Recent News

Most popular

Non-commercial news needs your support

Staying current is easy with Crain’s news delivered straight to your inbox.

Free of charge.

September 9, 2024 8:46 AM

Erin Clifford

Partner and director of marketing and business development

Clifford Law Offices

Scope of work: Erin Clifford manages strategic business development for Clifford Law Offices and serves as a firm wellness coach.

Biggest professional win: After clerking at the Illinois appellate court and serving as legal counsel at the Cook County Treasurer’s Office, she now helps professionals create and maintain healthy lifestyles. Since the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism required wellness as a continuing legal education course, Clifford has offered a program across four states for more than 3,000 lawyers.

Other contributions: Clifford is on the boards of Friends of Prentice, the Chicago High School for the Arts, and WTTW and WFMT, and is on the American Bar Association’s Mental Health & Wellness Task Force.

Sponsored Content

Finding health and harmony in the busy balancing act of professional success

As a partner at Clifford Law Offices and a Licensed Professional Counselor, Erin Clifford , JD, MA, understands the stressors that accompany a demanding job, and she brings this awareness to her work as a wellness coach and consultant for law firms and corporations. Through Erin Clifford Wellness, she helps busy professionals create and maintain healthy, happy and harmonious lifestyles using a holistic approach to wellness that integrates nutrition, exercise, lifestyle management, mindfulness and mental health. Beyond her role as director of marketing and business development at the firm, Clifford has combined her legal, wellness and teaching skills to counsel staff and attorneys, helping them stay healthy and productive during stressful times.

Q. What initially inspired you to pursue health and wellness training? 

A. Growing up, I was always into wellness because my parents were big proponents of exercise and eating healthy. Physical activity, nutrition, meditation and mindfulness just became part of my everyday routine.

When I was teaching in the Chicago Public Schools, I saw a lot of my students and their families struggling with access to healthy food and fitness. That’s when I realized: Maybe I want to educate people about health, as opposed to teaching English, which I was doing at the time. When I graduated from law school and entered the legal profession, I saw the same concerns with a different demographic, and I decided I wanted to help. I went back to school and got certified as a health and wellness coach and picked up a few more certifications along the way — culminating with a master’s in mental health counseling.

Q. How does your background as a busy law firm partner and practitioner inform your holistic approach to wellness? 

A. As attorneys and professionals, we’re all busy. I’ve experienced it myself. You get so wrapped up in your career, wanting to have those advancements and accolades, that sometimes you neglect your health and other life domains. Beyond our career and finances, we also have our family and friends, communities and contributions, health and self-care, personal development and spirituality. I’m trying to help people realize that it’s not just about your career. To really have a fulfilling life, we can’t neglect the things that we value.

Q. What’s your most important piece of advice for busy professionals? 

A. I start my programs with what I call the oxygen mask rule. When you go on an airplane, they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on before you assist others, and that’s what I think of self-care. If we’re not taking care of ourselves, then we’re not going to be there for our clients, our businesses, our colleagues or, of course, our loved ones.

Self-care is not selfish. You are worth carving out time for yourself, whether it’s for exercise, nutrition, stress management, sleep or other things you want to do — like spend time with your family, travel, take a class or learn a language. If you make decisions according to your values, then you’re not neglecting your other life domains, and you can carve out a life for yourself that has the most satisfaction.

Q. How are you embedding this holistic wellness mindset into your work at the law firm? 

A . I do a lot of wellness talks and programs with our staff and attorneys. When I’m in discussions with the partners and the administrators in my office, I come at it from a very different angle because I’m always thinking: What else is going on with this person?

My family’s philosophy at the law firm is that we want our employees to live happy, fulfilling lives. With our staff and lawyers, we try to make sure that it’s not just about the job; there’s so much more.

Interviewed by Brooke Bilyj for Crain’s Content Studio

Get our newsletters

Staying current is easy with Crain's news delivered straight to your inbox, free of charge.

Subscribe today

With a Crain’s Chicago Subscription you get exclusive access, insights and experiences to help you succeed in business.