Economic impact and travel patterns of accessible tourism in Europe : final report.
Date: 2015-08-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry
Subjects: Europe, economic consequence, facilities for people with disabilities, report, tourism, travel

Ref. Ares(2014)1298911 - 25/04/2014

ECONOMIC IMPACT AND 
TRAVEL PATTERNS OF 
ACCESSIBLE TOURISM IN 
EUROPE – FINAL REPORT 
Service Contract SI2.ACPROCE052481700 – 
European Commission, DG Enterprise and 
Industry 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1  Executive summary................................................................................................................... 21 

1.1 

Task 1 – Demographic profiling of tourists with special access needs ................................ 21 

1.1.1 

Task 1a – Cluster analysis ............................................................................................ 21 

1.1.2 

Task 1b – Forecasting .................................................................................................. 22 

1.2 

Task 2 – Behavioural profiling of tourist with special access needs .................................... 23 

1.2.1 

Task 2a - Website analysis ........................................................................................... 23 

1.2.2 

Task 2b – Online survey and focus groups .................................................................. 23 

1.3 

Task 3 – Evaluation of the tourist experience across different tourism sectors................... 24 

1.3.1 

Task 3a - Case-studies ................................................................................................. 24 

1.3.2 

Task 3b - Desk research on existing barriers faced or perceived by people with access 

needs  24 

1.4 

Task 4 - Estimate of the current and future economic contribution of accessible tourism .. 26 

1.4.1 

Task - 4a Stakeholder consultation .............................................................................. 26 

1.4.2 

Task 4b - Scenarios and impact assessment ............................................................... 26 

2  Presentation of the study ......................................................................................................... 29 

2.1  Objectives of the study ......................................................................................................... 29 

2.2 

Key concepts and definitions ............................................................................................... 32 

3  Task 1 – Demographic profiling of tourists with special access needs .............................. 36 

3.1 

Task 1a – Cluster analysis ................................................................................................... 36 

3.1.1  Methodology ................................................................................................................. 36 

3.1.2 

Results .......................................................................................................................... 37 

3.2 

Task 1b – Forecasting ......................................................................................................... 40 

3.2.1  Methodology ................................................................................................................. 40 

3.2.1.1 

Current demand estimation ................................................................................... 40 

3.2.1.2 

Future demand estimation ..................................................................................... 42 

3.2.1.3 

Tourism demand estimation under different scenarios of improvements ............. 43 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

2 

 
 
3.2.2 

Population of people with special access needs .......................................................... 44 

3.2.2.1 

Evolution of population .......................................................................................... 44 

3.2.2.2 

People with special access needs ......................................................................... 54 

3.2.3 

Demand for accessible tourism .................................................................................... 73 

3.2.3.1 

Travel behaviour .................................................................................................... 73 

3.2.3.2 

Current tourism demand and forecasts ................................................................. 84 

3.2.4 

Demand for accessible tourism under different scenarios of improvements ................ 94 

3.2.4.1 

Travel behaviour under different scenarios ........................................................... 94 

3.2.4.2 

Tourism demand and forecasts under different scenarios .................................... 98 

3.2.5 

Demand for accessible tourism – International inbound markets ............................... 103 

3.2.5.1 

Travel behaviour .................................................................................................. 103 

3.2.5.2 

Current tourism demand and forecasts ............................................................... 107 

3.2.6 

Demand for accessible tourism under different scenarios – International inbound 

markets  111 

3.2.6.1 

Travel behaviour under different scenarios ......................................................... 111 

3.2.6.2 

Tourism demand and forecasts under different scenarios .................................. 114 

4  Task 2 – Behavioural profiling of tourist with special access needs ................................ 119 

4.1 

Task 2a - Website analysis ................................................................................................ 119 

4.1.1  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 119 

4.1.1.1 

Scope ................................................................................................................... 119 

4.1.1.2  Website analysis .................................................................................................. 122 

4.1.1.3 

Print media analysis ............................................................................................ 126 

4.1.2 

Results ........................................................................................................................ 126 

4.1.2.1 

Tourist boards ...................................................................................................... 126 

4.1.2.2 

Railways .............................................................................................................. 130 

4.1.2.3 

Airlines ................................................................................................................. 133 

4.1.2.4 

Tour operators ..................................................................................................... 135 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

3 

 
 
4.1.2.5 

Booking portals .................................................................................................... 136 

4.1.2.6 

Hotels ................................................................................................................... 137 

4.1.2.7 

Beach destinations .............................................................................................. 138 

4.1.2.8 

City destinations .................................................................................................. 139 

4.1.2.9 

Good practice examples ...................................................................................... 141 

4.1.3 

Summary and discussion ............................................................................................ 149 

4.1.4 

Brochure analysis ....................................................................................................... 152 

4.2 

Task 2b – Online survey and focus groups ....................................................................... 154 

4.2.1  Overview ..................................................................................................................... 154 

4.2.2 

EU - Overall results ..................................................................................................... 155 

4.2.2.1 

Travel behaviour .................................................................................................. 155 

4.2.2.2 

Decision-making .................................................................................................. 169 

4.2.2.3 

Experience ........................................................................................................... 174 

4.2.2.4 

Expectations & future .......................................................................................... 187 

4.2.3 

EU - Results by limitation ............................................................................................ 193 

4.2.3.1 

Travel behaviour .................................................................................................. 193 

4.2.3.1.1  Reasons for not travelling ................................................................................ 193 

4.2.3.1.2  Preferred holiday periods ................................................................................. 194 

4.2.3.1.3  Travel companions ........................................................................................... 195 

4.2.3.1.4  Destinations ..................................................................................................... 196 

4.2.3.1.5  Reasons for travelling outside the EU ............................................................. 196 

4.2.3.1.6  Type of accommodation ................................................................................... 197 

4.2.3.1.7  Modes of transport to and from destination ..................................................... 198 

4.2.3.1.8  Modes of transport at destination .................................................................... 199 

4.2.3.1.9  Participation in activities ................................................................................... 200 

4.2.3.2 

Decision-making .................................................................................................. 202 

4.2.3.2.1  Most important information sources when deciding travel plans ..................... 202 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

4 

 
 
4.2.3.2.2  Booking channels ............................................................................................. 205 

4.2.3.2.3  Checking of accessibility conditions and/or available help at travel destination 

before travelling .................................................................................................................. 207 

4.2.3.3 

Experience ........................................................................................................... 208 

4.2.3.3.1  Aspects of importance when choosing travel destination ................................ 208 

4.2.3.3.2  Satisfaction with each of these aspects ........................................................... 210 

4.2.3.3.3  Experience of barriers or restrictions ............................................................... 211 

4.2.3.3.4  Aspects regarding buildings visited ................................................................. 212 

4.2.3.4 

Expectations & future .......................................................................................... 213 

4.2.3.4.1  Likelihood to travel more or return to the same destination ............................. 213 

4.2.3.4.2  Paying more for accessible products or services ............................................ 213 

4.2.3.4.3  Use of specific items ........................................................................................ 214 

4.2.4 

EU - Country results ................................................................................................... 214 

4.2.4.1 

People who travel with children ........................................................................... 214 

4.2.4.2 

People aged 65 and above.................................................................................. 220 

4.2.4.3 

People with a limitation ........................................................................................ 222 

4.2.5 

EU - Socio-demographic profile .................................................................................. 227 

4.2.5.1 

Gender and age ................................................................................................... 227 

4.2.5.2 

Special access needs .......................................................................................... 227 

4.2.5.3 

Occupation and income ....................................................................................... 229 

4.2.5.4 

Education ............................................................................................................. 231 

4.2.5.5 

Living situation ..................................................................................................... 231 

4.2.6 

Focus groups – Overall results ................................................................................... 231 

4.2.6.1 

Overall findings .................................................................................................... 232 

4.2.6.2 

Detailed findings for Ireland ................................................................................. 232 

4.2.6.3 

Detailed findings for Lithuania ............................................................................. 234 

4.2.7 

EU - Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 237 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

5 

 
 
4.2.8 

Inbound markets – Overall results .............................................................................. 239 

4.2.8.1 

Travel behaviour .................................................................................................. 239 

4.2.8.2 

Decision-making and booking ............................................................................. 240 

4.2.8.3 

Experience ........................................................................................................... 241 

4.2.8.4 

Expectations & future .......................................................................................... 242 

5  Task 3 – Evaluation of the tourist experience across different tourism sectors ............. 243 

5.1 

Task 3a - Case-studies ...................................................................................................... 243 

5.1.1  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 243 

5.1.2 

Preliminary results and hypotheses ............................................................................ 246 

5.1.3 

Case studies ............................................................................................................... 248 

5.1.3.1 

Case Study: The City of Erfurt ............................................................................. 248 

5.1.3.2 

Case Study: Accessible Poland Tours ................................................................ 251 

5.1.3.3 

Case Study: Château des Ducs de Bretagne...................................................... 255 

5.1.3.4 

Case Study: Cave St Martin Winery – Remich, Luxemburg ............................... 260 

5.1.3.5 

Case Study: Berlin City, Germany ....................................................................... 264 

5.1.3.6 

Case Study: Barcelona metro.............................................................................. 269 

5.1.3.7 

Case Study: Scandic Hotels ................................................................................ 273 

5.1.3.8 

Case Study: GVAM ............................................................................................. 276 

5.1.3.9 

Case study: Restaurant Monnalisa Beach Restaurant ....................................... 278 

5.1.3.10  Case study: Restaurant I Girasoli ........................................................................ 281 

5.1.4 

Analysis of the case studies ....................................................................................... 284 

5.1.5 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 287 

5.2 

Task 3b - Desk research on existing barriers faced or perceived by people with access 

needs 288 

5.2.1  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 288 

5.2.1.1 

Desk research ..................................................................................................... 288 

5.2.1.1.1  First round of desk research: Identification of secondary sources .................. 289 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

6 

 
 
5.2.1.1.2  First round of desk research: Examination/ assessment of relevant secondary 

sources 

292 

5.2.1.1.3  Second round of desk research: Identification of additional secondary sources

296 

5.2.1.2 

Development of hypotheses and hypothesis testing procedures ........................ 299 

5.2.1.3 

Comparative analysis of primary and secondary data sources ........................... 304 

5.2.2 

Findings ...................................................................................................................... 304 

5.2.2.1 

Barriers encountered in the pre-travel / information-gathering stage .................. 306 

5.2.2.2 

Barriers encountered in the transit/ transport stage: arrival/ departure ............... 335 

5.2.2.3 

Barriers encountered with transport at the destination and access paths .......... 340 

5.2.2.4 

Barriers encountered in the accommodation sector ............................................ 347 

5.2.2.5 

Barriers encountered in the catering/ gastronomy/ food & beverage sector ....... 358 

5.2.2.6 

Barriers encountered with attractions/ activities .................................................. 362 

5.2.2.7 

Barriers: cross-sector comparisons ..................................................................... 369 

5.2.2.7.1  1st cross-sector hypothesis: Physical access versus attitudinal barriers across 

all sectors  370 

5.2.2.7.2  2nd cross-sector hypothesis: Frequency of barriers across all sectors ........... 375 

5.2.2.7.3  3rd cross-sector hypothesis: Inaccessible toilets as most important barrier 

across all sectors ............................................................................................................... 381 

6  Task 4 - Estimate of the current and future economic contribution of accessible tourism

387 

6.1 

Task - 4a Stakeholder consultation .................................................................................... 387 

6.1.1  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 387 

6.1.1.1 

Focus groups ....................................................................................................... 387 

6.1.1.2 

In-depth-interviews (IDIs) .................................................................................... 391 

6.1.2 

Results ........................................................................................................................ 392 

6.1.2.1 

Associations with accessible tourism .................................................................. 392 

6.1.2.2 

Product development and marketing ................................................................... 392 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

7 

 
 
 
 
6.1.2.3 

Motivations .......................................................................................................... 393 

6.1.2.4 

Success factors and recommendations .............................................................. 393 

6.1.2.5 

Economic meaning and potential impact ............................................................. 394 

6.1.2.6 

Scenario Analysis ................................................................................................ 394 

6.1.2.7 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 396 

6.2  Current economic contribution ........................................................................................... 397 

6.2.1  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 397 

6.2.1.1 

Direct economic contribution estimation .............................................................. 397 

6.2.1.2 

Total economic contribution estimation – indirect and induced effects ............... 397 

6.2.1.3 

Effect of travel companions ................................................................................. 399 

6.2.2 

Results ........................................................................................................................ 400 

6.2.2.1 

Direct economic contribution ............................................................................... 400 

6.2.2.2 

Total economic contribution................................................................................. 414 

6.2.2.3 

Effect of travel companions ................................................................................. 419 

6.2.3 

Results – International inbound markets .................................................................... 425 

6.2.3.1 Direct economic contribution ..................................................................................... 425 

6.2.3.2 Total economic contribution ....................................................................................... 429 

6.2.3.3 

Effects of travel companions ............................................................................... 434 

6.3 

Task 4b - Scenarios and impact assessment .................................................................... 437 

6.3.1  Methodology ............................................................................................................... 437 

6.3.2 

Results ........................................................................................................................ 438 

6.3.2.1 

Direct economic contribution under different scenarios ...................................... 438 

6.3.2.2 

Total economic contribution under different scenarios ........................................ 442 

6.3.2.3 

Effect of travel companions ................................................................................. 445 

6.3.3 Results – International inbound markets .......................................................................... 447 

6.3.3.1 Direct economic contribution under different scenarios ............................................ 447 

6.3.3.2 Total economic contribution under different scenarios .............................................. 452 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

8 

 
 
6.3.3.3 Effect of travel companions ....................................................................................... 455 

6.4 

Summary of hypothesis results .......................................................................................... 457 

6.5 

Limitations of demand forecasting and economic impact assessment .............................. 461 

7  Task 5 - Recommendations and success factors ................................................................ 463 

1. Commitment of the decision-makers ........................................................................................ 464 

2. Coordinating and continuity ...................................................................................................... 465 

3. Networking and participation .................................................................................................... 465 

4. Strategic planning ..................................................................................................................... 466 

5. Knowledge management and qualification ............................................................................... 467 

6. Optimisation of resources ......................................................................................................... 467 

7. Communication and marketing ................................................................................................. 468 

Roadmap to success .................................................................................................................... 469 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of figures 

Figure 1 - Key study tasks .................................................................................................................. 30 

Figure 2 - Analysis of Demand for Accessible Tourism and its Economic Impacts ........................... 31 

Figure 3 - Results of cluster analysis (detailed table) ........................................................................ 38 

Figure 4 - Results of cluster analysis (map) ....................................................................................... 39 

Figure 5 - Estimation of Demand for Accessible Tourism .................................................................. 40 

Figure 6 - The working age population trend in the EU27 countries over 1960-2011 and forecasts 

from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) ........................................................................................... 46 

Figure 7 - The working age population trend in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 and forecasts 

from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) ........................................................................................... 47 

Figure 8 - The elderly population trend in the EU27 countries over 1960-2011 and forecasts from 

2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) ................................................................................................... 48 

Figure 9 - The elderly population trend in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 and forecasts from 

2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) ................................................................................................... 49 

Figure 10 - Average annual growth rate of working age population in EU27 countries over 1960-

2011 (unit: %) .............................................................................................................................. 50 

Figure 11 - Average annual growth rate of elderly population in EU27 countries over 1960-2011 

(unit: %) ....................................................................................................................................... 51 

Figure 12 - Average annual growth rate of working age population in key inbound markets over 

1960-2011 (unit: %) ..................................................................................................................... 52 

Figure 13 - Average annual growth rate of elderly population in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 

(unit: %) ....................................................................................................................................... 53 

Figure 14 - The population of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets 

in 2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) ......................................................................................................... 56 

Figure 15 - The elderly population in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets in 2011 (unit: ‘000 

persons) ...................................................................................................................................... 57 

Figure 16 - The population with access needs in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets in 

2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) ............................................................................................................ 58 

Figure 17 - People with access needs in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets as of 2011 

(unit: ‘000 persons) ...................................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 18 - People with access needs in the EU27 countries as of 2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) .......... 60 

Figure 19 - Implied annual growth rate of people with access needs in the EU27 countries over 2011 

– 2020 (unit: %) ........................................................................................................................... 61 

Figure 20 - Implied annual growth rate of people with access needs in the EU27 area and the key 

international inbound markets over 2011 – 2020 (unit: %) ......................................................... 62 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

10 

 
 
 
Figure 21 - Prevalence rate of disabilities in EU27 countries (%) ...................................................... 63 

Figure 22 - Prevalence rate of disabilities in the EU27 area and key inbound markets (%) .............. 63 

Figure 23 - Estimations of prevalence of disability in Europe ............................................................ 65 

Figure 24 - Distribution of each type of disability in EU countries ...................................................... 69 

Figure 25 - Distribution of each type of disability in key inbound markets ......................................... 70 

Figure 26 - Elderly population in EU27 countries by gender in 2011 (unit: thousands) ..................... 71 

Figure 27 - Elderly population in major international inbound markets by gender in 2011 (unit: 

thousands) ................................................................................................................................... 72 

Figure 28 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs: EU-wide averages, 2012 ...................... 75 

Figure 29 - Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries: country-specific 

averages, 2012 – Day trips ......................................................................................................... 76 

Figure 30 - Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries: country-specific 

averages, 2012 – Overnight trips ................................................................................................ 78 

Figure 31 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the EU27 countries: country-specific 

averages, 2012 – Day trips ......................................................................................................... 80 

Figure 32 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the EU27 countries: country-specific 

averages, 2012 – Overnight trips ................................................................................................ 82 

Figure 33 - The current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people from EU27 area in 2012 .... 85 

Figure 34 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by EU27 countries from 2012-

2020 (unit: ‘000 trips)................................................................................................................... 87 

Figure 35 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities from 

2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) ......................................................................................................... 88 

Figure 36 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population from 

2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) ......................................................................................................... 89 

Figure 37 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs in the EU27 

countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 trips) ............................................................................................... 90 

Figure 38 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities in the EU27 

countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 trips) ............................................................................................... 91 

Figure 39 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population in the EU27 

countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 trips) ............................................................................................... 92 

Figure 40 – Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities in the 

EU27 countries: by types of impairment (unit: ‘000 trips) ........................................................... 93 

Figure 41 - Increased willingness to travel under different scenarios – existing travellers ..... 95 

Figure 42 - Willingness to travel under different scenarios – non-travellers ............................. 96 

Figure 43 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs under different scenario A (minimum 

improvements): EU-wide averages ............................................................................................. 96 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

11 

 
 
Figure 44 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs under different scenario B (medium 

improvements): EU-wide averages ............................................................................................. 97 

Figure 45 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs under different scenario C (extensive 

improvements): EU-wide averages ............................................................................................. 97 

Figure 46 - Summary of potential demand for accessible tourism under different scenarios in 2012 99 

Figure 47 - Demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs in the EU27 countries 

(unit: ‘000 trips) .......................................................................................................................... 100 

Figure 48 - Demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities in the EU27 countries 

(unit: ‘000 trips) .......................................................................................................................... 101 

Figure 49 - Demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population in the EU27 countries 

(unit: ‘000 trips) .......................................................................................................................... 102 

Figure 50- Departures to the EU per 100 people in 2011 by all tourists from key international 

inbound markets (unit: trips per year) .................................................................................. 106 

Figure 51 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs from 

key international inbound markets in 2012 .......................................................................... 107 

Figure 52- Share of current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs 

from key international inbound markets in 2012 ................................................................. 109 

Figure 53 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access 

needs from the key international inbound markets from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) ..... 110 

Figure 54. Increased willingness to travel under scenarios – existing travellers ................... 112 

Figure 55 - Willingness to travel under different scenarios – new travellers ........................... 113 

Figure 56 - Departures to the EU per 100 people by all tourists from key international inbound 

markets under different scenarios (unit: trips per year) ..................................................... 114 

Figure 57- Summary of potential total demand for accessible tourism by the key international 

inbound markets under different scenarios in 2012 ............................................................ 115 

Figure 58 - Total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs from the 

11 key international inbound markets (unit: ‘000 trips) ...................................................... 116 

Figure 59 - Total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities from the 11 

key international inbound markets (unit: ‘000 trips) ........................................................... 117 

Figure 60 - Total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population from the 11 

key international inbound markets (unit: ‘000 trips) ........................................................... 117 

Figure 61 - Key questions to address in the website analysis ......................................................... 120 

Figure 62 - Website analysis approach ............................................................................................ 122 

Figure 63 - Target groups ................................................................................................................. 127 

Figure 64 - Number of websites addressing each part of the service chain .................................... 128 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

12 

 
 
Figure 65 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 129 

Figure 66 - Target groups ................................................................................................................. 130 

Figure 67 - Number of websites addressing each part of the service chain .................................... 131 

Figure 68 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 132 

Figure 69 - Target groups ................................................................................................................. 133 

Figure 70 - Number of websites addressing each part of the service chain .................................... 134 

Figure 71 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 135 

Figure 72 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 136 

Figure 73 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 137 

Figure 74 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 138 

Figure 75 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 139 

Figure 76 - Target groups ................................................................................................................. 140 

Figure 77 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 141 

Figure 78 - Screenshot of "Visit England" with attractive pictures and helpful information .............. 142 

Figure 79 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of the 

website is included) ................................................................................................................... 143 

Figure 80 – God Adgang case-study ................................................................................................ 144 

Figure 81 – Visit England case-study ............................................................................................... 145 

Figure 82 - Toegankelijk Vlaanderen case-study ............................................................................. 146 

Figure 83 - Tourisme et Handicap case-study ................................................................................. 147 

Figure 84 – Eurewelcome case-study .............................................................................................. 148 

Figure 85 - Number of websites with (yes) and without (no) information on accessible offers ........ 149 

Figure 86 - Number of websites with (yes) and without (no) external links to specialized websites 152 

Figure 87 – Reasons for not travelling in the past 12 months .......................................................... 155 

Figure 88 - Seasonality ..................................................................................................................... 157 

Figure 89 – Travel companions ........................................................................................................ 158 

Figure 90 - Destinations ................................................................................................................... 160 

Figure 91 – Reasons for travelling outside the EU ........................................................................... 162 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

13 

 
 
Figure 92 – Accommodation............................................................................................................. 164 

Figure 93 – Transport means ........................................................................................................... 165 

Figure 94 – Activities at destination .................................................................................................. 167 

Figure 95 – Information sources ....................................................................................................... 169 

Figure 96 – Booking channels .......................................................................................................... 171 

Figure 97 – Checking accessibility prior to trips ............................................................................... 172 

Figure 98 – Accessibility information ................................................................................................ 173 

Figure 99 – Importance of trip aspects – People with limitations ..................................................... 174 

Figure 100 - Importance of trip aspects – People above 65 ............................................................ 175 

Figure 101 - Importance of trip aspects – Travel with children ........................................................ 176 

Figure 102 – Satisfaction with trip aspects – People with limitations ............................................... 178 

Figure 103 – Satisfaction with trip aspects – People above 65 ........................................................ 179 

Figure 104 – Satisfaction with trip aspects – Travel with children.................................................... 180 

Figure 105 – Barriers ........................................................................................................................ 182 

Figure 106 – Importance of building aspects – People with limitations ........................................... 183 

Figure 107 – Importance of building aspects – Travel with children ................................................ 184 

Figure 108 – Importance of building aspects – People above 65 .................................................... 184 

Figure 109 – Satisfaction with building aspects – People with limitations ....................................... 185 

Figure 110 – Satisfaction with building aspects – People above 65 ................................................ 186 

Figure 111 – Satisfaction with building aspects – Travel with children ............................................ 186 

Figure 112 – Likelihood to travel more often .................................................................................... 187 

Figure 113 – Spending more for accessibility – People with limitations .......................................... 188 

Figure 114 - Spending more for accessibility – People above 65 .................................................... 189 

Figure 115 - Spending more for accessibility – Travel with children ................................................ 189 

Figure 116 – Potential use of accessibility items ............................................................................. 191 

Figure 117 – Likelihood to go back to the same destination ............................................................ 192 

Figure 118 – Case studies................................................................................................................ 247 

Figure 119 – Official logo of Erfurt tourism board ............................................................................ 251 

Figure 120 – Official logo of Accessible Poland Tours ..................................................................... 254 

Figure 121 – English version of the flyer .......................................................................................... 254 

Figure 122 – Example of the official website „http://www.accessibletour.pl” ................................... 255 

Figure 123 – Château des Ducs de Bretagne .................................................................................. 260 

Figure 124 – Parking place and entrance to the Winery (Photo: www.welcome.lu) ........................ 262 

Figure 125 – The Eurewelcome label at the Winery entrance door (Photo: NeumannConsult 2013)

 ................................................................................................................................................... 262 

Figure 126 – The wine cellar (Photo: NeumannConsult 2013) ........................................................ 263 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

14 

 
 
Figure 127 – Webpage www.welcome.lu ......................................................................................... 263 

Figure 128 – Label “Berlin barrierefrei” (Source: www.berlin.de/lb/behi/barrierefrei/signets/index.html 

) ................................................................................................................................................. 265 

Figure 129 – Website www.visitberlin.de ......................................................................................... 268 

Figure 130 – Evolution of the adapted stations ................................................................................ 270 

Figure 131 – Evolution of the client satisfaction index ..................................................................... 271 

Figure 132 – Official logo of the FGC ............................................................................................... 272 

Figure 133 – Website of the FGC ..................................................................................................... 272 

Figure 134 – Official logo of Scandic ................................................................................................ 275 

Figure 135 – Scandic webpage ........................................................................................................ 275 

Figure 136 – GVAM webpage .......................................................................................................... 278 

Figure 137 – Official logo of SGVAM ............................................................................................... 278 

Figure 138 – Monnalisa restaurant (Photo: http://www.campingflorenz.it/ita/servizi/monnalisa.php )

 ................................................................................................................................................... 281 

Figure 139 – Girasoli restaurant (Photos: http://www.igirasoli.ar.it) ................................................. 284 

Figure 140 – Case studies and success factors .............................................................................. 285 

Figure 141 – Case study analysis .................................................................................................... 286 

Figure 142 – Purposes of desk research ......................................................................................... 289 

Figure 143 – Keywords/ parameters used for the identification of secondary sources.................... 290 

Figure 144 – Publication period of articles identified during the first search round.......................... 291 

Figure 145 – Simultaneous screening process used for the examination/ assessment of secondary 

sources ...................................................................................................................................... 292 

Figure 146 – Articles dealing with access barriers by type of impairment/ restriction...................... 294 

Figure 147 – Articles dealing with access barriers by tourism sector .............................................. 295 

Figure 148 – Articles dealing with access barriers by geographical coverage ................................ 296 

Figure 149 – The desk research process ......................................................................................... 297 

Figure 150 – Five main categories of access needs for analysis..................................................... 299 

Figure 151 – Summary of testing procedures .................................................................................. 302 

Figure 152 – Summary of categories of barriers .............................................................................. 306 

Figure 153 – Imbalance between Information Requirements and Information Provision ................ 307 

Figure 154 – Barriers in the pre-travel stage .................................................................................... 313 

Figure 155 – Geographical coverage of analysed Accessible Tourism Information Schemes ........ 315 

Figure 156 – Framework of interrelated information need components .......................................... 316 

Figure 157 – Useful and counterproductive aspects of access schemes ........................................ 317 

Figure 158 – H24: Barriers - Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage by type of access need

 ................................................................................................................................................... 321 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

15 

 
 
Figure 159 – H24 Barriers - Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage by country of origin ...... 322 

Figure 160 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: importance of general 

information sources by type of access need ............................................................................. 324 

Figure 161 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: importance of general 

information sources by country of origin ................................................................................... 325 

Figure 162 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important source of 

information – Individuals with mobility difficulties ...................................................................... 327 

Figure 163 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important source of 

information – Individuals with sensory difficulties ..................................................................... 327 

Figure 164 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important source of 

information – Individuals with communication difficulties .......................................................... 328 

Figure 165 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important source of 

information – Individuals with behavioural difficulties ............................................................... 328 

Figure 166 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important source of 

information – Individuals with hidden difficulties ....................................................................... 329 

Figure 167 – H26 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Information is sufficient, 

reliable and accessible by type of access need ........................................................................ 331 

Figure 168 – H26 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Information is sufficient, 

reliable and accessible by country of origin .............................................................................. 333 

Figure 169 – Barriers at airports and airlines ................................................................................... 336 

Figure 170 – H27 Barriers: Transit stage: Attitudinal versus physical access barriers by type of 

access need .............................................................................................................................. 340 

Figure 171 – Barriers experienced when moving around at the destination .................................... 341 

Figure 172 – H28 Barriers: At the destination: Importance of access pathways and accessible 

parking by type of access need ................................................................................................. 344 

Figure 173 – H28 Barriers: At the destination: Importance of access pathways and accessible 

parking by destination ............................................................................................................... 346 

Figure 174 – Barriers experienced with hotel establishments .......................................................... 348 

Figure 175 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in the accommodation sector 

(United States) .......................................................................................................................... 348 

Figure 176 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in the accommodation sector 

(China) ....................................................................................................................................... 349 

Figure 177 – H29 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Physical access barriers versus attitudinal 

barriers by type of access need ................................................................................................ 352 

Figure 178 – H29 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Physical access barriers versus attitudinal 

barriers by destination ............................................................................................................... 354 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

16 

 
 
Figure 179 – H30 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Satisfaction with toilets by type of access need

 ................................................................................................................................................... 356 

Figure 180 – H30 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Satisfaction with toilets by destination ........... 356 

Figure 181 – Barriers experienced in the Food and Beverage Sector  ............................................ 359 

Figure 182 – H31 Barriers: Food & Beverage sector compared to other sectors by type of access 

need........................................................................................................................................... 360 

Figure 183 – H31 Barriers: Food & Beverage sector compared to other sectors by destination ..... 361 

Figure 184 – Main barriers encountered when visiting historic attractions ...................................... 363 

Figure 185 – Main barriers encountered when visiting historic attractions and outdoor attractions 

(Australia) .................................................................................................................................. 363 

Figure 186 – H32 Barriers: Attraction sector: Nature-based activities by type of access need ....... 367 

Figure 187 – H32 Barriers: Attraction sector: Nature-based activities by destination ...................... 367 

Figure 188 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in different sectors (United States)

 ................................................................................................................................................... 371 

Figure 189 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in different sectors (China) ..... 372 

Figure 190 – H33 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Physical access vs. attitudinal barriers by type 

of access need .......................................................................................................................... 372 

Figure 191 – H33 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Physical access vs. attitudinal barriers by 

destination ................................................................................................................................. 374 

Figure 192 – Frequency of barriers encountered in different sectors (United States I) ................... 376 

Figure 193 – Frequency of barriers encountered in different sectors (United States II) .................. 376 

Figure 194 – Frequency of barriers encountered in different sectors (China) ................................. 377 

Figure 195 – H34 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Frequency of barriers by type of access need

 ................................................................................................................................................... 378 

Figure 196 – H34 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Frequency of barriers by destination .......... 380 

Figure 197 – H35 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Importance of barriers by type of access need

 ................................................................................................................................................... 384 

Figure 198 – H35 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Importance of barriers by destination ......... 385 

Figure 199 - Pre-focus group participants ........................................................................................ 388 

Figure 200 - Focus group participants .............................................................................................. 390 

Figure 201 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs: EU-wide averages of per person 

spending, 2012 .......................................................................................................................... 401 

Figure 202- Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries: country-specific 

averages of per person spending, 2012 ................................................................................... 402 

Figure 203 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the EU27 countries: country-specific 

averages of per person spending, 2012 ................................................................................... 405 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

17 

 
 
Figure 204 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the EU27 

countries in 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 409 

Figure 205 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism in 2012 ............................... 410 

Figure 206 - Breakdown of Gross Turnover Contributed by People with Access Needs in EU27 

Countries ................................................................................................................................... 411 

Figure 207 - Breakdown of Direct Gross Value Added Contributed by People with Access Needs in 

EU27 Countries ......................................................................................................................... 412 

Figure 208 - Breakdown of Direct Employment Contributed by People with Access Needs in EU27 

Countries ................................................................................................................................... 413 

Figure 209 - Breakdown of total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people with 

access needs in the EU27 countries ......................................................................................... 414 

Figure 210 - Total output contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the EU27 countries 

in 2012 (unit: ‘000 000 €) .......................................................................................................... 415 

Figure 211 - Total gross value added contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 

EU27 countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 000 €) ................................................................................. 415 

Figure 212 - Total employment contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the EU27 

countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 persons) ....................................................................................... 416 

Figure 213 - Breakdown of Total Output Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by Source Market

 ................................................................................................................................................... 417 

Figure 214 - Breakdown of Total Gross Value Added Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by 

Source Market ........................................................................................................................... 418 

Figure 215 - Breakdown of Total Employment Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by Source 

Market ....................................................................................................................................... 418 

Figure 216 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism: without/with travel companions ... 420 

Figure 217 - Potential travel market and tourism revenues of Accessible Tourism ......................... 422 

Figure 218 - Average number of companions travelled with people with disabilities from the EU27 

countries .................................................................................................................................... 423 

Figure 219 - Average number of companions travelled with the elderly population from the EU27 

countries .................................................................................................................................... 424 

Figure 220 - Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the 11 key international inbound markets: 

averages of per person spending, 2012 ................................................................................... 426 

Figure 221 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the 11 key international inbound markets: 

averages of per person spending, 2012 ................................................................................... 427 

Figure 222 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the key 

international inbound markets in 2012 ...................................................................................... 428 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

18 

 
 
Figure 223 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism associated with people with 

access needs from the key international inbound markets in 2012 .......................................... 428 

Figure 224 - Breakdown of total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people with 

access needs from all the 11 key international inbound markets ............................................. 429 

Figure 225 - Total output contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 11 key 

international inbound markets in 2012 (unit: '000 000 €) .......................................................... 430 

Figure 226 - Total gross value added contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 11 

key international inbound markets in 2012 (unit: '000 000 €) ................................................... 430 

Figure 227 - Total employment contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 11 key 

international inbound markets in 2012 (unit: '000 persons) ...................................................... 431 

Figure 228 - Breakdown of Total Output Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by Source Market

 ................................................................................................................................................... 432 

Figure 229 - Breakdown of Total Gross Value Added Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by 

Source Market ........................................................................................................................... 433 

Figure 230 - Breakdown of Total Employment Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by Source 

Market ....................................................................................................................................... 434 

Figure 231 - Average number of companions travelled with people with disabilities from the 11 key 

international inbound markets ................................................................................................... 435 

Figure 232 - Average number of companions travelled with the elderly population from the 11 key 

international inbound markets ................................................................................................... 435 

Figure 233 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism: without/with travel companions ... 436 

Figure 234 - Percentage of extra budget under different scenarios by all existing travellers with 

access needs from the EU27 countries .................................................................................... 439 

Figure 235 - Estimation of direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different 

scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 440 

Figure 236 - Breakdown of direct economic contribution under different scenarios between existing 

travellers and new travellers ..................................................................................................... 441 

Figure 237 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios by 

people with access needs in the EU27 countries ..................................................................... 442 

Figure 238 - Total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios by 

people with access needs in the EU27 countries ..................................................................... 443 

Figure 239 - Total output contribution under different scenarios by people with access needs (unit: 

'000 000 €) ................................................................................................................................. 443 

Figure 240 - Total gross value added contribution under different scenarios by people with access 

needs (unit: '000 000 €) ............................................................................................................. 444 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

19 

 
 
Figure 241 - Total employment contribution under different scenarios by people with access needs 

(unit: '000 persons) .................................................................................................................... 444 

Figure 242 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios: 

without/with travel companions ................................................................................................. 445 

Figure 243 - Percentage of extra budget under different scenarios by all travellers with access needs 

from the 11 key international inbound markets ......................................................................... 447 

Figure 244 - Estimation of direct economic contribution (gross turnover) of EU’s accessible tourism 

under different scenarios ........................................................................................................... 449 

Figure 245 - Breakdown of direct economic contribution under different scenarios between existing 

travellers and new travellers ..................................................................................................... 450 

Figure 246 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios by 

people with access needs from the 11 key international inbound markets............................... 451 

Figure 247 - Total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios by 

people with access needs from all the 11 key international inbound markets .......................... 452 

Figure 248 - Total output contribution under different scenarios by people with access needs (unit: 

'000 000 €) ................................................................................................................................. 453 

Figure 249 - Total gross value added contribution under different scenarios by people with access 

needs (unit: '000 000 €) ............................................................................................................. 454 

Figure 250 - Total employment contribution under different scenarios by people with access needs 

(unit: '000 persons) .................................................................................................................... 455 

Figure 251 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios: 

without/with travel companions ................................................................................................. 456 

Figure 252 - Top 10 source markets for accessible tourism demand in EU .................................... 458 

Figure 253 - Roadmap to success ................................................................................................... 471 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
1  Executive summary 

This is one of three studies commissioned by the European Commission, DG Enterprise and 

Industry (DG ENTR) in 2012-2013 in order to build a comprehensive picture of Accessible Tourism 

in the European Union (EU). The main aim of the present study is to better understand demand for 

Accessible Tourism in order to guide policy-making in this field. For this purpose, five main research 

objectives were identified: 

•  To examine the current and future demand for Accessible Tourism in Europe and beyond  

•  To investigate the travel patterns and behaviours of, and information provision for people 

with access needs  

•  To evaluate the tourist experience across different tourism sectors from demand and 

supply-side perspectives  

•  To estimate the current and future economic contribution of Accessible Tourism and its 

impact on employment  

•  To propose recommendations and success factors to improve the supply of Accessible 

Tourism offers  

These objectives were translated into five key tasks whose key findings are presented below. 

1.1  Task 1 – Demographic profiling of tourists with special access needs 

1.1.1  Task 1a – Cluster analysis  

To take the most effective use of available resources, this project conducted a cluster analysis, 

aiming to group 27 EU member states into different clusters and then selecting one or two countries 

to represent each cluster to carry out the primary data collection. It was presumed that the people in 

the same cluster should exhibit similar travelling behaviour. Hence, the primary data collected from 

the representative countries could be used to infer the behaviour of people in other countries. 

Ultimately, the estimation of demand and economic contribution for different countries will use the 

same profiling parameters calculated from the representative countries’ primary data. In the cluster 

analysis of this project, thirteen variables related to each country’s location, demographics, income 

and education were used as clustering criteria. In total 8 clusters and 12 representative countries 

derived from the analysis.  The decision on the representative countries was based on both 

quantitative evidence, such as correlation coefficients, and qualitative judgement. The 12 

representative countries include Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, 

Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

21 

 
 
 
 
1.1.2  Task 1b – Forecasting 

In order to forecast the demand for Accessible Tourism, the analysis first addressed the current 

situation. More than half of the individuals with disabilities in the EU travelled during the 12 months 

between mid-2012 and mid-2013. On average, each individual took 6.7 daily trips, plus a further 6.7 

overnight trips during the period, mostly within Europe. In total, this group of travellers made about 

170 million day trips and a similar number of overnight trips within the EU. In comparison, a slightly 

smaller proportion of elderly people aged 65 or above travelled during the same period. On average 

this group took 6.9 day trips and 5.5 overnight trips per person. They travelled slightly more widely 

than individuals with disabilities. In total, they made over 225 million day trips and 217 million 

overnight trips over the 12 months. Overall, people with special access needs in the EU took nearly 

783 million trips within EU, including both domestic travel and intra-EU travel. Among all EU member 

states, France, the UK and Germany are the top source markets for accessible tourism, taking both 

domestic and intra-EU travel into account.  

As for the key international inbound markets, according to the ratio between departures into the EU 

and the population with special access needs, people from the developed countries are more likely 

to travel to the EU than people from the BRICS countries. In total, the demand for EU’s accessible 

tourism by people with special access needs was 17.6 million trips in 2012, of which 7.2 million was 

taken by people with disabilities and 10.4 million by the elderly population. Among the 11 key 

inbound markets, the USA, Switzerland and Russia are the biggest source countries.   

To forecast the future growth of accessible tourism demand, a two-step forecasting approach was 

followed. As the first step, three statistical forecasting methods were employed to generate forecasts 

separately; secondly, combination forecasts were derived based on the average of the results of 

these three individual forecasting techniques. Based on the forecasted growth of the elderly 

population and the growth of individuals with disabilities, and assuming stable travel propensity and 

frequency of these people, a baseline forecast is obtained. It is suggested that by 2020 the demand 

for EU’s accessible tourism by people within the EU will continue to grow to about 862 million trips 

per year, and the demand by the key international inbound markets will reach 21 million trips per 

year.  

