Accessible Tourism Geographies and Disability Mobilities
|
Guest editors:
Jillian Rickly is Professor of Tourism at the University of Nottingham, UK. She has a PhD in Geography from Indiana University (2012). Professor Rickly serves in various editorial roles, including Series Editor for De Gruyter Studies in Tourism, Associate Editor for Annals of Tourism Research, and Editor for Tourism Geographies and Journal of Qualitative Research in Tourism. Her current research focuses on two main areas: accessible tourism mobilities and authenticity/alienation in tourism experiences. |
|
|
Marcus Hansen is a senior lecturer in events at Liverpool John Moores University, UK. He earned a PhD in Tourism Management from Manchester Metropolitan University (2018). He studies accessible tourism, with a keen interest on making society accessible to people with disabilities. Dr. Hansen has a growing list of publications on accessible tourism in high-ranking tourism journals. He is currently co-editing the book Tourism destination development: A geographic perspective on destination management and tourist demand due for publication late 2023 through De Gruyter.
|
|
Accessible tourism as a research and industry imperative
Accessibility is of growing concern with approximately 15% of the global population living with a disability, of whom 190 million experience challenges in daily functioning (The World Bank, 2019). This is a figure that is expected to increase over the coming decades partly due to an ageing society and the prevalence of age-related disabilities (Lee & King, 2019; Vila, Darcy & Rodriguez, 2015). Combined, people with disabilities and seniors comprise over 20% of the global population, representing one of the biggest economic and social challenges of the present time (Hansen & Fyall, 2021; Vila et al., 2015).
Despite the increasing number of people with disabilities, many aspects of everyday life, leisure and recreation remain inaccessible due to a range of physical, attitudinal and informational barriers (Connell & Page, 2019; Sedgeley et al., 2017). Indeed, research at the sector level highlights various barriers to access with regard to visitor attractions (Evcil, 2018; Cloquet et al., 2018), accommodation (Darcy & Pegg, 2011; McIntosh & Harris, 2018; Randle & Dolnicar, 2019; Tutuncu, 2017) events (Mair et al., 2021), airlines (Chang & Chen, 2012), restaurants (Lin et al., 2019) and tourism employment (Adam, 2019; Luu, 2019). This literature recognizes a need for stakeholders to collaborate at the destination level to deliver accessible experiences (Nyanjom et al., 2018). Moreover, while there has been an influx of research indicating the relationship of accessibility to social justice and human rights (Benjamin et al., 2021), this demographic is often misunderstood or simply ignored by the organisations that make up tourism destinations, thus demonstrating why attitudinal barriers are considered “the roof of all barriers” (Connell & Page, 2019; Loi & Kong, 2017).
Accessible tourism, arguably, promotes the values of independence, dignity and equity (Darcy, 2006). It advocates for making destinations and experiences accessible to people with disabilities (Michopolou et al., 2015) by adhering to the social model of disability, whereby it is the social and built environments that are ‘disabling’ when they exclude, discriminate and oppress people with disabilities (Benjamin et al., 2021; Oliver, 2013). As such, social inclusion is key to accessible tourism and revolves around improving access for everyone in communities (Mair et al., 2021). Thus, the role of tourism as a force for good has been questioned, with destinations struggling to meet the needs of a diverse society (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006).
Considering the scale and scope of accessibility and the tourism industry, researchers have begun to call for interdisciplinary approaches and a broader scope of inclusivity in industry sustainability goals (Sheyvens & Biddulph, 2018; Connell & Page, 2019). Yet, there remains a notable gap in geographic and mobilities perspectives on disability and accessibility in the field that is essential for building stronger multi/interdisciplinary conversations on the issue.
Disability mobilities and accessible tourism geographies
A spatial perspective on disability and accessibility can be found within the disciplinary conversations of geography. Much of this research has been a response to the social model of disability, inspiring a new generation of disability geographers with an interest in materialist socio-spatial politics (Butler, 1994; Imrie, 1996, 2000; Gleeson, 1996, 1999; Goggin, 2016; Park et al., 1998) and performative theories (Bissell, 2009; Hall and Wilton, 2016; Macpherson, 2009, 2010; Veal, 2017). However, little of this research has been brought to bear in tourism geographies and accessible tourism research.
