Understanding Stakeholder Attitudes, Needs and Trends in Accessible Tourism: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Abstract

The inclusion of people with disabilities (PwD) in tourism is a phenomenon that encompasses various influencing factors, such as accessibility, which must be reviewed for this process to work correctly. Accessible tourism has advantages for both people with disabilities and everyone else. It provides an opportunity for everyone to enjoy leisure without barriers. However, there are still factors that limit the proper operation of the sector, which require a review and new strategies for its improvement. The objective of this review is to offer a synthesis of those challenges that must be addressed in order to achieve quality accessible tourism, as well as to present the various emerging trends that can represent an important advance for the future of accessible tourism. To this end, a qualitative study review process has been carried out where the different opinions and perceptions of the various actors involved in the accessible tourism sector are considered. A thematic analysis and synthesis of the information was conducted using the “Thematic Synthesis” procedure. The methodological quality of the studies included in the synthesis was also assessed. The studies reviewed show a need to recognize disabled travelers as autonomous and independent people who seek to escape from their daily routine, and who require certain specific supports to facilitate their tourist experience. Accessible tourism is valued as a good market opportunity, but its proper development requires greater staff awareness to promote co-creation in tourism, as well as the support of technological systems to create individualized tourist profiles detailing the needs of each person.

Envisioning the future of technology integration for accessible hospitality and tourism

“…Previous studies highlighted some of these factors (Fuente-Robles et al, 2020;Hano and Hakiai, 2011). Demonstrative quotes are provided here as follows:…”

Stakeholders’ perception of accessible tourism implementation based on corporate sustainability and responsibility: a SEM-based investigation

“…Previous research indicates that to implement AT, stakeholders’ attitudes must first be altered (Fuente-Robles et al , 2020; Gillovic and McIntosh, 2015). However, even though stakeholders’ attitudes are significantly associated with various dimensions of corporate social responsibility (Khuong et al , 2021), many of them do not translate those attitudes into behaviours (Dhanesh, 2020; Elgammal and Jones, 2008).…”

“…Tourism service providers have a stereotypical view that PwDs have similar characteristics to one another; however, it is critical to change stakeholders’ attitudes about the individuality and needs of PwDs in the differentiation in the treatment and provision of services (Fuente-Robles et al , 2020; Lim, 2020). The attitudes of PwDs themselves should also be changed because of their repercussions on greater tourist satisfaction in terms of collaboration and cocreation (Kastenholz et al , 2015).…”

“…Scholars contend that for the AT principles to operate effectively, stakeholders’ changed attitudes, their collaborative intervention within the organization and into the larger tourism ecosystem and the practices of corporate sustainability and responsibility (CS&R) in the tourism setting are required (Cockburn-Wootten and McIntosh, 2020; Fuente-Robles et al , 2020; Gillovic and McIntosh, 2015; Nigg and Eichelberger, 2021). However, the implementation of accessible tourism (IAT) is context-specific, and destinations adhere to best practices (Buhalis et al , 2012; Darcy et al , 2020).…”

The Hidden Potential of Informal Urban Greenspace: An Example of Two Former Landfills in Post-Socialist Cities (Central Poland)

“…However, it does not provide guidance on how to conduct such an overall multi-faceted assessment for the selected site. On the other hand, other methods of perceiving public places exclude user groups on the basis of different types of disability [67,76].…”