In addition, scenario forecasting was performed based on people’s responses towards three 

scenarios of accessibility improvements, i.e., minimum, medium and extensive levels of 

improvements. Three potential scenarios for future improvements in the accessibility of tourism 

destinations were proposed to people with special access needs: Scenario A offered a destination 

with partial accessibility of buildings, hotels, restaurants and museums, with no additional accessible 

services; Scenario B offered extended accessibility of buildings, hotels, restaurants and museums, 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

22 

 
 
with some accessible services; Scenario C offered almost complete accessibility of buildings, hotels, 

restaurants and museums with various accessible services available.  

It was predicted that the demand by people within the EU would increase by 24.2%, 33.2% and 

43.6% against the baseline under Scenarios A, B and C, respectively. By 2020 the total accessible 

tourism demand by people within the EU would reach 1,067, 1,143, and 1,231 million trips per year 

under Scenarios A, B and C, respectively. The demand by people from the key international inbound 

markets would increase 27.8%, 49.3% and 74.6% against the baseline under Scenarios A, B and C, 

respectively. As a result, the total potential demand for EU’s accessible tourism from the 11 key 

inbound markets could be up to 26 million, 31 million and 36 million by 2020 under Scenarios A, B 

and C, respectively. However, it should be noted that due to a small base size of 66 respondents, 

these results should be interpreted with caution.  

1.2  Task 2 – Behavioural profiling of tourist with special access needs 

1.2.1  Task 2a - Website analysis 

For this task, 66 tourism-related websites and brochures from 12 tourism offices were analysed to 

evaluate the information available to travellers with accessibility needs from a user’s point of view. 

Almost 70% of all 66 surveyed websites provide information on accessible offers, but accessible 

features are almost never used in marketing and advertising. Information remains technical and 

does not seek to promote a destination. 

Special interest brochures with information for guests with access needs are not present on the level 

of the tourism boards of the 12 surveyed countries. 

1.2.2  Task 2b – Online survey and focus groups 

An online survey was conducted among people with access needs in 12 EU Member States and 4 

inbound markets and 2 focus groups were conducted with people aged 65 and above. 

Overall, people with access needs share many behavioural patterns with other travellers, with 

minorities selecting answers specific to this group. More differentiated behavioural patterns appear 

in the preparation process: people with access needs tend to take their specific needs into account 

when preparing and booking their trip, with many checking accessibility conditions in advance or 

selecting trips where issues are unlikely to arise. 

In terms of barriers, the price of accessibility seems to be an issue for some, while medical help and 

the availability of information about accessibility are mentioned as barriers as much as the 

accessibility of locations itself. An important finding is that many people say they do not experience 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

23 

 
 
 
 
barriers with the items mentioned, a finding supported by the focus group results indicating that 

some people adapt to issues as they arise and do not perceive them as barriers as such.  

People with access needs are not a uniform group: although some overall trends are consistent, 

results vary across groups (people who travel with children, people aged 65 and above and people 

with limitations), countries, as well as across limitations within the third group. 

The survey asked a number of questions related to expectations and changes to the accessible 

tourism offer with results pointing towards possible behaviour changes if accessibility conditions 

were improved, such as an increase in travel budget or travel frequency. Besides, respondents 

mentioned a range of improvements which would improve the experience of various groups with 

access needs.  

1.3  Task 3 – Evaluation of the tourist experience across different tourism sectors  

1.3.1  Task 3a - Case-studies 

10 case-studies were analysed in order to better understand the tourist experience and identify good 

practices. It has emerged that in most cases accessibility is integrated as part of the quality policy. 

It is clear that the closer the cooperation with other local service providers the greater the success. 

Although results are also good where cooperation is not that close but the provision of accessible 

services is assured along the tourism chain. Although social responsibility is a motivation, it does not 

imply that the company deviates from its own business focus. The engagement and training of all 

the staff is a key issue in improving results. 

Knowledge transfer flows more easily when the organisation is part of a number of professional 

networks such as Design for All Foundation.  Planning and anticipating the results before starting is 

also a key element of success. 

Finally it should be underlined that all cases that have succeed in managing the 7 ISF have 

validated all the working hypotheses proposed.  

1.3.2  Task 3b - Desk research on existing barriers faced or perceived by people with 

access needs  

The main aim for task 3b was to reach a thorough understanding of the barriers faced by people with 

access needs. The analysis, employing desk research in conjunction with hypotheses testing 

procedures, revealed key barriers for each stage of the tourism value chain as well as across 

different tourism sectors. Key findings include: 

In the pre-travel/ information gathering stage, the lack or limited availability of information about 

accessible services represents the biggest barrier for people with access needs, particularly for 

individuals with mobility, sensory and behavioural difficulties. While accessibility information 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

24 

 
 
schemes, set up by specialised organisations, have been designed to overcome existing 

informational barriers, it is highlighted that information about the level of accessibility of products and 

services should be incorporated in mainstream channels.  

Barriers encountered in the transit/ transport stage largely refer to airlines not ensuring an 

accessible environment.  In addition, these barriers augment when using low-cost carriers. Yet, 

while a number of physical access barriers impede a comfortable arrival/ departure, attitudinal 

barriers are more important, particularly for people with mobility, sensory and behavioural access 

needs.  

Once at the destination, the desk research together with the empirical testing revealed the 

importance of access paths and accessible parking for moving around at the destination, particularly 

for people with mobility limitations.  

In general, past research indicates that physical access barriers are perceived as greater obstacles 

when compared to attitudinal barriers in the accommodation sector. Yet, for European travellers 

physical access barriers are ranked as being equally important compared to attitudinal barriers.  

While previous research highlighted that the food and beverage sector causes the greatest amount 

of barriers to individuals with access needs, European travellers with mobility, sensory, behavioural 

and hidden restrictions felt that the transport at the destination is the sector where most barriers are 

encountered. Yet, for people with sensory, communication and hidden limitations, barriers 

encountered in the food and beverage sector are encountered significantly more often than in the 

accommodation sector.  

As part of the attraction sector, nature-based activities are in high demand by people with access 

needs. Yet, these activities are accompanied by the most barriers. Only for individuals with sensory 

and behavioural difficulties, both nature and shopping opportunities are equally important barriers in 

the attraction sector.  

The cross-sector comparisons revealed that overall, attitudinal barriers are encountered more often 

than physical access barriers across all sectors by individuals with different types of access needs. 

Barriers experienced in the transport (at the destination) stage are faced more often compared to 

other sectors, particularly for individuals with mobility, sensory, behavioural and hidden limitations.  

Destination specific differences were also identified when investigating the importance of accessible 

toilets across all key tourism sectors. Thus, all sectors must strengthen their efforts to improve the 

availability of toilets and bathrooms as an indispensable element for people with access needs when 

being on holiday. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

25 

 
 
 
 
1.4  Task 4 - Estimate of the current and future economic contribution of accessible 

tourism 

1.4.1  Task - 4a Stakeholder consultation 

A pre-focus group, a focus group and in-depth interviews were conducted with a range of 

stakeholders. The findings show that accessible tourism is considered a business opportunity but 

there is a lack of coordination, particularly between the public and private sector. Accessibility is 

mainly understood as a feature for disabled guests and almost never understood as a plus in 

comfort and service and, therefore, not used in marketing and advertising. 

Product development and marketing mainly targets disabled people. For the tourism business, 

political and financial support, awareness raising and activation of service providers are important 

drivers. For the guest, reliable information on accessible offers and services is a key factor for 

success. 

1.4.2  Task 4b - Scenarios and impact assessment 

With regard to the economic contribution of accessible tourism in the EU generated by the people 

with special access needs of EU27 countries, the elderly population spent more nights and more 

money on their trips and therefore generated more economic contribution than individuals with 

disabilities. On average, both people with disabilities and the elderly population spent about €80 per 

day trip within the EU; for overnight trips, both groups spent approximately €700 per trip in their 

home country and €1,100 in other EU-countries. Overall, the direct contribution of EU27’s accessible 

tourism demand to the EU’s economy was estimated to be approximately 352 billion Euros, in terms 

of the economic output or gross turnover of tourism-related service providers. After the deduction of 

intermediate consumption, the net output, or gross value added, amounted about 150 billion Euros. 

Equivalently the economic contribution in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) was 164 billion 

Euros, which is equal to gross value added (GVA) plus taxes and subsidies on products. This scale 

of economic output corresponds to over 4.2 million persons employed directly in tourism-related 

businesses in the EU. In addition to the direct contribution to the revenues of tourism-related service 

providers directly through trip expenditures, accessible tourism contributes to the wider-scale of 

economy through the “multiplier” effect. The additional contribution includes the economic benefits 

received by the backward-linked industries supplying goods and services to tourism businesses (i.e., 

an indirect effect), and the benefits received at a destination from household spending of the income 

earned from tourism and its supporting sectors (i.e., an induced effect). The indirect and induced 

multipliers were derived from national and regional input-output tables collected from Eurostat. 

Taking all the direct, indirect and induced effects into consideration, accessible tourism demand 

within the EU generated a total economic contribution of 786 billion Euros in terms of economic 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

26 

 
 
output, 356 billion Euros in terms of gross value added, and 394 billion Euros in terms of GDP. To 

provide this amount of economic output, in total 8.7 million people were employed within region.  

For the 11 key international inbound markets, on average people with special access needs spent 

approximately €1,000 per trip when in the EU. Overall, the direct economic contribution to the EU 

economy was estimated to be 16 billion Euros, in terms of the economic output or gross turnover; 7 

billion Euros of net output or gross value added (GVA), or 8 billion Euros of GDP. To meet the needs 

by the people from the 11 inbound markets, roughly 268 thousand persons in the EU would be 

employed directly in tourism-related businesses. In addition to the direct economic contribution, 

further benefits to the EU economy will be generated via the multiplier effect. The total economic 

contribution was estimated to be 34 billion Euros, in terms of economic output, 15 billion Euros of 

gross value added, and 17 billion Euros of GDP. The associated employment within the economy 

would be 538 thousand persons.  

Under the three scenarios of accessibility improvements, there is also potentially increased 

economic demand from people in the EU who did not participate in travel in the past. The scenarios 

measured the willingness to travel to some new destinations - currently relatively weak in offering 

accessible facilities - if their offer improved in terms of accessibility. In particular, the survey results 

showed that, if accessibility could be improved under Scenarios A, B and C, up to 24%, 37% and 

44%, respectively, of respondents in the EU who did not participate in travel in the past would be 

willing to travel to some of these new destinations.  

Under Scenario A (minimum improvements of accessibility), the economic contribution of EU’s 

accessible tourism demand would increase by 18.3-19.7% against the baseline across the three 

indicators (economic output, gross value added and employment). Under Scenario B (medium 

improvements of accessibility), the economic contribution would increase further, by 24.8-26.6% 

against the baseline. With extensive improvements of accessibility (i.e., Scenario C), up to 39.4% of 

additional economic contribution to the baseline level could be achieved, which suggests that 1,073 

billion Euros of economic output, 484 billion Euros of gross value added and 537 billion Euros of 

GDP could be generated associated with the demand by people with special access needs within 

the EU, along with 12.1 million employed persons within the whole EU economy, taking all direct, 

indirect and induced effects into account.  

Under the scenarios of improvements, the potential tourism demand and economic contribution 

generated by people with special access needs from the 11 key international inbound markets would 

also significantly increase. Under Scenarios A, B and C, up to 33%, 40% and 46% of respondents 

from the international markets who did not travelled to the EU would participate in travel to some of 

the EU’s destinations. The total economic contribution would thus increase by 28.9%, 53.3% and 

74.9% under Scenarios A, B and C against the baseline across the three indicators. Hence, under 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

27 

 
 
the best scenario, up to 60 billion Euros of economic output, 26 billion Euros of gross value added, 

30 billion Euros of GDP could be generated by the people from the key international markets, and 

940 thousand persons would be employed within the whole EU economy, considering all direct, 

indirect and induced effects.   

People with special access needs often travelled with companions. According to the survey question 

about the number of companions during the respondents’ most recent trip, it was calculated that, on 

average, each individual with special access needs (in the EU and beyond) travelled with 1.9 

companions. Individuals with disabilities tend to travel with slightly more companions than the elderly 

population. With the additional contribution from travel companions taken into consideration, the 

overall economic contribution related to accessible tourism demand could be further amplified by a 

similar scale.     

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

28 

 
 
       
 
2  Presentation of the study 

This is one of three studies commissioned by the European Commission, DG Enterprise and 

Industry (DG ENTR) in 2012-2013 in order to build a comprehensive picture of Accessible Tourism 

in the European Union (EU). The present study focuses on the demand side of Accessible Tourism. 

The ‘Mapping the skills and training needs to improve accessibility in tourism services’ study 

addresses training needs on the industry side and the ‘Economic impact and travel patterns of 

Accessible Tourism in Europe’ study analyses Accessible Tourism services, best practices and 

tools.  

2.1  Objectives of the study 

The main aim of the present study is to better understand demand for Accessible Tourism in order to 

guide policy-making in this field. For this purpose, five main research objectives were identified: 

•  To examine the current and future demand for Accessible Tourism in Europe and beyond  

•  To investigate the travel patterns and behaviours of, and information provision for people 

with access needs  

•  To evaluate the tourist experience across different tourism sectors from demand and 

supply-side perspectives  

•  To estimate the current and future economic contribution of Accessible Tourism and its 

impact on employment  

•  To propose recommendations and success factors to improve the supply of Accessible 

Tourism offers  

These objectives were translated into five key tasks which structure the study and the present report 

(see Figure 1). Figure 2 indicates how the various activities undertaken as part of this study fit 

together and with the study objectives.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

29 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1 - Key study tasks 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

30 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2 - Analysis of Demand for Accessible Tourism and its Economic Impacts 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

31 

Information about travel propensity and frequency Forecast of populationFuture Demand for Accessible Tourism (Task 1b)Different scenariosScenario Forecasting of Demand (Task 1b)Information about tourist expenditurePotential Economic Contribution(Task 4b)Impact multipliersDifferent scenariosCluster Analysis(Task 1a)Collection of Input-Output Tables(Task 4a)Supply-sideinvestigation5. To propose recommendations and success factors to improve the supply of Accessible Tourism offerings RECOMMENDATIONS(Task 5)Direct Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism (Task 4b)Online Survey and Focus Group(Task 2b)Case Studies of Good Practice(Task 3a)Total Economic Contribution(Task 4b)Review of Barriers(Task 3b)Current Demand for Accessible Tourism (Task 1a)Stakeholder Consultation(Task 4a)Website Analysis(Task 2a)1. To examine the current and future demand for Accessible Tourism in Europe and beyond 2. To investigate the travel patterns and behaviour of, and information provision for people with access needs 3. To evaluate the tourist experience across different tourism sectors from demand and supply-side perspectives 4. To estimate the current and future economic contribution of Accessible Tourism and its impact on employment  
 
 
2.2  Key concepts and definitions 

Investigating Accessible Tourism first requires defining the scope of the exercise, as some of the key 

concepts used in this study are multi-faceted. The following glossary clarifies the definitions and the 
scope of the concepts used in this study.1 

Access needs 

The requirements that need to be met for a customer to enjoy a tourism experience. Access needs 

can be grouped into: 

•  Needs for care or assistance 

•  Compatibility of the environment with one’s own assistive devices or treatment 

•  Obstacles or difficulties in using, finding or using objects and tools, or communicating 

(with a person or a machine) 

Accessible Tourism 

Refers to the provision of a tourism experience which does not put customers in a ‘disability’ 

situation regardless of the activity limitation(s) or impairment(s) they may present. Further, the 

European Network for Accessible Tourism (ENAT) refers to Accessible Tourism as the set of 

‘services and facilities (such as physical environment, transportation, information, communication) 

which enable persons with special access needs, either permanent or temporary, to enjoy a holiday 

and leisure time with no particular barrier or problem.’ 

Accessible Tourism is inclusive of all people with access needs, that is people with disabilities but 

also all other people who may benefit from accessible infrastructures, such as elderly people, people 

carrying heavy luggage or parents with small children. 

Accessible Tourism stakeholders 

All sector stakeholders from both supply and demand side, together with those public organisations 

committed to improving the accessibility of destinations, products and services. 

Accessibility 

This is the quality of an environment, product, service or information item that makes it reachable 

and/or usable by everyone regardless of his or her abilities. This definition of the concept of 

accessibility is used in the social, disability and architectural fields. In civil engineering, the term 

1 Unless otherwise mentioned, these definitions are in line with the definitions used by the Design for All 
Foundation (http://www.designforall.org/en/) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

32 

 
 
                                                      
accessibility is also used to refer to the connectivity of a city or place. Travel bloggers also often use 

accessibility in this sense. 

Disability 

According to the World Health Organization,1 disability is an umbrella term, covering impairments, 

activity limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or 

structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or 

action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in 

life situations. Thus disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features 

of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.  

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines people with disabilities as 

people ‘who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction 

with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with 

others.’ It also states: 

Disability is an evolving concept and results from the interaction between persons with impairments 

and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society 
on an equal basis with others.2 

Therefore a person is rendered disabled due to the physical and social environment not catering for 

people with access needs.  

Economic contribution 

The economic contribution of tourism is a measure of the size and overall significance of this 

industry within an economy.  

Economic impact 

Economic impact refers to the changes in the economic contribution resulting from specific events or 

activities that comprise ‘shocks’ to the tourism system. 

Inbound/outbound tourism 

For the purpose of this study, inbound tourism refers to travellers who arrive and stay in EU 

countries for a short period of time (excluding for employment and formal studies). Outbound tourism 

refers to EU citizens who take part in tourism activities outside the EU. 

1World Health Organisation, retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/ on 03/05/2013 
2United Nations, retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml on 03/05/2013 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

33 

 
 
                                                      
People with access needs 

Access needs cover a wide range of situations. Within the scope of this study, ‘people with access 

needs’  refers  to  people  above  65,  people  who  travel  with  (small)  children  and  people  who  have 

difficulties that have an impact on their daily life in a range of activities, including mobility, sensorial, 

communication or behavioural issues, as well as hidden limitations. 

Seniors 

The segment of the population considered elderly in certain environments. Various cut-off points, 

such as 50, 55 or 60 can all be found in the literature, but this study will use one of the most 

commonly used, which is 65. 

Special needs 

This is the term generally used by the industry to define the access needs of their guests. 

Supply/demand sides 

Supply refers to the products and services providers in the tourism sector. Demand side refers to the 

users of these services, whether they are actual customers or not. 

Tourism for All  

Tourism for All consists of providing a tourism experience that anybody can enjoy regardless of any 

individual characteristics such as abilities, age, height, race, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, 

ideology or cultural background. 

According to the Nordiska Handikappolitiska rådet1, the aim of Tourism for All is that everyone 

should be able to travel to a country, within a country and to whatever place, attraction or event they 

should wish to visit.  

The concepts of Accessible Tourism and Tourism for All are evolving and the terms are often 

misused. Nevertheless there is a trend to seek to go beyond the idea of mere accessibility for 

disabled people and to stress the need to fulfil the expectations of any potential guest. 

Tourism sector  

Economic activity related to providing products and services to travelling people for leisure or 

business reasons. For the purpose of this project, the tourism sector includes the following sub-

sectors: accommodation, food and beverage, entertainment, transportation and travel services. 

1Nordiska Handikappolitiska rådet (ed.) (2002): Aktuellt i Norden. Tourism för alla. Rosersberg 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

34 

 
 
 
                                                      
Travel frequency and propensity 

Within the scope of the survey, travel frequency is measured as the number of trips taken by each 

traveller per year. Travel propensity is defined as the percentage of people that are willing to travel. 

Universal Design/Design for All/Inclusive Design 

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines ‘Universal Design’ as the 

‘design of products, environments, programs and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest 
extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design.’1 

Design for All is about ensuring that environments, products, services and interfaces work for people 

of all ages and abilities in different situations and under various circumstances, while Universal 

Design refers to producing buildings, products and environments that are inherently accessible to 

both people without disabilities and people with disabilities. More recently, professionals working in 

the field have tried to come to a common definition on the grounds of basic rights, obligations and 

attitudes described in www.societyforall.org. The British Standards Institute defines inclusive design 

as ‘The design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible to, and usable by, as 

many people as reasonably possible ... without the need for special adaptation or specialized 
design.’2 

These concepts are used by professionals that strive for a more inclusive approach in the tourism 

sector but have not yet been fully adopted by the industry.  

1United Nations, retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml on 03/05/2013 
2British Standards Institute (2005). Design management systems. Managing inclusive design – Guide, BS BS 
7000-6:2005. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
3  Task 1 – Demographic profiling of tourists with special access 

needs 

3.1  Task 1a – Cluster analysis  

3.1.1  Methodology 

Cluster analysis aims at separating the EU27 countries into different groups according to their socio-

economic and demographic profile, so that countries within the same group share high similarities 

and are distinctive from the countries in other groups. For example, if countries are grouped 

according to their GDP level, they can be separated into high income countries and low income 

countries.  

The current cluster analysis follows the same logic, but considers 13 criteria simultaneously. The 13 

criteria are related to each country’s location, demographics, income and education. The data were 

collected from the Eurostat (see Annex A for the variable names), and are the most up-to-date 

figures. The clustering process was carried out using SPSS software.  

Although the clusters are scientifically based on the data, the number of clusters identified is more 

subjective and can be adjusted in order to meet the study’s analytical needs. In this study, the 

number of groups was limited to 10, in order to identify a suitable number of clusters and countries 

for the primary data collection. In total, 8 clusters were finalised, with more than one country in each 

cluster. 

After the clustering, representative countries of each cluster were chosen. The selection was based 

on multiple criteria including both quantitative evidence and qualitative judgement. First of all, 

correlations on key criterion variables for the cluster analysis were calculated among all member 

states within the same cluster. Ideally, the country which shows the highest correlation coefficients 

on most variables is the most representative of the cluster and should be chosen to ensure the best 

representation of the whole cluster. In cases where no clear-cut statistical evidence could be found, 

other non-statistical criteria were adopted and consultations with project partners were conducted. 

The key criteria include the ease of data access (for example, whether the response rate is 

anticipated to be high or not), the relative importance of the country (for example, a larger population 

will be favoured, as the sample size could potentially be larger), and the project partners’ past 

market research experience. 

Given that countries within the same cluster have high similarities, it is presumed that the people in 

the same cluster should exhibit similar travelling behaviour. Hence, the primary data collected from 

the representative countries could be used to infer the behaviour of people in other countries. 

Ultimately, the estimation of demand and economic contribution for different countries will use the 

same profiling parameters calculated from the representative countries’ primary data. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

36 

 
 
Depending on cluster size, each cluster is represented by 1 or 2 countries. For large clusters, this is 

done by firstly sub-clustering and then choosing a representative country from the sub-clusters. 

Eventually, 12 representative countries were selected (Figure 3). Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus 

have smaller population size and in the two latter cases, a relatively low Internet penetration rate, 

which makes them less suitable for online surveys. Hence, the focus was placed on countries with a 

larger population size, which on the one hand represents a larger proportion of the EU population 

and, on the other hand enables a larger sample to be drawn upon. 

3.1.2  Results 

The 8 clusters and 12 representative countries are summarised in Figure 3. To make the results 

clearer, a geographical map has been created, see Figure 4. More technical discussions about the 

quality of the clustering can be found in the Annex A. 

To understand the cluster analysis, the radar charts in Annex A6 illustrate the basic principle and 

logic. The values of the 13 criteria were plotted on charts. So each country has a unique radar. For 

those countries with similar shapes, they were grouped together to form a cluster. The clustering 

process completed by the software is simply a more scientific calculation of the similarities between 

the radar charts. 

By visual observation, it is obvious that the radar charts look very similar within a given cluster. In 

most cases, they tend to overlap, which means the countries within a cluster do share high 

similarities. Across different clusters, the shapes vary a lot, which means the countries in different 

clusters are distinctive with regard to the 13 socio-demographic aspects.  

H8: Key parameters such as travel propensity, travel frequency, expenditure level should be notably 

different across clusters. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 - Results of cluster analysis (detailed table) 

Sub Region 

Eastern Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

Northern Europe 

Country 
Code 

Country Name 

Cluster Code 

Sub-Cluster 
Code 

Representative 

BG 

HU 

RO 

CZ 

PL 

SK 

EL 

PT 

ES 

SI 

MT 

CY 

IT 

DE 

LU 

AT 

BE 

NL 

FR 

UK 

DK 

FI 

SE 

EE 

LV 

LT 

IE 

Bulgaria 

Hungary 

Romania 

Czech Republic 

Poland 

Slovakia 

Greece 

Portugal 

Spain 

Slovenia 

Malta 

Cyprus 

Italy 

Germany 

Luxembourg* 

Austria 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

France 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

6 

United Kingdom  6 

Denmark 

Finland 

Sweden 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Ireland 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

3 

1.a 

1.a 

1.a 

1.b 

1.b 

1.b 

2.a 

2.a 

2.a 

2.b 

2.b 

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Spain 

Slovenia 

Italy 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

France 

United Kingdom 

Sweden 

Lithuania 

Ireland 

*: 9 clusters were specified initially, with Luxembourg being a single-country cluster. Luxembourg 
was later manually merged with the cluster of Austria, Belgium and Netherlands due to its 
anticipated low response rate. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 4 - Results of cluster analysis (map) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2  Task 1b – Forecasting 

3.2.1  Methodology 

3.2.1.1  Current demand estimation 

The rationale of estimating the demand for accessible tourism can be described as below: 

Demand for Accessible Tourism = 

people with special access needs × travel propensity × travel frequency. 

This can further be illustrated as per Figure 51: 

Figure 5 - Estimation of Demand for Accessible Tourism 

The task started by collecting data on population figures from secondary sources. The population 

figures serve as the population base of people with access needs. Specifically, two age groups are 

focused on, namely the working age population (aged 15-64) and the elderly population (aged 65 or 

above). The statistical data were obtained from the World Development Indicator database of the 

1 It should be noted that people with disabilities aged 15-64 and the population aged 65 or above in Figure 5 are 
the dominant groups of people with access needs and are therefore the focus of the forecasting of accessible 
tourism demand. In addition, people travelling with children and people with temporary limitations also require 
certain access needs. Due to data unavailability and relatively small shares in the of total number of people with 
access needs, people travelling with children and people with temporary limitations are excluded from the 
demand estimation and forecasting of this project.    

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

40 

   Travel propensityDifferent types of impairments (%)Population aged 15-64People with disabilities aged 15-64Population aged 65 or aboveDemand for accessible tourismTravel frequencyPeople with access needsDesk researchOnline survey①③④②⑤ ⑥  
 
 
                                                      
World Bank1. They span from 1960 to 2011, covering the EU27 countries and 11 key international 

inbound markets. A breakdown of the data in 2011 by gender has also been obtained.  

The task then proceeded to calculate the population of people with access needs, namely people 

with disabilities (aged 15-64) together with the elderly population (aged 65 or above).  

The number of people with disabilities is estimated using the working age population (aged 15-64) 

and the prevalence rates (i.e., percentage of people with disabilities among certain population). The 

data on prevalence rates of different types of impairments for the EU27 countries and the key 

international inbound markets were collected from various secondary sources, including online 

databases and academic publications. Annex B provides a summary of the sources. Since the 

secondary data were published on an ad hoc basis, no consistent time-series data were available. 

Besides, the figures of the prevalence rates were published in different years. Hence, the 

assumption is made that these figures would remain stable and current. This is supported by a study 
by Picavet and Hoeymans (2002)2 based on data from the Netherlands and the USA.  

Among all the sources, the “LFS ad hoc module 2002” published by Eurostat provides the most 

comprehensive data set on the people with different types of impairments in 24 European countries. 

The data set contains two sets of numbers, i.e., the overall prevalence rates of disabilities and the 

prevalence rates of a particular type of impairment. The reason for obtaining two sets of numbers is 

that people with multiple impairments will be counted repetitively. For example, a person who has 

both visual and hearing impairments may be counted twice towards the total, under the category of 

visual impairment as well as that of hearing impairment. Simply adding up the number of people with 

each type of impairment would exaggerate the total number of people with access needs.  

For the demand estimation, two parameters, i.e., the travel propensity (percentage of people that are 

willing to travel) and the travel frequency (number of trips per year) are largely not available from 

secondary sources. Hence, they have to be obtained from the online survey that was conducted in 

the 12 representative countries.  

From the questionnaire of the online survey, both the travel propensity and the travel frequency can 

be inferred from  

Q1. In the past 12 months, how many times have you travelled for private or business reasons? 

Please give a figure for each travel type and destination. 

1http://data.worldbank.org/indicator 
2 Picavet, H., & Hoeymans, N. (2002). Physical disability in The Netherlands: prevalence, risk groups and time 
trends. Public Health, 116, 231-237.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

41 

 
 
                                                      
The travel propensity was calculated as the percentage of respondents that travelled more than 

once over the last 12 months. The travel frequency was calculated as the average number of trips 

among all those who had travelled. 

The current demand estimation was then conducted using the figures described above, namely the 

population of people access needs, the travel propensity and the travel frequency, according to the 

rationale above (the formula in Section 3.2.1.1, and Figure 5).  

3.2.1.2  Future demand estimation 

The future demand estimation follows exactly the same rationale as the current demand calculation.  

Demand for Accessible Tourism = People with special access needs × Travel propensity × Travel 

frequency. 

The only further aspect that needs to be addressed is the forecast of population of people with 

access needs. Specifically, of the three key parameters described in the formula above, only the 

people with special access needs are to be forecasted up to 2020, whilst the travel propensity and 

the travel frequency figures are assumed to remain unchanged.  

As the people with special access needs consist of those from the working age population (aged 15-

64) and the elderly population (aged 65 or above), the forecasting was performed on the population 

of these two groups of people. Secondary data on population figures were obtained from the World 
Development Indicator database of the World Bank1. They span from 1960 to 2011, covering the 

EU27 countries and 11 key international inbound markets. Based on these historic data, the 

evolution of population can be established, and the forecasts are made assuming the historic trend 

will be maintained in the coming years up to 2020.  

Three forecasting techniques were used to predict the evolution of the population. Specifically, they 

are structural time-series model (STSM), autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model 

and the Naïve II model. The STSM decomposes the population time series (

) into a trend 

component (

), a cycle component (

) and an irregular component (

). Hence, 

. 

Forecasting is then based on the three components. The ARIMA model expresses the population 

time series (

) as 

, where B is the backshift operator and L 

the seasonal periodicity. Forecasting is then based on the intrinsic properties of population. The 

Naïve II model assumes that the forecast for period t+1 is equal to the value of the forecast variable 

1http://data.worldbank.org/indicator 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

42 

 
 
                                                      
in period t multiplied by the growth rate of the forecast variable over the previous period 

. Forecasting is based on the formula.  

With the forecasts obtained from the three techniques, the average of the forecasts are calculated 

according to 

, which means that the three forecasts are to be 

combined to form the final figures of forecasts. The advantage of forecast combination is that it helps 

to strike a balance between techniques. As each technique may only capture certain aspects of the 

historic data and follow certain assumptions, the results from any one of them tend to over- or under-

estimate the real situation. After the combination, more information can be embedded into the 

forecasts. Hence the combined forecasts are preferred. 

With the forecasts of both the working age population and the elderly population, the population of 

people with special access needs can be established. Furthermore, the future tourism demand is 

then calculated according to the rationale (formula) described at the beginning of the section. 

3.2.1.3  Tourism demand estimation under different scenarios of improvements 

The demand estimation under different scenarios follows exactly the same rationale as the current 

and future demand estimation. 

Demand for Accessible Tourism = People with special access needs × Travel propensity (scenario) 

× Travel frequency (scenario) 

The only part that is different is with regard to the two travelling behaviour parameters, i.e., travel 

propensity and travel frequency.  

Under different scenarios of improvements, people are believed to be more willing to travel and 

should also increase their budget to explore new destinations that they have not been to before. 

Hence, new travel propensities and new travel frequencies under different scenarios need to be 

established. These figures can be inferred from the questionnaire of the online survey: 

Q26. Thinking about the last 12 months, there are some destinations in the European Union (EU) 

that you may have wanted to visit, but you couldn't because of accessibility problems. For example, 

you did not go because no services have been made accessible and basic things like wheelchairs 

are not available. 

If Scenarios A, B or C were true for any EU destinations you were interested in visiting, would you 

consider including some of these EU destinations in your travel plans for the next 12 months? 

Q29. How many day trips AND overnight trips would you go on to such destinations in the next 12 

months if options A, B or C were true? 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

43 

 
 
Please answer in each column for each type of trip. For overnight trips, please indicate how many 

nights you would spend at such destinations in the next 12 months.  

Specifically, Q26 investigates the number of respondents that are willing to increase their budget 

and/or their number of trips. For those who have not travelled over the last 12 months, Q26 captures 

the respondents that are willing to travel under different scenarios. Hence, with some non-travellers 

converted to be travellers, the travel propensity (scenario) can be calculated. 

Q29 specifies the additional number of trips taken by existing travellers (those who have travelled 

over the last 12 months) as well as the trips made by the newly converted travellers (those who have 

not travelled but are willing to travel under different scenarios). With the additional trips specified in 

Q29 and the existing travel trip numbers deriving from Q1, the travel frequency (scenario) can thus 

be computed. 

With the parameters, travel propensity (scenario) and travel frequency (scenario) inferred from the 

survey data and the population of people with access needs available from the current/ future 

demand estimation task, the tourism demand under different scenarios can be estimated. 

3.2.2  Population of people with special access needs 

3.2.2.1  Evolution of population 

The evolution of the population has been plotted in Figure 6 to Figure 9. The forecasts from 2012 to 

2020 are the combined figures from the three forecasting techniques. In addition, Figure 10 to Figure 

13 provide an overview of the annual population growth rates over the past half a century, for the 

EU27 countries as well as the key international inbound markets. The annual population growth 

rates over the forecast horizon will, however, be provided in the next section. 

During 1960-2011, the working age population in the EU27 countries has grown steadily at an 

average annual rate of 0.5% (Figure 10). It is anticipated that by 2020, the working age population in 

the EU27 area will have reached 338 million (Figure 6).  Looking across countries (Figure 10), 

Cyprus has the highest growth rate over 1960-2011, at 1.7% per year. Notably, Bulgaria is the only 

country that registers negative yearly population growth. The female working age population is also 

shrinking in Latvia, although this is counter-balanced by the high growth rate of the male population. 

Across international inbound markets (Figure 12), the emerging countries generally enjoy faster 

growth of the working age population. Among the developed countries, only Australia and Canada 

see a yearly growth rate comparable to that of the emerging countries. With the current growth 

patterns set to continue, China and India are expected to be the countries with largest working age 

population by 2020 (Figure 9). 

Regarding the elderly population, the trend of ageing is quite apparent, regardless of whether it is an 

EU country or an international market (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Over 1960-2011, the EU27 area has 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

44 

 
 
seen the elderly population growing at 1.6% per year (Figure 11). By 2020, the elderly population in 

the EU27 area is projected to be 104 million (Figure 8). Furthermore, it is notable that the female 

population in this age group consistently outnumbers the male population (Figure 8). Across all EU 

member states, Cyprus has a slightly higher growth rate (2.7%) than the rest of EU countries. 

Globally (Figure 13), the evolution of the elderly population is even faster in the emerging countries, 

especially in Brazil where the growth rate is 3.6% per year. In terms of the absolute value, China, 

India and USA are forecast be the largest markets for senior travel by 2020 (Figure 9). 

The following hypotheses can be formulated. 

H9: The senior travel market will become even more important by 2020, given that the steep growth 

of the elderly population will continue. 

H10: China and India will be much more important than other inbound markets for Accessible 

Tourism. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

45 

 
 
Figure 6 - The working age population trend in the EU27 countries over 1960-2011 and forecasts from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

46 

336,628338,249050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,0001960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020MaleFemaleTotalActualForecast 
 
 
Figure 7 - The working age population trend in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 and forecasts from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

47 

0200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020AustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaIndiaJapanNorwayRussiaSouth AfricaSwitzerlandUSAActualForecast 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8 - The elderly population trend in the EU27 countries over 1960-2011 and forecasts from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

48 

88,778104,177020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,0001960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020MaleFemaleTotalForecastActual 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9 - The elderly population trend in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 and forecasts from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

49 

020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,0001960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020AustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaIndiaJapanNorwayRussiaSouth AfricaSwitzerlandUSAForecastActual 
 
 
 
Figure 10 - Average annual growth rate of working age population in EU27 countries over 1960-2011 (unit: %) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

50 

0.4%0.4%0.0%1.7%0.4%0.4%0.2%0.5%0.7%0.2%0.6%0.1%1.2%0.4%0.1%0.4%1.0%1.0%0.9%0.8%0.5%0.4%0.9%0.6%0.9%0.4%0.4%0.5%-0.5%0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%TotalMaleFemale 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11 - Average annual growth rate of elderly population in EU27 countries over 1960-2011 (unit: %) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

51 

1.1%1.1%1.6%2.7%1.2%1.3%1.2%2.2%1.4%1.4%2.2%1.2%1.0%1.9%1.1%1.7%1.5%1.9%1.9%2.2%2.0%1.9%1.7%2.0%2.3%1.3%1.1%1.6%0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%TotalMaleFemale 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12 - Average annual growth rate of working age population in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 (unit: %) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

52 

0.5%1.7%2.4%1.6%1.9%2.3%0.6%0.7%0.6%2.5%0.8%1.3%0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%TotalMaleFemale 
 
 
Figure 13 - Average annual growth rate of elderly population in key inbound markets over 1960-2011 (unit: %) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

53 

1.6%2.5%3.6%2.6%2.9%3.0%3.5%1.2%1.7%2.5%1.8%1.8%0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%TotalMaleFemale 
 
 
 
3.2.2.2  People with special access needs 

In 2011, in the EU27 area the total number of working age people (aged 15-64) that have one or 

more disabilities amounted to 49.8 million, and the total elderly population (aged 65 or above) was 

88.8 million. Hence, the population of people with access needs in EU27 area in 2011 was up to 

138.6 million. This is basically in line with the findings of the OSSATE research by Buhalis et al. 
(2005)1  that there were 46.6 million people with disabilities (aged 16-64) and 80.9 million elderly 

population (aged 65 or above), or equivalently 127.5 million people with access needs in 2005. The 

narrow gap between the two estimates can be explained by the fact that the population of people 
with access needs experienced a mild growth over the past few years2. A brief summary comparing 

the access needs in EU27 area and those in key international inbound markets can be found below 

in Figure 17. Furthermore, Figure shows the access needs in each of the EU27 countries. To 

visualise the information in Figure 17 and Figure 18, geographic maps are supplemented, see 

Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16. Please note that due to the size of the world map and for clarity 

purposes, the key inbound markets are not presented on the geographical maps, but noted 

numerically alongside the maps.   

With regard to the population of people with disabilities (Figure 17 and Figure 18), it is apparent that 

France and the UK are the two EU countries with the largest population of this group, with 10 million 

and 11 million respectively. China, the USA and Brazil are the largest inbound markets for people 

with disabilities, with 61 million, 32 million, and 32 million respectively. 

With regard to the elderly population (Figure 17 and Figure 18), France, Germany, Italy and the UK 

are the four countries with the largest elderly population. Around the globe, China and India are the 

two potentially largest markets for senior tourism. 

In summary, Figure 16 shows that France, Germany and the UK are the EU countries with highest 

access needs, whilst China leads the list among the international inbound markets. 

From 2011 to 2020, the population of people with access needs in the EU27 area is expected to 

experience a mild growth of 1.2% per year (see Figure 19). This means that the total population of 

people with access needs will jump from 138.6 million in 2011 to 154.6 million in 2020. Noticeably, 

the growth rate of the elderly population (1.8%) is predicted to be much higher than that of the 

1 Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market and stakeholder analysis. 
OSSATE project Guildford: University of Surrey. 
http://www.ossate.org/doc_resources/OSSATE_Market&Stakeholder%20Analysis_Public_Version_Fina..pdf  
2 Based on historical data, the population of people with access needs grows at 1.2% per year (Figure 19). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

54 

 
 
                                                      
people with disabilities (0.1%). This confirms the importance of the senior market as the potential 

driving force of accessible tourism. 