Gleeson’s (1998) historical geography of disability identifies the institutionalization of ableism in the social production of space over time. Gleeson sheds light not only on the marginalization of people with disabilities resulting in disabling spaces but also attends to the diversity of disabilities absent in public discourses that have arisen through an emphasis on mobility impairment over other impairments. Despite the historical parallels in ideological changes around defining and refining the values of accessible tourism, there is rarely cross-over from the geographies of disability within tourism literature.
Similarly, a mobilities approach with its interest in the politics of movement holds the potential for considerable mileage in disability rights research (Small, 2015). Imrie (1996, 2000) suggests that to date focus on the ‘mobile body’ has proceeded with normalising discourses that (re)produce the structured inequalities inherent in movement and mobility patterns. Even looking at the scale of the body, Veal's (2017) examination of the micro-mobilities of the dancing body highlights the role of the ‘imperfect’ body and what different bodies are perceived as (in)capable of doing. However, the notion of the mobile body remains under-represented in tourism research.
Furthermore, tourism’s emphasis on embodied experiences promises fertile ground for cultivating a research agenda on dis/abled bodies (see Small, 2015). Yet, research on the spatial body and disability place-making have yet to gain traction in the field. Specifically, research on the relationality of disability offers much for tourism studies. Employing non-representational theory and critical disability studies, scholars work from the ontological position of disability as an emergent property of bodies enacting their everyday practices (see Hall and Wilton, 2016; Macpherson, 2009, 2010; Bissell, 2009). In so doing, the significance of assemblages, inter-corporeality, body-landscape, and affective intensities for the emergence of the dis/abled body can be better observed in tourism research contexts.
Accessibility is of growing concern with approximately 15% of the global population living with a disability, of whom 190 million experience challenges in daily functioning (The World Bank, 2019). This is a figure that is expected to increase over the coming decades partly due to an ageing society and the prevalence of age-related disabilities (Lee & King, 2019; Vila, Darcy & Rodriguez, 2015). Combined, people with disabilities and seniors comprise over 20% of the global population, representing one of the biggest economic and social challenges of the present time (Hansen & Fyall, 2021; Vila et al., 2015).
Despite the increasing number of people with disabilities, many aspects of everyday life, leisure and recreation remain inaccessible due to a range of physical, attitudinal and informational barriers (Connell & Page, 2019; Sedgeley et al., 2017). Indeed, research at the sector level highlights various barriers to access with regard to visitor attractions (Evcil, 2018; Cloquet et al., 2018), accommodation (Darcy & Pegg, 2011; McIntosh & Harris, 2018; Randle & Dolnicar, 2019; Tutuncu, 2017) events (Mair et al., 2021), airlines (Chang & Chen, 2012), restaurants (Lin et al., 2019) and tourism employment (Adam, 2019; Luu, 2019). This literature recognizes a need for stakeholders to collaborate at the destination level to deliver accessible experiences (Nyanjom et al., 2018). Moreover, while there has been an influx of research indicating the relationship of accessibility to social justice and human rights (Benjamin et al., 2021), this demographic is often misunderstood or simply ignored by the organisations that make up tourism destinations, thus demonstrating why attitudinal barriers are considered “the roof of all barriers” (Connell & Page, 2019; Loi & Kong, 2017).
Accessible tourism, arguably, promotes the values of independence, dignity and equity (Darcy, 2006). It advocates for making destinations and experiences accessible to people with disabilities (Michopolou et al., 2015) by adhering to the social model of disability, whereby it is the social and built environments that are ‘disabling’ when they exclude, discriminate and oppress people with disabilities (Benjamin et al., 2021; Oliver, 2013). As such, social inclusion is key to accessible tourism and revolves around improving access for everyone in communities (Mair et al., 2021). Thus, the role of tourism as a force for good has been questioned, with destinations struggling to meet the needs of a diverse society (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006).