Across the EU area, however, the growth rate ranges from -2.3% to 3.1%. Latvia and Lithuania are 

the two countries that will experience negative growth across both groups of people. At the other 

end, Malta sees the highest growth rate of people with access needs, at 3.1%, although in terms of 

the senior market Netherlands comes in the top place.  

When compared to the situation of the international inbound markets (Figure 20), the EU’s growth 

rate is less impressive. Except for Russia, which will have a stagnant growth, the majority of 

international markets can expect a growth rate at more than 2% annually. In the cases of Norway 

and Japan, these can be even higher, at 3.4% and 3.0% respectively.   

It should be pointed out that, the growth rates in Figure 19 and Figure 20 are implied rates from the 

population forecast. Specifically, this means that the growth rates are calculated from the forecasts. 

The population of people with access needs were forecasted first using three advanced econometric 

techniques. Then the implied growth rates were calculated from the forecasts. As the forecast used 

historic information of population (Figure 6 to Figure 9), a strong correlation can thus be spotted 

between Figure 19 and Figure 20, on one hand and Figure 10 to Figure 13 on the other. 

Annex C shows the forecast figures for people with access needs.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

55 

 
 
 
 
Figure 14 - The population of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries and key inbound 
markets in 2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15 - The elderly population in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets in 2011 
(unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16 - The population with access needs in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets 
in 2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

58 

 
 
 
 
Figure 17 - People with access needs in the EU27 countries and key inbound markets as of 2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

EU27 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada  China 

India 

Japan 

Norway 

Russia 

South 

Africa 

Switzerland 

USA 

The elderly 

(aged 65 or 

88,778 

3,098 

14,141 

4,978 

112,498 

62,000 

29,892 

743 

18,104 

2,407 

1,345 

41,444 

above) (1) 

People with 

disabilities 

(aged 15-

64) (2) 

Access 

Needs 

(3)=(1)+(2) 

49,825 

2,999 

31,929 

3,965 

61,441 

16,892 

4,695 

539 

9,193 

1,306 

1,187 

31,961 

138,603 

6,097 

46,070 

8,942 

173,939 

78,892 

34,587 

1,282 

27,298 

3,713 

2,532 

73,405 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

59 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 18 - People with access needs in the EU27 countries as of 2011 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Austria  Belgium  Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark  Estonia  Finland 

France  Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

The 
elderly 
(aged 65 
or above) 
(1) 
People 
with 
disabilities 
(aged 15-
64) (2) 
Access 
Needs 
(3)=(1)+(2) 

The 
elderly 
(aged 65 
or above) 
(1) 
People 
with 
disabilities 
(aged 15-
64) (2) 
Access 
Needs 
(3)=(1)+(2) 

1,504 

1,938 

1,325 

132 

1,606 

940 

232 

956 

11,169 

16,829 

2,112 

1,664 

534 

12,509 

729 

1,327 

64 

96 

1,506 

724 

79 

1,141 

10,394 

4,534 

776 

780 

364 

2,621 

2,233 

3,265 

1,389 

228 

3,112 

1,665 

311 

2,097 

21,563 

21,363 

2,888 

2,444 

898 

15,130 

Latvia 

Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta 

Netherlands  Poland 

Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

EU27 
Countries 

396 

517 

72 

61 

2,629 

5,278 

1,934 

3,207 

668 

343 

7,918 

1,755 

10,547 

88,778 

84 

260 

41 

18 

2,829 

3,334 

1,454 

866 

325 

277 

2,726 

1,258 

11,219 

49,825 

480 

778 

113 

79 

5,458 

8,612 

3,388 

4,073 

992 

621 

10,645  3,013 

21,766 

138,603 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

60 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 19 - Implied annual growth rate of people with access needs in the EU27 countries over 2011 – 2020 (unit: %) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

61 

1.5%1.3%0.1%2.3%1.2%1.8%0.5%1.6%1.3%1.0%0.3%0.4%1.4%1.5%-0.5%-2.3%2.0%3.1%2.0%1.1%0.9%0.7%1.3%1.0%1.3%1.8%1.3%1.2%-4.0%-3.0%-2.0%-1.0%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%People with Access needsPeople with DisabilitiesThe Elderly People 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20 - Implied annual growth rate of people with access needs in the EU27 area and the key international inbound markets over 2011 – 2020 (unit: %) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

62 

1.2%2.3%2.1%2.2%2.2%2.6%3.0%3.4%0.1%2.8%1.9%1.7%-2.0%-1.0%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%EU27AustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaIndiaJapanNorwayRussiaSouth AfricaSwitzerlandUSAPeople with Access needsPeople with DisabilitiesThe Elderly People 
 
 
 
 
Figure 21 - Prevalence rate of disabilities in EU27 countries (%) 

Figure 22 - Prevalence rate of disabilities in the EU27 area and key inbound markets (%) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

63 

12.8%18.4%1.2%12.2%20.2%19.9%8.8%32.2%24.6%8.4%10.3%11.4%12.2%6.6%5.5%11.8%11.7%5.9%25.4%12.2%20.5%5.8%8.2%19.5%8.7%20.5%27.2%14.8%0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%14.8%19.7%23.9%16.6%6.3%2.1%5.8%16.4%9.0%4.0%22.1%15.4%0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0% 
 
 
 
 
With the evolution of the population with access needs in mind, the following paragraphs take a 

closer look at both components of this population, i.e., the people with disabilities and the elderly 

population. 

As shown in Figure 18, the number of people with disabilities was 49.8 million in 2011. To verify how 

valid this estimation is, a comparison with previous studies has been conducted. A press release by 

the European Commission estimated that approximately 80 million people (among all the age 
groups) in the EU area live with a disability - roughly one out of six people1. However, this figure (80 

million) includes those aged 65 or above, whereas the estimation in the current project (49.8 million) 

only refers to those aged 15-64. In 2011, the working age population (aged 15-64) in the EU27 area 

was 337 million. In proportional terms, roughly one in six people of working age has a disability, 

which is in line with the general statistics for all age groups, as mentioned above. 

Figure 23 summarises the estimations made by other researchers. These estimations range from 45 

million to 115 million, depending on the age group in question and the geographic coverage. 

Focusing on a similar age group, the Dupré & Karjalainen study estimated that about 45 million 

people (working age population/aged 16 to 64) in 25 European countries had a disability. This 

further supports the validity of the current estimation. 

1http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1505_en.htm 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

64 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 23 - Estimations of prevalence of disability in Europe 

% of population  Sources/ references 

15.70% 

Dupré & Karjalainen published in Eurostat 
(2003)1 

Estimation (total number) 
Approximately 45 million (working 
age population/ aged 16 to 64) in 
25 European countries 
45 to 90 million in Europe having 
at least  
one type of impairment  

10% to 20% 

50 million in the enlarged EU 

Approx. 11% 

69 to 92 million in the EU 
60 to 80 million disabled/ people 
with  
reduced mobility  

15% to 20%  

13% to 17% 

92 to 115 million in the EU  
Source: adapted from Buhalis et al.(2005)13 

20% to 25%  

Toerisme Vlaanderen (2001)2; National 
Disability Authority (2003)3 (Ireland) 
European Disability Forum, 20054; Gerlin, 
20055; Qualitas, 20046; Brown, 19917; van 
Horn, 20028; Horgan-Jones & Ringaert, 20049 
Pühretmair, 2004 10 

Community Researchand Development 
Information Service CORDIS (1995) 11 

Stumbo & Pegg (2005) 12 

In terms of the prevalence rates of disabilities in each member state, Figure 21 and Figure 22 give 

an overview. 

1Eurostat (2003). Employment of Disabled People in Europe in 2002.ISBN, 1024-4352, catalogue number: KS-
NK-03-026-EN-N, European Communities 2003. http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KSNK-03-
026/EN/KS-NK-03-026-EN.PDF 
2Toerisme Vlaanderen (2001). Tourism for all in the European Union. Status Report on Tourist Accommodation 
Schemes in Europe. Meeting of EU Ministers of Tourism, “Tourism for all”, Brugge 1st - 2nd of July 2001. 
http://www.toegankelijkheidsbureau.be/docs/Tourism%20for%20All%20Report%20Final%20SEP2001b.pdf 
3National Disability Authority (2003).  Accessibility and Tourism. Tourism Policy Review Group. 
http://www.nda.ie/ 
4European Disability Forum (2005). People with Disabilities in the European Union: Some facts and 
figures.http://www.edffeph.org/Papers/StructuralFunds/HearingMarch2005/General%20facts%20and%20 
figures%20on%20disability.doc 
5Gerlin, A. (2005). Access Denied. Time Europe, Vol. 165 (15). 
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901050411-1044655,00.html?promoid=rss_world 
6Qualitas (2004). Conclusions of the 1st International Congress on “Tourism for all”. 
http://www.worldtourism.org/quality/E/standards2.htm 
7Brown, F. (1991). Tourism for all. Tourism Management, Vol. 12 (3), pp. 258-260 
8Van Horn, L. (2002). Travellers with Disabilities: Market Size and Trends. http://ncpedp.org/access/isu-
travel.htm 
9Horgan-Jones, M., & Ringaert, L. (2004). Accessible Tourism in Manitoba. 
http://www.ttra.com/pub/uploads/AccessibleTourismInManitoba.htm 
10Pühretmair, F. (2004). It’s time to make eTourism accessible. In Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W. & 
Burger, D. (Eds.) Computers helping people with special needs. 9th International Conference, ICCHP 2004, 
Paris, France, July 2004, Proceedings, Berlin, Springer Verlag 
11Cordis (1995). Cost 322: Low Floor Busses. Final report. http://www.cordis.lu/cost-transport/src/cost-322.htm 
12Stumbo, N.J., & Pegg, S. (2005). Travellers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, Vol. 8 (3), pp. 195-209 
13Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market and stakeholder 
analysis. OSSATE project Guildford: University of Surrey. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

65 

 
 
 
                                                      
Across the EU27 countries, the overall prevalence rate of disabilities among the working age 

population is 14.8% (Figure 22), which is comparable to that of Canada (16.6%), Norway (16.4%), 

and USA (15.4%). Among the key inbound markets, India has the lowest prevalence rate (2.1%), 

whereas Brazil has the highest rate (23.9%). There is no obvious pattern across the 11 key inbound 

markets, although arguably the developed countries tend to register a higher percentage of people 

with disabilities than the emerging countries. 

Within the EU27 area (Figure 21), Finland has the highest prevalence rate (32.2%), and Bulgaria the 

lowest (1.2%). Again, higher percentages could be found in countries with a higher GDP, such as 

France (24.6%), the Netherlands (25.4%) and the UK (27.2%). Overall, prevalence rates are from 

8% to 15% for most countries.    

Figure 24 and Figure 25 present the distribution of impairment types across countries. Consistently 

across the EU27 countries (Figure 24), mobility impairments and hidden impairments are the major 

types of disabilities, followed by cognitive impairments and sensory impairments. Of the three types 

of sensory impairments, the majority are visually impaired, and the minority speech impaired. 

Bulgaria is an exception, with a much lower prevalence rate of disabilities than other countries.  

A similar pattern can be found in the international inbound markets (Figure 25), with mobility 

impairments being the major type of disability. For the other impairment types, their distribution 

varies significantly across the different markets.  

Given the high proportion of mobility impairments, a straightforward implication is that many 

travellers with disabilities show certain dependence on a companion (or companions), in order to be 

‘mobilised’. Especially when a person is limited by severe disabilities, physical dependence on 
others for mobility and performance of many activities of daily living is inevitable (Smith, 19871). 
Furthermore, Darcy (2002)2 pointed out that brain injury/stroke, cerebral palsy and quadriplegia have 

substantially higher levels of travel dependence than other impairment types. Overall, in the Darcy 

(2002) study, 70% of the 2562 Australian respondents required the assistance of a companion. 

Similarly, in a survey of 350 respondents from North America attending the 2001 Society for 
Disability Studies conference, Horgan-Jones and Ringaert (2001)3 found that 2/3 of the respondents 

travelled with a companion, usually a spouse or family member. A slightly more recent study was 

1 Smith, R. W. (1987). Leisure of disabled tourists Barriers to participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 
376-389. 
2 Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised participation: Physical disability, high support needs and tourism. Journal of 
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72. 
3 Horgan-Jones, M., & Ringaert, L. (2001). Accessible tourism in Manitoba.TTRA–Travel and Tourism Research 
Association, Niagara Falls, Canada. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

66 

 
 
                                                      
done by Neumann and Reuber (2004)1, which surveyed 4,062 Germans with disabilities. 52% of 

them depended on a companion. Of these, over half required full-time assistance in the form of 

support in moving around or pursuing leisure activities.  

In estimating the possible impact of accessible tourism, it is often argued that tourism suppliers who 

cannot accommodate the travel needs of persons with disabilities are also losing the business of 
their friends and family members2. To quantify this sort of ‘multiplication’ or, more precisely, incurred 

tourism demand, proves to be tricky, because the numbers of travel companions for each person are 

largely missing or unreported. Neumann and Reuber (2004) showed that the respondents with 
dependence needs were on average accompanied by 1.56 persons. Buhalis et al.(2005)3 suggested 

a ‘multiplier’ of 2 with regard to travel companions.  

However, it has to be noted that the numbers above were usually yielded on an ad hoc basis, in the 

sense that the studies were conducted in a specific country and basically only those with physical 

disabilities were reached. Therefore it is not appropriate to generalise the numbers’ applicability to 

cover the whole EU27 area. Besides, strictly speaking, it will exaggerate the market size of 

accessible tourism by attributing the travel companions’ demand to that of people with access 

needs, because travel companions’ demand can be well catered for by the existing generic tourism 

facilities. 

Regarding the elderly population, in 2011 it totalled 88.8 million across EU27 area, of which 37.3 

million were male and the remainder female (51.4 million). Figure 26 and Figure 27 provide an 

overview of the gender distribution. The female elderly population is consistently larger than the 

male elderly population, across the EU27 area and in the key inbound markets.  

The following hypotheses can be formulated. 

 H1: France, Germany, Italy and the UK are the major European source markets for the EU’s 

Accessible Tourism. 

 H2: The BRICS countries and the USA are the most important international inbound markets 

for the EU’s Accessible Tourism. 

1 Neumann, P., & Reuber, P. (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All. Study commissioned by 
the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA), Berlin, Germany. 
2 http://ncpedp.org/access/isu-travel.htm 
3 Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market and stakeholder 
analysis. OSSATE project Guildford: University of Surrey. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

67 

 
 
                                                      
 H3: Mobility facilities are the primary area of access needs, and sufficient attention should be 

paid to these facilities.1 

 H4: The seniors have higher spending power than the people with disabilities, because they 

have higher wealth level and are more willing to spend on leisure activities. 

 H5: The seniors are more frequent travellers than the people with disabilities. 

 H6: The motivation of travelling and activities by the seniors are pretty diverse.  

 H7: Female senior customers will dominate the senior travel market, given the higher 

proportion of population. 

1Please note hidden impairments are a major type of disability but that related access needs are more varied 
and therefore less widely used and needed by smaller proportions of people. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 24 - Distribution of each type of disability in EU countries 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

69 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited KingdomDistribution of Each Type of Disability in EU CountriesMobility ImpairmentVisual ImpairmentHearing ImpairmentSpeech ImpairmentCognitive ImpairmentHidden Impairment0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LatviaMobility ImpairmentVisual, Hearing and Speech ImpairmentCognitive ImpairmentHidden Impairment0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PolandMobility ImpairmentVisual and Hearing ImpairmentSpeech ImpairmentCognitive ImpairmentHidden Impairment 
 
 
Figure 25 - Distribution of each type of disability in key inbound markets 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

70 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%JapanMobility, Visual, Hearing and Speech ImpairmentCognitive Impairment0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%AustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaIndiaNorwaySouth AfricaSwitzerlandUSADistribution of Each Type of Disability in Key Inbound MarketsMobility ImpairmentVisual ImpairmentHearing ImpairmentSpeech ImpairmentCognitive ImpairmentHidden Impairment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26 - Elderly population in EU27 countries by gender in 2011 (unit: thousands) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

71 

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000MaleFemale 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27 - Elderly population in major international inbound markets by gender in 2011 (unit: thousands) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

72 

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000AustraliaBrazilCanadaChinaIndiaJapanNorwayRussiaSouth AfricaSwitzerlandUSAMaleFemale 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3  Demand for accessible tourism 

3.2.3.1  Travel behaviour 
In tourism demand estimation1, two parameters concerning the travellers’ behaviour are of utmost 

importance, i.e., travel propensity and travel frequency. Both parameters are obtained from the 

online survey conducted in 12 representative countries. Results are inferred from Q1 of the 

questionnaire, as explained in the methodology section.  

It should be noted that, once the propensity indicators for the different demand segments were 

calculated based on the survey data collected, cross validation via the relevant Eurostat statistics 

was conducted. The only available information is related to the participation of the elderly population 
for overnight travel in 20122, which was used as a reliable reference to compare and adjust the 

propensity indicators calculated from the survey data. The reason for the adjustment is that, 

because of the nature and purpose of the survey, a high proportion of non-travellers did not 

participate in the survey, and therefore the sample captured a higher proportion of active travellers 

than in the actual population.  As a result, the travel propensities derived from the sample tended to 

be over-estimated. Proportionate adjustments had to be exercised consistently across all segments 

of accessible tourism demand using the Eurostat statistics as a reference.   

Figure 28 provides an overview of the travel behaviour at the EU level. Figure 29 to Figure 32 

contain detailed information for each member state. 

At EU level, more than half of the population with disabilities was reported to have travelled over the 

last 12 months (mid 2012 – mid 2013). With regard to the elderly population, this percentage is 

somewhat lower, at 40%. Compared to the propensity figures of Germany in a previous study 
(Neumann, P., & Reuber, P., 20043), which are 54.3% (people with severe disabilities, holiday trips) 

and 32.3% (people with severe disabilities, short breaks), the propensity figures in Figure 28 are 

reasonable.  

1 As explained in Section 3.2.1.1, the estimation of accessible tourism demand in this project considered two 
main segments: individuals with disabilities and the elderly population. The respondents with temporary 
limitations in the survey sample of this project accounted for only 7% (97 out of 1354) of all the respondents 
with any limitations (aged 15-64); therefore the demand by the individual with disabilities well represented the 
broader group of people with any limitations. In addition, within the survey sample people travelling with children 
were heavily overlapped with either individuals with disabilities or the elderly population, and only 184 of them 
(8.7% of the whole sample) did not fall into either group. Thus, their demand and economic contribution were 
not estimated separately.         
2 The ‘Participation in tourism for personal purposes by age group in 2012 (tour_dem_toage)’ series from: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/tourism/introduction 
3 Neumann, P., & Reuber, P. (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All. Study commissioned by 
the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA), Berlin, Germany. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

73 

 
 
                                                      
Across the EU27 countries and the two groups of people with special access needs (Figure 29 to 

Figure 32), the propensity figures vary a lot. Within the group of people with disabilities, Bulgaria 

sees the lowest percentage of people that have travelled, no matter whether it was a day trip or 

overnight trip, at below 10%. The next lowest figures are found in Romania, at roughly 10%. At the 

other end, the Netherlands has the keenest travellers with disabilities, with more than 80% who 

reported to have travelled during the last year. Within the group of the elderly population, a similar 

pattern is maintained, that is, the elderly population from Bulgaria are least likely to travel (less than 

10%). The elderly population from the Netherlands are, just as the younger people with disabilities, 

keen travellers, for both day trips and overnight trips. However, the highest propensity in the elderly 

population is found in Denmark and Sweden, which is 72.1% for overnight trips. 

In terms of the travel frequency, the EU average figures are up to slightly less than 7 trips per year 

for both day trips and overnight trips (Figure 28). Generally, individuals with disabilities conduct more 
trips than the elderly population, especially when it comes to overnight trips1. However, travel 

frequency figures across both travel types (day trips and overnight trips) cannot be added up to yield 

a total number of annual trips, because people who conduct day trips do not necessarily take 

overnight trips (for example, one can take 7 day trips per year without taking any overnight trips). 

Thus, adding up the frequency figures of both travel trips will mistakenly overstate people’s travel 

behaviour.  

With regard to the destination, the pattern is very obvious in that most of the trips are conducted 

within the respondent’s home country, especially when it comes to day trips. At the EU level (Figure 

28), slightly under 90% of all day trips were domestic trips, whereas around 70% of overnight trips 

were domestic. Compared to day trips, a higher proportion of overnight trips were spent in the intra-

EU area or internationally. At country level (Figure 29 to Figure 32), the same pattern can be 

observed with few exceptions. Individuals with disabilities from Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands 

conducted more intra-EU overnight trips (roughly 50%) than domestic overnight trips (roughly 30%) 

during mid-2012 to mid-2013. For those from Slovenia, the overnight trips were almost evenly 

spread among domestic, intra-EU and international destinations. For the elderly population from 

Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, they made very similar choices, with about 30% of overnight 

trips in the home country and more than 50% in intra-EU destinations. 

1 Regarding the group of people with disabilities, compared to the figures from BMWA’s study (Neumann, P., & 
Reuber, P., 2004), which are 1.3 holiday trips and 2.18 short breaks, the travel frequency figures in Figure 28 
appears a bit high. Nevertheless, the difference could come from the fact that the sample of the BMWA’s study 
only included those with severe disabilities, whereas the sample of the current survey have a much broader 
population base since people with less severe disabilities as well as those with temporary limitations have been 
included.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

74 

 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 28 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs: EU-wide averages, 2012  

Group 

People with Disabilities 

The Elderly population 

Travel Type 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Travel Propensity 

Travel Frequency 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

    EU (%) 

    International (%) 

51.8% 

6.7 

87.1% 

10.4% 

2.5% 

58.1% 

6.7 

60.1% 

27.4% 

12.5% 

36.4% 

6.9 

87.3% 

12.1% 

0.5% 

47.5% 

5.5 

70.0% 

22.8% 

7.2% 

Notes: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 53 responses have been discarded for the estimation, due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

           2) The travel propensity figures have been adjusted according to the ‘Participation in tourism for personal purposes by age group (tour_dem_toage)’ series of Eurostat. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

75 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
Figure 29 - Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries: country-specific averages, 2012 – Day trips 

Source Market 

Austria 

Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Travel Type 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day Trips  Day Trips  Day Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Travel Propensity 

55.1% 

27.7% 

6.4% 

40.4% 

53.8% 

68.5% 

60.8% 

68.5% 

57.9% 

57.0% 

47.4% 

21.1% 

40.4% 

Travel Frequency 

6.5 

6.5 

8.1 

6.9 

7.9 

7.7 

9.1 

7.7 

5.7 

7.3 

7.8 

8.1 

6.9 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

81.1% 

81.1% 

88.0% 

90.6% 

88.0% 

90.1% 

92.5% 

90.1% 

86.0% 

85.7% 

90.1% 

88.0% 

90.6% 

    EU (%) 

18.3% 

18.3% 

10.0% 

5.9% 

10.8% 

8.5% 

7.3% 

8.5% 

11.6% 

10.4% 

8.9% 

10.0% 

5.9% 

    International (%) 

0.6% 

0.6% 

2.0% 

3.5% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

0.2% 

1.3% 

2.4% 

3.9% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

3.5% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

76 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source Market 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta 

Netherlands  Poland  Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

Travel Type 

Day 

Day 

Day 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Day 

Trips 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Day 

Day 

Day 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

United 

Kingdom 

Day Trips 

Travel Propensity  20.7% 

46.5% 

47.8% 

55.4% 

40.2% 

81.7% 

19.8% 

32.6% 

9.3% 

25.4% 

45.0% 

47.4% 

68.5% 

62.0% 

Travel Frequency  7.3 

9.1 

9.1 

6.5 

7.8 

5.8 

7.9 

7.8 

8.1 

7.9 

7.8 

7.8 

7.7 

6.7 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

85.7% 

92.5% 

92.5% 

81.1% 

74.0% 

80.1% 

88.0% 

90.1% 

88.0% 

88.0% 

74.0% 

90.1% 

90.1% 

88.9% 

    EU (%) 

10.4% 

7.3% 

7.3% 

18.3% 

16.3% 

15.4% 

10.8% 

8.9% 

10.0% 

10.8% 

16.3% 

8.9% 

8.5% 

8.3% 

    International (%)  3.9% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.6% 

9.7% 

4.4% 

1.3% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

1.3% 

9.7% 

1.0% 

1.3% 

2.8% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

77 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 30 - Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries: country-specific averages, 2012 – Overnight trips 

Source 

Market 

Travel Type 

Travel 

Propensity 

Travel 

Frequency 

Of these, 

spent in 

    Domestic 

(%) 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark  Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany  Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

61.1% 

30.7% 

7.8% 

46.2% 

61.8% 

75.5% 

62.0% 

75.5% 

70.7% 

71.6% 

49.5% 

25.7% 

46.2% 

4.3 

4.3 

7.1 

8.1 

7.1 

8.0 

7.0 

8.0 

6.3 

6.3 

8.0 

7.1 

8.1 

34.9% 

34.9% 

77.7% 

60.3% 

77.1% 

67.9% 

71.6% 

67.9% 

62.9% 

62.2% 

67.4% 

77.7% 

60.3% 

    EU (%) 

56.0% 

56.0% 

17.2% 

30.1% 

17.4% 

23.8% 

23.6% 

23.8% 

23.1% 

26.0% 

23.3% 

17.2% 

30.1% 

Internationa

9.1% 

9.1% 

5.0% 

9.6% 

5.5% 

8.3% 

4.8% 

8.3% 

14.0% 

11.8% 

9.3% 

5.0% 

9.6% 

l (%) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

78 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    
 
 
 
Source 

Market 

Travel Type 

Travel 

Propensity 

Travel 

Frequency 

Of these, 

spent in 

    Domestic 

(%) 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemb

ourg 

Malta 

Netherla

nds 

Poland 

Portugal  Romania 

Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

United 

Kingdom 

Overnight 

Overnig

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnigh

Overnigh

Overnig

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

ht Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

t Trips 

t Trips 

ht Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

26.0% 

47.4% 

48.7% 

61.4% 

38.2% 

85.7% 

22.8% 

34.1% 

11.4% 

29.2% 

42.8% 

49.5% 

75.5% 

63.7% 

6.3 

7.0 

7.0 

4.3 

3.9 

6.0 

7.1 

8.0 

7.1 

7.1 

3.9 

8.0 

8.0 

6.9 

62.2% 

71.6% 

71.6% 

34.9% 

37.6% 

34.3% 

77.1% 

67.4% 

77.7% 

77.1% 

37.6% 

67.4% 

67.9% 

55.3% 

    EU (%) 

26.0% 

23.6% 

23.6% 

56.0% 

38.9% 

47.5% 

17.4% 

23.3% 

17.2% 

17.4% 

38.9% 

23.3% 

23.8% 

29.6% 

Internationa

11.8% 

4.8% 

4.8% 

9.1% 

23.5% 

18.2% 

5.5% 

9.3% 

5.0% 

5.5% 

23.5% 

9.3% 

8.3% 

15.2% 

l (%) 

Notes: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 53 responses have been discarded for the estimation, due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

           2) The travel propensity figures have been adjusted according to the ‘Participation in tourism for personal purposes by age group (tour_dem_toage)’ series of Eurostat. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

79 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    
 
Figure 31 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the EU27 countries: country-specific averages, 2012 – Day trips 

Source Market 

Austria 

Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France  Germany  Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Travel Type 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Travel Propensity 

50.9% 

25.5% 

7.5% 

34.4% 

63.6% 

55.4% 

42.2% 

55.4% 

54.8% 

38.4% 

33.3% 

24.8% 

34.4% 

Travel Frequency 

6.2 

6.2 

8.5 

8.7 

8.7 

9.8 

7.1 

9.8 

8.1 

4.8 

5.9 

8.5 

8.7 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

79.6% 

79.6% 

95.3% 

88.5% 

92.7% 

90.8% 

97.3% 

90.8% 

89.4% 

71.0% 

93.3% 

95.3% 

88.5% 

    EU (%) 

19.9% 

19.9% 

4.7% 

11.5% 

6.8% 

9.2% 

2.0% 

9.2% 

9.9% 

27.4% 

6.7% 

4.7% 

11.5% 

    International (%)  0.6% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

0.6% 

1.6% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

80 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source Market 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta 

Netherlands  Poland  Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

Travel Type 

Day 

Day 

Day 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day Trips 

Day 

Day 

Trips 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Trips 

Day 

Day 

Trips 

Trips 

United 

Kingdom 

Day Trips 

Travel Propensity  13.9% 

32.3% 

33.1% 

51.1% 

33.1% 

64.7% 

23.4% 

22.9% 

11.0% 

30.0% 

37.0% 

33.3% 

55.4% 

47.9% 

Travel Frequency  4.8 

7.1 

7.1 

6.2 

9.7 

5.0 

8.7 

5.9 

8.5 

8.7 

9.7 

5.9 

9.8 

8.0 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

71.0% 

97.3% 

97.3% 

79.6% 

69.4% 

80.7% 

92.7% 

93.3% 

95.3% 

92.7% 

69.4% 

93.3% 

90.8% 

94.2% 

    EU (%) 

27.4% 

2.0% 

2.0% 

19.9% 

28.9% 

19.3% 

6.8% 

6.7% 

4.7% 

6.8% 

28.9% 

6.7% 

9.2% 

5.8% 

    International (%)  1.6% 

0.7% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

1.7% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

1.7% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

81 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 32 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the EU27 countries: country-specific averages, 2012 – Overnight trips 

Source Market 

Austria 

Belgium  Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Travel Type 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Travel Propensity 

56.1% 

28.2% 

8.2% 

47.5% 

60.7% 

72.1% 

32.1% 

72.1% 

65.8% 

65.0% 

40.0% 

27.2% 

47.5% 

Travel Frequency 

3.9 

3.9 

3.8 

6.4 

8.0 

7.2 

5.7 

7.2 

5.4 

5.3 

6.3 

3.8 

6.4 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

29.6% 

29.6% 

90.5% 

53.5% 

70.7% 

81.2% 

79.1% 

81.2% 

83.8% 

64.7% 

75.4% 

90.5% 

53.5% 

    EU (%) 

53.6% 

53.6% 

9.5% 

34.6% 

24.6% 

15.6% 

14.3% 

15.6% 

8.5% 

29.3% 

19.3% 

9.5% 

34.6% 

    International (%)  16.8% 

16.8% 

0.0% 

11.9% 

4.8% 

3.2% 

6.6% 

3.2% 

7.7% 

6.0% 

5.3% 

0.0% 

11.9% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

82 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Source 

Market 

Travel Type 

Travel 

Propensity 

Travel 

Frequency 

Of these, 

spent in 

    Domestic 

(%) 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta 

Netherlands  Poland  Portugal 

Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

United 

Kingdom 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

23.6% 

24.6% 

25.2% 

56.4% 

28.9% 

70.1% 

22.4% 

27.5% 

12.1% 

28.7% 

32.4% 

40.0%  72.1% 

60.8% 

5.3 

5.7 

5.7 

3.9 

7.2 

3.6 

8.0 

6.3 

3.8 

8.0 

7.2 

6.3 

7.2 

4.7 

64.7% 

79.1% 

79.1% 

29.6% 

47.4% 

39.4% 

70.7% 

75.4% 

90.5% 

70.7% 

47.4% 

75.4%  81.2% 

65.4% 

    EU (%) 

29.3% 

14.3% 

14.3% 

53.6% 

45.4% 

50.0% 

24.6% 

19.3% 

9.5% 

24.6% 

45.4% 

19.3%  15.6% 

21.8% 

    International 

(%) 

6.0% 

6.6% 

6.6% 

16.8% 

7.2% 

10.6% 

4.8% 

5.3% 

0.0% 

4.8% 

7.2% 

5.3% 

3.2% 

12.8% 

Notes: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 53 responses have been discarded for the estimation, due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

           2) The travel propensity figures have been adjusted according to the ‘Participation in tourism for personal purposes by age group (tour_dem_toage)’ series of Eurostat. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

83 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
3.2.3.2  Current tourism demand and forecasts 

Based on the population figures of people with access needs from Section 3.2.2, together with the 

travel behavioural profiling figures from Section 3.2.3.1, the current demand for accessible tourism 

can be estimated according to the rationale described in the methodology section (Section 3.2.1.1).  

Figure 33 provides a summary of the current and future demand of accessible tourism by people 

from the EU27 countries. 

Over 2011 – 2020, the tourism demand will jump from about 744.3 million trips to 861.9 million trips 

by all people with access needs within the EU27 area, which is equivalent to an annual growth rate 

of 1.64%.  

From the figure, it can be established that the elderly population will be the major source of 

travellers. Not only is the absolute size of demand by the elderly population larger than that of 

individuals with disabilities, but also the growth rates differ between the two groups of people. The 

elderly market has an implied growth rate of 1.98% per year, whereas individuals with disabilities are 

only ready to increase the demand by 0.12% per year. These forecasts are based on the 

assumption that the present travel propensity and frequency remain unchanged during the forecast 

period. It is arguable that these figures may change over time; however, without the support from the 

past literature or historical secondary data, the trends and patterns of the changes are unable to be 

established. It would be arbitrary and unjustifiable to make any assumption of changes.        

The following figure shows how the demand estimation is established and also provides detailed 

information with regard to each segment of the accessible tourism market. The figures refer to the 

current demand in 2012. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

84 

 
 
 
 
Figure 33 - The current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people from EU27 area in 
2012 

Group 

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

Population in 2012 ('000 persons) 

49,849 

90,288 

Day trips 

Travel propensity (%) 

51.8% 

Travel frequency (trips per year) 

6.7 

    Of these, spent in  

    Domestic 

    Other EU countries (%) 

    International destinations (%) 

87.1% 

10.4% 

2.5% 

36.4% 

6.9 

87.3% 

12.1% 

0.5% 

Demand for EU's tourism ('000 trips) 

169,902 

225,623 

Overnight trips 

Travel propensity (%) 

58.1% 

Travel frequency (trips per year) 

6.7 

    Of these, spent in  

    Domestic 

    Other EU countries (%) 

    International destinations (%) 

60.1% 

27.4% 

12.5% 

47.5% 

5.5 

70.0% 

22.8% 

7.2% 

Demand for EU's tourism ('000 trips) 

169,656 

217,586 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

85 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the current and future demand trends of both the people with 

disabilities and the elderly population from 2012 to 2020. As the travel frequencies are very similar 

between day trips and overnight trips (Figure 33), it is not surprising that in Figure 35 and Figure 36, 

demand for both types of trips only differ marginally.  

At country level, current and future demand figures can be found in Annex T where each country’s 

tourism demand and economic contribution figures are compiled. Figure 37 to Figure 39 visualise 

the current demand figures in geographical maps.  

From the maps, it can be easily discerned that France, the United Kingdom and Germany are the 

three major source markets for the EU’s accessible tourism, which inevitably is linked to their large 

population size.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

86 

 
 
Figure 34 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by EU27 countries from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

87 

339,558339,770340,062340,439340,901341,440342,029342,632343,222443,209452,073461,307470,759480,314489,897499,467509,029518,647782,768791,843801,369811,197821,215831,337841,496851,662861,8690100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,0001,000,000201220132014201520162017201820192020Demand by People with DisabilitiesDemand by The Elderly PeopleDemand by People with Access Needs 
 
 
 
Figure 35 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

88 

339,558339,770340,062340,439340,901341,440342,029342,632343,222050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000201220132014201520162017201820192020Day TripsOvernight TripsDemand by People with Disabilities 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

89 

443,209452,073461,307470,759480,314489,897499,467509,029518,6470100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000201220132014201520162017201820192020Day TripsOvernight TripsDemand by The Elderly People 
 
 
Figure 37 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs in the 
EU27 countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 38 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities in the 
EU27 countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 39 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population in the EU27 
countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Among the people with disabilities, further demand for accessible tourism by individual with each 

type of impairment can be predicted. The estimation is based on the current and future overall 

demand figures in Figure 35 and the prevalence rates of disabilities.  

Figure 40 presents the estimation results. It is obvious that the demand for accessible tourism is 

predominantly related to people with mobility limitations and hidden limitations. As the EU’s 

population of individuals with disabilities stays highly stable over the forecasting period (Figure 20), 

the tourism demand related to each type of impairment also increases stagnantly. Specially, the 

annual growth rate of the demand related to mobility limitations from 2012 to 2020 is 0.15%, sensory 

limitations 0.15%, communication limitations 0.04%, behavioural limitations 0.12% and hidden 

limitations 0.13%. 

Figure 40 – Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with 
disabilities in the EU27 countries: by types of impairment (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Note: 1) The demand figures across different disability types cannot be added up. Such add-up will 

substantially exaggerate the scale of demand, because people may have multiple disabilities. Hence 

their demand may be counted more than once under different types of impairment.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

93 

123,69822,3133,66833,947159,057125,20722,5793,68034,268160,664020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000MobilitySensesCommunicationBehaviourHidden20122020 
 
 
 
 
3.2.4  Demand for accessible tourism under different scenarios of improvements 

3.2.4.1  Travel behaviour under different scenarios 

It is anticipated that by improving the level of accessible facilities across the European Union, more 

tourism demand can be elicited. This is generally supported by the responses to the survey. 

This is addressed byQ26 in the questionnaire: 

Q26. If Scenarios A, B or C were true for any EU destinations you were interested in visiting, would 

you consider including some of these EU destinations in your travel plans for the next 12 months? 

Among the people with disabilities that travelled last year, about 32.7%, 46.4% and 53.2% of them 

would like to visit some of the destinations which are currently relatively weak in offering accessible 

facilities, if the level of their accessible infrastructure could be improved under different scenarios A 

(minimum improvements), B (medium improvements) and C (extensive improvements) respectively 

(see Figure 41 and Annex S). Nevertheless, among these positive respondents only a small 

proportion (13.8%, 13.9% and 41.1% respectively under different scenarios A, B and C, equivalent 

to 4.5%, 6.4% and 21.9% of all respondents with disabilities) felt ready to increase their travel 

budget and make additional trips to these destinations.  The rest of the positive respondents were 

more likely to switch between their previous travel destinations and new destinations without 
increasing their usual travel budget1. The relatively cautious consideration of their travel budget is 

likely to be influenced by the current uncertain economic climate in Europe.   

Among the elderly population that travelled last year, about 20.5%, 29.5% and 38.0% of them 

would like to visit some new destinations if accessibility were to be improved under different 

scenarios A, B  and C, respectively (see Figure 41 and Annex S). Compared to the travellers with 

disabilities, a smaller proportion of elderly travellers who showed positive attitudes (8.3%, 10.5% and 

26.1% respectively under different scenarios A, B and C, equivalent to 1.7%, 3.1% and 9.9% of all 

the elderly respondents who travelled last year) was willing to increase their travel budget. 

Understandably, the elderly travellers were more cautious with their financial planning especially in a 

tough economic situation.   

1 Effectively they would not contribute to the additional demand and additional economic contribution under 
each scenario. Therefore, the scenario forecasting and the following scenario economic impact estimation only 
considered the proportion of the respondents who were willing to both increase their budget and take additional 
trips. The same consideration was also applied to the calculations in relation to the other segment (i.e., the 
elderly population who travelled last year).   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 41 - Increased willingness to travel under different scenarios – existing travellers 

However, an important dimension that needs to be taken into consideration is that under each 

scenario, there will be people who haven’t travelled but would be willing to travel, due to the 

improvements in accessibility. Also from Q26 in the questionnaire, among the people with disabilities 

that have not travelled last year, up to 24.2% would be willing to travel under Scenario A (minimum 

improvements). Under Scenario B (medium improvements), 36.8% of these non-travellers would 

become travellers, and under Scenario C (extensive improvements), the percentage would be 

44.2%. 

For the elderly people, though their willingness to convert from non-travellers to travellers is 

apparently lower, the figures are still positive. Under Scenario A (minimum improvements), 16.1% 

would be going to travel, whereas under Scenario B (medium improvements) and Scenario C 

(extensive improvements), the percentage would become 19.5% and 25.3%, respectively. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 42 - Willingness to travel under different scenarios – non-travellers 

Given that there will be new travellers joining the forces that drive up the demand for accessible 

tourism, the travel propensity under the different scenarios will be higher than the baseline situation.  

The travel behavioural profiling figures at the EU level are displayed in Figure 43 to Figure 45, whilst 

the country level figures can be found in Annex T where each country’s tourism demand and 

economic contribution figures are compiled. 

Figure 43 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs under different scenario A 
(minimum improvements): EU-wide averages 

Group 

People with Disabilities 

The Elderly population 

Travel Type 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Travel Propensity 

64.8% 

69.4% 

47.5% 

57.4% 

Travel Frequency 

6.9 

6.7 

6.8 

5.4 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

83.2% 

59.0% 

85.2% 

68.6% 

    EU (%) 

14.5% 

29.1% 

14.3% 

24.5% 

    International (%) 

2.4% 

11.9% 

0.5% 

6.9% 

Note: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 367 responses have been discarded for the estimation, 

due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

96 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Figure 44 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs under different scenario B (medium 
improvements): EU-wide averages 

Group 

People with Disabilities 

The Elderly population 

Travel Type 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Travel Propensity 

70.7% 

74.7% 

49.7% 

59.2% 

Travel Frequency 

7.1 

6.8 

6.9 

5.4 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

80.7% 

58.5% 

84.1% 

68.3% 

    EU (%) 

17.0% 

29.9% 

15.4% 

24.8% 

    International (%) 

2.3% 

11.7% 

0.5% 

6.8% 

Note: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 367 responses have been discarded for the estimation, 

due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

Figure 45 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs under different scenario C 
(extensive improvements): EU-wide averages 

Group 

People with Disabilities 

The Elderly population 

Travel Type 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Travel Propensity 

74.2% 

77.7% 

53.3% 

62.1% 

Travel Frequency 

7.4 

6.9 

6.9 

5.5 

Of these, spent in 

    Domestic (%) 

77.6% 

57.3% 

82.9% 

63.9% 

    EU (%) 

20.2% 

31.3% 

16.6% 

29.9% 

    International (%) 

2.2% 

11.3% 

0.5% 

6.2% 

Note: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 367 responses have been discarded for the estimation, 

due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

97 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
3.2.4.2  Tourism demand and forecasts under different scenarios 

Based on the travel behaviour profiling figures, the tourism demand can be estimated in a way 

similar to Figure 33, which follows exactly the rationale described in the methodology section. 

The tourism demand trends from 2012 to 2020 are displayed in Figure 47 to Figure 49. To highlight 

the new trips taken under the scenarios of improvements, the figures use stacked columns, which 

illustrate the build-up of demand with improvements in accessibility. 

Overall, the demand will see a leap from the baseline situation to Scenario A. By drawing on the 

figures from 2012, the baseline current demand is 782.8 million trips by all people with access needs 
in the EU27 area1. With minimum improvements, the tourism demand could jump to 971.9 million 

trips, or an increase of 24.2%. From Scenario A to Scenario B, however, the difference is relatively 

small, at around 7.3% when compared to Scenario A, or 33.2% when compared to the baseline. A 

further 7.8% from Scenario B to Scenario C can be expected, when almost all buildings are made 

accessible together with services catered to special access needs. Figure 46 summarises the 

increase of tourism demand under all three scenarios. 

The figures for country level tourism demand under different scenarios can be found in Annex T. 

1 The baseline figures can be found in Section 3.2.3.2. More specifically, the demand numbers in Figure 47 to 
Figure 49 are all baseline figures. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 46 - Summary of potential demand for accessible tourism under different scenarios in 2012 

Scenario 

People with access needs 

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

Baseline demand ('000 

trips) 

782,768 

increase against 

baseline 

339,558 

increase against baseline 

443,209 

increase against baseline 

Scenario A demand ('000 

trips) 

Scenario B demand ('000 

trips) 

Scenario C demand ('000 

trips) 

971,879 

24.2% 

422,298 

24.4% 

549,581 

24.0% 

1,042,995 

33.2% 

467,795 

37.8% 

575,200 

29.8% 

1,124,242 

43.6% 

504,454 

48.6% 

619,788 

39.8% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

99 

 
 
Figure 47 - Demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs in the EU27 countries (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

100 

782,768791,843801,369811,197821,215831,337841,496851,662861,869189,111190,952192,910194,950197,042199,159201,272203,361205,42871,11671,59572,10872,64573,19973,76574,33474,89975,46081,24782,01482,83083,68384,56085,44986,33887,21988,0910200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,000201220132014201520162017201820192020BaselineAdditional Demand under Scenario AAdditional Demand under Scenario BAdditional Demand under Scenario C 
 
 
 
Figure 48 - Demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities in the EU27 countries (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

101 

339,558339,770340,062340,439340,901341,440342,029342,632343,22282,74082,77482,83382,91583,02183,14883,28983,43283,56945,49745,51845,55345,60045,65945,73045,80745,88545,96036,65936,67836,70836,74836,79936,85936,92536,99237,0570100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000201220132014201520162017201820192020BaselineAdditional Demand under Scenario AAdditional Demand under Scenario BAdditional Demand under Scenario C 
 
 
 
Figure 49 - Demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population in the EU27 countries (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

102 

443,209452,073461,307470,759480,314489,897499,467509,029518,647106,372108,179110,077112,035114,022116,011117,983119,929121,85925,61926,07726,55527,04527,54028,03528,52729,01429,50044,58845,33646,12246,93547,76248,59049,41350,22751,0340100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000201220132014201520162017201820192020BaselineAdditional Demand under Scenario AAdditional Demand under Scenario BAdditional Demand under Scenario C 
 
 
3.2.5  Demand for accessible tourism – International inbound markets 

3.2.5.1  Travel behaviour 

For the international inbound markets, a literature review was carried out with regard to mainly the 

profile of senior travellers from these markets. Thirty-seven journal articles and books were 

identified, with the key findings of each study summarised (see Annex D1 for full details of the 

summary, Annex D2 for additional numerical profiling of selected markets, and Annex D3 for a full 

list of the 37 articles and books).  

The demographic profiling of the EU27 accessible tourism demand was performed based on the 

primary data collected from the online survey among cluster representative countries. With regard to 

international inbound markets, an online survey was conducted via specialised organisations based 

in those countries. In order to validate and support the data collected through these additional 

channels, efforts have been made to collect relevant information from secondary data sources – 

mainly quantitative studies published in academic journals and books.  

The key non-EU inbound markets covered in this literature review include Brazil, China, the USA, 

Japan, Australia, Norway and Switzerland. For the Russian market, only general tourist behaviour, 

not specifically related to the senior traveller segment, was identified. For the Indian market, no 

studies were found. This indicates a lack of knowledge of the Russian and Indian outbound tourism 

markets, despite the fact that they are two emerging source markets for outbound travel.     

A general observation of the senior tourism market is that it has received much attention from 

industry practitioners in many countries. A major reason for this is that the number of international 

senior tourists, especially from Europe and North America, has consistently increased over the past 
10 years (Alén et al., 2012) 1. It is widely recognised that senior travellers often have large amounts 

of discretionary income due to the wealth they have accumulated over their lifetimes (Chon and 
Singh, 19952; You and O’Leary, 20003; Bai et al., 20014). Many are willing to spend a large portion of 

1 Alén, E., Domínguez, T., & Losada, N. (2012). New Opportunities for the Tourism Market: Senior Tourism and 
Accessible Tourism. Murat Kasimoglu (a cura di)“Visions for Global Tourism Industry-Creating and Sustaining 
Competitive Strategies”, InTech, Open Access Publisher (www.intechopen.com).. 
2 Chon S, & Singh A. (1995). Marketing resorts to 2000: review of trends in the USA. Tourism Management 
16(6):463–469. 
3 You X, & O’Leary J. (2000). Age and cohort effects: an examination of older Japanese travellers. Journal of 
Travel and Tourism Marketing 9(1/2): 21–42. 
4 Bai B, Jang S, Cai L, & O’Leary J.( 2001). Determinants of travel mode choice of senior travelers to the United 
States. Journal of Hospitably and Leisure Marketing 8(3): 147–168. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

103 

 
 
                                                      
this income on leisure activities, including overseas travel (Teaff and Turpin, 19961; Thai Farmers 
Research Center, 19992; Bai et al., 20013). And, importantly, senior travellers often have more time 

to travel than any other age groups, as most are retired, and have fewer family responsibilities (Teaff 
and Turpin, 19964). Time flexibility after retirement among seniors, makes the senior travel market 

more attractive to travel businesses that suffer from seasonal demand fluctuation (Jang and Wu, 
20065). 

In addition to the profiling of the senior travel market, the literature regarding the profile of travellers 

with disabilities from the international inbound markets was examined. However, only very limited 

research has been found containing relevant quantitative information of profiling.  

Van Horn (2012)6 analysed the travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the USA, based on the 

results from Open Doors Organization (ODO)’s nationwide study in 2002 and 2005. It is found that 

roughly 70% of adults with disabilities travel at least once in a two-year period. In terms of travel 

frequency, they take about two trips every two years, with each trip lasting 5 days. Whilst travelling, 

the typical adult with a disability spends US$430. But the typical spending on international travel is 
up to almost US$1,600 per trip7.   

Dwyer and Darcy (2010)8 conducted an economic impact study on accessible tourism in Australia. 

The study made use of the data from the Australian Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) and the 

National Visitor Survey. The data suggest that when a person with a disability travels on an 

overnight trip, they are in a group of between 2 to 8 people (on average 3). With regard to spending, 

the expenditure on overnight trips by people with disabilities (AU$444) is roughly 76% of their non-

1 Teaff J, & Turpin T. (1996). Travel and the elderly. Parks and Recreation 31(6): 16–19. 
2 Thai Farmers Research Center. (1999). Senior Tourists: Next Target Visitors with High Purchasing Power. 
Available at http://www.krc.co.th/tfrc/cgi/ticket/ticket.exe 
3 Bai, B., Jang S., Cai, L., & O’Leary J. ( 2001). Determinants of travel mode choice of senior travelers to the 
United States. Journal of Hospitably and Leisure Marketing 8(3): 147–168. 
4 Teaff, J., & Turpin, T. (1996). Travel and the elderly. Parks and Recreation 31(6): 16–19. 
5 Jang, S., & Wu, C. (2006). Seniors travel motivation and the influential factors: an examination of Taiwanese 
senior. Tourism Management 27(2):306–316. 
6 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with disabilities. Best practice in accessible tourism: 
Inclusion, disability, ageing population and tourism, 65-78. 
7 Research among Adults with Disabilities: Travel and Hospitality. 
(https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http
%3A%2F%2Fwww.ossate.org%2Fdocs%2Fresults_2nd_Intern_workshop%2FZografopoulos.ppt&ei=8t6pUvHi
C83xhQe-uYDwBA&usg=AFQjCNEmPpbYHOIios96LxDLbYHO43IYFw&bvm=bv.57967247,d.ZG4) 
8 Dwyer, L., & Darcy, S. (2010). Economic contribution of tourists with disabilities: An Australian approach and 
methodology. Accessible Tourism. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

104 

 
 
                                                      
disabled counterparts (AU$582). On average they had 5 trips away annually, staying for 4.98 nights. 

However, as the study focuses only on the domestic and inbound tourism in Australia, it is of limited 

use with regard to the behaviour of the Australians with disabilities travelling to the EU. As with the 

estimation for the EU markets, a tourism demand calculation for the key international markets has to 

make use of the primary data collected via the specialised organisations. Four major countries, 

namely Brazil, China, Russia and the USA, have been selected to conduct the online survey. In total 

423 responses (including both people with disabilities and the elderly population) have been 

received ; of which 9 responses were discarded during the estimation process, as irrational travel 

patterns have been identified (for example, the total number of days travelled over the last 12 

months exceeds 365). 

Following the rationale described in Section 3.2.1, two behavioural parameters, i.e., the travel 

propensity and the travel frequency, are to be extracted from the survey data. A preliminary 

calculation showed that, among people with disabilities that have been surveyed, between 14.8% 
and 64.6% claimed that they had overnight trips1 to the EU over the last 12 months. The travel 

frequency of those travellers can be up to 2.5 to 4.0 times per year. Similarly, among the elderly 

population surveyed, between 5.5% and 18.4% reported that they had travelled to the EU on 

overnight trips. The frequency is about 1.0 to 2.3 times per year.  

From the preliminary results, the departure number (i.e., travel propensity × travel frequency) ranges 

between 59.3 trips and 162.5 trips for every 100 people with disabilities, and between 5.5 trips and 

39.6 trips for every 100 elderly people.  

Compared with the generic tourism sector (all age groups, with or without access needs), the 

preliminary results draw a too optimistic picture of accessible tourism. According to the statistics 

‘Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments by country/world region of residence of the tourist’ 
from Eurostat (series code: tour_occ_arnraw2) and the population figures from the World Bank3, the 

departures to the EU per 100 people for the international inbound markets are shown in Figure 50. 

1 As it would be unrealistic to travel from the international markets to the EU within a day trip, the estimation for 
the international inbound markets only focused on the overnight trips. 
2 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=tour_occ_arnraw&lang=en 
3 Population dynamics and structure, World Development Indicators database 
(http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

105 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 50- Departures to the EU per 100 people in 2011 by all tourists from key international 

inbound markets (unit: trips per year)  

Source Market 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Departures to EU per 
100 people (travel 
propensity × travel 
frequency) 

18.59 

1.66 

11.00 

0.38 

0.16 

4.51 

Source Market 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa 

Switzerland 

USA 

Departures to EU per 
100 people (travel 
propensity × travel 
frequency) 

120.15 

6.99 

1.12 

137.85 

6.87 

Notes: 1) The figures mean the number of trips made by every 100 people over a one-year period; these are 

equivalent to the travel propensity multiplied by the travel frequency. 

            2) The figures are derived from the number of overnight arrivals to EU and the whole population of a 

particular source market. 

The figures in Figure 50 are generally much smaller than the preliminary results. On the one hand, 

as the sample size of the survey in the international markets is relatively small, it is unavoidable that 

the results based on the survey data will be influenced by outliers (i.e., extreme values). On the 

other hand, as suggested above, the survey tends to attract the more active respondents and hence 

captures a high proportion of travellers. Hence the travel propensity figures calculated from the 

survey data may exaggerate the real situation (the whole group of people with access needs may 

actually be not as active as the survey data show). A preliminary estimation showed that the travel 

propensity, frequency and spending indicators were too positive and much higher than those of the 

generic tourism sector (all age groups, with and without access needs). Therefore, to take a cautious 

approach, Figure 50 is used to approximate the demand for accessible tourism by the key 

international inbound markets. The assumption is that the group of people with access needs are, if 

not less, as likely to travel as the general population. 

According to Figure 50, the highest departure figures are observed in Norway and Switzerland, 

which are not surprising because both these two source markets are next to the EU countries. At the 

other end of the spectrum, China and India have the lowest departure figures. This could be linked 

to several factors, such as the limited budget for long haul travel, the huge price gap between the 

origin country and the EU, and the visa requirements.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

106 

 
 
 
  
3.2.5.2  Current tourism demand and forecasts 

Based on Figure 50 and the population figures of people with disabilities and the elderly people, the 

scale of current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs from the key 

international inbound markets are estimated. Figure 51 illustrates how the demand figures are 

derived. It is estimated that in 2012 the total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with 

disabilities from the 11 key international markets was up to 7.2 million trips and 10.4 million trips by 

the elderly population. Hence, in total the demand by the two groups was 17.6 million trips in 2012. 

To visualise the information in Figure 51, and allow for a comparison between different source 

markets, Figure 52 shows each key source market’s share of the current tourism demand in 2012. 

Figure 51 - Current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs from 

key international inbound markets in 2012 

Source Market 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Group 

People with disabilities 

Population in 2012 ('000 
persons) 

Departures to EU per 
100 people (travel 
propensity × travel 
frequency) 

Demand for EU's 
tourism ('000 trips) 

3,032 

32,339 

3,994 

61,898 

17,205 

4,656 

18.59 

1.66 

11.00 

0.38 

0.16 

4.51 

563 

538 

439 

233 

28 

210 

Group 

The elderly population 

Population in 2012 ('000 
persons) 

Departures to EU per 
100 people (travel 
propensity × travel 
frequency) 

Demand for EU's 
tourism ('000 trips) 

3,202 

14,661 

5,145 

115,633 

63,766 

30,905 

18.59 

1.66 

11.00 

0.38 

0.16 

4.51 

595 

244 

566 

436 

103 

1,395 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source Market 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa  Switzerland 

USA 

Group 

People with disabilities 

Population in 2012 ('000 
persons) 

Departures to EU per 
100 people (travel 
propensity × travel 
frequency) 

Demand for EU's 
tourism ('000 trips) 

544 

9,166 

2,438 

1,196 

32,074 

120.15 

6.99 

1.12 

137.85 

6.87 

654 

641 

27 

1,649 

2,203 

Group 

The elderly population 

Population in 2012 ('000 
persons) 

Departures to EU per 
100 people (travel 
propensity × travel 
frequency) 

Demand for EU's 
tourism ('000 trips) 

769 

18,143 

2,500 

1,385 

42,526 

120.15 

6.99 

1.12 

137.85 

6.87 

924 

1,269 

28 

1,909 

2,922 

Comparing the two groups of people with access needs (Figure 51), i.e., those with disabilities and 

the elderly population, it is obvious that more demand comes from the latter group, given a larger 

population base of that group. In ageing societies, for example Japan, the demand for EU’s tourism 

by the elderly population can be 6 times as high as that by people with disabilities.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 52- Share of current demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs 

from key international inbound markets in 2012 

Across the 11 inbound markets, the USA and Switzerland are the two most important source 

markets for EU’s accessible tourism, in terms of the size of demand. In 2012, the travellers with 

access needs from these two countries accounted for almost half of the total demand by all the 11 

markets. As can be seen from Figure 52, big shares of demand are unambiguously found in more 

developed countries, such as the USA, Switzerland, Japan, Norway, Australia and Canada. An 

exception is Russia, which is less developed. As explained by the low departure figures, the 

considerably huge population of China and India does not translate into much of the tourism 

demand. 

Based on the forecasts of the population in the coming decade, up to 2020, the future demand for 

EU’s accessible tourism by people from the key international inbound markets is established, as 

shown in Figure 53. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

109 

Australia6.6%Brazil4.4%Canada5.7%China3.8%India0.7%Japan9.1%Norway9.0%Russia10.9%South Africa0.3%Switzerland20.2%USA29.2% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 53 - Current and future demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access 

needs from the key international inbound markets from 2012-2020 (unit: ‘000 trips) 

As with the pattern found in the EU source markets, the tourism demand from the international 

markets will also continue to be dominated by the elderly population over the years to come. 

Specifically, from Figure 53 it can be seen that the implied growth rate of demand by people with 

disabilities is merely 0.55% per year, whereas that for the elderly population could reach 2.90% per 

year. Compared with the EU sources markets (annual growth rates at 0.12% for people with 

disabilities, and 1.98% for the elderly population), the international inbound markets look much more 

promising. 

Among the people with disabilities, the demand for accessible tourism according to each type of 

impairment can be further established. As official secondary data on the prevalence of each 

impairment type are not found in every inbound market, the estimation is only carried out for those 

countries where the data are available. No total demand figures for each impairment type are 

provided. The estimation results at the country level can be found in Annex T, which consists of the 

profile of each source market’s demand and associated economic impacts.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

110 

7,1867,2287,2697,3087,3467,3847,4257,4677,51110,39010,67910,98411,30011,63011,96912,31812,68113,05817,57617,90618,25218,60818,97619,35319,74320,14820,56905,00010,00015,00020,00025,000201220132014201520162017201820192020People with disabilitiesThe elderly populationPeople with access needs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.6  Demand for accessible tourism under different scenarios – International 

inbound markets 

3.2.6.1  Travel behaviour under different scenarios 

Under different scenarios of improvements, it is expected that ever more people with access needs 

from the international inbound markets would be willing to visit EU destinations. 

When investigating the survey data, a distinction is made between existing travellers and new 

travellers. It should be noted that the existing travellers mentioned in this section refer to those who 

have visited the EU over the last 12 months. Accordingly, the new travellers are those who have 

not visited the EU during this past year but are willing to travel under different scenarios; this group 

includes both those who simply have not travelled to any destination at all and those who have only 

travelled to destinations other than the EU countries.  

Of the 423 responses received, as explained in Section 3.2.5.1, 9 were discarded due to irrational 

travel behaviour reported. Another 84 responses were further filtered out, due to irrational answers 

to travel behaviour under different scenarios. Hence, for the purpose of this calculation, only 330 

responses were used.  

For people from the international markets (specifically Brazil, China, Russia and the USA which 

were included in the survey), it is a long haul journey to travel to the EU destinations. It is thus not 

surprising that only a small fraction of the population can travel to the EU, considering that many will 

be constrained by limited time and budget.  

Of the 330 respondents with access needs, only 66 (or 20% of the sample) reported that they had 

travelled to the EU over this last year. Answers from these 66 respondents are still quite 

encouraging when it comes to their travel behaviour under different scenarios. However, due to the 

low base size, the results should be interpreted with caution. 

Figure 54 and Annex S summarise the statistics. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 54. Increased willingness to travel under scenarios – existing travellers 

From the figures, among the people with disabilities that have travelled to the EU over the past 12 

months, 45%, 72.5% and 77.5% of them are willing to increase their number of trips in the future in 

order to visit some of the destinations that are currently relatively weak in terms of accessibility, if the 

level of accessibility of those destinations are to be improved under scenarios A (minimum 

improvements), B (medium improvements) and C (extensive improvements), respectively. A closer 

look at the row ‘Distribution between Option 1 & Option 2 (%)’ in Annex S reveals that, to finance 

their additional trips to the EU, only a small proportion of people chose to increase their total budget 

(i.e., Option 1). For the majority, they chose Option 2, which means they are not going to increase 

their total annual travel budget and inevitably will switch between their previous travel destinations 

and new destinations. This reality implies that the improvement of accessibility could potentially 

increase the EU destinations’ competitiveness as monetary flows by the tourists (tourism 

expenditure) could be diverted from other international destinations to the EU countries.   

Among the elderly population that have travelled to the EU, 46.2%, 50% and 61.5% of them would 

take extra trips to visit some EU destinations if the level of accessibility could be improved under 

scenarios A, B and C, respectively. Not surprisingly, the majority of the elderly population who 

showed positive attitudes are only willing to take the extra trips with their total budget unchanged. In 

fact, compared to that of people with disabilities, the proportion of the elderly population who chose 

Option 2 is even higher (row ‘Distribution between Option 1 & Option 2 (%)’ in Annex S). Thus 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

112 

 
 
 
improving accessibility could potentially help to attract more international tourists to the EU against 

other destinations. 

Apart from those who have travelled to the EU, those who have not would also change their 

behaviour when the accessibility of EU destinations was improved. Of the 330 respondents that 

have been included in the calculation, 264 claimed that they have not come to the EU over the last 

12 months. This implies a large market that deserves more attention and could potentially be 

persuaded to explore Europe. Figure 55 shows the percentages of people with access needs that 

have not been to the EU but would be willing to travel under different scenarios of improvements in 

accessibility. 

From the figure it can be seen that 33%, 39.4% and 45.9% of people with disabilities who have not 

been to the EU in the last 12 months would visit some EU destinations under scenarios A (minimum 

improvements), B (medium improvements) and C (extensive improvements), respectively. Among 

the elderly population who have not been to the EU, the percentages are slightly lower (25.2%, 

38.7% and 41.3%, respectively).  

Comparing Figure 54 and Figure 55, in general it can be inferred that people that have not visited 

the EU are not as enthusiastic to take extra trips to the EU as those who have. But considering the 

large proportion of people that have not travelled to the EU, some 30%-40% of new travellers from 

this group would already ensure a considerable hike in demand. 

 Figure 55 - Willingness to travel under different scenarios – new travellers 

Based on the numbers in Figure 54 and Figure 55 (which will affect the travel propensity under 

different scenarios) and the number of extra trips (answers to Q29 in the questionnaire, which will 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

113 

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Scenario AScenario BScenario CPeople with disabilitiesThe elderly population 
 
 
 
 
affect the travel frequency), a preliminary estimation reveals that the departures to the EU per 100 

people should accordingly increase by 27.8%, 49.3% and 74.6% for people with access needs (both 

people with disabilities and the elderly population). Figure 56 summarises the departure per 100 

people figures under different scenarios, on which the calculation of scenario tourism demand is 

based. 

Figure 56 - Departures to the EU per 100 people by all tourists from key international inbound 

markets under different scenarios (unit: trips per year) 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Baseline 

18.59 

Scenario A 

23.75 

Scenario B 

27.75 

Scenario C 

32.45 

1.66 

2.13 

2.48 

2.90 

11.00 

14.05 

16.42 

19.20 

0.38 

0.48 

0.56 

0.66 

0.16 

0.21 

0.24 

0.28 

4.51 

5.77 

6.74 

7.88 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa 

Switzerland 

USA 

Baseline 

120.15 

Scenario A 

153.51 

Scenario B 

179.42 

Scenario C 

209.77 

6.99 

8.93 

10.44 

12.21 

1.12 

1.43 

1.67 

1.95 

137.85 

176.13 

205.86 

240.68 

6.87 

8.78 

10.26 

11.99 

3.2.6.2  Tourism demand and forecasts under different scenarios 

With the numbers in Figure 56, the current and future demand for the EU’s accessible tourism by 

people from the key international inbound markets can be established in exactly the same way as 

Figure 51.  

Figure 57 presents the change of total demand by the 11 key international markets under different 

scenarios. The demand figures have already considered both the extra trips taken by the existing 

travellers and the trips by the new travellers.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

114 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 57- Summary of potential total demand for accessible tourism by the key international 

inbound markets under different scenarios in 2012 

Scenario 

People with access needs 

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

Baseline demand 
('000 trips) 

17,576 

increase against 
baseline 

7,186 

increase against 
baseline 

10,390 

increase against 
baseline 

Scenario A 
demand ('000 
trips) 

Scenario B 
demand ('000 
trips) 

Scenario C 
demand ('000 
trips) 

22,456 

27.8% 

9,181 

27.8% 

13,275 

27.8% 

26,247 

49.3% 

10,731 

49.3% 

15,515 

49.3% 

30,686 

74.6% 

12,546 

74.6% 

18,140 

74.6% 

The evolution of potential demand for accessible tourism from 2012-2020 is displayed in Figure 58 – 

Figure 60. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 58 - Total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with access needs from the 

11 key international inbound markets (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

116 

17,57617,90618,25218,60818,97619,35319,74320,14820,5694,8804,9725,0685,1675,2695,3735,4825,5945,7113,7913,8623,9364,0134,0924,1744,2584,3454,4364,4404,5234,6104,7004,7934,8884,9875,0895,19605,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000201220132014201520162017201820192020BaselineAdditional demand under Scenario AAdditional demand under Scenario BAdditional demand under Scenario C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 59 - Total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by people with disabilities from the 11 

key international inbound markets (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Figure 60 - Total demand for EU’s accessible tourism by the elderly population from the 11 

key international inbound markets (unit: ‘000 trips) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

117 

7,1867,2287,2697,3087,3467,3847,4257,4677,5111,9952,0072,0182,0292,0402,0502,0612,0732,0851,5501,5591,5681,5761,5841,5931,6011,6101,6201,8151,8261,8361,8461,8551,8651,8751,8861,89702,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000201220132014201520162017201820192020BaselineAdditional demand under Scenario AAdditional demand under Scenario BAdditional demand under Scenario C10,39010,67910,98411,30011,63011,96912,31812,68113,0582,8852,9653,0503,1383,2293,3233,4203,5213,6262,2412,3032,3692,4372,5082,5812,6572,7352,8162,6242,6972,7742,8542,9383,0233,1123,2033,29805,00010,00015,00020,00025,000201220132014201520162017201820192020BaselineAdditional demand under Scenario AAdditional demand under Scenario BAdditional demand under Scenario C 
 
 
 
 
 
From Figure 57 to Figure 60, it can be identified that the leap of tourism demand between scenarios 

is relatively steady. This would be very much desirable when the improvements of accessible 

facilities and services are fulfilled gradually from one stage to the next. Therefore, the implication 

here is that whilst the accessibility level is being improved, the inflow of tourists from the 

international markets is likely to grow at a stable pace, rather than a radical one.  

In addition to the total figures, the potential current and future demand for each key international 

market under different scenarios can be found in Annex T. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4  Task 2 – Behavioural profiling of tourist with special access 

needs 

4.1  Task 2a - Website analysis 

Task 2a: Supply: To investigate the provision of information about accessible offers  

4.1.1  Methodology 

The main aims of the website analyses are to improve the understanding of current Accessible 

Tourism offers and to evaluate the information available to travellers with accessibility needs. The 

analysis, which will also include printed materials, will focus principally on websites as one of the 

major sources of information for travellers in general and people with access needs in particular. 

4.1.1.1  Scope 

The focus is strictly on the user’s point of view, which means conducting a so-called “customer’s 

journey” on each website. Respondents pose as ordinary guests, checking for specific information 

on a website they are visiting for the first time. In the process, a number of questions are addressed 

(see Figure 61). Figure 62 presents an example of the analysis conducted. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

119 

 
 
Figure 61 - Key questions to address in the website analysis 

Technical aspects 

Information 

Communication 

Target groups 

Service chain 

Is the website 

Is information on accessibility 

What is the main communication 

What are the target 

Which elements of the service chain 

accessible from a 

present at all, or is it missing?  

strategy? 

groups (if at all), 

are covered? This is mainly important 

technical point of view 

Is information on accessibility easy 

Does the provider address 

independent from the 

for national tourist boards or 

at least at a basic level 

to find (e.g. by browsing the main 

special target groups like 

communication 

destinations. However, even railways 

(does it follow the WAI 

menu), or is it necessary to use 

“disabled people”, “seniors” etc. 

strategy?  

or airlines may sometimes provide 

(Web Access 

the website’s search engine? 

or does the provider follow a 

Is the given information 

helpful information beyond their main 

Initiative) technical 

Is the information given in different 

mainstream strategy, embedding 

helpful for disabled 

focus. 

recommendations)? 

languages, so that it can also be 

crucial or helpful information in 

guests (if so, for what 

This is done by 

used by foreign guests? 

the main content?  

kind of disabilities), for 

analysing specific 

What is the depth of information? 

What type of message, wording 

families and/or for 

aspects of the website 

For example, are exact 

and pictures are used on the 

seniors or foreign 

design and structure. 

measurements provided or are 

website?  

nationals? 

Each criterion is 

simply phrases used like “disabled 

Is the information technical- 

applied to the relevant 

guests welcome”?  

and/or deficit-oriented, do the 

content of the 

If detailed information is given, 

pictures show settings of 

website.  

how is this presented (database, 

inclusion or “lonely wheelchair 

special web portal for disabled 

users” etc.? This question is 

guests, seal of approval etc.)?  

rather subjective; however, this 

task attempts to elicit the main 

features of the website.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

120 

 
 
 
The technical accessibility of the websites has been surveyed following the principles of the Web 

Access Initiative (WAI) from the World Wide Web Consortium (www.w3.org ) who summarises the 

accessibility requirements as following: 

•  Perceivable 

•  Provide text alternatives for non-text content. 

•  Provide captions and other alternatives for multimedia. 

•  Create content that can be presented in different ways, including by assistive 

technologies, without losing meaning. 

•  Make it easier for users to see and hear content. 

•  Operable 

•  Make all functionality available from a keyboard. 

•  Give users enough time to read and use content. 

•  Do not use content that causes seizures. 

•  Help users navigate and find content. 

•  Understandable 

•  Make text readable and understandable. 

•  Make content appear and operate in predictable ways. 

•  Help users avoid and correct mistakes. 

•  Robust 

•  Maximize compatibility with current and future user tools.1 

Among all the WAI requirements the following features that according the Design for All Foundation 

are the more relevant to ensure ease of navigation for people with or without access limitations have 

been checked: 

  Sufficient colour Contrast  

  Alt text for images 

  HTML written to accepted Web standards 

  The ability to enlarge text 

  Functional without JavaScript 

  Accessibility information about the site 

  No horizontal scroll when zooming 

  No use of frames 

1 Source: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/ 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

121 

 
 
 
                                                      
Following the results of the survey the technical level of accessibility - based on the features from 

WAI standard from W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) selected above – has been assessed for 

the above mentioned requirements for the pages inspected. They have been ranked as follows 

although to ensure their accessibility level all WAI criteria should be present in all their pages: 

  AA = level required for public administrations and companies in many countries 

  A = lower level of accessibility 

4.1.1.2  Website analysis 

Figure 62 summarises the scope of the website analysis, while the section below explains it in more 

detail. 

Figure 62 - Website analysis approach 

National websites 

Official Tourism Office/ 

Board 

Main railway company 

Europe-wide 

websites 

Tour operators 

Booking portals 

Hotel chains 

Destinations - Cities 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Netherlands 

UK 

Good practices 

Main airline 

Destinations - Beaches 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

122 

 
 
 
The website analysis is conducted along the service chain, according to the five main sectors: 

1. Travel services 

2. Transportation 

3. Accommodation 

4. Food and Beverages  

5. Entertainment 

The category "travel services" comprises all services which make travelling more comfortable for 

those with special needs. For example wheelchair assistance, guide dogs, service hotlines etc. Most 

of these services were offered on the airline and rail company sites.  

The category “Transportation" refers to transportation means for disabled people, such as 

accessible taxis or buses. Additionally information about station facilities was looked at. 

The geographical range consists of the 12 countries identified in the cluster analysis and, 

importantly, some European-wide providers. In detail the analysis covers the: 

•  Official Tourist Office / Tourist Board (especially information concerning the five service 

chain elements), 

•  Principal Railway operator and 

•  Principal Airline  

For the following countries: 

1.  Belgium 

2.  Bulgaria 

3.  France 

4. 

5. 

Ireland 

Italy 

6.  Lithuania 

7.  Poland 

8.  Slovenia 

9.  Spain 

10.  Sweden 

11.  The Netherlands 

12.  United Kingdom 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

123 

 
 
 
In addition, analysis was conducted on the websites of the five leading European tour operator 
brands, listed by market share in Europe1:  

•  TUI Travel (18.6 %) 

•  Thomas Cook (13.9 %) 

•  REWE (5.1 %) 

•  Kuoni (3.4 %) 

•  Club Med (2.1 %) 

Europe’s leading booking portals were also analysed, here listed by Alexa ranking2: 

•  Booking.com (157) 

•  Expedia.com (427) 

•  Hotels.com (601) 

•  Priceline.com (697) 

•  Kayak.com (816) 

The websites of leading European hotel chains were analysed: 

•  Accor (2,345 hotels /254,535 rooms3) 

•  Best Western (1,316/89,743) 

•  Intercontinental (559/86,780) 

•  Groupe du Louvre (956/67,687) 

•  Carlson Rezidor (253/51,498) 

Looking at the destinations, we analysed a selection of websites of destinations that reflect the 
most important reasons for going on holiday. According to Eurobarometer data, enjoying the sun and 

the beach were the most popular reasons given for going on holiday in 2012, followed by visiting 

family members and friends. Nature and culture rank third and fourth respectively, while city trips 
follow in fifth place.4 

In analysing the five most important European beach sites (which are not in cities) and five 

European city destinations both cities and rural sites are covered in order to reflect the main reasons 

given for going on holiday.  

1 Source: Viardot, E. (2009). European Tour Operators: confronting competition in the tourism industry.  
2 Source: alexa.com 
3 Source: MKG Hospitality 2012 
4 Source: European Commission (2013): Attitudes of Europeans toward Tourism. Flash Eurobarometer 370: p. 
6 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

124 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
The object of our investigations are five of the most well-known beach destinations in Europe, 

selected from the 2013 shortlist for the World Travel Awards in the category of “Europe's Leading 
Beach Destination”1: 

•  Cannes, France 

•  Corfu, Greece 

•  Costa Smeralda, Sardinia, Italy 

•  Marbella, Spain 

•  Algarve, Portugal 

Also part of the analysis are the five most popular city destinations in Europe, listed here by 
overnight stays in millions2: 

•  London (48.7m overnight stays) 

•  Paris (35.8) 

•  Berlin (20.8) 

•  Rome (20.4) 

•  Madrid (15.2) 

Food and beverages websites were not included, as previous analysis reveals that these services 

are highly fragmented Inclusion would require a highly detailed analysis of several hundred websites 

in each EU Member State, which would be beyond the scope of the present study. 

Finally we analysed a selection of five websites that demonstrate good practice in website design 

and content for Tourism for All. The selection has been curated in order to cover what we believe 

are the most interesting and professionally conceived websites encompassing differing approaches 

as well as providing benchmarks for good practice: 

•  Denmark: God Adgang (www.godadgang.dk) 

•  England: Visit England (www.visitengland.com/ee/Practical-Information/Accessible-

England) 

•  Belgium/Flanders: Toegankelijk Vlaanderen (www.toegankelijkvlaanderen.be) 

•  France: Tourisme et Handicap (www.tourisme-handicaps.org) 

•  Belgium/Luxembourg/Germany: Eurewelcome 

(www.eurecard.org/projekte/eurewelcome.html) 

1 Source: http://www.worldtravelawards.com/award-europes-leading-beach-destination-2013 
2 Source: European Cities Marketing (ECM) 2011: 
http://www.europeancitiesmarketing.com/userfiles/file/Press/Europaweiter%20St%C3%A4dtetourismus%20-
Wirtschaftskrise%20%C3%BCberwunden,%20U_S_A_%20und%20Deutschland%20Hauptm%C3%A4rkte.pdf 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

125 

 
 
 
                                                      
4.1.1.3  Print media analysis 

Not all travellers use the internet to prepare their holiday trips. Brochures are still popular among 

many target groups, especially older people. In order to complement the website analysis, we 

analysed brochures of the tourist board of each country mentioned above. Not all tourist boards 

provide brochures for the whole country. In such cases, we analysed a brochure of a typical and/or 

important destination of the country in question. In addition, we asked each tourist board to furnish 

us with any special-interest brochures designed for disabled and older guests. 

The questions to be answered were similar to those of the website analysis (see section 4.1.1.2). 

This approach aimed to provide a realistic picture of the printed materials people with access needs 

would be provided with prior to a trip. 

4.1.2  Results 

4.1.2.1  Tourist boards 

10 of the 12 websites include information on accessible offers (83.3 %); only Bulgaria and Lithuania 

have no special information. However in4 of these 10 websites the special information is hidden on 

pages that are difficult to find. 

Though most of the analysed sites provide information concerning accessibility, the quality and 

quantity of the information varies greatly. The level of information seems in most cases cursory. Only 

the websites of the Spanish and English tourist boards give in-depth information on accessibility, 

allowing the guest to decide, if an offer suits his or her requirements. 

Where information for those with special access needs is present, the websites tend to focus on 

various target groups (Figure 63). Most websites (five and four respectively) include information for 

those with mobility impairments or disabilities in general. Those with visual or hearing impairments 

find relevant information on three websites, while only one website has information aimed at guests 

with cognitive impairments. Interestingly no information designed specifically for those with speech 

impairments or hidden impairments can be found. 

In addition, relatively few websites include specific information for families and seniors (three and 

two respectively). This finding is surprising because demographic change is a topical issue in the EU 

and one would expect a closer focus on these two groups, although further analysis would be 

necessary to assess the importance given to these more generally.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 63 - Target groups 

Target group 

Number of websites 

Mobility Impairment 

Disability in general 

Visual Impairment 

Hearing Impairment 

Families 

Seniors 

Cognitive Impairment 

Speech Impairment 

Hidden Impairment 

Analysed websites 

5 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

12 

Most of the websites with information on accessibility we studied deal with information along the 

service chain. However, not all elements of the service chain are treated equally. The most 

common service chain element mentioned and described is accommodation, followed by transport 

and entertainment. Travel services (though very important) and food and beverage are described 

less frequently (Figure 64).   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 64 - Number of websites addressing each part of the service chain 

Service chain element 

Number of websites 

Accommodation 

Transportation 

Entertainment 

Travel services 

Food & Beverage 

Analysed websites 

8 

7 

6 

3 

2 

12 

All but one website (Poland) refers to external websites with information on accessible tourism, 

provided by specialist organisations. Some tourist boards provide almost no information of their own, 

but have a varied selection of useful links. Others use such links as an additional service to add 

extra depth to their website’s content.  

All websites have information in different languages. While the tourist boards of England and Italy 

only offer information in six languages, Slovenia offers no less than 28. These numbers, however, 

are extremes. The average of all websites is 12 languages. 

The most common languages are English, German and Spanish, which are present on all websites. 

French and Italian are lacking only on two. Most of the remaining languages are much less common. 