Considering the scale and scope of accessibility and the tourism industry, researchers have begun to call for interdisciplinary approaches and a broader scope of inclusivity in industry sustainability goals (Sheyvens & Biddulph, 2018; Connell & Page, 2019). Yet, there remains a notable gap in geographic and mobilities perspectives on disability and accessibility in the field that is essential for building stronger multi/interdisciplinary conversations on the issue.
Disability mobilities and accessible tourism geographies
A spatial perspective on disability and accessibility can be found within the disciplinary conversations of geography. Much of this research has been a response to the social model of disability, inspiring a new generation of disability geographers with an interest in materialist socio-spatial politics (Butler, 1994; Imrie, 1996, 2000; Gleeson, 1996, 1999; Goggin, 2016; Park et al., 1998) and performative theories (Bissell, 2009; Hall and Wilton, 2016; Macpherson, 2009, 2010; Veal, 2017). However, little of this research has been brought to bear in tourism geographies and accessible tourism research.
Gleeson’s (1998) historical geography of disability identifies the institutionalization of ableism in the social production of space over time. Gleeson sheds light not only on the marginalization of people with disabilities resulting in disabling spaces but also attends to the diversity of disabilities absent in public discourses that have arisen through an emphasis on mobility impairment over other impairments. Despite the historical parallels in ideological changes around defining and refining the values of accessible tourism, there is rarely cross-over from the geographies of disability within tourism literature.
Similarly, a mobilities approach with its interest in the politics of movement holds the potential for considerable mileage in disability rights research (Small, 2015). Imrie (1996, 2000) suggests that to date focus on the ‘mobile body’ has proceeded with normalising discourses that (re)produce the structured inequalities inherent in movement and mobility patterns. Even looking at the scale of the body, Veal's (2017) examination of the micro-mobilities of the dancing body highlights the role of the ‘imperfect’ body and what different bodies are perceived as (in)capable of doing. However, the notion of the mobile body remains under-represented in tourism research.
Furthermore, tourism’s emphasis on embodied experiences promises fertile ground for cultivating a research agenda on dis/abled bodies (see Small, 2015). Yet, research on the spatial body and disability place-making have yet to gain traction in the field. Specifically, research on the relationality of disability offers much for tourism studies. Employing non-representational theory and critical disability studies, scholars work from the ontological position of disability as an emergent property of bodies enacting their everyday practices (see Hall and Wilton, 2016; Macpherson, 2009, 2010; Bissell, 2009). In so doing, the significance of assemblages, inter-corporeality, body-landscape, and affective intensities for the emergence of the dis/abled body can be better observed in tourism research contexts.
Call for Papers
This special issue aims to inspire a revived research agenda driven by interdisciplinary perspectives on accessible tourism geographies and disability mobilities. To date, accessible tourism research and disability geographies exhibit little cross-fertilization. The current research in accessible tourism emphasizes barriers to access and industry obligations to people with disabilities, while disability geographers are focused on materialist socio-spatial politics and performative approaches to disabled embodiment. Bridging these two research domains promises to enrich our understanding of disability experiences and accessibility rights in tourism contexts, with both theoretical and managerial implications for building a disability-friendly and just civil society.
We welcome contributions that draw on case studies from all parts of the world and socio-cultural and political contexts, as well as studies addressing a variety of sub-sectors of tourism. Papers should be both empirically grounded and conceptually innovative. Topics suitable for this special issue include but are not limited to the following:
This special issue aims to inspire a revived research agenda driven by interdisciplinary perspectives on accessible tourism geographies and disability mobilities. To date, accessible tourism research and disability geographies exhibit little cross-fertilization. The current research in accessible tourism emphasizes barriers to access and industry obligations to people with disabilities, while disability geographers are focused on materialist socio-spatial politics and performative approaches to disabled embodiment. Bridging these two research domains promises to enrich our understanding of disability experiences and accessibility rights in tourism contexts, with both theoretical and managerial implications for building a disability-friendly and just civil society.