17 languages occur only once or twice (Figure 65). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 65 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

English, German, Spanish 

French, Italian 

Russian 

Chinese, Dutch, Japanese 

Portuguese 

Danish, Swedish 

Polish 

Norwegian 

Arabic, Bulgarian, Czech, Finnish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Korean, 

Ukrainian 

Bosnian, Croatian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian, 

Slovenian, Taiwanese, Turkish 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

Number of 

websites 

12 

11 

9 

8 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

31 

12 

Technical accessibility according to the requirements analysed is the commonly requested for public 

web sites (AA) in 3 websites (Belgium, Italy and Spain), and presenting certain accessibility 

improvements (A) in 4 websites. The remaining 5 web sites even a lower accessibility level. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.2.2  Railways 

All but one (Poland) website of the main national railway companies contain information on 

accessibility (91.7%). On the websites of France and Sweden, the information is rather difficult to 

find, while all other websites show the information in more prominent places.  

On five websites, travellers can find rather detailed information including evaluations. These mostly 

refer to wheelchair access, while other impairment groups are less often catered for. Good examples 

are France and the Netherlands. The information on the other 6 websites remains brief. 

Guests with mobility impairments find information on 9 websites. Only 5 websites are dealing with 

information for guests with visual impairments, and 3 guests with hearing impairments. No 

information is present for travellers with speech impairments, cognitive or hidden impairments. Only 

2 website each gives information for families and one for seniors (Figure 66). 

 Figure 66 - Target groups 

Target group 

Number of websites 

Mobility Impairment 

Visual Impairment 

Disability in general 

Hearing Impairment 

Families 

Seniors 

Speech Impairment 

Cognitive Impairment 

Hidden Impairment 

Analysed websites 

9 

5 

3 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

12 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

130 

 
 
 
 
Looking at the entire service chain, most information on the websites is available for travel services 

(11 websites) and transportation (8). Only one website covers food & beverage, while 

accommodation and entertainment offers are not mentioned at all (Figure 67).  

Figure 67 - Number of websites addressing each part of the service chain 

Service chain element 

Number of websites 

Travel services 

Transportation 

Food & Beverage 

Accommodation 

Entertainment 

Analysed websites 

11 

8 

1 

0 

0 

12 

No website refers to external websites with further information on accessible tourism. 

Except, Ireland and England, which give information only in English, all other railway websites 

provide information in at least one foreign language (Bulgaria, Italy, Netherlands providing 

information in English) or more languages. Spain provides information in 7 languages, but 5 of them 

(Basque, Catalan, Galician, Spanish and Valencian) are national languages.  

English is by far the most common language used, followed by French, Dutch and German. All other 

languages are national languages of the website (Figure 68). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 68 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

English 

French 

Dutch, German 

Basque, Bulgarian, Bosnian, Catalan, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, 

Finnish, Galician, Hungarian, Italian Japanese, Korean, Lithuanian, 

Macedonian, Norwegian, Polish 

Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, 

Taiwanese, Turkish, Ukrainian, Valencia 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

Number 

of 

website

s 

11 

3 

2 

1 

33 

12 

Technical accessibility according to the requirements analysed is the commonly requested for public 

websites (AA) in 4 web sites (Italy, Spain, UK and partially in Netherlands), and presenting certain 

accessibility improvements (A) in 3 web sites. The remaining 5 websites even a lower accessibility 

level. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

132 

 
 
 
 
 
4.1.2.3  Airlines 

10 of 12 websites of the main national airlines provide information on accessibility (83 %). In a half of 

those webpages (5), the guest may find the information on accessibility easily. None of the websites 

provides detailed information including measurements. 

Travellers with mobility impairments can find information on 10 websites, those with visual or hearing 

impairments on 5 websites each. Cognitive impairments are mentioned on 2 pages, and even for 

speech impairments information can be found on one website (Air France). It seems that airlines are 

focussing more on families, because 8 websites supply special information for this target group. 

Information for seniors is not given at all (Figure 69).  

Figure 69 - Target groups 

Target group 

Number of websites 

Mobility Impairment 

Families 

Visual Impairment 

Hearing Impairment 

Hidden Impairment 

Cognitive Impairment 

Speech Impairment 

Disabled in general 

Seniors 

Analysed websites 

10 

8 

5 

5 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

12 

All those 10 websites with accessibility information provide Information on travel service, 8 provide 

information on food & beverage. General information on transportation is given on just one website, 

while accommodation and entertainment offers are not mentioned at all (Figure 70). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 70 - Number of websites addressing each part of the service chain 

Service chain element 

Number of websites 

Travel services 

Food & Beverage 

Transportation 

Accommodation 

Entertainment 

Analysed websites 

10 

8 

1 

0 

0 

12 

All 12 websites are available in English, followed by French (9), German and Russian (8 each) 

(Figure 71).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

134 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 71 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

English 

French 

German, Russian 

Spanish 

Italian 

Chinese 

Dutch, Japanese, Polish, Swedish 

Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Portuguese 

Bulgarian, Catalan, Estonian, Greek, Hungarian, Kazakh, Korean, 

Latvian, Lithuanian, Slovenian, Taiwanese, Turkish, Ukrainian 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

Number of 

websites 

12 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

3 

2 

1 

28 

12 

Just one website (British Airways) reaches the low WAI-level A of technical accessibility for the 

requirements analysed. All other websites do not fulfil even basic WAI standards. 

4.1.2.4  Tour operators 

The analysed websites of the tour operators are insufficiently prepared for visitors with special 

needs. From the five biggest tour operators in Europe, only one offers information on accessibility on 

its website. The website of Thomas Cook provides some information concerning travel assistance 

especially for people with reduced mobility. The information is not easy to find and is more disability-

based than marketing-based.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

135 

 
 
 
On all other websites, no information on accessibility can be found. No website provides external 

links to websites with information on accessibility. 

Two Germany-based tour operators are among the biggest five in Europe (TUI and REWE), so 

German is the language, which can be found on all websites, followed by French (Figure 72). TUI 

and Thomas Cook have special child sites for different countries, while REWE offers information 

only in English.   

Figure 72 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

German 

French 

Dutch, English 

Chinese, Danish, Finnish, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish 

Greek, Hungarian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian, 

Slovak, Spanish, Taiwanese, Turkish, Ukrainian 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

Number of 

websites 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

23 

5 

Only the website of Thomas Cook reaches the low WAI-level A of technical accessibility for the 

requirements analysed. All other websites do not fulfil even basic WAI standards. 

4.1.2.5  Booking portals 

Just as with the tour operators, the booking portals lack information concerning accessibility. Two of 

the five main booking portals have information on accessibility. In all three cases the information is 

not easy to find. On all websites, information on accessibility is given for three target groups: guests 

with mobility impairments, guests with visual impairments and guests with hearing impairments. 

Just one booking portal – Expedia – has links to external websites with additional information on 

accessibility. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

136 

 
 
 
All 5 websites are available in English, and almost all websites – except Priceline – offer information 

in many different languages (Figure 73). 

Figure 73 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

English 

Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Spanish, 

Swedish 

Chinese, Danish, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Malaysian, 

Portuguese, Slovenian, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese 

Number 

of 

websites 

5 

4 

3 

Arabic, Bulgarian, Catalan, Croatian, Czech, Estonian, Filipino, Greek, 

2 

Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Lithuanian, Serbian, Turkish, 

Ukrainian 

Romanian 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

1 

39 

5 

No website is technically accessible according to the WAI standard. 

4.1.2.6  Hotels 

None of the five biggest hotel chains in Europe provides information on accessibility and none have 

external links to websites with information on accessibility can be found. 

All five websites provide information in English. Overseas languages (Chinese and Japanese) are 

important in the hotel business, so they can be found on four websites (Figure 74). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 74 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Languages 

English 

Chinese, French, Japanese, Spanish 

German, Korean, Portuguese 

Italian, Russian 

Arabic, Finnish, Hebrew, Indonesian, Latvian, Polish, Swedish, 

Turkish, Ukrainian 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

Number of 

websites 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

19 

5 

In terms of technical accessibility, the Best Western website offers an alternative text-only-version 

for their main web site. All other websites do not fulfil even basic WAI standards. 

4.1.2.7  Beach destinations 

Two of five beach destinations provide information on accessible offers, but all of these are difficult 

to find. Detailed information like measurements is not given. Furthermore, no website provides 

external links to specialised websites with information on accessible offers. 

All websites provide information in English, followed by German (4 websites) (Figure 75). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

138 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 75 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

English 

German 

French, Spanish 

Greek, Italian 

Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

Number of websites 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

10 

5 

In terms of technical accessibility, the websites of Costa Smeralda (Sardinia) and Algarve (Portugal) 

reach the low WAI level A. The 3 remaining websites do not fulfil the WAI standard.  

4.1.2.8  City destinations 

All of the surveyed city destinations provide information on accessibility. In all of these cases – 

excepted Madrid – the information is easy to find. However, the website of Madrid is the only one 

with detailed information on accessibility. All websites provide external links to websites with 

information on accessibility). 

Travellers with mobility impairments, visual or hearing impairments may find information on four 

websites. Cognitive impairments are mentioned on one page and general information for disabled 

guests and seniors is given on one website also. Information for other impairments and families are 

not given at all (Figure 76). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 76 - Target groups 

Target group 

Number of websites 

Mobility Impairment 

Visual Impairment 

Hearing Impairment 

Disabled in general 

Cognitive Impairment 

Seniors 

Families 

Speech Impairment 

Hidden Impairment 

Analysed websites 

4 

4 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

5 

All three websites with information on accessibility cover all elements of the service chain (Travel 

services, Transportation, Accommodation, Food & Beverage, Entertainment). 

The most frequent languages are English, French and Spanish (Figure 77). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 77 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

Number of websites 

English, French, Spanish 

German, Italian 

Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, Russian 

Portuguese 

Arabic, Polish, Turkish 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

13 

5 

The technical accessibility of the website of Madrid is high and declares that reaches the WAI level 

AA. The website of London declares that they follow level A and level AA in some pages. Berlin, 

Paris and Rome do not fulfil the WAI standards. 

4.1.2.9  Good practice examples 

With the exception of “Visit England”, the good practice examples consist of special-interest 

websites that focus mainly on disabled guests. Unsurprisingly, all five websites provide information 

on accessibility, but, in one case (Tourisme et Handicap), the information is difficult to find due to the 

complex structure of the site.  

Detailed information including measurements is given on three websites. God Adgang (DK), 

Toegankelijk Vlaanderen (BE) and Eurewelcome (BE, LUX, D, NL) offer databases with information 

on accessible features. The guest may search the databases for helpful information along the entire 

service chain.  

“Eurewelcome” and “Visit England” try to communicate the information in an attractive way for the 

guest (including pleasant pictures and text). This is clearly visible on the website “Visit England”. 

Unlike all other websites, the website focuses on marketing and tries to inspire travellers with high 

quality pictures and attractive descriptions. In addition, beyond providing a database of information, 

this website presents recommendations for an enjoyable holiday trip. In general, “Visit England” is 

not a special-interest page for guests with special needs, but addresses all travellers. Information on 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

141 

 
 
 
accessibility is fully integrated in the main website. This is a good example of inclusive 

communication without any discriminating “special channels” (Figure 78).  

Figure 78 - Screenshot of "Visit England" with attractive pictures and helpful information 

The number of languages is rather limited. “Eurewelcome”, “Toegankelijk Vlaanderen” and “Tourism 

et handicap” only provide information in the national languages of the partners. Only “Visit England” 

and “God Adgang” disseminate their information in 6 and 5 languages respectively (Figure 79). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 79 - Number of websites offering information in each language (national language of 
the website is included) 

Language 

Number of websites 

Dutch, French, German 

English 

Danish, Italian, Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish 

Total number of languages 

Analysed websites 

3 

2 

1 

9 

5 

It is surprising that none of the websites reach the WAI level AA in technical accessibility. Only three 

websites – God Adgang, Visit England and Eurewelcome – reach level A for the requirements 

analysed. The two remaining websites do not even fulfil basic WAI standards. 

The following tables give an overview of the main features of the good practice websites. Detailed 

information on the other websites can be found in Annex E. 

The Danish website “God Adgang” deals with information for disabled travellers in Denmark, 

Sweden, Malta and Iceland (Figure 80). Guests can search a database for points of interest in 26 

categories. The Icons are not self-explanatory. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

143 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 80 – God Adgang case-study 

God Adgang (www.godadgang.dk) 

Country 

Denmark 

Target groups 

The information is targeted to the following groups: 

•  Wheel chair users 

•  Guests with walking- arm- or hand-impairments 

•  Guests with visual impairments 

•  Guests with hearing impairments 

•  Guests with Asthma or allergies  

•  Mentally disabled guests 

•  Guests with dyslexia 

Icons 

Icons are used for each group. 

Service chain 

The service chain is covered comprehensively.  

Website 

The website is available in Danish, English, German, Swedish and Icelandic. 

languages 

Technical 

WAI-level “A”: Contrast is good but there are options that cannot be used by 

accessibility 

people with visual impairments. No web site map or description of web site 

design criteria. 

This website “Visit England” provides information for all guests wishing to travel to or visit England 

(Figure 81). Information on accessibility is given on integrated subsites. Unlike all other websites, the 

website focuses on marketing and tries to inspire travellers with high quality pictures and attractive 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

144 

 
 
 
 
descriptions. In addition, beyond providing a database of information, this website presents 

recommendations for an enjoyable holiday trip.   

Figure 81 – Visit England case-study 

Visit England (www.visitengland.com/ee/Practical-Information/Accessible-England) 

Country 

United Kingdom 

Target groups 

The Visit England website addresses the following groups: 

•  Guests with reduced mobility and older guests  

•  Guests with visual impairments or blind guests 

•  Guests with hearing impairments or deaf guests 

Icons 

Icons are used to address to the different groups.  

Service chain 

All elements of the service chain are covered.  

Website 

The website is available in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and 

languages 

Dutch. 

Technical 

WAI-level “A” but with a good description of their web site design policy, 

accessibility 

adaptation tools and site map. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Belgian website “Toeganglijk Vlaanderen” gives information about accessibility in all Benelux 

countries, but mainly in Flanders (Figure 82). Visitors can easily search a database. However, the 

icon system is rather complex and not easy to understand. 

Figure 82 - Toegankelijk Vlaanderen case-study 

Toegankelijk Vlaanderen (www.toegankelijkvlaanderen.be) 

Country 

Belgium 

Target groups 

Information is given for the following groups: 

•  Wheel chair users 

•  Guests with visual impairments 

•  Guests with hearing impairments 

•  Guests with allergies  

Icons 

Icons address these groups, while other icons indicate certain features of 

accessibility along the service chain.  

Service chain 

14 service chain categories are included. 

Website 

The website is available in Dutch/Flemish only. 

languages 

Technical 

Although colour contrast is ok not even basic images description is provided. 

accessibility 

No site map and no accessibility site statement. 

The French website “Tourisme et Handicap” deals with information for disabled travellers all over 

France (Figure 83). The website has a twin site, dedicated to visitors with visual impairments. This 

approach does not fit with the concept of Design for All. Information on topics of interest is rather 

difficult to find. No search engine or databases are available. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 83 - Tourisme et Handicap case-study 

Tourisme et Handicap (www.tourisme-handicaps.org) 

Country 

France 

Target groups 

The information is designed for the following groups: 

•  Guests with walking impairments 

•  Guests with visual impairments 

•  Guests with hearing impairments 

•  Mentally disabled guests 

Icons 

General label with additional icons, addressing different disabilities. 

Service chain 

Information is given along the service chain, divided in three categories: 

•  Accommodation 

•  Food and Beverage 

•  Entertainment 

Website 

The website is only available in French. 

languages 

Technical 

The main site does not reach level “A”. There is a different access for visually 

accessibility 

impaired people but this has only larger text and better contrast. The images are 

not described. 

Eurewelcome is a joint venture of regions of four EU member states: Belgium (Limburg, Luttich, 

German Community), Germany (Northrhine-Westfalia, Rhineland-Palatinate), Luxembourg and the 

Netherlands (Limburg) (Figure 84). Visitors may use a database to search for the accessibility of 

points of interest. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 84 – Eurewelcome case-study 

Eurewelcome (www.eurecard.org) 

Country 

Belgium/Luxembourg/Germany/Netherlands 

Target groups 

It is designed for all guests, but mainly guests with disabilities will find helpful 

information. 

Icons 

No icons, but a label to designate partners. 

Service chain 

In general, Eurewelcome covers all elements of the service chain. 

Website 

The website is available in German, French and Dutch.  

languages 

Technical 

WAI-level “A”. Good contrast and some accessories to increase accessibility 

accessibility 

for those who are visually impaired. Site map. Although the images are not 

described the text is sufficiently explanatory. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.3  Summary and discussion 

Almost 70 % of all 66 surveyed websites provide information on accessible offers (Figure 85). 

However, the information is very often hard to find. Of the 46 websites with information on 

accessibility, only 28 (60%) have placed the information prominently and easy to find. Many guests 

will not be able to find the information easily. So even if information is present, it may be lost for a 

good deal of clients. 

Figure 85 - Number of websites with (yes) and without (no) information on accessible offers  

Tourism boards 

Railways 

Airlines 

Tour operators 

Booking portals 

Hotel chains 

Beach destinations 

City destinations 

Good examples 

Total 

% 

Yes 

10 

11 

9 

1 

3 

0 

2 

5 

5 

46 

70 

No 

2 

1 

3 

4 

2 

5 

3 

0 

0 

20 

30 

Furthermore, only 11 websites out of 66 (17 %) are technically accessible on the level usually 

requested for public web sites (WAI level AA for the pages and requirements inspected). 14 

websites (21 %) reach the lower WAI level A for these requirements. 41 websites – more than 61 % 

– do not even reach basic accessibility requirements. Many guests with visual impairments or other 

special needs are excluded from that information, even if information on accessibility is present. The 

lack of respect of accessibility standards in the sites’ design implies also a difficult navigation on 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

149 

 
 
 
 
small devices, mobiles and tablets. This implies a compromise not only for the users with access 

limitations but to all users in general. 

Most destinations, on a national or local level, provide information on accessibility. The same goes 

for railway companies and airlines. But tour operators and hotel chains almost never give 

information on accessible features. This is surprising, because accommodation is a main element of 

the service chain, and of course, all guests with special access needs are in need for information, if 

they want to stay overnight. Tour operators and hotels obviously do not use the full potential of 

guests when they do not communicate their accessible offers.    

In all cases, accessibility is mainly understood as a feature for disabled guests. There could not be 

found a single case, where accessibility is communicated as a plus in service and comfort for all 

guests. This is a pity, because destinations and service providers are not taking the opportunity to 

address the majority of guests without special needs. In particular the big and fast growing group of 

older people and the important group of families (with small children), that could benefit to a large 

extend from accessible offers, is widely neglected.  

As a result, accessibility is almost never used in marketing and advertising. Information remains 

technical and does not seek to promote a destination. The only exception is the website of “Visit 

England”. On one hand, it deals with detailed information on accessibility, but is not a special 

interest site for disabled guests. On the other hand, the site communicates the subject in an 

attractive way, far beyond pure technical details.  

If information on accessibility is given, most websites focus on guests with mobility impairment. 

Information for guests with visual and hearing impairments is less frequently found, while the level of 

information for guests with cognitive or hidden impairments are exceptional. As mentioned above, 

seniors and/or families are almost never considered as a target group for accessible information. 

Only the airlines (8 out of 12) cover special information for families more often, but they do not focus 

on accessible features for this target group.   

Information along the service chain is usually not comprehensive and is mostly provided on special 

interest websites. Tourism boards often try to cover the whole service chain, but mainly provide 

information on accommodation, transport and entertainment. In particular the city destinations take 

all elements of the service chain into account. It is not surprising that railway companies and airlines 

focus on travel services and transportation. Airlines in addition inform guests about food and 

beverages. 

If destinations or service providers wish to deal with information on accessibility, they do not 

necessarily have to do it on their own websites. Alternatively, they may link to relevant special 

interest pages. This procedure does not follow the concept of “Tourism for All”, because it may lead 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

150 

 
 
 
to discrimination of a special target group and to a loss of information for guests without special 

needs, who are just seeking good services and comfortable offers. However, a link to external pages 

may be useful, when information on accessibility is gathered in databases (like Toeganglijk 

Vlaanderen, God Adgang and Eurewelcome in the chapter of good examples). All in all, only a 

quarter of the websites provides external links for further and/or more detailed information on 

accessibility (Figure 86). As mentioned above, it is usually better to have information for guests with 

and without special needs in one source in order to prevent discrimination and to provide all guests 

with helpful information. However, at least for the websites without information on accessibility, it 

could be a first step to improving the information and link to specialized sites prominently.   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

151 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 86 - Number of websites with (yes) and without (no) external links to specialized 
websites  

Tourism boards 

Railways 

Airlines 

Tour operators 

Booking portals 

Hotel chains 

Beach destinations 

City destinations 

Good examples 

Total 

% 

Yes 

9 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

2 

17 

26 

No 

3 

12 

11 

5 

4 

5 

5 

0 

3 

49 

74 

The findings of the research do correspond mainly with the findings of the recent ENAT study on 
accessible websites.1 ENAT checked all European tourism boards (including the ones that are not in 

the EU), so the focus of the two studies is different; just nine websites have been studied in both 

cases.  

4.1.4  Brochure analysis 

Though the internet is the most important source for information, many guests still prefer written 

information like leaflets, flyers and brochures. The reasons may be different. Some guests, 

1 ENAT (Ed.) (2912): Accessibility Review of European National Tourist Boards’ Websites 2012 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

152 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
especially a proportion of older guests, have no access to the internet, others do not want to use the 

internet abroad or simply like the feel of printed papers. 

We ordered brochures from the 12 countries identified in the cluster analysis. We asked for general 

information on tourism and for special interest brochures for guests with access needs.  

Not all tourism board send printed information. The tourism boards of Italy and the Netherlands just 

referred to the tourism board’s website; information is just given electronically due to the higher 

costs of printed material. However, we managed to collect a brochure from the Netherlands (Island 

of Texel), so only Italy is missing in the analysis.  

Furthermore, not all tourism boards have brochures for the whole country. Belgium, England and 

The Netherlands only provide printed information for single destinations or regions. In this case, we 

looked for typical or important destinations and analysed their brochures. An overview of the 

brochures and the results is given in Annex E.  

No tourism board sent special interest brochures with information for guests with access needs. 

From the 11 analysed brochures, 9 use a font size which is too small for guests with visual 

impairments. This is a very general result, because most brochures use different font sizes and 

some of them are big enough.  

In all but one brochure (Poland), the contrast between text and background is sufficient and all 

brochures are dazzle-free. 

It is often difficult for guests with visual impairments to read text that crosses pictures or graphics. 

With the exception of Spain, all brochures separate text and pictures. 

All but one brochure was structured clearly and well laid out. Only in the case of England was it 

difficult to distinguish text and description among a lot of advertisement images. 

As mentioned above, no tourism board provided special interest brochures for guests with access 

needs. However, in four brochures (England, Ireland, The Netherlands and Sweden), information for 

this group of guests is given in the regular brochure. In half of the cases, the information is easy to 

find. All four brochures supply external links to special websites with more detailed information on 

accessibility. In fact, there is no space in a brochure to deal with detailed measurements of 

accessible offers. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

153 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2  Task 2b – Online survey and focus groups 

4.2.1  Overview 

The travel patterns and behaviour of people with access needs were investigated via two main 

channels: an online survey among people with access needs and two focus groups among seniors. 

The online survey was conducted among 2111 people in 12 EU Member States selected to 

represent the different country clusters: Bulgaria and Poland represent Cluster 1, Spain and 

Slovenia Cluster 2, Ireland Cluster 3, Italy Cluster 4, Belgium and the Netherlands Cluster 5, France 

and the UK Cluster 6, Sweden Cluster 7, and Lithuania Cluster 8. In addition, 423 interviews were 

conducted with people with limitations and seniors in inbound markets. The two focus groups were 

conducted in Lithuania and Ireland among people aged over 65. A full description of the 

methodology and survey materials can be found in Annexes F, G, H and J. 

The results in this section are presented split by access need profile: people above 65, people with a 

limitation and/or people who travel with children. The groups overlap to some extent since a 

respondent may belong to two or three of these groups depending on his/her personal situation. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

154 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.2  EU - Overall results 

4.2.2.1  Travel behaviour 

Figure 87 – Reasons for not travelling in the past 12 months 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

155 

1%15%0%2%2%2%3%3%7%9%10%29%30%68%1%9%0%1%3%0%0%1%7%10%5%27%36%67%0%26%0%1%6%5%8%2%11%20%14%8%37%58%Other –please specify: AccessibilityI am not interested at all in travelling now or in the future*Not enough information or incorrect information onaccessible services on possible destinationsLack of help/not enough help (during transport, atdestination and on return journey)Information on accessible services and or destination notACCESSIBLEInformation on accessible services and destinations notAVAILABLELack of accessibility and of accessible tourism services at mypreferred destination(s) (accessible means that anyoneLack of AFFORDABLE accessibility services or infrastructuresat my preferred destination(s)Family reasons (e.g. need to care for small children orelderly relative)Lack of time/not possible to take time off study, work orother commitmentsLong-term illness or health issuePreferred to stay at homeFinancial reasonsQ2. Why did you not travel at all in the past 12 months? Please select all answers that apply. Travel with children (n=87)Age above 65 (n=89)Any limitations (n=271)*N.B. Respondents who selected this answer were screened out of the survey 
 
 
 
In total, 20% of people over 65 report not travelling at all in the past 12 months. These respondents 

were asked why they did not travel and a majority mentioned financial reasons (67%), followed by 

personal preference (36%). 27% mentioned a long-term illness or health issue and 10% family 

reasons. Overall, 9% mentioned a reason linked to accessibility such as the lack of accessibility of 

destinations, the availability and accessibility of information or the affordability of accessible 

services. 

18% of people with any limitations report not travelling at all in the past 12 months. These 

respondents were asked why they did not travel and a majority mentioned financial reasons (68%), 

followed by personal preference (30%). 29% mentioned a long-term illness or health issue and 9% 

family reasons. Overall, 15% mentioned a reason linked to accessibility such as the lack of 

accessibility of destinations, the availability and accessibility of information or the affordability of 

accessible services. 

9% of people who travel with children report not travelling at all in the past 12 months. These 

respondents were asked why they did not travel and a majority mentioned financial reasons (58%), 

followed by personal preference (37%). 8% mentioned a long-term illness or health issue and 20% 

family reasons. Overall, 26% mentioned a reason linked to accessibility such as the lack of 

accessibility of destinations, the availability and accessibility of information or the affordability of 

accessible services. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

156 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 88 - Seasonality 

Turning to seasonality, respondents were asked for their main holiday period in general. 64% of 

people with any limitations report being most likely to travel during the summer holidays, followed by 

off-season holidays (48%). When asked over which other periods they travel, spring holidays are 

cited most frequently, at 41%, followed by school holidays (38%), autumn holidays (37%) and winter 

holidays (36%). Other periods are the least popular (24%). 

Travelling during summer holidays (55%) and off-season holidays (42%) is also popular for people 

who are older than 65. Besides these holidays, the results indicate that 37% of the 65s travel during 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

157 

24%36%37%38%41%48%64%31%29%37%25%37%42%55%23%37%38%39%41%46%69%OtherWinter holidaysAutumn holidaysSchool holidaysSpring holidaysOff-season/outside main school holidaysSummer holidaysQ3. In general, when are you most likely to schedule trips? And when are you also likely to schedule trips? All answersTravel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
the autumn holidays and the spring holidays. The least popular time to travel was during the winter 

holidays (29%). A high proportion (31%) also indicated to travel over all other possible periods.   

69% of people travelling with children report being most likely to travel during the summer holidays, 

followed by off-season holidays (46%). Spring (41%) and school holidays (39%) are also reported 

often, shortly followed by autumn (38%) and winter holidays (37%). They travel least frequently 

during other periods (23%), but this is still a sizeable proportion.  

Figure 89 – Travel companions 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

158 

13%12%15%17%27%27%28%31%44%57%15%7%11%14%25%18%18%23%30%58%12%12%15%18%20%33%43%31%40%63%OtherPersonal care workerOther groupColleague(s)I travelled on my ownChildren above 5Children below 5Friend(s)Other family or household membersMy partnerQ4. Thinking of your trips in the past 12 months, who did you travel with most often? And who else did you travel with in the past 12 months? All answersTravel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
 
A majority of people with any limitations mention their partner (57%) as their most frequent travel 

companion, followed by other family or household members (44%). When asked which other travel 

companions they may travel with, they mentioned friends (31%), children below (28%) and above 5 

(27%) and with nobody else (27%). A smaller group of people with any limitations travelled with 

colleagues (17%) and with other groups (15%). A minority stated to travel with other people that 

were not specifically mentioned (13%) and with personal care workers (12%) in the past 12 months. 

People older than 65 also reported travelling most frequently with their partner (58%) and other 

family or household members (30%) in the past 12 months. Travelling on their own (25%) and with 

friends (23%) were also mentioned relatively frequently. Furthermore, the results show that two 

smaller segments travel with children who are above or below 5 years old (both 18%). Over 65s 

least often mentioned personal care workers (7%). 

People with children travelled most often with their partner (63%) and with children below five (43%), 

followed by family and other household members (40%), children above 5 (33%) and friends (31%). 

A smaller proportion of people with children travelled on their own (20%), with colleagues (18%) or 

with other groups (15%).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 90 - Destinations 

Almost all people with any limitations (96%) travelled in the European Union in the past months, 

while only 25% travelled outside Europe. A very large majority of respondents (80%) mention 

travelling in their own country in the past 12 months. In terms of foreign destinations within the 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

160 

4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4%5%5%5%8%8%10%10%15%16%16%8%12%16%25%80%96%98%5%2%1%4%6%2%4%5%3%5%7%2%5%9%5%7%15%11%4%8%12%22%77%94%97%5%5%5%5%5%6%6%6%7%6%7%10%12%14%12%19%20%18%12%16%20%30%78%97%98%AustriaEgyptJapanCroatiaSwitzerlandIrelandNetherlandsTurkeyGreeceCzech RepublicPortugalUnited KingdomUnited StatesItalyBelgiumGermanyFranceSpainAsia & OceaniaAfrica & Middle EastAmericasAll non-European[HOME COUNTRY]EUEuropeQ5. Thinking of your trips in the past 12 months, which of the following destinations have you visited?Travel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341)N.B. All other answers below5% -57 answers were presented in total 
 
 
 
European Union, the most frequent mentions are of Spain (16%), France (16%), Germany (15%), 

Belgium (10%), Italy (10%), the UK (8%) and Portugal (5%). 

Almost all over 65s (94%) travelled in the European Union in the past months, while only 22% 

travelled outside Europe. A very large majority of respondents mention travelling in their own country 

in the past 12 months. In terms of foreign destinations within the European Union, the most frequent 

mentions are France (15%), Spain (11%), Italy (9%), Germany (7%), Portugal (7%), Belgium (5%), 

and the UK (2%). 

Almost all people who travel with children (967%) travelled in the European Union in the past 

months, while only 30% travelled outside Europe. A very large majority of respondents mention 

travelling in their own country in the past 12 months. In terms of foreign destinations within the 

European Union, the most frequent mentions are France (20%), Germany (19%), Spain (18%), Italy 

(14%), Belgium (12%), the UK (10%) and Portugal (7%). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

161 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 91 – Reasons for travelling outside the EU 

Turning to reasons for travelling outside the European Union, a majority of people with any 

limitations who have travelled outside the European Union in the past 12 months (61%) mention an 

interest in local culture, nature or sightseeing opportunities, followed by visits to family and friends 

(40%) and the general value for money of the destination (37%). Comparatively smaller proportions 

mention the accessibility of destinations (21%) or the availability of health or wellness treatments 

(16%). 

The over 65s reported travelling outside the European Union for their interest in local culture, nature 

or sightseeing opportunities (54%), for the general value for money of the destination (39%) and to 

visit family or friends (32%). A less frequent reason was the accessibility of the destination and 

services (13%). The over 65s did not report travelling outside the European Union for the availability 

of health or wellness treatments.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

162 

7%16%21%37%40%61%19%0%13%39%32%54%8%20%23%37%40%63%Other –please specify:Availability of health or wellness treatmentsAccessibility of the destination and services(accessibility means that anyone can visit adestination whatever their ability or individualsituation)General value for money of the destinationVisiting family or friendsInterest in local culture, nature or sightseeingopportunitiesQ6. Why did you choose to travel outside the European Union in the past 12 months?Travel with children (n=233)Age above 65 (n=58)Any limitations (n=280) 
 
 
 
Looking at the reasons why people with children travel outside the European Union, the pattern is 

more or less the same. They reported choosing a country outside the European Union especially for 

their interest in local culture, nature or sightseeing opportunities (63%). They also mentioned 

frequently wanting to visit family or friends (40%) or the general value for money of the destination 

(37%). A smaller proportion reported that the accessibility of the destination and services (23%) and 

the availability of health or wellness treatments (20%) were important. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 92 – Accommodation  

59% of people with any limitations usually mention staying in a hotel or B&B in the past 12 months, 

followed by 43% staying with family or friends, 20% in a rental house or flat and 15% staying in a 

tent, caravan or mobile home. Respectively 10%, 11%, 8% and 3% said they had stayed in a spa or 

wellness resort, their own holiday house or flat, a youth hostel or hostel or in a medical or healthcare 

institution. Most of the people with any limitations paid for their accommodation (81%). 

78% of the over 65s paid for their accommodation. 63% stayed in a hotel or B&B and 41% stated 

they had stayed at the home of friends or family members. People above 65 stayed less frequently 

in a rental house or flat (17%), in a holiday house or flat they owned (9%) or in a spa or wellness 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

164 

4%3%8%10%11%15%20%43%59%7%3%2%9%9%6%17%41%63%4%3%9%13%13%15%22%43%61%OtherIn a medical or healthcare institution (e.g. a clinic orpost-surgery rehabilitation centre)In a youth hostel or hostelIn a spa or wellness resortIn your own holiday house or flatIn a tent/caravan/mobile homeIn a rental house or flatAt the home of friends or family membersIn a hotel or Bed & BreakfastQ7. Thinking of your trips in the past 12 months, in what type of accommodation did you usually stay?Travel with children (n=921)Age above 65 (n=281)Any limitations (n=1250) 
 
 
 
resort (9%). Almost none of the over 65s stayed in a medical or healthcare institution (3%) or in a 

youth hostel or hostel (2%). 

Most people who travel with children stayed in a hotel or B&B (61%) in the past 12 months. 43% 

stayed at the home of friends or family members. There was a smaller segment who stayed in a 

rental house or flat (22%), followed by those staying in a tent, caravan or mobile home (15%), their 

own holiday home or flat (13%) or in a spa or wellness resort (13%). Even smaller proportions 

stayed in a youth hostel or hostel (9%) and in a medical or healthcare institution (3%). 83% paid for 

their accommodation.  

Figure 93 – Transport means 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

165 

13%13%13%24%26%34%35%44%46%49%79%7%4%3%8%20%27%23%31%29%48%77%10%16%14%28%28%35%38%46%47%55%82%OtherMotorbike/scooterWheelchair, mobility scooter or other mobility devicesBicycleBoat/ship/ferryLong-distance bus/coachTaxiLocal public transportTrainAirplaneCarQ8 Thinking of your trips in the past 12 months, what types of transport did you use to and from your destination? And what types of transport did you use once at your destination? Transport used to and from one's destination or at destinationTravel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
 
Looking into transportation means used at destination or to and from one’s destination in the past 12 

months, 79% of people with any limitations used a car, 49% an airplane, 46% the train and 44 local 

public transport. Other transportations mentioned often were the taxi (35%), long-distance bus or 

coach (34%), or boats, hips or ferries (26%). 

People above 65 choose to use the car (77%), airplane (48%) and local public transport (31%) the 

most frequently for their transportation. Less people over 65 used the train (29%), long-distance bus 

(27%), followed by the taxi (23%) and the boat, ship or ferry (20%). 

People who travelled with children used more often the car (82%), the airplane (55%) and the train 

(47%) to reach their destination. The proportion of people with children that used local public 

transport (46%), the taxi (38%), the long-distance bus (35%), and the boat, ship or ferry (28%) was 

lower, but was still high.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

166 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 94 – Activities at destination 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

167 

4%8%10%13%16%17%29%29%31%32%37%45%45%49%59%63%64%65%8%4%6%6%7%13%34%21%17%15%37%36%30%53%46%58%64%56%2%8%10%15%18%21%34%32%37%43%43%49%48%50%58%60%63%64%OtherHealth care or other medical activitiesOther outdoor activities (e.g. fishing, bird-watching)Other sports (e.g. cycling, skiing, water or airsports)Business or other work-related activitiesSpa, massages or other wellness activitiesGuided tours/excursionsLocal events (e.g. festivals, pilgrimages or sportsevents)Animal or wildlife parks (e.g. aquarium, zoo)Activities for families or childrenNatural visits (e.g. national parks)Walking, hiking or runningSwimming/sunbathingCultural visits (museums, monuments, art,heritage)Spending time with family or friends/socialactivitiesSightseeing/walking aroundDining out at a local restaurant or café/trying localfood and drinks/going outShoppingQ9. Thinking of your trips in the past 12 months, which of the following activities did you take part in?Travel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
The tourism activities that people with any limitations mentioned most frequently are shopping 

(65%), dining out or going out (64%), sightseeing/walking around (63%) and spending time with 

family or friends (59%). Wellness and healthcare activities were less popular (respectively 17% and 

8%).  

The activities mentioned most frequently by the over 65s are dining out or going out (64%), shopping 

(56%), spending time with family or friends (46%) and sightseeing/walking around (58%). A small 

amount of the over 65s were interested in wellness activities (13%) and health care (4%). 

Most of the people who travelled with children frequently went out to shop (64%), to dinner or to go 

out (63%), to sightsee or walk around (60%) and to spend time with family and friends (58%). 

Wellness activities (21%) were more popular compared with the two other groups, but a small 

proportion of people mentioned health care (8%). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.2.2  Decision-making 

Figure 95 – Information sources 

When making a decision about their travel plans, people aged over 65 mention as their most 

important information sources their own experience (21%) or tourism websites (19%). A further 14% 

mention family, friends or colleagues. Only 7% use specialised sources (not-for-profit organisations, 

health professionals or guidebooks, websites or other sources for families, seniors or disabled 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

169 

13%15%15%16%17%18%20%21%27%28%30%35%35%46%49%51%38%40%68%74%11%11%11%9%9%10%15%11%23%14%28%37%40%46%46%44%28%28%70%72%10%17%15%19%18%20%22%24%27%30%31%37%33%45%46%48%41%43%71%72%OtherNon-profit organisationsDoctor or other health professionalSpecialised guidebooksSpecialised sources other than websitesSocial mediaSpecialised websitesSocial networksNewspapers, magazines, radio or TVForums, blogs or online reviewsGeneral guidebooksTravel/tourist agencyBrochures/cataloguesTourism websitesYour own experienceFamily, friends or colleaguesSpecialisedMediaTourism sectorPeopleQ10.3 Which of the following is the most important to you as an information source when you make a decision about your travel plans? And which other sources are important? All AnswersTravel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
people). However, this proportion rises to 28% when the over 65s can indicate all information 

sources they find important. 

When making a decision about their travel plans, people with any limitations mention as their most 

important information sources family, friends or colleagues (20%) or their own experience (19%). 

Another 17% mentions tourism websites. Only 12% use specialised sources (not-for-profit 

organisations, health professionals or guidebooks, websites or other sources for families, seniors or 

disabled people). However, this proportion rises to 38% when people with any limitations can 

indicate all information sources they find important. 

When making a decision about their travel plans, people travelling with children mention as their 

most important information sources family, friends or colleagues or their own experience (both 18%). 

Another 16% mentions tourism websites. Only 14% use specialised sources (not-for-profit 

organisations, health professionals or guidebooks, websites or other sources for families, seniors or 

disabled people). However, this proportion rises to 41% when people travelling with children can 

indicate all information sources they find important. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 96 – Booking channels 

Q11b.1 Thinking about your trips in the past 12 months, how did you book these? 

Booking channel 

Telephone 

In person 

Internet 

Other 

Age 

Travel 

Age 

Travel 

Age 

Travel 

Age 

Travel 

Any 

above 

with 

Any 

above 

with 

Any 

above 

with 

Any 

above 

with 

limitations 

65 

children 

limitations 

65 

children 

limitations 

65 

children 

limitations 

65 

children 

 Type of booking 

(n=1341) 

(n=318) 

(n=965) 

(n=1341) 

(n=318) 

(n=965) 

(n=1341) 

(n=318) 

(n=965) 

(n=1341) 

(n=318) 

(n=965) 

Through a travel agency  

11.40% 

7.60% 

14.30% 

24.30% 

26.50% 

29.30% 

22.10% 

14.30% 

26.20% 

3.20% 

2.30% 

3.90% 

Through an institution or group 

7.10% 

6.50% 

9.90% 

10.80% 

5.60% 

12.40% 

11.30% 

6.30% 

15.00% 

3.60% 

2.80% 

3.40% 

Directly with a transport or 

accommodation provider – 

before your holiday 

15.70% 

11.60% 

15.60% 

12.70% 

6.50% 

16.40% 

36.00% 

33.20% 

38.40% 

2.60% 

1.80% 

3.30% 

Directly with a transport or 

accommodation provider – once 

at destination 

11.90% 

8.10% 

12.80% 

14.90% 

9.30% 

18.30% 

21.00% 

14.40% 

23.60% 

3.60% 

1.40% 

5.00% 

Through someone you know 

15.20% 

7.80% 

17.60% 

20.10% 

13.20% 

21.20% 

14.80% 

11.50% 

18.10% 

3.20% 

2.50% 

3.80% 

Other 

5.70% 

5.90% 

4.60% 

8.10% 

4.50% 

9.70% 

10.10% 

5.20% 

12.50% 

6.20% 

6.50% 

7.10% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

171 

 
 
 
 
When booking in the past 12 months, 47% of the over 65s booked directly with a provider before 

their trip, 45% through a travel agency, 30% through someone they know, 29% with a provider once 

at their destination and 18% through an institution or group. The most common booking channel is 

the Internet (used by 59% of the over 65s) followed by booking in person (47%) and by phone 

(32%). 

When booking in the past 12 months, 57% of people with any limitations booked directly with a 

provider before their holiday, 46% booked directly with a provider once at their destination, 45% 

through someone they know, 51% through a travel agency and 30% through an institution or group. 

The most common booking channel is the Internet (used by 67% of people with any limitations) 

followed by booking in person (52%) and by phone (42%). 

When booking in the past 12 months, 63% of the people travelling with children group booked 

directly with a provider, 51% through someone they know, 61% through a travel agency and 37% 

through an institution or group. The most common booking channel is the Internet (used by 70% of 

the group of people travelling with children) followed by booking in person (58%) and by phone 

(47%). 

Figure 97 – Checking accessibility prior to trips 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

172 

43%57%52%48%33%67%NoYesQ19. In general, do you check accessibility conditions and/or available help for your travel destination before travelling?Travel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 98 – Accessibility information 

48% of the over 65s checks accessibility conditions and/or available help before travelling. Out of 

these, 18% do not think there is enough information available on this topic, 13% think it is not 

reliable and 11% think this information is not accessible to them. 

57% of people with any limitations check accessibility conditions and/or available help before 

travelling. Out of these, 15% do not think there is enough information available on this topic, 16% 

think it is not reliable and 12% think this information is not accessible to them. 

67% of the group of people travelling with children check accessibility conditions and/or available 

help before travelling. Out of these, 15% do not think there is enough information available on this 

topic, 17% think it is not reliable and 13% think this information is not accessible to them. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

173 

12%16%15%11%13%18%13%17%15%AccessibleinformationReliableinformationEnoughinformationQ20. In general, is there enough information available about accessibility conditions and/or help at your destination? Is it reliable? And is it accessible to you?All who answered NoTravel with children (n=623)Age above 65 (n=148)Any limitations (n=772)N.B. Question asked of people who check thistype of information before travelling 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.2.3  Experience 

Figure 99 – Importance of trip aspects – People with limitations 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

174 

7%6%4%6%5%4%5%5%4%5%4%4%5%4%3%4%4%5%4%4%4%4%4%5%3%4%3%5%15%12%9%11%7%7%11%6%3%4%5%6%5%4%3%3%3%4%2%3%4%3%4%3%4%2%2%3%16%10%16%12%8%8%12%9%7%6%5%7%6%7%5%4%6%4%4%4%5%3%3%5%5%3%4%2%24%26%23%27%22%24%19%22%21%20%19%21%17%22%17%19%17%18%17%18%16%12%15%15%14%13%13%10%20%26%29%24%32%31%26%29%32%33%34%29%33%26%34%32%32%28%33%30%29%35%30%25%27%31%25%27%18%19%20%20%25%26%27%29%33%33%34%34%35%37%38%38%38%41%41%42%42%44%45%47%48%48%53%53%Health treatments (including wellness or beauty)Accessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceShopping opportunitiesAvailability of a specific service, infrastructure or productExcursion activities available at destinationAccessible shops or shopping servicesDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleTransport once at destinationLocal culture/peopleAccessible locationsAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at destinationAccessible tourist accommodationMedical help or health care at destinationSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesAvailability of information about accessible servicesFood and drink available at destinationAvailability of services in a language you understandInformation available once at destinationAccessibility of booking servicesHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Access to information before trip and at destinationNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)Transport to and from destinationAccommodation available at destinationInformation available before the tripSafetyGeneral value for money of the destinationQ12a. How important are each of the following aspects when choosing your travel destination? People with limitations (n=1341)6 -Don’t Know/Not applicable1 - Not at all important2345 - Very important 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 100 - Importance of trip aspects – People above 65 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

175 

5%9%6%9%5%6%5%7%4%6%6%5%6%4%6%3%4%4%5%3%5%8%4%4%4%4%5%3%18%18%16%24%11%13%11%10%4%4%6%6%5%4%4%4%4%8%4%4%3%5%3%3%5%3%4%3%22%11%10%13%10%8%11%8%6%4%6%6%8%7%2%3%7%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%1%2%4%1%23%26%34%21%34%23%18%24%24%19%16%21%14%15%17%14%16%17%18%14%11%11%12%9%11%8%13%10%21%19%19%17%20%26%30%25%29%32%30%25%31%31%31%34%27%27%28%32%33%26%31%29%26%27%18%26%12%16%17%17%21%24%25%26%34%35%37%37%38%39%39%41%43%43%44%45%46%48%48%53%54%57%57%57%Shopping opportunitiesAccessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceAvailability of a specific service, infrastructure or productHealth treatments (including wellness or beauty)Accessible shops or shopping servicesDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleExcursion activities available at destinationTransport once at destinationAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesAccessible locationsAccessible tourist accommodationAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at destinationFood and drink available at destinationLocal culture/peopleAvailability of information about accessible servicesSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesMedical help or health care at destinationHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Accessibility of booking servicesNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)Information available once at destinationAvailability of services in a language you understandAccommodation available at destinationAccess to information before trip and at destinationGeneral value for money of the destinationSafetyTransport to and from destinationInformation available before the tripQ12a. How important are each of the following aspects when choosing your travel destination? People above 65 (n=318)6 -Don’t Know/Not applicable1 - Not at all important2345 - Very important 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 101 - Importance of trip aspects – Travel with children 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

176 

4%3%4%4%4%3%3%4%3%3%3%3%4%3%4%4%4%3%3%3%4%3%3%3%4%3%4%3%12%8%7%7%4%4%5%5%2%1%2%2%3%3%1%2%3%3%1%2%3%2%3%2%2%2%2%1%15%12%10%8%6%6%7%9%5%6%5%5%6%5%5%3%4%4%2%3%3%2%3%2%4%4%3%3%23%25%23%23%23%23%21%18%21%16%15%17%18%15%17%15%19%16%13%15%14%12%13%11%14%13%9%9%24%30%29%31%35%33%31%28%32%35%35%33%30%35%33%34%25%30%35%31%30%34%31%31%26%26%26%24%22%23%26%27%28%30%33%37%37%39%39%40%40%40%40%43%45%45%46%46%46%47%49%50%51%52%56%60%Health treatments (including wellness or beauty)Shopping opportunitiesAvailability of a specific service, infrastructure or productAccessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceAccessible shops or shopping servicesExcursion activities available at destinationTransport once at destinationDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleLocal culture/peopleFood and drink available at destinationAccessible tourist accommodationAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at destinationSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesAccessible locationsAvailability of information about accessible servicesMedical help or health care at destinationAvailability of services in a language you understandInformation available once at destinationAccessibility of booking servicesHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Access to information before trip and at destinationNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)Information available before the tripTransport to and from destinationAccommodation available at destinationGeneral value for money of the destinationSafetyQ12a. How important are each of the following aspects when choosing your travel destination? Travel with children (n=965)6 -Don’t Know/Not applicable1 - Not at all important2345 - Very important 
 
 
 
 
The most important aspects for the over-65 age-group are safety (with a mean importance of 4.4 out of 5), information available before the trip 

(4.4), general value of money of the destination (4.3), transport to and from destination (4.3), and access to information before the trip and at 

destination (4.3).  

The most important aspects for people with any limitations are general value for money at the destination (with a mean importance of 4.3 out of 5), 

safety (4.3) and information available before trip (4.3).  

The most important aspects for the people travelling with children are general value for money of the destination (with a mean importance of 4.4 

out of 5), safety (4.4), accommodation available at destination (4.3), information available before the trip (4.3), information available once at the 

destination (4.3) and access to information before trip and at destination (4.3).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

177 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 102 – Satisfaction with trip aspects – People with limitations 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

178 

22%24%20%23%19%11%14%8%11%13%12%9%10%11%6%9%8%6%6%5%7%5%4%9%3%8%6%4%1%2%3%1%1%2%1%2%1%1%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%2%1%1%1%2%1%1%1%4%5%3%4%4%4%3%4%2%2%4%3%3%2%3%2%1%3%3%4%4%2%3%2%3%2%3%3%18%18%18%16%16%18%18%19%17%16%16%20%17%14%15%15%13%14%16%15%14%14%17%13%16%11%11%12%32%25%32%28%31%34%33%33%34%33%31%30%33%33%36%33%36%34%33%34%32%36%33%32%32%31%32%30%24%24%24%29%30%31%32%34%35%35%36%37%37%38%40%40%41%41%42%42%42%42%43%43%44%46%48%52%Availability of a specific service, infrastructure or productHealth treatments (including wellness or beauty)Accessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceMedical help or health care at destinationDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleExcursion activities available at destinationAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at destinationShopping opportunitiesAccessible locationsAccessible tourist accommodationTransport once at destinationAccessible shops or shopping servicesAvailability of information about accessible servicesTransport to and from destinationAccess to information before trip and at destinationAccessibility of booking servicesAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesLocal culture/peopleSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesInformation available once at destinationHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Information available before the tripGeneral value for money of the destinationAvailability of services in a language you understandFood and drink available at destinationAccommodation available at destinationSafetyNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)Q12b. And thinking of YOUR MOST RECENT TRIP, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with each of these aspects? People with limitations(n=1341)6 -Don’t Know/Not applicable1 - Completely dissatisfied2345 - Completely satisfied 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 103 – Satisfaction with trip aspects – People above 65 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

179 

31%33%34%29%29%16%17%21%19%22%16%12%13%12%12%7%5%9%7%8%14%7%3%5%10%9%5%4%2%3%3%0%0%3%2%1%0%2%2%2%0%3%3%2%1%1%2%0%1%0%2%0%0%0%1%0%3%3%5%2%3%6%2%1%2%3%5%1%2%3%2%1%1%1%3%1%4%2%2%2%1%1%1%2%19%17%16%19%16%14%19%14%15%13%16%13%18%11%8%14%14%10%13%11%8%11%10%9%12%12%9%10%27%27%21%24%26%30%29%31%32%26%26%35%31%29%32%30%33%33%29%33%27%34%35%35%27%26%32%31%18%18%22%25%27%31%31%32%33%34%36%37%38%41%44%45%46%46%47%47%47%47%48%49%50%52%53%54%Availability of a specific service, infrastructure or productAccessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceHealth treatments (including wellness or beauty)Medical help or health care at destinationDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleShopping opportunitiesAccessible shops or shopping servicesAccessible tourist accommodationAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at destinationTransport once at destinationExcursion activities available at destinationAccessible locationsAvailability of information about accessible servicesHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Availability of services in a language you understandSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesGeneral value for money of the destinationAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesLocal culture/peopleAccess to information before trip and at destinationTransport to and from destinationInformation available once at destinationFood and drink available at destinationInformation available before the tripAccessibility of booking servicesAccommodation available at destinationSafetyNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)Q12b. And thinking of YOUR MOST RECENT TRIP, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with each of these aspects? People above 65 (n=318)6 -Don’t Know/Not applicable1 - Completely dissatisfied2345 - Completely satisfied 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 104 – Satisfaction with trip aspects – Travel with children 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

180 

17%14%9%6%15%8%10%7%10%6%6%7%6%8%5%4%5%4%4%4%2%3%3%6%4%4%3%3%2%1%2%2%1%1%1%2%1%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%2%0%1%1%1%6%5%4%4%3%3%3%4%3%3%3%3%3%2%3%3%2%3%2%3%3%3%2%2%2%2%2%2%19%19%19%18%17%20%17%21%16%20%16%15%17%14%14%14%14%14%14%14%14%14%17%13%14%11%11%12%29%34%37%38%30%33%35%31%33%32%37%36%35%33%34%37%36%36%37%35%35%35%32%32%34%36%34%32%27%28%30%32%34%35%35%36%36%38%38%39%39%42%42%42%42%43%43%43%44%44%45%45%46%47%49%51%Health treatments (including wellness or beauty)Availability of a specific service, infrastructure or productAccessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceExcursion activities available at destinationMedical help or health care at destinationAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at destinationDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleShopping opportunitiesTransport once at destinationAccessible shops or shopping servicesAccessible tourist accommodationAccessible locationsAvailability of information about accessible servicesTransport to and from destinationHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Access to information before trip and at destinationAccessibility of booking servicesSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesLocal culture/peopleFood and drink available at destinationInformation available once at destinationGeneral value for money of the destinationAvailability of services in a language you understandInformation available before the tripAccommodation available at destinationSafetyNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)Q12b. And thinking of YOUR MOST RECENT TRIP, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with each of these aspects? Travel with children (n=965)6 -Don’t Know/Not applicable1 - Completely dissatisfied2345 - Completely satisfied 
 
 
 
The age above 65 group is most satisfied with nature (mean satisfaction of 4.4 out of 5), 

accommodation available at destination (4.4), information available before the trip (4.4), access to 

information before the trip and at destination (4.4), and safety (4.4).  

In contrast, the over-65 group is most dissatisfied with health treatments (mean satisfaction 3.8 out 

of 5), accessible sport or leisure equipment or service (3.8), or availability of services in a language 

they understand (3.8). None of the aspects had both a high importance and low satisfaction. 

People with any limitations are most satisfied with nature (mean satisfaction of 4.3 out of 5), 

accommodation available at destination (4.3) and safety (4.3). In contrast, people with any 

limitations are most dissatisfied with health treatments (including wellness or beauty) (mean 

satisfaction of 3.8 out of 5), accessible sport of leisure equipment or service (3.9) and availability of a 

specific service, infrastructure or product (3.9). The priorities for action (aspects with a high 

importance and low satisfaction) are general value for money and information available before the 

trip. 

The people travelling with children is most satisfied with nature (mean satisfaction of 4.3 out of 5), 

accommodation available at destination (4.3), safety (4.3) and information available before the trip 

(4.3). In contrast, people travelling with children are most dissatisfied with shopping opportunities 

(mean satisfaction of 4 out of 5), excursion activities available at destination (4.0), accessible sport 

of leisure equipment or services (4.0), the availability of a specific service, infrastructure or product 

(4.0) and health treatments (3.9). The priorities for action (aspects with a relatively high importance 

and low satisfaction) are general value for money, safety and access to information before trip and 

at destination 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

181 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 105 – Barriers  

When asked about the aspects with which they experienced barriers or restrictions when travelling in 

the past 12 months, 61% of the over-65 group answered ‘None of these.’ The group most often 

mentions accessible toilet and bathroom facilities, ease of use of lifts, and easy to use the furniture, 

furnishing and lights as aspects for which they experienced barriers. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

182 

42%1%8%8%9%9%9%9%10%10%10%10%10%10%10%11%11%11%11%12%12%12%12%12%14%14%15%15%15%15%37%40%53%58%61%2%6%11%8%8%8%7%10%9%8%13%11%8%6%5%13%6%11%12%8%9%13%6%11%11%13%11%13%15%28%31%36%39%36%1%10%10%11%11%13%13%11%13%15%12%12%13%12%13%12%14%13%14%15%13%14%13%16%16%16%18%16%18%44%47%60%64%None of theseOther barriers or restrictionsDestination adapted to a specific group of peopleAccessible restaurants and other food and drink businessesAccessible tourist accommodationAvailability of a specific service, infrastructure or productAccessible sport or leisure equipment or serviceExcursion activities available at destinationSightseeing, entertainment and cultural activitiesAccommodation available at destinationAccessibility of booking servicesAvailability of services in a language you understandAccess to information before trip and at destinationAccessible shops or shopping servicesAccessible transport types to and from destination, and once at…Health treatments (including wellness or beauty)Accessible locationsShopping opportunitiesLocal culture/peopleAvailability of information about accessible servicesFood and drink available at destinationMedical help or health care at destinationInformation available once at destinationTransport to and from destinationHow tourists are treated (customer care/service)Transport once at destinationInformation available before the tripSafetyNature (weather conditions, landscape, etc.)General value for money of the destinationBarriers related to the booking and journeyBarriers related to accessibility and servicesBarriers related to the destinationAny barriersQ13. Thinking of your trips in the past 12 months, did you experience barriers or restrictions with any of these aspects?Travel with children (n=965)Age above 65 (n=318)Any limitations (n=1341) 
 
 
 
When asked about the aspects with which they experienced barriers or restrictions when travelling in 

the past 12 months, 42% of the group of people with any limitations answered ‘None of these.’  

The people with any limitations group most often mentions accessible toilet and bathroom facilities, 

easy to use the furniture, furnishing and lights, mobility within the room, mobility within the building, 

ease of use of lifts as aspects for which they experienced barriers. 

When asked about the aspects with which they experienced barriers or restrictions when travelling in 

the past 12 months, 36% of people travelling with children answered ‘None of these.’ The people 

travelling with children group most often mentions accessibility of booking services, accessible sport 

or leisure equipment and accessible shops and shopping services as aspects for which they 

experienced barriers. 

Figure 106 – Importance of building aspects – People with limitations 

When people with any limitations are asked about the importance of various aspects of building they 

can visit at their destination, 70% cited accessible toilet and bathroom facilities as being important or 

very important. 

65% mentioned the use of lifts as being important or very important and 64% mentioned accessible 

parking spaces. 

The group of people with any limitations also cited the importance of the ease of using the furniture, 

furnishing and lights (61%), mobility within the building (60%) and mobility within the room (59%). 

A last group of aspects, access to services other than accommodation, type of access (ramps, etc.) 

and alarm systems were accorded scores of 57%, 52% and 49% importance respectively. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

183 

10%8%7%8%8%7%6%7%5%9%10%6%5%6%5%6%10%3%9%10%7%7%6%6%5%4%5%24%20%23%21%20%21%18%15%17%25%25%30%30%30%31%29%26%28%24%27%27%29%30%30%36%38%42%Alarm systemsType of access (ramps, steps, stairs, doors)Access to services other than accommodation (e.g. spa, gym, swimming pool, restaurant, boutiques, beauty centres, etc…)Mobility within the room (e.g. in hotels, accommodation, etc…)Mobility within the buildingEasy to use the furniture, furnishing and lightsEase of use of liftsAccessible parking spacesAccessible toilet and bathroom facilitiesQ17a. Thinking of buildings you can visit at your destination (hotels, museums, etc.), how important are each of the following aspects?People with limitations (n=1341)Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Not at all important2345 - Very important 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 107 – Importance of building aspects – Travel with children 

75% of the group of people travelling with children cited the importance of accessible toilet and 

bathroom facilities in buildings they visit at their destination. Considerable importance was also 

accorded to accessible parking spaces (71%), easy to use lifts (69%), easy to use furniture and 

fittings (68%), mobility within the room (65%).  

In fact in the case of all aspects listed, a large majority considered that they were important and 

even the aspect of lowest importance, alarm systems, was accorded a score of 57%. 

Figure 108 – Importance of building aspects – People above 65 

The group of people aged 65 and above accorded particular importance to accessible toilet and 

bathroom facilities (72%), ease of use of lifts (63%) and accessible parking spaces and easy to use 

furniture, furnishing and lights (both 60%). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

184 

7%5%5%4%5%5%5%4%4%6%4%7%4%3%4%4%8%2%7%7%9%6%7%6%4%3%4%22%19%18%19%20%19%19%14%16%30%33%28%35%31%32%29%26%28%28%32%32%33%35%35%40%45%47%Alarm systemsAccess to services other than accommodation (e.g. spa, gym, …Type of access (ramps, steps, stairs, doors)Easy to use the furniture, furnishing and lightsMobility within the room (e.g. in hotels, accommodation, etc…)Mobility within the buildingEase of use of liftsAccessible parking spacesAccessible toilet and bathroom facilitiesQ17a. Thinking of buildings you can visit at your destination (hotels, museums, etc.), how important are each of the following aspects?Travel with children (n=965)Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Not at all important2345 - Very important13%11%13%12%9%11%9%10%7%10%9%8%9%6%12%7%13%5%9%8%6%5%5%8%5%4%2%25%22%19%17%20%16%16%13%14%24%30%29%32%33%25%27%23%30%18%20%25%26%27%28%37%37%43%Alarm systemsAccess to services other than accommodation (e.g. spa, gym, …Mobility within the room (e.g. in hotels, accommodation, etc…)Mobility within the buildingEasy to use the furniture, furnishing and lightsType of access (ramps, steps, stairs, doors)Ease of use of liftsAccessible parking spacesAccessible toilet and bathroom facilitiesQ17a. Thinking of buildings you can visit at your destination (hotels, museums, etc.), how important are each of the following aspects? People above 65(n=318)Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Not at all important2345 - Very important 
 
 
 
 
In a secondary category were mobility within the building (58%), type of access (53%), mobility 

within the room (54%) and access to services other than accommodation (50%). 

Lastly, a large minority (43%) of the group aged 65 and above considered alarms to be of 

importance. 

It is perhaps worth noting that in respect of several of these aspects, there were rates of ‘don’t know’ 

responses of 10% and above in the case of alarm systems and mobility in the room (both 13%), 

mobility within the building (12%), type of access to buildings and access to services other than 

accommodation (both 11%) and accessible parking spaces (10%). 

Figure 109 – Satisfaction with building aspects – People with limitations 

When people with any limitations are asked about their satisfaction with various aspects of building 

they can visit at their destination, 73% cited accessible toilet and bathroom facilities as having been 

satisfactory or very satisfactory. 

Ease of use of furniture and furnishings was also considered satisfactory (69%), as was mobility in 

the building (67%), mobility in the room (66%), type of access (65%) and accessible parking spaces 

and ease of use lifts (both 63%). 

There were slightly lower figures in relation to satisfaction regarding access to services other than 

accommodation (59%) and alarm systems (51%). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

185 

26%17%12%19%15%14%13%12%10%2%2%2%1%2%1%1%1%1%4%3%4%4%4%3%4%3%3%18%18%18%13%15%17%16%15%13%28%30%34%30%30%31%32%32%34%24%29%31%34%34%35%35%37%39%Alarm systemsAccess to services other than accommodation (e.g. spa, gym, …Type of access (ramps, steps, stairs, doors)Ease of use of liftsAccessible parking spacesMobility within the room (e.g. in hotels, accommodation, etc…)Mobility within the buildingEasy to use the furniture, furnishing and lightsAccessible toilet and bathroom facilitiesQ17b. And thinking of buildings you visited during your most recent trip, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with each of these aspects? People with limitations(n=1341)Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Completely dissatisfied2345 - Completely satisfied 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 110 – Satisfaction with building aspects – People above 65 

77% of the group of people aged over 65 said they were satisfied or completely satisfied with the 

accessibility of toilet and bathroom facilities. 73% were satisfied with mobility in the room, 72% with 

mobility in the building and 71% with the ease of use of furniture and fittings. 

However, only 68% expressed satisfaction with the lifts and it is particularly noteworthy that only 

55% expressed satisfaction with the accessibility of parking spaces and 54% with access to services 

other than accommodation.  

There was an exceptionally high ‘don’t know’ response of 32% in relation to satisfaction with alarm 

systems, as well as one of 22% in relation to the accessibility of parking spaces. 

Figure 111 – Satisfaction with building aspects – Travel with children 

The group of people travelling with children were satisfied in relation to all aspects. In all cases, 

other than for alarm systems (57%), satisfaction levels exceeded 66%. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

186 

32%26%14%22%25%17%14%15%9%2%2%2%2%1%2%2%0%0%4%2%3%3%2%2%2%3%4%16%17%16%18%6%7%11%11%10%26%30%35%24%31%35%34%32%34%19%24%31%32%36%38%38%39%43%Alarm systemsAccess to services other than accommodation (e.g. spa, gym, …Type of access (ramps, steps, stairs, doors)Accessible parking spacesEase of use of liftsMobility within the room (e.g. in hotels, accommodation, etc…)Mobility within the buildingEasy to use the furniture, furnishing and lightsAccessible toilet and bathroom facilitiesQ17b. And thinking of buildings you visited during your most recent trip, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with each of these aspects? People above 65 (n=318)Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Completely dissatisfied2345 - Completely satisfied18%8%9%13%7%8%7%6%5%2%2%2%1%2%2%3%1%1%3%4%3%4%4%3%5%3%4%20%21%19%15%17%19%17%16%14%30%37%34%34%36%34%31%36%34%26%29%33%34%35%36%37%37%41%Alarm systemsType of access (ramps, steps, stairs, doors)Access to services other than accommodation (e.g. spa, gym, …Ease of use of liftsMobility within the buildingMobility within the room (e.g. in hotels, accommodation, etc…)Accessible parking spacesEasy to use the furniture, furnishing and lightsAccessible toilet and bathroom facilitiesQ17b. And thinking of buildings you visited during your most recent trip, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with each of these aspects? Travel with children (n=965)Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Completely dissatisfied2345 - Completely satisfied 
 
 
 
 
There was also a high rate of ‘don’t know’ responses of 18% in respect of respondents’ satisfaction 

with alarm systems. 

4.2.2.4  Expectations & future 

Figure 112 – Likelihood to travel more often  

Respondents were asked if they were offered better accessible services and/or help during their 

journey and at their destination, how likely they would be to travel more often. Respondents were 

asked to give their answers on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘Not at all likely’ and 5 means 

‘Completely likely.’ 

36% of the group of people aged over 65 said they were likely or completely likely to travel more 

frequently under such circumstances, while 18% said they were not at all likely. There was also a 

high ‘don’t know’/not applicable response to this question of 22% among this group. 

Members of the group of people with any limitations were asked if they were offered better 

accessible services and/or help during their journey and at their destination, how likely they would be 

to travel more often. Respondents were asked to give their answers on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 

means ‘Not at all likely’ and 5 means ‘Completely likely.’ 

51% of the group of people with any limitations said they were likely or completely likely to travel 

more frequently under such circumstances, while 10% said they were not at all likely. 

Members of the group of people travelling with children were asked if they were offered better 

accessible services and/or help during their journey and at their destination, how likely they would be 

to travel more often. Respondents were asked to give their answers on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 

means ‘Not at all likely’ and 5 means ‘Completely likely.’ 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

187 

14%22%8%10%18%6%6%6%5%19%17%20%26%16%32%25%20%30%Any limitations (n=1612)Age above 65 (n=407)Travel with children (n=1052)Q21. If you were offered better accessible services and/or help during your journey and at your destination, how likely would you be to travel more often?Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Not at all likely2345 - Completely likely 
 
 
 
 
62% of the group of people travelling with children said they were likely or completely likely to travel 

more frequently under such circumstances, while 6% said they were not at all likely. 

Figure 113 – Spending more for accessibility – People with limitations 

Members of the group with limitations were asked about the frequency they had to switch to a more 

expensive product or service because of their need for them to be accessible (e.g. choose a more 

expensive hotel). Almost half (48%) said that, at least sometimes, this was the case, although 36% 

said that this was never the case. 

People with limitations were also asked about the frequency they had to pay more than the standard 

price because of their need for accessible products or services (e.g. need to pay an additional fee). 

Virtually half (49%) said that, at least sometimes, this was the case, although slightly over a third 

(35%) said that this was never the case. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

188 

35%36%28%26%14%15%7%6%16%16%Paying more than the standard price because youneed accessible products or services (e.g. pay anadditional fee)Switching to a more expensive product or servicebecause you need them to be accessible (e.g.choose a more expensive hotel)Q24.1 Thinking of travelling in general, how often do you have to do the following? People with limitations (n=1612)NeverSometimesOftenAlwaysDon’t Know/Not applicable 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 114 - Spending more for accessibility – People above 65 

Members of the group aged over 65 were asked about the frequency they had to switch to a more 

expensive product or service because of their need for them to be accessible (e.g. choose a more 

expensive hotel). More than half (52%) said that this was never the case, although 28% said that 

this happened at least sometimes. 

People aged over 65 were also asked about the frequency they had to pay more than the standard 

price because of their need for accessible products or services (e.g. need to pay an additional fee). 

Although almost a third (32%) said that, at least sometimes, this was the case, virtually a half (48%) 

said that this was never the case. 

Figure 115 - Spending more for accessibility – Travel with children  

Members of the group travelling with children were asked about the frequency they had to switch to 

a more expensive product or service because of their need for them to be accessible (e.g. choose a 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

189 

48%52%22%21%10%7%1%1%20%20%Paying more than the standard price because youneed accessible products or services (e.g. pay anadditional fee)Switching to a more expensive product or servicebecause you need them to be accessible (e.g.choose a more expensive hotel)Q24.1 Thinking of travelling in general, how often do you have to do the following? People above 65 (n=407)NeverSometimesOftenAlwaysDon’t Know/Not applicable31%32%33%31%18%21%9%7%8%9%Paying more than the standard price because youneed accessible products or services (e.g. pay anadditional fee)Switching to a more expensive product or servicebecause you need them to be accessible (e.g.choose a more expensive hotel)Q24.1 Thinking of travelling in general, how often do you have to do the following? Travel with children (n=1052)NeverSometimesOftenAlwaysDon’t Know/Not applicable 
 
 
 
 
more expensive hotel). Almost six out of ten (59%) said that, at least sometimes, this was the case, 

although 32% said that this was never the case. 

People travelling with children were also asked about the frequency they had to pay more than the 

standard price because of their need for accessible products or services (e.g. need to pay an 

additional fee). 61% said that, at least sometimes, this was the case, although 31% said that this 

was never the case. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

190 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 116 – Potential use of accessibility items 

When presented with a list of possible items that they might use if available on their trip or at their 

destination, members of the group of people aged over 65, 68% said they would make use of none 

of them.  

9% of the over-65s group said they would avail of medical help, 8% of medical or paramedical 

treatment and 7% of a menu for special dietary needs. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

191 

43%1%4%5%6%8%8%8%9%12%12%12%13%14%15%17%58%18%19%27%68%1%1%1%5%4%4%5%6%6%5%3%8%5%7%9%32%12%9%15%36%0%6%8%6%8%8%9%9%11%16%18%15%23%18%21%64%19%19%32%None of theseOtherInduction loopSign-language interpreterHearing aidsWalker, crutches or stickWheelchair or scooterPersonal care worker or other medical or paramedical helpVisual aidsHelp to get on board, leave or change transport typeSpecifically trained staffActivities for specific groups of peopleMedical or paramedical treatmentAreas or equipment for childrenMenu for special dietary needsMedical helpAnySensesMobilityMedicalQ16. If available on your trip or at your destination, which of the following items would you use? Travel with children (n=1052)Age above 65 (n=407)Any limitations (n=1612) 
 
 
 
 
When presented with a list of possible items that they might use if available on their trip or at their 

destination, 43% of the members of the group of people with any limitations said they would make 

use of none of them.  

15% would avail of menus for special dietary needs, 14% would make use of areas or equipment 

for children, and 9% visual aids (e.g. magnifying glasses). 

Nevertheless, in regard to the medical category, 17% said they would make use of medical help, 

13% medical or paramedical treatment and 8% a personal care worker. 

In the mobility category, 12% would avail if help to get on board, leave or change transport type 

and 8% would make use of a wheelchair or scooter or a walker, crutches and stick. 

When presented with a list of possible items that they might use if available on their trip or at their 

destination, 36% of members of the group of people travelling with children said they would make 

use of none of them.  

23% would make use of areas or equipment for children, 21% of medical help, 18% of specific 

activities for children, 18% of menus for special dietary needs, 16% of specifically trained staff and 

15% of medical or paramedical treatment. 

Figure 117 – Likelihood to go back to the same destination 

Looking back at the accessibility of locations during their most recent trip and the likelihood of 

returning to the same destination in the future, a high proportion (84%) of the people aged over 65 

said they were likely or completely likely to do so. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

192 

1%2%1%2%5%2%3%2%2%9%8%10%31%31%32%54%52%52%Any limitations (n=1149)Age above 65 (n=266)Travel with children(n=857)Q15. You mentioned being satisfied with the accessibility of locations during your most recent trip. Thinking of this aspect, how likely are you to go back to the same destination in future? Don’t Know/Not applicable1 –Not at all likely2345 - Completely likely 
 
 
 
 
Looking back at the accessibility of locations during their most recent trip and the likelihood of 

returning to the same destination in the future, a high proportion (86%) of the people with any 

limitations group said they were likely or completely likely to do so. 

Looking back at the accessibility of locations during their most recent trip and the likelihood of 

returning to the same destination in the future, a high proportion (84%) of the group of people 

travelling with children said they were likely or completely likely to do so. 

4.2.3  EU - Results by limitation 

This section details the survey results for people with limitations split by type of limitation: 

•  Mobility: includes difficulties with walking, picking up objects or daily activities 

•  Senses: includes difficulties with seeing, hearing or other senses 

•  Communication: includes difficulties with speaking or understanding complex information 

•  Behaviour: includes fears, mental, nervous or emotional problems and learning disabilities 

•  Hidden limitations: includes allergies and chronic diseases 

•  Special needs: includes help from a person or animal, specific equipment or medical treatments 

4.2.3.1  Travel behaviour 

Of the total sample of those with limitations, 18% did not travel at all. A slightly higher proportion 

(20%) of those with special needs, mobility (19%) and communication (19%) limitations compared 

with 16% of those with sensory limitations and 17% of those with hidden limitations did not travel. 

4.2.3.1.1  Reasons for not travelling 

A little over two-thirds (68%) of people with any limitation cited financial reasons for not travelling in 

the previous 12 months. Those with hidden limitations (71%) were more likely to cite this reason 

than those in the other categories and those with mobility issues (64%) were least likely to do so. 

The proportions for the other categories ranged from 67% to 68%. 

Those with a behavioural limitation (34%) were more likely to cite a preference for staying at home 

as their reason for not travelling, followed by those with special needs (33%) and communication 

limitations (32%). Those with mobility issues (28%) were least likely to cite this reason. Those with 

sensory or hidden limitations gave this reason in 30% of cases. 

Lack of time/can’t get off work: this reason was more likely to be given by those with sensory, 

communication and hidden limitations (11%) with special needs at 10%, behaviour limitations at 9%, 

and those with mobility limitations at 7%.  

Long-term illness or health issues: those with mobility limitations (36%) and those with special needs 

(37%) are, by some margin, most likely to cite long term illness or a health issue as a reason for not 

travelling. Those with sensory, communication and hidden limitations mentioned this reason less 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

193 

 
 
 
frequently at 29% -31%, while considerably fewer with behavioural limitations cited this reason 

(25%). 

Family reasons (e.g. the need to care for small children or an elderly relative): 12% of those with 

hidden limitations cited this as a reason for not travelling, closely followed by those with special 

needs at 10%. At the other end of the scale, a little under 7% of those with behavioural limitations 

mentioned this as a reason. Those in the mobility, sensory and communication categories 

mentioned this reason with a frequency of between 8 and 9%. 

Lack of affordable accessibility services or infrastructures at the destination: those with 

communication limitations mentioned this most frequently at 9%, whereas this was a less important 

reason for those with hidden limitations at 7%. This reason was cited by 8% of those falling within 

the other categories.  

Other reasons were mentioned by too small a proportion of respondents to be analysed across 

groups: lack of accessibility and of accessible tourism services at the preferred destination, 

information on accessible services and destinations not available, information on accessible services 

and/or destinations not accessible, lack of help/not enough help, not enough information or incorrect 

information on accessible services on possible destinations. 

4.2.3.1.2  Preferred holiday periods 

Unsurprisingly perhaps, those with all types of limitations express a preference for scheduling trips in 

the summer holidays. However, this would appear a particularly strong response among those with 

communication limitations, 71% of whom gave this response, followed by those with special needs 

at 70%. Summer holidays were least likely to be scheduled by those with mobility (64%) and 

sensory (65%) limitations. 

From the figures, we also see that winter holidays show a preference spike amongst those with 

communication issues compared with the average with 47% citing this reason contrasting with 36% 

overall. 

A sizeable proportion said they would be likely to schedule trips off-season or outside the main 

school holidays, with those with special needs leading the way with 55%. This alternative was least 

favoured by those with mobility limitations, at 48%, while those in the other categories of limitation 

varied from 50 to 52%. 

Although the majority of the sensory limitation group opt for summer holidays, winter holidays show 

up as a strong preference in relation to the norm (42% over 36% norm) of those choosing to holiday 

at that time of year. Similarly, this applied to those with mobility issues where the figures are 40% to 

36%.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

194 

 
 
 
The school holidays preference shows up slightly more frequently in the profile of those with 

behaviour limitations (44% against the 38% norm).  

In the same way, the figures for those with a hidden limitation show that there is a slightly greater 

tendency to schedule winter (40 against 36%) or spring (45 against 41%) holidays than the 

respondents in other limitation categories. In the same way, with special needs, there is a slight 

indication of similar preferences 44 against 36% for winter holidays and 48% against 41% for 

spring holidays. 

If we now look at figures which indicate which holiday periods are less favoured by those with 

different types of limitations, we see that those with mobility issues may have a slightly lower 

tendency to schedule trips during the summer holidays (63.9% of respondents compared with a 

figure of 63.6% across all the limitation ranges, a figure which also includes those who have not 

taken a trip). 

Among those with communication issues, we can infer that off-season trips are least favoured in 

comparison with the general profile of preferences across all the limitations (52% against 48%). 

The figures show quite strongly among those with behaviour limitations that autumn holidays are 

proportionately less favoured, this period being mentioned by 39% in this category compared with 

37% across the board.  

In a similar analysis of the figures, there is a hint that for the hidden limitation category, that autumn 

holidays are proportionately slightly less favoured at 40% compared with 37% (a figure which itself 

includes those taking no holiday). 

4.2.3.1.3  Travel companions 

We have seen that a majority of respondents (44%) said they most frequently travelled with a 

partner, and those with hidden limitations were most likely to give this response with 46% with those 

with behavioural limitations rather less likely to give the same response (41%).  

Those with behavioural limitations (22%) gave the highest proportion of responses for those 

travelling with other family or household members in contrast to under 17% of those with mobility 

limitations giving the same response. When other travel companions are incorporated in the figures 

for family or household members, the special needs group (49%) generates the highest figure 

amongst those who travel with other family or household members, as a primary or secondary 

companion.  

At just under 10%, those with mobility issues were more likely to say they travelled on their own than 

those in other categories of limitations, while the hidden limitations segment were proportionately 

less likely to travel alone, at 8%. When all travel companions are aggregated, those respondents 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

195 

 
 
 
with communication limitations then become proportionally the most likely to say they had travelled 

on their own. 

Of those who travel with children most frequently, people with special needs and communication 

limitations are more likely to travel with children over the age of 5 whereas those in the other four 

categories tend more to travel with under-5s. 

When other travelling companions are added to those most frequently travelled with, children 

become a much more important part of the picture with, in most cases, more than 30% of all the 

limitation categories saying they had travelled with children of both age groups – below and above 

age 5. 

People with sensory limitations are the least likely to have a friend or colleague as their most 

frequent travel companion, at a little over 10%, while almost 12% of those with communication 

issues were those who travelled most frequently with a friend or colleague. 