We welcome contributions that draw on case studies from all parts of the world and socio-cultural and political contexts, as well as studies addressing a variety of sub-sectors of tourism. Papers should be both empirically grounded and conceptually innovative. Topics suitable for this special issue include but are not limited to the following:
- Disability and tourism place-making
- Disability and the production of tourism space
- Disabled embodiment in tourism experiences
- Critical disability studies for tourism geographies
- The representation of disability in tourism marketing, travel blogs, and/or social media
- Disability and intersectionality in tourism contexts
- Social justice and accessible tourism
- Accessible tourism and the UN Sustainable Development Goals
- Inclusive destination management strategies
- Accessible experience design
- Universal design in planning and development
- ICTS and/or smart tourism and disability mobilities
- Disability and tourism labour geographies
- Disability rights and host-guest relations
Author Instructions and Timeline
- 1 August 2023 – Expressions of interest (extended proposals) due
- Expressions of interest in the form of an extended abstract: max. 1000 words (excluding references, five-six keywords, full author/s details, short biographical note)
- Please send to Marcus Hansen (m.h.hansen@ljmu.ac.uk), quoting “TG Special Issue – Accessible Tourism Geographies and Disability Mobilities” in the subject panel. Questions about the Special Issue may be addressed to either of the guest editors.
- 31 August 2023 – Acceptance of initial abstracts announced.
- 15 January 2023 – Manuscripts submitted via email (m.h.hansen@ljmu.ac.uk) to guest editors for preliminary review
- Authors should adhere to Tourism Geographies author guidelines.
- After an initial review by the SI editors, all papers will undergo the usual double-blind review process. An invitation from the guest editors to submit a full paper does not guarantee publication.
- 15 March 2024 – Manuscripts submitted for peer review through the Tourism Geographies Scholars One portal
- Mid to Late 2024 – Review and revision of accepted articles
- Early 2025 – Possible Publication date. However, please note that articles will appear online as they are accepted.
References
Adam, I. (2019). Accommodators or non-accommodators? A typology of hotel frontline employees’ attitude towards guests with disabilities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 22-31.
Benjamin, S., Bottone, E., & Lee, M. (2021). Beyond accessibility: exploring the representation of people with disabilities in tourism promotional materials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(2-3), 295-313.
Bissell, D. (2009). Conceptualising differently-mobile passengers: geographies of everyday encumbrance in the railway station. Social & Cultural Geography, 10(2), 173-195.
Butler, R. E. (1994). Geography and vision-impaired and blind populations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 366-368.
Cheng, C. Y., & Chang, P. Y. (2012). Implementation of the Lean Six Sigma framework in non-profit organisations: A case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(3-4), 431-447.
Cloquet, I., Palomino, M., Shaw, G., Stephen, G., & Taylor, T. (2018). Disability, social inclusion and the marketing of tourist attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(2), 221-237.
Connell, J., & Page, S. J. (2019). Case study: Destination readiness for dementia-friendly visitor experiences: A scoping study. Tourism Management, 70, 29-41.
Cresswell, T. (2006). The right to mobility: The production of mobility in the courtroom. Antipode, 38(4), 735-754.
Darcy, S. (2006). Setting a research agenda for accessible tourism. Sustainable Tourism CRC.
Darcy, S., & Pegg, S. (2011). Towards strategic intent: Perceptions of disability service provision amongst hotel accommodation managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 468-476.
Evcil, A. N. (2018). Barriers and preferences to leisure activities for wheelchair users in historic places. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 698-715.
Gleeson, B. J. (1996). A geography for disabled people?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 387-396.
Gleeson, B. (1999). Geographies of disability. Routledge.
Goggin, G. (2016). Disability and mobilities: Evening up social futures. Mobilities, 11(4), 533-541.
Hall, E., & Wilton, R. (2017). Towards a relational geography of disability. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 727-744.
Hansen, M., Fyall, A., Macpherson, R., & Horley, J. (2021). The role of occupational therapy in accessible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 90(C).
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an “industry”: The forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism management, 27(6), 1192-1208.
Imrie, R. (2000). Disability and discourses of mobility and movement. Environment and planning A, 32(9), 1641-1656.
Imrie, R. (2000). Disabling environments and the geography of access policies and practices. Disability & Society, 15(1), 5-24.
Imrie, R. F., & Imrie, R. I. R. (1996). Disability and the city: International perspectives. Sage.
Lee, C. F., & King, B. (2019). Determinants of attractiveness for a seniors-friendly destination: a hierarchical approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(1), 71-90.
Loi, K. I., & Kong, W. H. (2017). Tourism for all: Challenges and issues faced by people with vision impairment. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(2), 181-197.
Luu, T. T. (2021). A tale of two countries: How do employees with disabilities respond to disability inclusive HR practices in tourism and hospitality industry?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(1), 299-329.
Macpherson, H. (2009). The intercorporeal emergence of landscape: Negotiating sight, blindness, and ideas of landscape in the British countryside. Environment and planning A, 41(5), 1042-1054.
Macpherson, H. (2010). Non‐representational approaches to body–landscape relations. Geography Compass, 4(1), 1-13.
Mair, J., Chien, P. M., Kelly, S. J., & Derrington, S. (2021). Social impacts of mega-events: A systematic narrative review and research agenda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-22.
McIntosh, A., & Harris, C. (2018). Representations of hospitality at the Special Needs Hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 153-159.
Michopoulou, E., Darcy, S., Ambrose, I., & Buhalis, D. (2015). Accessible tourism futures: the world we dream to live in and the opportunities we hope to have. Journal of Tourism Futures.
Nyanjom, J., Boxall, K., & Slaven, J. (2018). Towards inclusive tourism? Stakeholder collaboration in the development of accessible tourism. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 675-697.
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & society, 28(7), 1024-1026.
Park, D. C., Radford, J. P., & Vickers, M. H. (1998). Disability studies in human geography. Progress in human geography, 22(2), 208-233.
World Bank (2019) Disability Inclusion. The Word Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability (Accessed 20 March 2020)
Randle, M., & Dolnicar, S. (2019). Enabling people with impairments to use Airbnb. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 278-289.
Scheyvens, R., & Biddulph, R. (2018). Inclusive tourism development. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 589-609
Small, J. (2015). Interconnecting mobilities on tour: Tourists with vision impairment partnered with sighted tourists. Tourism Geographies, 17(1), 76-90.
Sedgley, D., Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Hanna, P. (2017). Tourism and autism: Journeys of mixed emotions. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 14-25.
Tutuncu, O. (2017). Investigating the accessibility factors affecting hotel satisfaction of people with physical disabilities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 29-36.
Veal, C. (2018). Micro‐bodily mobilities: Choreographing geographies and mobilities of dance and disability. Area, 50(3), 306-313.
Vila, T. D., Darcy, S., & González, E. A. (2015). Competing for the disability tourism market–a comparative exploration of the factors of accessible tourism competitiveness in Spain and Australia. Tourism Management, 47, 261-272.
Adam, I. (2019). Accommodators or non-accommodators? A typology of hotel frontline employees’ attitude towards guests with disabilities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 22-31.
Benjamin, S., Bottone, E., & Lee, M. (2021). Beyond accessibility: exploring the representation of people with disabilities in tourism promotional materials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(2-3), 295-313.
Bissell, D. (2009). Conceptualising differently-mobile passengers: geographies of everyday encumbrance in the railway station. Social & Cultural Geography, 10(2), 173-195.
Butler, R. E. (1994). Geography and vision-impaired and blind populations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 366-368.
Cheng, C. Y., & Chang, P. Y. (2012). Implementation of the Lean Six Sigma framework in non-profit organisations: A case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(3-4), 431-447.
Cloquet, I., Palomino, M., Shaw, G., Stephen, G., & Taylor, T. (2018). Disability, social inclusion and the marketing of tourist attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(2), 221-237.
Connell, J., & Page, S. J. (2019). Case study: Destination readiness for dementia-friendly visitor experiences: A scoping study. Tourism Management, 70, 29-41.