A personal care worker (1.6%) was the most frequent travel companion for those with behaviour 

limitations but around 1.0% of those with mobility, sensory and hidden limitations were least likely to 

give this answer. 

When the figures include all travel companions, the proportion who said they travelled with personal 

care workers at times grows considerably with 21% of those with communication limitations and 

19% of those with special needs travelling at some time with a personal care worker. This practice is 

less evident among those with mobility, sensory and hidden limitations, where the figure falls to 

15%. 

4.2.3.1.4  Destinations  

People with mobility limitations were less likely than average to have travelled in their home country. 

30% of those with communication limitations travelled to non-European countries while a little over 

24% of those with special needs did the same. Also it is less likely to travel outside Europe, at 25% 

and 26% respectively, were those with hidden limitations and those with behaviour limitations. 

4.2.3.1.5  Reasons for travelling outside the EU 

The most frequently cited reason for travelling outside Europe was for local culture, nature or 

sightseeing opportunities (61%). This was particularly true for those with sensory limitations 64% of 

whom referred to this aspect. This reason was less important for those with mobility limitations with 

only 56% citing this. 

A little over half (50%) of those with special needs were visiting family or friends but only 41% of 

those with sensory issues travelled in order to visit their family or friends. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

196 

 
 
 
For 40% of those with sensory limitations, the general value of money of the destination was 

important, whereas this only applied to 31% of those with hidden limitations and 32% of those with 

special needs. 

Accessibility of the destination and services was an issue for 24% of those with sensory, 

communication or behavioural issues but less important to those with mobility issues, hidden 

limitations or special needs (22%, 21% and 21% respectively). 

While 20% of those with communication issues were interested in the availability of health or 

wellness treatments, this was of concern to under 17% of those with sensory, behavioural or special 

needs. 

4.2.3.1.6  Type of accommodation 

A hotel or bed and breakfast was the chosen accommodation for over 60% of those with hidden 

limitations or special needs, while only 55% of those with communication issues usually stayed in 

such accommodation. 

Almost 45% of those with behaviour issues chose to stay with friends or family. 41% of those with 

special needs usually stayed with friends or family, while this figure was 42% for the other 

categories. 

There was little variation among the categories in terms of usually staying in a rental house or flat 

but this form of accommodation was most likely to be occupied by someone with communication 

limitations (a little over 20%). Those with mobility and behaviour issues were marginally less likely to 

use this form of accommodation (19%). 

Those with behavioural limitations and those with special needs were more likely to take advantage 

of accommodation in a tent, caravan or mobile home at 18% and 17% respectively. Those with 

hidden limitations, however, were least likely to stay in such accommodation (13%). 

14% of those with behaviour limitations cited their own holiday house or flat as their usual form of 

accommodation, whereas those with sensory issues were least likely to stay in their own holiday 

house or flat (12%). 

A spa or wellness resort was most likely to be the choice of someone with communication limitations 

(14%) whereas, for those with sensory issues, it was the least likely at under 11%. Those with 

hidden limitations and special needs were only slightly more likely to usually stay in a spa or 

wellness resort at a little over 11%. 

Youth hostel or hostel accommodation was the accommodation of choice for almost 10% of those 

with sensory limitations compared with only 8% with hidden limitations and special needs. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

197 

 
 
 
A small percentage usually made use of a medical or healthcare institution with under 4% of those 

with mobility or communication issues usually staying in such accommodation. A little over 3% of 

those in the other limitation categories usually stayed in such establishments. 

Overall, around four in five people usually stayed in paid-for accommodation, with the highest take-

up among those with hidden limitations or special needs (83%) and behaviour limitations (82%). The 

proportion of those with mobility, sensory or communication limitations who usually stayed in paid for 

accommodation ranged from 80% to 81%. 

4.2.3.1.7  Modes of transport to and from destination 

With almost 68% of those with special needs using car as transport to their destination, this form of 

transport was, by a considerable margin, the most popular. However, only 61% of those with mobility 

issues cited this as their mode of transport. 

There was little variation in the proportions of those who flew to their destination, with figures ranging 

from 44% (mobility and special needs) and 46% (sensory, behaviour and hidden limitations). 

Those with behaviour limitations mentioned train travel most often, at 39%, followed by those with 

communication limitations and special needs (38%). However, the train was mentioned by only 36% 

of those with mobility or sensory limitations. 

23% of those with communication or behavioural issues used long-distance buses or coaches to get 

to their destination whereas only 21% of those in other categories used this form of transport. 

Over 19% of those with communication or behaviour limitations said they used local public transport 

to get to their destination but this figure dropped to 15% for those with hidden limitations and 16% for 

those with special needs. 

15% of those with communication, behavioural or special needs used boats, ships or ferries, while 

this figure dropped below 14% for those with sensory or hidden limitations and below 13% for those 

with mobility issues. 

People with communication or behavioural limitations were the largest users of taxis at 17% but 

those with sensory limitations were the lowest users at under 13%. Those with mobility, hidden 

limitations or special needs took the middle ground with 15% using taxis. 

Leading those who used bicycles by a considerable margin were those with communication 

limitations, at over 12%. Only 9% of those with sensory or hidden limitations or special needs, 

travelled by bicycle, whereas this figure was less than 8% for those with mobility issues. 

Wheelchairs or other mobility devices were most often used by those with special needs and those 

with communication issues (both 8%). This figure drops to 6% for those with sensory or hidden 

limitations. It should be noted that 7% of those with mobility issues said they used such devices. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

198 

 
 
 
Almost 10% of those with communication issues said they used a motorbike or scooter to get to their 

destination. This figure drops markedly among the other categories of limitation, 7% for those with 

behavioural and hidden limitations and special needs and 6% for those with mobility and sensory 

limitations. 

Overall, those with behavioural limitations more often tended to pay for their transportation to their 

destination, at 77%, whereas this figure was 74% for those with sensory limitations and special 

needs. 75% of those with mobility, communication and hidden limitations paid for their 

transportation. 

4.2.3.1.8  Modes of transport at destination 

The car was the most popular type of transport once at the holiday destination with 57% of those 

with special needs making use of it, falling to 49% of those with communication issues. 

Local public transport was used most by those with sensory, communication, behaviour limitations 

and special needs (39%-41%) and least used by those with mobility and hidden limitations (36-

37%). 

29-30% of all those with limitations reported using taxis at their destination with very little variation 

amongst the categories, although, notably, those with mobility issues used taxis most often. 

27% of those with communication issues used long-distance buses or coaches at their destination 

though this form of transport was used somewhat less by those in other categories, the lowest use 

being among those with mobility or hidden limitations (22%). 

The bicycle was the chosen form of transport by 26% of those with communication limitations, 

although this figure dropped to 20% for those with mobility issues and 21% for those with sensory 

limitations or special needs. 

21% of those with communication or behaviour issues made use of the train at their destination, 

while this figure dropped to 17% for those with special needs and 18% for those with mobility or 

hidden limitations. 

The highest users of water transport were those with communication limitations at 22%. Least liable 

to use this mode of transport were those with mobility or sensory limitations, at 17%. 

Those with communication limitations were ahead of the other categories in the use of air travel at 

their destination, at 19%, though 15% of those with sensory, mobility, behaviour limitations or special 

needs used air travel at their destination. The lowest users of air travel were those with hidden 

limitations, at 13%. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

199 

 
 
 
17% of those with communication issues used a motorbike or scooter at their destination, a mode of 

transport used far less often by those in other categories of limitation. 12% of those with mobility, 

sensory or hidden limitations used this form of transport. 

15% of those with communication limitations made use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices. 

However, only 11% of those with mobility, sensory or hidden limitations used this form of transport at 

destination. 

Overall, approaching 70% of those with communication or behavioural limitations used paid for 

transportation at their destination. This figure dropped marginally to 68% of those with mobility or 

sensory limitations and 66% and 65% respectively for those with special needs or hidden limitations. 

4.2.3.1.9  Participation in activities  

Spending time with family or friends and social activities was relatively popular with all those 

with limitations but particularly so for those in the behaviour and hidden limitations and special needs 

categories (59-60%) but slightly less favoured by those with mobility, sensory or communication 

limitations (55-57%). 

Sightseeing and walking around was slightly favoured by those with sensory limitations (63%) 

followed by those with behaviour or hidden limitations (both 61%) and those with mobility and 

special needs (60%). However, a little more than 57% of those with communication limitations said 

they took part in this activity. 

18% of those with sensory, communication, behavioural or hidden limitations reported that they took 

part in work-related activities, while this activity was less common for those with mobility and 

special needs at 16% and 17% respectively. 

Those with sensory limitations (49%) preferred to take part in cultural visits compared with people 

with other types of limitation. This activity was least preferred by those with mobility limitations or 

special needs (46% and 45% respectively).  

Natural visits was a favoured activity for those with sensory and communication limitations, at 41-

42%, and less favoured by those with mobility, hidden and behavioural limitations and with special 

needs (between 38% and 40%). 

Zoo visits were more popular with those with behavioural or communication limitations (37% and 

36% respectively). This was an activity less favoured by those in other categories of limitation, with 

those with mobility issues at the bottom of the list (32%). 

Swimming and sunbathing was a favoured activity for those with special needs (49%), followed by 

those with behavioural limitations (48%). Those with mobility issues were, again, at the bottom of the 

list with 45% reporting that they had taken part in this activity. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

200 

 
 
 
47% of those with sensory limitations said they had taken part in walking, hiking or running 

activities. These activities were much less favoured by those with special needs (40%) or mobility 

limitations (41%). 

Almost 15% of those with sensory limitations enjoyed other sports (e.g. cycling, skiing, water or air 

sports). In contrast, fewer than 11% of people with mobility issues and fewer than 12% of those with 

special needs took part in such other sports. 

Other outdoor activities (e.g. fishing, bird-watching) were enjoyed across the board by all 

categories of limitations and were mentioned by 10-11% of the sample. Those with mobility issues 

were at the lower end of this range. 

Heading the list of those enjoying guided tours and excursions were those with sensory limitations 

or special needs (32%). The activity was less favoured by those with behavioural (28%) or mobility 

limitations (29%). 

Shopping was enjoyed across the board by around two-thirds of the sample. The activity was 

marginally more popular among those with sensory, hidden or behavioural limitations (66-67%). 

Those with mobility issues and special needs were slightly less likely to take part, with the figure 

being 64% for these groups. 

Those with hidden limitations were more likely to dine out, by a relatively considerable margin, with 

65% saying that they took part in this activity. This compares with 62% of those with mobility, 

sensory, behavioural limitations or special needs. Slightly lagging behind in this group were those 

with communication issues 61% of whom reported taking part in this activity. 

Over 21% of those with communication issues reported that they had taken part in spa or wellness 

activities. In contrast, those with mobility and behaviour limitations were least likely to take part in 

such activities (18%). 

Around 10% of the sample group took part in healthcare or other medical activities, with very little 

deviation among the different categories of limitation. 

Taking part in local events was marginally more favoured by those with behavioural or hidden 

limitations, 32% of whom reported being involved in such events. At the lower end of the scale, only 

29% of those with mobility limitations or special needs took part in these activities. 

Topping the list of those who took part in activities for families or children were those with special 

needs with 36% of people in this category saying they had taken part. This was closely followed by 

those with behavioural limitations (35%). People with mobility issues were less likely to take part in 

such activities with 31% reporting they had done so. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

201 

 
 
 
A little over 90% of all activities experienced involved a financial cost, with little variation in this figure 

between the categories of limitation.  

4.2.3.2  Decision-making 

4.2.3.2.1  Most important information sources when deciding travel plans  

The relative profile of information sources that are important to the various limitation groups changes 

slightly when all the answers given are aggregated, for instance where more than one source is 

taken into account, not just the factor deemed most important. 

In making decisions about travel plans those with communication limitations (12%) were the group 

most likely to make use of a travel agency as a first resort. Least likely to turn principally to a travel 

agency are those with sensory, behavioural or hidden limitations (10%). 

When all sources of information used are collated, travel agencies remain an important resource, 

with 40% of those with communication issues mentioning them. Again, it is those with mobility and 

sensory limitations who are slightly less likely to use this source of information. 

Those with communication limitations (18%) are the least likely to use family friends or colleagues 

as their most importance source. 

More than 19% of those with mobility limitations rely principally on their own experience when 

making travel plans. Similarly, 18% of those with special needs tend to rely on personal knowledge. 

People with behavioural and communication limitations are slightly less likely than the others to use 

their own experience as the most important source (15%). 

Tourism websites are most likely to be relied upon by those with sensory, behavioural or hidden 

limitations, with 18% in these categories saying they were their most important source of 

information. At the other end of the scale, only around 16% of those with mobility, communication 

and special needs said that tourism websites were their most important resource. 

In summary, 40% of those with sensory limitations use the tourism sector as their most important 

source of information. This compares with a figure of just over 36% of those with mobility limitations 

or special needs. 

When the figures for all forms of individual advice are added together, for example, family, 

friends, colleagues, online information from members of the public, and personal experience, the 

special needs group (41%) is the group relying most on this information. Much less likely to make 

use of such personal recommendations are those with communication limitations, with fewer than 

36% saying they made use of this information as a first resort. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

202 

 
 
 
Those with communication limitations or special needs (15%) tend to make use of sources such as 

specialised guidebooks or websites when seeking information. Those with sensory limitations 

(12%) are least likely to go to these specialised resources. 

In terms of the most important source cited by the sample, travel agents, word of mouth from family, 

friends or colleagues, personal experience and tourism websites were the most important. When all 

sources mentioned by respondents are aggregated, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, 

forums and blogs, and general guide books all increase in importance. Brochures and 

catalogues also become important back-up sources of information. 

Boosted, particularly by those with communication limitations, 34% of whom mentioned 

newspapers and magazines, radio and television, as a source of back up information, these 

media become an important general resource across the board when we look at the aggregated 

figure for all sources of information. The same source is, however, only mentioned by 29% of those 

with mobility or hidden limitations. 

Similarly, social networks, for example, Facebook, are an important secondary source of 

information. When figures are aggregated for all sources, those with communication and behavioural 

limitations lead the way with more than 28% mentioning this as a source of information, although 

only 2% or 3% of these groups said it was their principal resource. In comparison, fewer than 24% of 

those with mobility or hidden limitations mentioned social networks as a source of information. 

Although fewer than 2% saw social media, for example Twitter, as their most important source of 

information, 27% of those with communication issues cited social media as one of their sources 

although not necessarily their primary source. This was, by a clear margin, ahead of those in other 

limitation categories where only 20% of those with mobility issues and 21% of those with hidden 

limitations made use of this source of information. 

When all responses concerning family, friends and colleagues are collated, those with behavioural 

limitations are clearly ahead of the other categories of limitations with 55% of them saying they 

made some use of this source of information. The figure was 50-51% among other categories.  

Figures for those relying on their personal knowledge to some extent were relatively consistent 

across the board with between 47% and 49% mentioning this source.  Slightly ahead of the rest 

were those with behavioural or hidden limitations. 

Although not generally considered to be an important primary source of information, forums, blogs 

or online reviews were particularly important to those with behaviour limitations 33% of whom 

mentioned this resource. At the other end of the scale, this source of information was important to 

only 27% of those with mobility issues. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

203 

 
 
 
Similarly, brochures and catalogues were an important back-up resource, with 40% of those with 

communication or behavioural issues making some use of this resource. The figure was 37% for 

those with mobility, sensory or hidden limitations. 

Support groups and consumer organisations remained a relatively minor source of information 

when all answers were aggregated. However, this was a slightly more important resource for those 

with communication limitations than those in other categories of limitation with 22% mentioning they 

at some time used these sources. Fewer than 18% with mobility, sensory or hidden limitations 

mentioned this source of information. 

General guidebooks were also mentioned as useful, mostly secondary, sources of information, 

particularly important to those with communication issues, 37% of whom made some use of them. 

General guide books were considered somewhat less useful by those with mobility and hidden 

limitations where the figure was 31%.   

Specialised guidebooks also had their adherents with, again, those with communication issues 

leading the way with 23% using this resource. Such guidebooks were less important for those with 

mobility and hidden limitations (19%). 

Although only one in six used tourism websites as a first resort, getting on for 50% made use of 

this resource to some extent.  Those with behavioural limitations were most likely to consult such 

websites (49%), with those with mobility issues least likely (43%). 

Specialised websites were of particular importance to those with communication limitations with 

29% making use of these resources overall. However, only 22% of those with mobility limitations 

consulted the more specialised websites.  

Specialised sources other than websites were also cited and, again, it was those with 

communication limitations who made use of these resources more often (24%) and those with 

mobility and hidden limitations (19%) were least likely to make use of this kind of resource. 

Doctors and other health professionals were a source of information particularly for those with 

communication limitations with 24% citing this source. This resource was much less important to 

those with other categories of limitation, in particular those with sensory issues, of whom 17% 

mentioned this source. 

Turning to an analysis of general tendencies of the sample in making decisions about travel plans, 

most appear to turn to word of mouth and the tourism sector as their most important source of 

information. However, this appears to be backed up by use of websites and social media, as well as 

more specialist resources.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

204 

 
 
 
Those with communication limitations are more likely to rely on media in general as an information 

source than those with other types of limitations. 47% of this group consults this type of resource at 

some point. This compares with 42% of those with special needs. Also slightly less inclined to follow 

advice gathered from the media are those with mobility or hidden limitations (43%).  

Members of all limitation groups tend to equally seek information from the tourism sector, 

amounting to around 70% of each group, although significantly those with mobility limitations (67%) 

are less likely to use this resource. Those with behavioural and hidden limitation are more likely to 

rely on their own resources or friends, families, colleagues and online blogs (74%) than those 

with other types of limitation. Least likely to follow personal recommendations are those with 

communication limitations (71%).  

It is those with communication limitations and special needs (respectively 47 and 48%) who are 

most likely to turn to specialised advice compared with those with mobility or sensory limitations who 

make use of these resources less often, at 42% and 41% respectively. 

4.2.3.2.2  Booking channels 

Those with communication limitations (62%) were clearly more likely to have booked through a 

travel agency. People with hidden limitations are least likely to do the same (53%). Figures for 

those in other limitation groups varied between 54% and 56%. 

Those with communication limitations (41%) were also the most likely to book through an 

institutional group, whereas those with hidden limitations were much less likely to do so at 33%. 

The figures for the other types of limitation varied between 36% and 37%. 

Over 60% of those with those with communication limitations chose to book directly with providers 

before their holiday. The figure for all the other groups was 59% with the exception of those with 

special needs of whom fewer than 57% chose this method of booking. 

A similar pattern emerges once at their destination where 54% of those with communication 

limitations are the most likely to book directly with providers. Those with sensory or hidden 

limitations or those with special needs are least likely to take this course, at 49%. 

Those with communication limitations (53%) were also the most likely to book through people they 

know, while those with special needs or hidden limitations (both 48%) were somewhat less likely to 

choose this option. 

If a booking is made through a travel agency, this is more likely to be done in person with those with 

communication limitations leading the way - 29% of whom said they had booked in person. Those 

with hidden limitations (25%) were least likely to book in person, when they booked with a travel 

agency. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

205 

 
 
 
Similarly, those with communication limitations were more likely to have used the telephone (16%) 

or the internet (26%) to make their booking through a travel agency than those with other types of 

limitation. Those with hidden limitations or special needs were least likely to telephone when booking 

with a travel agent (between 12 and 13%). 

Also, in the case of internet booking, it was those with mobility, sensory or hidden limitations who are 

least likely to use that form of communication when booking with a travel agent (all 23%).  

When booking through an institution or group, those with communication limitations and special 

needs were more likely to use the telephone than those in other categories (9% having said they 

used this form of communication). In contrast, only 7% of those with hidden limitations used the 

telephone when booking through an institution or group. 

Similarly, it was those with communication limitations or special needs who led the field in terms of 

booking in person when booking through an institution or group (14%). Personal booking was used 

by fewer than 13% in the other segments when booking through an institution or group.  

Those with communication limitations were joined by those with mobility or sensory limitations (13-

14%) in preferring to make their bookings through an institution or group via the internet. In contrast, 

this was a less favoured option for those with hidden limitations (under 12%).  

Booking directly with a provider by telephone in advance of a holiday was a generally equally 

preferred option of communication for most categories at a little over 16%. However, those with 

sensory limitations were less likely to telephone (under 15%).  

Over 16% of those with communication limitations made their advance booking directly with 

providers in person, whereas for those with hidden limitations, this was a far less preferred 

communication option (13%) and this group, instead, was the group which most preferred booking 

direct with providers over the internet (37%).  Significantly, those with communication limitations 

were, on this occasion, least likely to make their booking directly with a provider over the internet 

(31%). 

Those with mobility limitations (15%) are top of the list of those preferring to make their booking 

directly with a provider by telephone once at their destination, closely followed by those with 

communication limitations (14%). In contrast, those with hidden limitations were least likely to use 

the telephone to make such a booking (11%).  

19% of those with communication limitations said that where they booked directly they did it in 

person with providers once at destination, closely followed by those with special needs (18%). 

Those with mobility or hidden limitations were the least likely to make bookings in person when 

making bookings directly with providers (16%). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

206 

 
 
 
The group most likely to make a direct booking at destination via the internet was those with 

behavioural limitations (23%). Those with mobility or sensory limitations or special needs were least 

likely to use the internet for this type of booking at just under 21%.  

Those with sensory and behavioural limitations were more likely than those in other segments to use 

the telephone when booking through someone they knew (17%). This was the least likely form of 

communication for those with communication or hidden limitations or with special needs (15%). 

There was a wider disparity between the groups in relation to using the internet when booking 

through someone they knew. 20% of those with communication limitations said they used this form 

of communication compared with under 16% of those with mobility limitations. 

4.2.3.2.3  Checking of accessibility conditions and/or available help at travel destination 

before travelling 

Respondents were asked whether, before travelling, they checked accessibility conditions and/or 

available help at their destination. Those with communication limitations (68%) were more likely to 

check such conditions than respondents with sensory or hidden limitations (respectively 63% and 

62%). The other groups were clustered between 65% and 66%. 

As to whether there is sufficient information of this nature, high proportions in all the groups 

appeared to think so. 81% of those with mobility, sensory or hidden limitations held this view, while 

the figures were marginally lower at 78% for those with special needs and 79% for those with 

communication and behavioural limitations.  It is perhaps worth noting that there were relatively high 

“don’t know” responses of 7% among those with behavioural or communication limitations.  

When asked to rate the reliability of the information received before travelling regarding accessibility 

conditions and/or available help at their travel destination, it is noteworthy that there was a “don’t 

know” response ranging from 9% among those with mobility limitations to 12% among those with 

behavioural limitations, at the other end of the scale. 75% of those with communication limitations 

and 74% of those with special needs, sensory, communication or hidden limitations felt that this 

information was reliable, while the figure was slightly lower for those with behavioural limitations, at 

72%.  

Around 80% of respondents felt this information about accessibility conditions and/or the availability 

of help at travel destination before travelling was generally accessible with little variation across the 

board. Again, there was a certain segment of between 7% and 9% of each group who gave a “don’t 

know” response, with the highest proportions (of almost 9%) seen among those with behavioural or 

communication limitations. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

207 

 
 
 
 
4.2.3.3  Experience 

4.2.3.3.1  Aspects of importance when choosing travel destination 

In choosing their travel destination, information about weather conditions and landscape, etc. was 

more important to those with sensory, communication or hidden limitations or those with special 

needs (4.2 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important). 

This was only slightly less important for those in the other groups (4.1). 

Customer care and service was of prime importance to those with communication limitations (4.2) 

whereas those with sensory limitations were, by a small margin, the least concerned with an 

average score of 4.0. 

Of all the groups, those with hidden limitations were most concerned about value for money of the 

destination (4.4 out of 5). This was also very important for all the other groups, but slightly less so, at 

4.3. 

Sightseeing, entertainment and cultural activities were equally important aspects for all groups with 

scores of 4.0. 

One of the least important factors was shopping opportunities, though this was relatively more 

important for those with communication limitations (3.6) compared with those with sensory or hidden 

limitations or special needs (3.4). 

Information about food and drink at destination generally gained an importance level of 4.0 but was 

marginally more important for those with hidden limitations (4.1). 

Those with mobility limitations or hidden limitations expressed most concern about accommodation 

when choosing their travel destination giving it a score of 4.2 compared with 4.1 for the other groups. 

Excursion activities were a little less important scoring 3.7 in general but were marginally more 

important for those with communication limitations who scored this factor at 3.8. 

Interest in local culture scored 3.9 across the board, while information about health treatments was 

the least important of all the factors for all groups when choosing their destination, scoring between 

3.2 and 3.4 (those with communication limitations). 

Transport at destination was considered moderately important with most of the groups scoring it at 

3.8. Those with sensory limitations said it was slightly less important (3.7). 

Safety was the most important issue for all groups with most scoring this factor at 4.3, but with those 

with communication limitations or special needs rating this factor at an importance of 4.4. 

Transport to destination was important for all categories of limitation (4.2) with only those with 

mobility limitations scoring this factor at 4.1. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

208 

 
 
 
Information being available before the trip was also seen as quite important, scoring 4.3 for most 

groups and 4.2 for those with special needs. 

The availability of information once at the destination was considered only slightly less important at 

4.2 across the board, although those with behavioural limitations rated this aspect at the slightly 

lower rating of 4.1.  

When asked about access to information before the trip and at destination, most groups scored this 

as important or very important, at 4.2, with this aspect being considered especially important by 

those with communication limitations who gave this 4.3. 

Those with communication limitations were also the group feeling that availability of information 

about accessible services was most important scoring 4.2, though this was slightly less of an issue 

for those in the hidden limitations or special needs categories (4.0). 

Accessibility of booking services was rated 4.1 in importance across the board, while there was 

generally less concern about the accessibility of locations, sightseeing and entertainment, scoring 

between 3.9 and 4.0. Those with sensory limitation and communication limitations felt this aspect 

was slightly more important than did the other groups, scoring 4.0. 

Accessibility of accommodation was considered slightly more important to most groups than 

accessible locations, scoring 4.0 across the board, with the exception of 3.9 for those with hidden 

limitations. 

Accessible restaurants were considered to be similarly important, scoring between 3.9 and 4.0, with 

this aspect being slightly more important for those with mobility, communication or behaviour 

limitations. 

Only moderately important were accessible shops when choosing a destination, generally scoring 

between 3.6 and 3.8. This aspect was deemed to be most important by those with communication 

limitations and of least importance, relatively, by those with hidden limitations. 

Also deemed to be of relatively lesser importance was the accessibility of leisure equipment. Those 

with communication limitations were, however, most keen on this (3.6), whilst all but those with 

sensory limitations (3.5) gave this an importance rating of 3.4. 

The availability of accessible transport was important to all the groups who mostly gave this a rating 

of 3.9, the exception being those with communication limitations who felt this was slightly more 

important, meriting a score of 4.0. 

Of moderate importance for most groups, at 3.6, was the question of whether the destination was 

adapted for a specific group, for example, seniors or children. However, those with communication 

limitations felt that this was slightly more important, scoring 3.7.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

209 

 
 
 
The question of medical help or healthcare at destination was important to all groups with a score of 

4.0 across the board. Slightly more important was the availability of services in a language 

understandable to the individual, scoring 4.1.  Perhaps significantly, those with communication 

limitations scored this even higher, at 4.2. 

The availability of specific services, infrastructure or products (e.g. special foods) was considered 

only moderately important. Those with communication limitations scored this highest of all the 

groups, at 3.6, while those with sensory or behavioural limitations were least concerned, at 3.4. 

4.2.3.3.2  Satisfaction with each of these aspects  

Respondents were asked to rate the same aspects in terms of their level of satisfaction following 

their most recent trip. 

There are a number of aspects where the level of satisfaction is rated less than the level of 

importance accorded to them in choosing a destination. 

General value for money of the destination is given a satisfaction score of 4.2 compared with 

importance of 4.3 while, similarly, the question of information available before the trip is given a 

satisfaction rating of 4.2 compared with an importance rating of 4.3. Within these figures, there is 

some variation among the different limitation groups. 

Those with communication limitations have a more consistent mismatch between satisfaction rating 

and the corresponding importance rating. For instance, they are the only group where satisfaction is 

lower on customer service issues but they are in agreement with three other groups in terms of 

relative dissatisfaction over general value for money. These groups are those with behavioural or 

hidden limitations or special needs. 

Those with communication limitations are joined by those with special needs in giving a lower score 

for satisfaction compared with their importance rating on safety issues. 

The figures show that four groups are relatively dissatisfied in terms of transport to and from 

destination. These are those with sensory, communication or behavioural limitations or special 

needs. 

By the same measure, relative dissatisfaction seems to be generally across the board as regards 

information available before the trip, though an exception is those with special needs. 

Those with sensory or communication issues are perhaps relatively dissatisfied with access to 

information before the trip and at destination, while those with communication limitations are the only 

group where level of satisfaction does not accord with the level of importance they gave to the 

availability of information about accessible services. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

210 

 
 
 
In most of the other aspects, satisfaction levels seem to exceed comfortably the levels of importance 

given to them, especially in relation to shopping opportunities, accessible shopping, accessible 

sport, availability of specific services and health treatments. 

4.2.3.3.3  Experience of barriers or restrictions 

When respondents were asked about their experience in the past 12 months of barriers or 

restrictions in relation to all the important aspects of travel destinations covered above, we observe 

that, with regard to almost all of these aspects, the group with communication limitations recorded 

higher figures than all of the other groups. 

For example, when we look at the aggregated figures for destination-related aspects, such as nature 

(weather conditions, landscape, etc.), how tourists are treated, general value for money, etc.), we 

see that those with communications limitations, at 65%, record a substantially higher figure than the 

other groups, all of which had figures of 60% or below.  

More specifically, when we look at the nature aspect, it can be seen that the figure relating to those 

with communication limitations (22%) exceeds by at least three percentage points the figures 

relating to those with behavioural or hidden limitations or special needs (all at 19%). In contrast, the 

corresponding figures for those with sensory and mobility limitations, at 17 and 18% respectively 

were somewhat lower. 

We can note quite often that the figures recorded for those with hidden limitations are lower than 

those recorded for other groups, perhaps, precisely because their limitations are hidden. This may 

be seen in the case of many of the destination-related aspects, such as accommodation available at 

destination, general value of the destination, and how tourists are treated, to cite a few specific 

examples. 

For those with mobility limitations, their relative experience of barriers and restrictions compared with 

the other groups appears to have been most marked in relation to aspects such as how tourists are 

treated, transport to and from destination, and accessible restaurants. 

Where those with sensory limitations tend to experience barriers and restrictions, it would appear to 

be more common in relation to aspects such as general value for money of the destination, medical 

help or healthcare at destination, or availability of services in a language they understand.  

The group with behavioural limitations tends to experience barriers or restrictions more often than 

most other groups in relation to aspects such as shopping opportunities, transport to and from 

destination, nature, general value for money of the destination, sightseeing, entertainment and 

cultural activities, food and drink available at destination, excursion activities, and issues relating to 

the access to and availability of information in its various forms, accessibility of booking services, 

etc. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

211 

 
 
 
The special needs group felt that it had experienced barriers or restrictions more so than most other 

groups in relation to shopping opportunities, accommodation available at destination, local 

culture/people, transport once at destination, safety, availability to information in its various forms, 

accessible shops, accessible sport, availability of services in a language they understand, and 

medical help or healthcare at destination. This group and the behavioural limitations group appear to 

share a number of similar experiences. 

4.2.3.3.4  Aspects regarding buildings visited 

On a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 means not at all important and 5 means very important), respondents 

proceeded to rank aspects of buildings they can visit when travelling. In terms of buildings visited 

during their most recent trip, they also ranked these aspects on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means 

completely dissatisfied and 5 means completely satisfied. 

Accessible parking space was accorded a mean of 4 in terms of importance by those with mobility 

limitations. All of the other groups gave it a score of 3.9, for those with sensory limitations (3.8). 

Satisfaction with this aspect was 4.0 across the board, except for the special needs group which 

gave it the slightly higher score of 4.1. 

Type of access (ramps, steps, doors, etc.) was given greatest importance, at 3.7, by those with 

mobility and communication limitations, with the rest of the groups giving it a score of 3.6. In terms of 

satisfaction in this regard with buildings visited on their most recent trip, all groups give a satisfaction 

score of 4.0. 

In terms of importance, accessible toilet and bathroom facilities are given a score of 4.1 by all 

groups, except those with mobility limitations (4.2). When we look at respondents’ satisfaction in this 

respect, the mobility group’s satisfaction remains at 4.2, and those with behavioural or hidden 

limitations and those with special needs also give an identical score.  

Ease of using furniture, furnishings and lights was accorded greatest importance by those with 

mobility and communication limitations (4.0), with scores of 3.9 from the other groups, except those 

with sensory limitations (3.8). In terms of satisfaction with this aspect, all groups gave an identical 

satisfaction score of 4.1. 

As regards access to services other than accommodation, all groups rated its importance at 3.8 

except for those with sensory limitations (3.7). Satisfaction ratings with this aspect were 4.0 across 

the board. 

Alarm systems were of greater importance to those with communication limitations (3.8), than all the 

rest of the groups (3.7 except those with sensory limitations with 3.6). Satisfaction with alarm 

systems was rated at 3.9 (mobility, sensory or behavioural limitations) and 4.0 (communication or 

hidden limitations, or special needs). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

212 

 
 
 
Mobility within the room was most important for those with communication limitations (4.0), with 

those with mobility or behavioural limitations or special needs giving it 3.9 and the remaining groups 

3.8. Satisfaction levels in this regard were a uniform 4.1 across the board. 

Mobility within the building was assigned most importance by those with communication limitations 

(4.0) followed by those with mobility or behavioural limitations or special needs (3.9), and the 

remaining groups at 3.8. Again, satisfaction with this aspect was given a score of 4.1 across the 

board (with the exception of people with communication limitations, who gave an average score of 

4.0). 

Ease of use of lifts was of equally high importance (4.0) for all of the groups, except for those with 

sensory limitations.  Satisfaction, in respect of this aspect was given a score of 4.1 by all the groups. 

4.2.3.4  Expectations & future 

4.2.3.4.1  Likelihood to travel more or return to the same destination 

Respondents were asked whether, if offered more accessible services and/or help during their 

journey and at their destination, they would be likely to travel more often. 

A majority in each limitation group said they were likely or completely likely to travel more often in 

these circumstances. 

People with communication limitations (57%) were somewhat more likely than those with mobility, 

sensory or behavioural limitations or special needs (all 56%) to travel more often were services 

and/or help more accessible during their journey and at their destination. Those with hidden 

limitations (54%) were least likely to give this response. 

Respondents satisfied with the accessibility of locations during their most recent trip were asked 

about the likelihood of returning to the same destination in the future. 

Those with sensory limitations (87%) were most likely to say they would be likely to return to the 

same destination, while three groups, those with communication or behavioural limitations or special 

needs (84%) least likely to say they would return. 

4.2.3.4.2  Paying more for accessible products or services 

Respondents were asked if they paid more than the standard price for accessible products or 

services (e.g. an additional fee) and, if so, how often. 

Those with communication limitations (61%) were significantly more likely to say that this happens at 

least sometimes than those who had hidden limitations or special needs (both 52%). 

There was also a high ‘don’t know’ response to this question ranging from 13% (those with 

communication limitations) to 17% (those with hidden limitations). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

213 

 
 
 
When asked whether it often happened that they had to switch to a more expensive product or 

service because they needed to be accessible, those with communication limitations (58%) were 

most likely to respond that this was their experience at least sometimes in contrast to those with 

hidden limitations or special needs (both 50%). 

4.2.3.4.3  Use of specific items 

Respondents were given a list of 15 items in three main groups (mobility, senses and medical) 

ranging from a personal care worker, through a sign language interpreter and a wheelchair to 

hearing aids. They were then asked whether, if these items were available on a trip or at their 

destination, they would use them. 

Those with special needs (25%) were more likely to cite items in the mobility group items (e.g. help 

to get on board, leave or change transport, wheelchair, walker, crutches, etc.) than those with 

sensory (20%), behavioural or hidden limitations (both 21%). 

Those with communication limitations (26%) would be more likely to use items falling within the 

senses group (sign language interpreter, induction loop, hearing aids) than those with hidden 

limitations (19%) or mobility (21%) or behavioural (21%) limitations. 

Those with communication limitations (34%) would be more likely to use items falling within the 

medical group (personal care worker, medical or paramedical treatment or medical help) than those 

with either mobility (31%) or sensory (30%) limitations. 

4.2.4  EU - Country results 

The section below presents statistically significant differences between countries. Non-significant 

differences and questions with a base size below 25 are not included in the analysis. 

4.2.4.1  People who travel with children 

People from The Netherlands who travel with children are more likely than average to schedule their 

trips during the school holidays. Their Italian counterparts show a strong tendency to use the 

summer holidays for their travelling plans but the lowest preference for travelling off-season or 

outside main school holidays. People from the UK are least likely to use summer holidays for their 

travels. Among all the respondents, Lithuanians are the people with the lowest tendency to use 

winter and spring holidays for the traveling plans. While Slovenians show the lowest preference for 

autumn holidays as the period to do their travelling, although they have a low preference for spring 

holidays as well. Poles are more likely, regarding the average, to travel during off-season or outside 

main school holidays. 

In general lines, Lithuanians, Dutch and Polish people show the highest tendency to use other 

periods for their travelling plans.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

214 

 
 
 
 
When it comes to travelling companions, people from the Netherlands who travel with children show 

the highest variety. They are more likely than average to travel on their own, or with friends, with 

other groups or with their personal care worker. Polish people show a higher tendency to travel with 

their partner, other groups and their personal care worker. Lithuanians have an above average 

preference to travel on their own or with colleagues, although they are the less likely to travel with 

their partner. French respondents are more likely to travel with their children above 5 years old, 

while Irish are the less likely to do this. Irish people also report the lower preference for travelling 

with children below 5 years old. Swedish respondents are the less likely to travel with members of 

their family or household. British people are less likely to travel with children above 5 years old or 

with their colleagues. 

In general lines, Dutch respondents are less likely in average to visit the EU. Irish are the ones less 

likely to travel in Europe. Africa and the Middle East are less likely to be visited by Lithuanians, 

Slovenians and Swedish. The Americas are less likely to be visited, on average, by Belgians, 

Lithuanians, Poles and Slovenians. On average, Italians and Slovenians are less likely to have 

visited Asia and Oceania.  

When talking about the reasons chosen to travel outside the EU, British respondents are the most 

likely to report accessibility of the destination and services as a relevant reason for picking the 

destination. 

When asked about the type of accommodation chosen when travelling, Slovenians are more likely to 

use, in average, a rental house/flat, a tent/caravan/mobile home or a spa or wellness resort. French 

respondents show an above average preference for using rental houses/flats, and spa or wellness 

resorts. Polish respondents show a preference for the house of friends or relatives, or a rental 

house/flat. Respondents from the Netherlands are more likely to choose their own holiday house or 

flat. Belgians are more likely to use a spa or a wellness resort. Lithuanians will prefer the house of 

friends or family members.  Spanish respondents are more likely than average to go to a hotel or a 

Bed & Breakfast. 

On the other hand, houses of friends or family are less likely to be used by respondents from 

Belgium, the Netherlands and Slovenia. Rental houses or flats are less preferred by Dutch and 

British respondents. Hotels or Bed & Breakfast are less likely to be chosen by respondents from 

France, Lithuania and Slovenia. Youth hostels and hostel are less preferred by people from the 

Netherlands. Tent/caravan/mobile homes are less likely to be used by Italians and Spanish. Spa and 

wellness resorts are less likely, in average, to be chosen by Swedish respondents. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regarding the type of transport preferred, to and from destination/at destination, there are quite 

different choices. Irish respondents are more likely than average to use airplanes, taxis and 

wheelchairs/mobility scooters. Spanish respondents prefer airplanes, trains and taxis. Respondents 

from the Netherlands show a preference for bicycles and wheelchair/mobility devices. Respondents 

from Poland are more likely than average to use long-distance buses/coaches and bicycles. Belgian 

and Slovenian respondents report a preference above average to use cars.  

On the other hand, airplanes are less likely to be used by French, Lithuanians, Polish and 

Slovenians. Cars are less preferred by Swedish respondents. Long-distance buses/coaches are less 

likely than average to be used by Irish and Swedish respondents. Trains are less preferred by 

respondents from Lithuania and Slovenia. Swedish respondents are less likely than average to use 

local public transport. Taxis are less likely than average to be used by respondents from Belgium 

and Lithuania. Bicycles are less preferred by Italian and British respondents. Wheelchair and 

mobility devices are less likely to be used by Italians. 