Cresswell, T. (2006). The right to mobility: The production of mobility in the courtroom. Antipode, 38(4), 735-754.
Darcy, S. (2006). Setting a research agenda for accessible tourism. Sustainable Tourism CRC.
Darcy, S., & Pegg, S. (2011). Towards strategic intent: Perceptions of disability service provision amongst hotel accommodation managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 468-476.
Evcil, A. N. (2018). Barriers and preferences to leisure activities for wheelchair users in historic places. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 698-715.
Gleeson, B. J. (1996). A geography for disabled people?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 387-396.
Gleeson, B. (1999). Geographies of disability. Routledge.
Goggin, G. (2016). Disability and mobilities: Evening up social futures. Mobilities, 11(4), 533-541.
Hall, E., & Wilton, R. (2017). Towards a relational geography of disability. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 727-744.
Hansen, M., Fyall, A., Macpherson, R., & Horley, J. (2021). The role of occupational therapy in accessible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 90(C).
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an “industry”: The forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism management, 27(6), 1192-1208.
Imrie, R. (2000). Disability and discourses of mobility and movement. Environment and planning A, 32(9), 1641-1656.
Imrie, R. (2000). Disabling environments and the geography of access policies and practices. Disability & Society, 15(1), 5-24.
Imrie, R. F., & Imrie, R. I. R. (1996). Disability and the city: International perspectives. Sage.
Lee, C. F., & King, B. (2019). Determinants of attractiveness for a seniors-friendly destination: a hierarchical approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(1), 71-90.
Loi, K. I., & Kong, W. H. (2017). Tourism for all: Challenges and issues faced by people with vision impairment. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(2), 181-197.
Luu, T. T. (2021). A tale of two countries: How do employees with disabilities respond to disability inclusive HR practices in tourism and hospitality industry?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(1), 299-329.
Macpherson, H. (2009). The intercorporeal emergence of landscape: Negotiating sight, blindness, and ideas of landscape in the British countryside. Environment and planning A, 41(5), 1042-1054.
Macpherson, H. (2010). Non‐representational approaches to body–landscape relations. Geography Compass, 4(1), 1-13.
Mair, J., Chien, P. M., Kelly, S. J., & Derrington, S. (2021). Social impacts of mega-events: A systematic narrative review and research agenda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-22.
McIntosh, A., & Harris, C. (2018). Representations of hospitality at the Special Needs Hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 153-159.
Michopoulou, E., Darcy, S., Ambrose, I., & Buhalis, D. (2015). Accessible tourism futures: the world we dream to live in and the opportunities we hope to have. Journal of Tourism Futures.
Nyanjom, J., Boxall, K., & Slaven, J. (2018). Towards inclusive tourism? Stakeholder collaboration in the development of accessible tourism. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 675-697.
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & society, 28(7), 1024-1026.
Park, D. C., Radford, J. P., & Vickers, M. H. (1998). Disability studies in human geography. Progress in human geography, 22(2), 208-233.
World Bank (2019) Disability Inclusion. The Word Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability (Accessed 20 March 2020)
Randle, M., & Dolnicar, S. (2019). Enabling people with impairments to use Airbnb. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 278-289.
Scheyvens, R., & Biddulph, R. (2018). Inclusive tourism development. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 589-609
Small, J. (2015). Interconnecting mobilities on tour: Tourists with vision impairment partnered with sighted tourists. Tourism Geographies, 17(1), 76-90.
Sedgley, D., Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Hanna, P. (2017). Tourism and autism: Journeys of mixed emotions. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 14-25.
Tutuncu, O. (2017). Investigating the accessibility factors affecting hotel satisfaction of people with physical disabilities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 29-36.
Veal, C. (2018). Micro‐bodily mobilities: Choreographing geographies and mobilities of dance and disability. Area, 50(3), 306-313.
Vila, T. D., Darcy, S., & González, E. A. (2015). Competing for the disability tourism market–a comparative exploration of the factors of accessible tourism competitiveness in Spain and Australia. Tourism Management, 47, 261-272.