Regarding the type of activities the respondents took part during the past 12 months, Polish 

respondents give the widest variety of answers. Pols will prefer, more than average: going shopping, 

going to local events, spending time with family or friends, sightseeing/walking around, doing work-

related activities, visiting natural areas, and walking or running. Slovenian respondents are more 

likely to engage in spa/wellness activities, go to local events, spend time with friend or families, 

swimming or sunbathing. Lithuanian respondents declare a preference for going to local events and 

doing cultural visits. French respondents are more likely than average to do sightseeing and walking 

around, and running or hiking. Respondents from Ireland show a preference for going to local 

events, and swimming and sunbathing. Dutch respondents are more likely to prefer swimming or 

sunbathing, while respondents from Belgium and the UK choose to do activities for families and 

children.  

On the other hand, Italian and Dutch respondents show the lower preference for spending time with 

family or friends. Sightseeing and walking around have the lower preference on Italian and Swedish 

respondents. Respondents from Belgium, Ireland and Poland are the groups with the lower 

tendency to do cultural visits. Natural visits are less preferred by Swedish and Irish respondents. 

Swimming and sunbathing is mentioned less often by Italian respondents. Walking or hiking is 

chosen the least by Irish, Italian, Lithuanian, Dutch and Swedish respondents. French, Lithuanian 

and Slovenian respondents mention less often shopping as an activity they take part in. Trying local 

food or drinks, and doing activities for families and children are less often chosen by respondents 

from Italy. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In general lines, activities that imply some kind of payment are less often chosen by respondents 

from Sweden. 

When it comes to source of information for travelling, there are four categories that are preferred. 

Forums, blogs and online reviews are more often mentioned by Slovenian and Spanish 

respondents. Family, friends and colleagues are more likely to be used by Lithuanians and Spanish 

people. Newspapers, magazines, radio or TV are more often preferred by Polish respondents as 

source of information. Belgian respondents travelling with children are more likely than average to 

use brochures or catalogues. 

On the contrary, newspapers, magazines, radio or TV are less often mentioned by Spanish 

respondents as a source of information. Social media is less preferred by Belgians and Slovenians 

travelling with children. Italians report the less using their own experience as a source of information. 

Respondents from the UK use the least non-profit organizations, and Swedish are less likely to rely 

on general guidebooks. 

Regarding the booking procedure for travelling, Spanish respondents travelling with children are 

more likely to go through a travel agency, while Polish are less likely to use this way. Institutions or 

groups are less often preferred by Belgian and Swedish respondents. Irish respondents report more 

often to use directly a transport or an accommodation provider before their holiday, while their 

counterparts from Belgium, Lithuania and Sweden are less likely to use this method. Once at their 

destination, Belgian respondents report to be less likely to use directly a transport or an 

accommodation provider. Swedish respondents report less often to use someone they know. 

Booking the trip by phone is more likely done by Belgian, Irish, Dutch and Swedish respondents. 

Swedish also report more often to do the booking in person, while the internet is more likely used by 

Irish respondents, and less often used by Lithuanian, Polish and Slovenian respondents. 

When it comes to check accessibility conditions and the availability of help at the travel destination 

before travelling, Italian respondents are the most likely to do it, while Belgian, Irish and Lithuanian 

report less often to do this. 

Regarding the information about accessibility and its availability, respondents from the UK report 

more often there is enough information, while Spanish respondents are less likely to say this. 

Regarding the reliability of the information, respondents from Belgium and Poland declare more 

often they do not know about this. And when it comes to the accessibility of the information, 

Slovenian respondents are more likely to declare it is, while Belgian respondents are less likely to 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
say the information is accessible and more likely to answer ‘Don’t know.’ Besides, respondents from 

Poland and Slovenia are less likely to say the information is not accessible.  

Regarding the aspects considered as important when choosing the travel destinations, Italian 

respondents show the widest range of options. They are more likely than average to give importance 

to: the general value for money of the destination, the food and drink available, the accommodation, 

the health treatments, the transport at the location, the availability of information about accessible 

services, the destination being adapted to a specific group of people, the medical help or health care 

at the destination, the availability of services in an understandable language, and the availability of a 

certain service, infrastructure or product. Polish respondents declare more often to give importance 

to aspects such as: nature, the accommodation available, safety, the information about accessible 

services, the accessible tourist accommodation, the medical help and health care and the available 

services in an understandable language. However, they will give a below the average importance to 

the excursions available at the destination and the availability of certain products or services at the 

destination. Respondents from Lithuania are more likely to give importance to the information 

available before and once at the destination. French respondents report more often than average 

the excursions available at the destination as important, but they give less importance to the food 

and drinks at destination, the accommodation, safety and the accessible restaurants at destination. 

Slovenians are more likely to give the accommodations available at the destination a score above 

the average, although they will give less importance to several elements, such as: general value for 

money at the destination, sightseeing and entertainment, shopping opportunities, available 

excursions, transport at destination, accessible locations and accessible sport or leisure equipment. 

On the other hand, Swedish respondents travelling with children are more likely to score below 

average in almost all categories. In the case of Lithuanian respondents, it is possible to observe a 

trend in their responses as well: they have a below average score in almost all items related to 

accessibility. Belgian respondents are less likely to refer to some variables as important: local 

culture/people, information available before the trip, accessibility of booking services, accessible 

locations, accessible tourist accommodation and medical help or health care at destination. 

Respondents from Ireland give less importance to available excursions, health treatments and 

accessible products and services in general. Dutch respondents travelling with children give less 

importance to excursions available at the destination, while Spanish respondents give a below 

average importance to health treatments. 

Regarding satisfaction with their most recent trip, some differences and similarities with the previous 

question can be observed.   

Belgian respondents who travel with children are more satisfied than average to health treatments, 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

218 

 
 
 
 
 
but less satisfied with local culture/people, transport to and from destination, destination adapted to 

a certain group and information available in an understandable language. Italian respondents are 

more satisfied with the availability of food and drinks at the destination. Respondents from Lithuania 

are more satisfied with excursions at destination, while they are less satisfied with shopping 

opportunities and information about accessible services. Respondents from the UK are more likely 

to be satisfied with accessible tourist accommodation, accessible shops, and shopping services and 

opportunities. 

On the other hand, Swedish respondents travelling with children have a tendency to be less satisfied 

with most of the items related to accessibility, nature, and transport in general (at the destination, 

and to and from the destination). Slovenian respondents are less satisfied than average with 

sightseeing and cultural activities, shopping opportunities, transport to and from destination, 

information available at the destination, accessible locations, accessible accommodations and 

availability of specific services and products. Respondents from Poland, travelling with children, are 

less satisfied with excursions available at the destination, health treatments and availability of 

specific services or products. French respondents are less satisfied with food and drinks available at 

the destination, and Spanish respondents with health treatments. 

When it comes to mention barriers or restrictions, Polish people travelling with children are more 

likely to mention nature, availability of services in a language they understand, and transport to and 

from their destination. Spanish respondents are more likely to refer to sightseeing and cultural 

activities, while they mention less often the treatment received as tourists. Slovenian respondents 

report below the average in the majority of the items. Dutch respondents are less likely to mention 

the transport (to and from their destination, and an accessible one), the accessibility of booking 

services, and health treatments as aspects they perceived as barriers or restrictions. Respondents 

from Sweden mention less often how tourists are treated, the general value for money at the 

destination, the accommodation available at the destination and the accommodation being adapted 

for a specific group of people. Irish travelling with children are less likely to mention the excursion 

activities at the destination, while Lithuanians mention less often health treatments, and accessible 

sports or leisure equipment and services. Respondents from the UK refer less often to the 

availability of services in a language they understand as an aspect in which they experienced a 

barrier or restriction. 

People who travel with children and are satisfied with the accessibility of locations during their most 

recent trip were asked how likely they would be to go back to the same destination in future. Italian 

people are less likely to say they would go back. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

219 

 
 
 
 
 
Turning to the likelihood to travel more often if better accessible services were offered, Swedish 

people are less likely than average to say they would travel more often in these circumstances.  

Polish people who travel with children are more likely than average to pay more than the standard 

price for accessible services at least sometimes, while Irish, Lithuanian and Swedish people are less 

likely to do so. Belgian, Irish and Lithuanian people who travel with children are less likely to mention 

having to switch at least sometimes to a more expensive service for it to be accessible. 

Looking into the items people who travel with children would use when travelling, Polish people are 

more likely to mention a wide range of items, and particularly medical ones, while UK people 

mention many items and particularly mobility-related ones. Belgian and French people who travel 

with children are less likely to select any of the items, while Dutch people mention less often than 

average a range of items. French and Swedish people mention medical help less often.  Lithuanian, 

Slovenian and Spanish people who travel with children are more likely than average to mention 

areas or equipment for children, while people in Spain also mention more often wheelchairs and 

hearing aids.  

In terms of satisfaction with building aspects, Lithuanian people who travel with children tend to find 

most items less important than average. Polish people find accessible parking spaces and toilets, 

easy to use furniture and access to services other than accommodation more important. Slovenian 

people find accessible parking spaces and toilets more important, and alarm systems and the ease 

of use of lifts less important. Swedish people who travel with children find accessible parking 

spaces, mobility within the building, ease of use of lifts and types of access less important than 

average, while Belgians feel the same way about types of access and alarm systems. Finally, Italian 

people who travel with children find types of access more important and the ease of use of furniture 

less important. Turning to satisfaction with the same items, fewer differences appear. UK people 

who travel with children are more satisfied than average with accessible parking spaces and toilets, 

and alarm systems. Belgians are less satisfied than average with alarm systems, while Spaniards 

are less satisfied with accessible parking spaces, and toilets, and alarm systems. Finally, French 

people who travel with children are less satisfied than average with accessible toilets and the ease 

of use of furniture.  

4.2.4.2  People aged 65 and above 

In terms of most likely period for a holiday, three countries stand out for seniors: people aged 65 and 

over in Sweden, Belgium and the UK are less likely than average to travel over the summer 

holidays. In contrast, Swedish seniors are more likely to travel during the spring holidays, UK seniors 

over the winter holidays and Belgian seniors off-season.  

Belgian seniors are less likely than average to have stayed with family or friends in the past 12 

months but more likely to have stayed in a rental house or flat, or in a spa or wellness resort. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

220 

 
 
 
 
Seniors in the UK are more likely than average to mention a hotel or bed and breakfast. Swedish 

seniors are more likely than average to have used a boat, ship or ferry to go to their destination or 

come back from it. 

Turning to activities, Swedish seniors are less likely than average to mention the following activities: 

sightseeing/walking around, natural visits, hiking/running, guided tours and shopping. Belgian 

seniors are less likely to mention natural visits and local events, and UK seniors hiking or running. 

Swedish seniors are less likely than average to use a travel agency as their most important 

information source when preparing a trip, but more likely to use social media or their own 

experience. UK seniors are also more likely to rely on their own experience. In parallel, Swedish 

seniors are less likely to book their trips in person through a travel agency. UK seniors are more 

likely to say that booking through an institution or group does not apply to them and less likely than 

average to mention booking in person through someone they know. 

Looking into the importance of various items, shopping opportunities are more important than 

average for Belgian and UK seniors. In contrast, Belgian seniors find the  availability of services in a 

language you understand less important and UK seniors find the following items less important than 

average: health treatments, accessible tourist accommodation, and destination adapted to a specific 

group of people. No significant differences appear in terms of satisfaction with these items. 

Turning to barriers, Belgian seniors are less likely than average to mention experiencing barriers 

with the following items: nature, how tourists are treated, general value for money, local culture and 

people, transport once at destination, and accessible locations. UK seniors are less likely to mention 

barriers with the general value for money of the destination, information available before the trip, and 

the availability of information about accessible services. 

In terms of the importance of building-related items, Belgian seniors find accessible parking spaces, 

mobility within the building and the ease of use of lifts more important than average. UK seniors are 

more satisfied than average with accessible toilet and bathroom facilities. 

When asked how likely they would be to travel more often if they were offered better accessible 

services, Dutch and Swedish seniors were less likely than average to say they would travel more 
often.1 In contrast, Irish and Lithuanian seniors are less likely than average to say they would not 
travel more often.2 

1 Based on the proportion of answers 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. 
2 Based on the proportion of answers 1 or 2 on a 5-point scale. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

221 

 
 
 
                                                      
Seniors in Lithuania and the UK are less likely than average to report having to pay more than the 

standard price at least sometimes because they need accessible products or services. Seniors in 

Belgium, Lithuania and the UK are less likely than average to report having to switch to a more 

expensive product or service because you need them to be accessible. 

When asked which items could help on their trips, Slovenian seniors are more likely than average to 

mention help to get on board, leave or change transport type induction loops, areas or equipment for 

children and menus for special dietary needs. Both Slovenian and Lithuanian seniors mention 

medical help more often, while Lithuanian seniors are also more likely to mention activities for 

specific groups of people. Irish, Lithuanian, Dutch and UK seniors are more likely than average to 

mention a wheelchair or scooter. UK seniors are also more likely to mention walkers, crutches or 

sticks, or induction loops. Belgian and Swedish seniors are more likely than average to select the 

‘None of these’ option at this question. 

Belgian seniors who were satisfied with the accessibility of locations during their most recent trip 

give a below average score to their likelihood of going back to the same destination in future. 

4.2.4.3  People with a limitation 

Polish people with any limitation are more likely to mention a lack of help, a lack of affordable 

accessibility services or infrastructures, family reasons or a long term illness or health issue as a 

reason not to have travelled in the past 12 months. Their Swedish counterparts are less likely to 

mention a long term illness or health issue. Dutch people with any limitation are more likely than 

average to mention a lack of help but mention less often that they preferred to stay at home. 

Turning to seasonality, people with any limitation in Italy and Spain are more likely to travel during 

the summer holidays, while UK people are less likely to do so. Autumn holidays are more often 

mentioned in Ireland, Poland and Sweden, and less often in France. People with any limitation in 

Belgium and Poland are more likely to travel off-season, while Italians are less likely to do so. 

Lithuanian and Slovenian people with any limitation mention less often spring holidays, while Poles 

are more likely to travel over the winter holidays. 

In terms of travelling companions, Polish people with any limitation are more likely than average to 

mention a range of situations: children below or above 5, colleagues, personal care worker, other 

group, but also travelling on their own. Irish people mention less often travelling with children below 

or above 5 and other family or household members. People with any limitation in Lithuania travel 

more often with colleagues or another group and less often with their partner. Dutch people are 

more likely to mention and other group or a personal care worker. People with any limitation in Spain 

are more likely to travel with their partner, while Swedes travel more often on their own and less 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

222 

 
 
 
often with children below 5. Finally, people with any limitation in the UK are less likely to travel with 

colleagues. 

In terms of destinations, Lithuanian, Polish and Slovenian people with any limitation are less likely to 

say they have travelled to a non-European destination in the past 12 months, while Dutch people 

less often mention travelling in their home country, the most frequent answer overall. People with 

any limitation in the UK who travelled outside the EU in the past 12 months are more likely to 

mention the accessibility of the destination as a reason for their choice. 

Slovenian people with any limitation are more likely to mention staying in a rental house or flat, in a 

tent, caravan or mobile home, or in a spa or wellness resort, but mention less often staying with 

family or friends, or at a hotel or B&B. Lithuanian people mention more often than average staying 

with family or friends, in a tent, caravan or mobile home, or in a spa or wellness resort. People with 

any limitation in France stay more often in a rental house or flat, and in a spa or wellness resort, but 

less often in a hotel or B&B. Swedish people stay less often in a rental house or flat, in their own 

holiday house or in a spa or wellness resort. Polish people with any limitation mention more often 

staying with friends and family, or in a rental house or flat, while Dutch people are less likely to 

choose these two answers. Italian and Spanish people with limitation stay less often in a tent, 

caravan or mobile home, while Spanish people with any limitation mention more often hotels or 

B&Bs. UK people also mention this last answer more often, and are less likely to stay in a spa or 

wellness resort. Belgian people with any limitation mention less often staying with family or friends. 

In terms of transport, people with any limitation in France are less likely than average to use the 

airplane, a boat, ship or ferry, or a taxi to travel to and from their destination, or once at destination. 

Polish people also mention airplanes less often but mention a range of other transport means more 

often than average: cars, coaches, trains, local public transport, boats, motorbikes, bicycles and 

wheelchairs. 

Slovenian people mention airplanes and trains less often, and cars and bicycles more often. 

Lithuanian people mention trains less often, but travel more often by coach, local public transport, 

bike or wheelchair. Irish people with any limitation mention more often airplanes, local public 

transport, boats, or taxis. Besides, Italian people mention more often airplanes and boats and 

Spanish people airplanes and trains. Swedes with any limitation mention more often boats and are 

less likely to travel by car or with a wheelchair. People in the UK are less likely to travel by coach or 

bicycles and Belgian people by taxi, while Dutch people with any limitation travel more often by 

bicycle. 

Turning to activities at destination, there is a number of country differences among the activities 

mentioned most often overall. Dutch people mention less often spending time with family and friends 

and sightseeing, and more often swimming or sunbathing. Italian people with any limitation also 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

223 

 
 
 
mention less often spending time with family or friends and sightseeing. Belgians are less likely to 

spend time with their family or friends, or go shopping. French people are more likely to go 

sightseeing but less likely to take part in local events. Irish people with any limitation mention less 

often hiking, while people in the UK mention more often spending time with family or friends. 

Lithuanian people are less likely to go hiking, shopping or dine out while travelling. Slovenian people 

with any limitation are more likely to go swimming or sunbathing or on natural visits and less likely to 

go shopping or dine out. Spanish people mention more often hiking and dining out, while Swedes 

with any limitation are less likely than average to mention sightseeing, natural visits or hiking. Polish 

people with any limitation mention less often cultural visits and more often than average a range of 

activities: spending time with family and friends, sightseeing, hiking, and shopping. Besides, they are 

more likely to mention one of the less frequent answers, health care or other medical activities. 

Looking into information sources before travelling, Polish people with any limitation mention more 

often using the media and specialised sources, while Swedish people mention these less often than 

average. Slovenian and Lithuanian people mention more often their own experience or other people 

as a source, with Lithuanian people relying less on the tourism sector. UK people also rely on their 

own experience more than average. In contrast, Dutch people with any limitation mention people 

and media less often than average. People with any limitation use media less often in Belgium and 

the tourism sector less often in Ireland. 

Looking at booking channels, Italian people with any limitation are more likely to book through a 

travel agency. Polish people mention more often booking through an institution or group, an answer 

less often mentioned in Sweden. Both Lithuanians and Poles with any limitation are more likely than 

average to book through someone they know. Direct booking with the provider before a holiday or 

once at destination are both more frequent in Ireland and less frequent in Belgium. 

Telephone booking is more frequent in Poland and less frequent in Belgium, Ireland, the 

Netherlands and Sweden. In Italy and Spain, booking in person is more likely than average, with the 

opposite trend in Sweden. Internet booking is more frequent in Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK 

and less frequent in Poland and Slovenia. 

People with any limitation in Italy and Poland are more likely than average to check accessibility 

conditions before travelling, while this is less likely in Belgium, France, Ireland, Lithuania and 

Sweden. 

Among people who check accessibility conditions before travelling, people in the UK are more likely 

than average to say there is enough information, while people in Italy, Spain and Sweden are less 

likely to say so. Irish people with any limitation who check accessibility information are less likely to 

say this information is accessible, and there are no country differences in terms of the perceived 

reliability of the information. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

224 

 
 
 
In terms of importance of aspects when travelling, Lithuanian and Swedish people with any limitation 

tend to give lower scores to a wide range of aspects, while people in Italy give higher importance 

scores to a wide range of items. However, Lithuanians find nature, safety, transport and information 

available at destination more important than average. People with any limitation in Ireland find 

excursions, accessible sports equipment, the availability of services in a language you understand, 

and the availability of a specific service of infrastructure less important than average, and 

accommodation and transport to and from their destination more important. French people with any 

limitation find accessible restaurants, medical help, food and drink, accommodation and safety less 

important than average, but excursions more important, while Belgians find the accessibility of 

booking services less important and nature more important. Polish people with any limitation find 

medical help and safety more important and excursions, and the availability of specific services, 

infrastructures or products less important. Dutch people give shopping more importance and 

excursions less importance, while Spanish people with any limitation find health treatments less 

important. In contrast, people in Slovenia give a higher importance score to health treatments and 

lower scores to excursions, sightseeing and shopping.  Finally, UK people find accommodation and 

food and drink more important than average. 

 In terms of satisfaction with these same items, people with any limitation are more satisfied than 

average with a wide range of items in the UK, and tend to be less satisfied in Sweden, Slovenia and 

Spain. Lithuanian people are more satisfied with nature, excursions and local culture, and less with 

destinations being adapted to specific groups of people and the availability of information about 

accessible services. French people with any limitation are less satisfied with food and drink, and 

transport to and from their destination. Irish people are more satisfied than average with this last 

aspect. Belgians with any limitation are less satisfied with accommodation, local culture, transport 

once at destination, destinations being adapted to specific groups of people and medical help. 

Italians are less satisfied about the way tourists are treated, accessible shops and accessible sports 

equipment. People with any limitation in Poland are less satisfied than average with excursions, 

health treatments, accessible restaurants, destinations being adapted to specific groups of people 

and the availability of specific services.  

Turning to barriers, Polish people with any limitation are more likely than average to mention any 

barriers, and particularly related to nature, shopping opportunities, the way tourists are treated, food 

and drink, safety, information available at destination, accessible shops, destinations being adapted 

to specific groups of people, and the availability of services in a language they understand. 

Lithuanians are more likely to mention the value for money of the destination. Italians mention more 

often barriers linked to local culture, accessible locations or the availability of services in a language 

they understand. Belgians with any limitation mention less often barriers related to health 

treatments, value for money or accessible accommodation and are less likely to mention 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

225 

 
 
 
experiencing any barriers in the past 12 months in general. This is also the case for people with any 

limitation in the UK, who are less likely to mention a barrier, and less likely to answer the availability 

of services in a language you understand. Slovenians experience fewer barriers linked to local 

culture, safety and the accessibility of booking services. Spanish people with any limitation mention 

less often nature and the way tourists are treated. Swedes are less likely to mention the way tourists 

are treated, food and drink, accommodation, information at destination, information about accessible 

services, accessible locations, and the availability of a specific service. French people with any 

limitation are more likely to experience barriers with transport to and from their destination and less 

likely than average to say they did not experience any barriers in the past 12 months. Dutch people 

experience fewer barriers with the accessibility of booking services and transport types. 

When asked how important building infrastructures are to them, Polish people with any limitation find 

accessible parking spaces, building access, accessible toilets, the ease of use of furniture, alarm 

systems and access to services other than accommodation more important than average. Italians 

find access of the building more important than average. Slovenian people with any limitation give a 

higher importance score to accessible parking spaces, and lower scores to alarm systems and the 

ease of use of lifts. Swedish people find accessible toilets more important and accessible parking 

spaces, alarm systems, building access, and the ease of use of lifts less important. Lithuanian 

people with any limitation find accessible parking spaces and toilets less important, while this is the 

case of the ease of use of furniture and alarm systems in Belgium. 

Looking into satisfaction with these same aspects during one's most recent trip, people with any 

limitation in the UK are more satisfied than average with all items, while Spanish and Lithuanian 

people are less satisfied than average with most items. French people with any limitation are less 

satisfied with accessible toilets and the ease of use of the furniture, Dutch people with the ease of 

use of lifts, and Slovenians with access to services other than accommodation. People with any 

limitation in Poland are less satisfied than average with mobility within the room (e.g. in a hotel) and 

within buildings, while Swedes give a lower score to mobility within the room and alarm systems. 

When asked how likely they would be to travel more often if they were offered better accessible 

services, people with any limitation in Italy and Poland give a higher than average score, while 

people in Belgium, Lithuania and Sweden are less likely to mention travelling more often. 

People with any limitation in Italy and Slovenia are more likely than average to say they have to pay 

more than the standard price at least sometimes because they need accessible products or 

services. Belgian, Irish, Lithuanian and Swedish people are less likely to say so. In terms of 

switching to a more expensive product because they need it to be accessible, a similar pattern can 

be seen, with Italians mentioning this more often and Belgians, Lithuanians and Swedes mentioning 

it less often. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

226 

 
 
 
People who are satisfied with the accessibility of their most recent trip were asked how likely they 

would be to return to the same destination. Belgians, Slovenians and Swedes are less likely than 

average to say they would return to the same destination.  

In terms of items that people would use at destination, Swedes and Belgians with any limitation are 

less likely to mention any useful items overall. Dutch people mention less often a range of items, but 

more often induction loops. French people with any limitation mention less often wheelchairs, 

walkers or medical help. Italians are more likely to select personal care workers or specifically 

trained staff, and Lithuanians medical help. People with any limitation in the UK are more likely to 

mention personal care workers, wheelchairs or walkers. Poles are more likely to mention any 

answer, and specifically medical treatments or help, specifically trained staff, and menus for special 

dietary needs. People with any limitation in Slovenia are more likely to mention areas or equipment 

for children and less likely to mention walkers or personal care workers. Spanish people are more 

likely to mention hearing aids. 

4.2.5  EU - Socio-demographic profile 

4.2.5.1  Gender and age 

Of the total sample of 1612 persons with any limitations, 51% were male and 49% female. There is, 

however, some variation in the gender split when we look at the individual groups. In the over-65 

group, there is a greater preponderance of males (59%) and in the people who travel with 

children group, males make up 55% of the group. 

The mean age of people with any limitations group is 44.5 years. In the group of people who 

travel with children, the mean age is 41.4 years and the average age of those in the over-65 

group is 68.6 years. 

4.2.5.2  Special access needs 

When we look at travel accompanied by children younger than 5, respondents could include their 

own children, grandchildren or other children for whom they took regular responsibility. In the case of 

persons with any limitations, 47% of the group said they had travelled with such children, as did 

26% of those aged over 65. 

The people with any limitations group comprised the following1: 

•  74% had mobility limitations,  

•  68% sensory limitations,  

1 Because respondents’ situation could fall within a number of categories, the totals that follow exceed 100%. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

227 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
•  67% hidden limitations, 

•  60% behaviour limitations, 

•  54% special needs, and 

•  47% communication limitations. 

The over-65s group comprised: 

•  51% mobility limitations, 

•  42% sensory limitations, 

•  39% hidden limitations, 

•  35% special needs, 

•  26% behaviour limitations, and 

•  24% communication limitations. 

The group of people travelling with children comprises:  

•  56% mobility limitations, 

•  54% sensory limitations, 

•  51% hidden limitations, 

•  47% behaviour limitations,  

•  40% special needs, and 

•  38% communication limitations. 

Overall, figures on self-perceived limitations contrast markedly with the figures obtained by asking 

people which specific difficulties they experience in their everyday lives – they are overall much 

lower. 

In the people with any limitations group, 60% considered themselves as a person with one or 

several of the listed limitations and the remaining 40% considered that they had none of these 
limitations.1 

5% considered themselves as having behavioural limitations, 12% hearing limitations, 20% mobility 

limitations, 22% visual limitations and 26% hidden limitations. 

1 This difference corresponds to the difference between self-perceptions (people who consider themselves as 
having a limitation at question SD9) and someone’s actual situation (people who reported having any of the 
limitations listed at question S2). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

228 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
In the over-65s group, on the other hand, a lower proportion of members (58%) considered 

themselves as a person with one or several of the listed limitations. Of the remaining 42% of the 

group who said they had any of these limitations, 16% said they had hidden limitations, 17% mobility 

limitations, and 13% hearing and/or visual limitations. 

In the group of people who travel with children, 54% of the group considered they had none of the 

listed limitations.  

Of the remaining 46% who said they had one or several limitations, 20% said they had a visual 

limitation, 15% a mobility limitation, 15% a hidden limitation, 10% a hearing limitation, and 4% a 

behavioural limitation. 

4.2.5.3  Occupation and income1 

At 36%, the largest segment of the people with any limitations group comprised employees, 7% 

managers and an additional 7% self-employed. A further 20% were retired. 8% were respectively 

unable to work because of long term illness/disability, studying or unemployed. A final segment of 

6% were house persons/responsible for everyday shopping and looking after the home. 

Because of their age profile, 83% of the over 65s group was retired. 6% of this group were self-

employed, 3% managers, and 2% employees. An additional 5% were house persons and 1% 

unemployed. 

47% of the group of people who travel with children were employees, 14% retired, 9% managers, 

7% self-employed or house persons, 6% unemployed or students and 3% unable to work due to 

long-term illness or disability. 

51% of the group of people with any limitations earned wages or salaries and 26% received 

pensions. 10% were disability benefit recipients, 9% received income from self-employment, 

disability benefits, support from family or friends, or had other sources of income (e.g. from property, 

stocks, etc.) respectively, and 8% received unemployment benefits. 

87% of the group of over-65s received pensions, 14% other income, 9% wages or salaries, 7% 

income from self-employment, 4% disability benefit or other social benefits, and 2% support from 

family and friends. 

In the group of people travelling with children, 62% had a wage or salary, 18% a pension,10% an 

income from self-employment, 9% other income, 8% support from family and friends or 

unemployment benefit, while 7% had disability benefit or another social benefit. 

1 In some cases, respondents had more than one source of income, which means that overall totals may 
exceed 100%. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

229 

 
 
 
                                                      
Respondents were also asked to provide an indication of their net monthly income (including any 

benefits or pensions).  

9% of the group of people with any limitations said they had an income of €500 or under and 13% 

had an income of between €500 and 1000. 17% had an income of between €1000-1500 and a 

further 16% of between €1500-2000. Thus 39% of the group had an income of €1500 or under and 

55% of the group had an income of €2000 and under. 

19% had an income in the €2000-3000 range and a further 8% in the €3000-4000 range. Lastly, 9% 

had a monthly income in excess of €4000 and 9% preferred not to answer the question. 

Looking at the over-65s group, we note that there are proportionally fewer members of the group 

with incomes in the lower categories. In total, 18% had an income of €1000 or lower, in contrast to 

the people with any limitations group (22%).  

At the upper end of the income scale, 20% had an income in excess of €3000, whereas the 

equivalent figure for the people with any limitations group is 17%. Over 11% of the group preferred 

not to answer the question. 

Moving on to the group of people who travel with children, it is observed that 19% of the group 

had an income of €1000 or below. In this group, there is a higher proportion (24%) of members 

earning in excess of €3000 than in the group of people with any limitations and in the over-65s 

group. There is also a lower proportion (8%) of members preferring not to answer the question than 

in the other two groups. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

230 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.5.4  Education  

In the group of people with any limitations, it can be seen that 39% had completed at least the first 

stage of tertiary education, 7% had completed post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 34% had 

completed upper secondary education. 

In the over-65s group, there were somewhat higher proportions who had only completed pre-

primary education (2%) and primary education (3%) than in the other two groups (1% and 2% 

respectively among the people with any limitations group and 1% in each case for members of the 

group travelling with children, respectively).  

In this group also, there are lower proportions of both those who had completed upper secondary 

education (33%) and the first stage of tertiary education (35%), although there was a higher 

proportion of those who had completed post-secondary non-tertiary education (9%).  

In the group of people who travel with children, a significantly higher proportion (42%) had 

completed the first stage of tertiary education than in the other two groups. There were also 

correspondingly lower proportions of people whose highest level of education was pre-primary, 

primary, lower secondary or upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education.  

4.2.5.5  Living situation 

70% of the group of people with any limitations lived with their family or spouse and a further 21% 

lived alone. An additional 2% lived in a flatshare or community, 1% with a personal care assistant 

and 1% lived alone with help (e.g. regular visits from a nurse). Under 1% lived in an 

institution/nursing home. 

Higher proportions of the over-65s group (24%) lived on their own and with their family or spouse 

(71%). There were smaller proportions in this group living alone with help, living with a personal care 

assistant, living in an institution, or living in a community/flatshare. None of the group lived in an 

institution or nursing home. 

As for the group of people who travel with children, there are significantly lower proportions that 

live alone (12%) and a correspondingly higher proportion (81%) who lives with their family or 

spouse. Just under 1% lived in an institution or a nursing home or lived alone with help or lived with 

a personal care assistant. 

4.2.6  Focus groups – Overall results 

Two focus groups with people above 65 were conducted in Lithuania and Ireland in order to better 

capture the behaviour and specific needs of this group. The methodological details can be found in 

Annex G. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

231 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.6.1  Overall findings 

Ireland and Lithuania have different profiles in terms of elderly people’s travel patterns and 

behaviour, which brings useful information on variations within the EU. Overall, elderly people in 

Ireland were more likely to travel and organise their trips independently, particularly using the 

Internet, while elderly people in Lithuania were more likely to rely on a travel agent or association. 

In both cases, accessibility when travelling was not perceived as a major issue as participants have 

developed strategies to avoid experiencing barriers. In Ireland, this was likely to involve researching 

a destination before the trip, while Lithuanian participants were more likely to carefully select a trip 

organiser who would take into account their specific needs. Advance planning taking into account 

one’s specific needs is therefore a major behavioural pattern identified in the two focus groups. In 

parallel, participants also reported selecting trip types adapted to their needs, for instance shorter 

trips to nearby destinations instead of longer, more distant trips where their health condition or 

specific needs may be issues. 

The general hypotheses for the online survey were adapted to elderly people for the focus groups: 

•  Senior people have specific behavioural patterns when preparing a trip and travelling 

•  Senior people experience obstacles and barriers of different kinds when travelling 

•  Senior people are not a uniform group and their type of needs and socio-demographic 

characteristics have an influence on their attitudes and behaviour 

Hypothesis H6 can also be addressed here: 

 H6: The motivation of travelling and activities by the seniors are pretty diverse.  

The focus groups support the idea that seniors have specific behavioural patterns when preparing 

and booking a trip – in both focus group, advance planning and the prevention of risks and issues 

was a common topic. Besides, in spite of common trends, elderly people had different motivations 

and preferred activities when travelling, while obstacles and barriers were more linked to specific 

access needs than old age as such. Overall, these results show that seniors are not a uniform group 

and that their needs need to be taken into account in a flexible manner. 

4.2.6.2  Detailed findings for Ireland 

Irish participants had various profiles in terms of travel and health issues. Interestingly, there is a 

perception that elderly people in Ireland are more active and socially engaged than a few decades 

ago – participants to the group tend to regularly go out, travel or use the Internet. Overall, they are 

likely to go on holidays (1 or 2 weeks on average), on short breaks or to visit family or friends (for a 

few days) as well as on trips to the city or to funerals (day trips).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

232 

 
 
 
 
 
As most of the Irish group was retired, they did not travel at a specific time of the year. Most 

overseas travel took place in Europe or the US, while domestic destinations varied as many of these 

were visits to family or friends. Irish participants most often travel with their spouses and/or grown 

children and stay in hotels, B&Bs, self-catering apartments or with family and friends.  

Common means of transportation were the plane and public transport for overseas destinations and 

the car and public transport for domestic trips. In particular, the fact that public transport on bus, 

trains and trams is free for 65+ people in Ireland was seen as a crucial factor for travelling and 

explains why these means of transportation are particularly popular for this category. Activities at 

destination depended more on personal preferences than age or health issues, with spending time 

with family and friends, sightseeing or going to the beach mentioned as popular activities. 

Aging had both a positive and negative influence on their travel patterns: some participants travel 

less than before due to health issues, while others travel more as they have more time now they are 

pensioners. 

Health issues influence travel choices: for instance, people with mobility of sight issues cannot drive 

a car anymore and rely on public transport or someone else driving for them. However, this was 

seen more as a necessary adjustment to their lifestyle than as a problem. Similarly, accessibility was 

not seen as a restriction to travelling but meant that most participants had to be aware of their 

limitations when making travel plans. For instance, participants tend to choose overseas 

destinations where they are unlikely to have accessibility issues or domestic meeting places they 

can easily reach, and check beforehand if their needs will be met. 

In terms of information and booking, family or friends and the Internet (hotel websites or tourism 

websites) are the most common information sources. A majority of participants were Internet users, 

others would ask friends or family to take care of the online information search or booking for them. 

The use of travel agencies remained limited. Information was seen as easy to find as hotel websites 

include information on the hotel itself and the surrounding area, which can be completed by 

additional internet searches.  

Lack of accessibility was highlighted as a problem for people with mobility issues but problems were 

rarely reported as they check conditions in advance – for instance by checking beforehand the 

presence of lifts or ramps and pre-booking airport assistance. Usually, participants did not expect to 

have accessibility issues as lifts and ramps are seen as basic facilities. Footpaths and pedestrian 

areas were seen more as an issue, with mentions of potholes or loose pavement stones. 

More generally, participants planned their trips according to their preferences, needs and interests 

and therefore did not report any specific barriers to travelling. The main specific service they use is 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

233 

 
 
 
free travel on public transport for 65+. No one mentioned looking for specific information about 

services for elderly people or experiencing accessibility issues when looking for information. 

When deciding on a trip, price is the main consideration, but it is weighted against other aspects 

(activities, destination, and accessibility). The destination itself and things to do at destination are the 

most important aspects of the trip and also the ones participants measured their experience against. 

The main travel-related issues mentioned were the availability of public toilets on public transport 

(train, bus), the availability of late night or 24 hour chemists in case of health issues and the quality 

of tourism staff. Chemists were seen as important for their peace of mind. In terms of staff, the 

availability of staff fluent in English and able to provide information on sightseeing and landmarks 

was seen as an important factor of satisfaction. 

No one reported paying more for accessible services and all participants agreed that they wouldn’t 

expect to have to pay as this should be standard. However, they choose services based on their 

suitability for their needs: basic services are expected, but participants are ready to pay more for 

comfort if they can afford it, for instance booking a 4-star hotel closer to public transport instead of a 

3-star hotel that requires walking more. 

Participants had the feeling they could already travel as much as they can afford without barriers 

other than their disposable income. Therefore, improvements to accessibility and related information 

were not seen as likely to influence their future travel behaviour. However, free public transport for 

65+ was seen as a major factor in terms of their travel behaviour, with some commenting that 

removing this service would limit their opportunities to go out and travel. 

4.2.6.3  Detailed findings for Lithuania 

Lithuanian participants typically travelled less often than their Irish counterparts. Travel frequency 

mostly depended on participants’ financial abilities and health condition, with short breaks in 

Lithuania and neighbouring countries being the most frequent trip type. More distant or longer trips 

typically occurred once or twice a year. Lithuanian participants tended to travel in later spring or late 

summer/early autumn, because of the milder weather, longer days and differences in available 

budget. Popular destinations are neighbouring countries (Latvia, Estonia, Poland) and other 

European countries (e.g. Scandinavia, the UK, etc.). As in Ireland, some participants travel more 

often than before as they have more time while others travel less due to poor health.  

Participants did not mention experiencing many issues when travelling, partly because they plan 

their trips well to avoid putting themselves in situations where issues may occur. They also select 

trip types that are adapted to their condition, with participants in good health being more likely to go 

on longer trips, while participants with poor health choose shorter trips to nearby destinations 

(Lithuania or neighbouring countries). Participants do not want to cause issues to trip organisers or 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

234 

 
 
 
other travellers and therefore choose “safer” trip types. Financial abilities, poorer health and related 

fears, anxiety and limitations also have a negative influence on the number of trips.  

The main limitations mentioned by participants are a slow pace which may prevent them from joining 

a group, understanding information more slowly, which may be an issue when listening to a guide or 

visiting many places in one trip. Besides, some participants say their health issues limit their 

freedom of movement as they often need outside help or regular medical checks. For instance, 

participants with issues such as diabetes are afraid of distant and long travels and prefer to travel 

with people who know how to react in case of issues, for instance with other members of a diabetic 

people’s association.  

Overall, the majority of participants adapt to new situations and issues as they arise during trips and 

do not tend to focus on their difficulties. In addition, it was sometimes difficult for participants to 

verbalise their needs – in the words of one participant, "We are not used to express our needs and 

ask for them". Therefore, special needs have a limited influence on travel choices at the moment. 

Participants preferred to travel with like-minded people, such as friends or club members. The most 

common accommodation was hotels, with the main factors of choice being cleanliness, separate 

toilets and bathroom, peace and quiet, and food. Staying with family or friends was also popular, as 

was camping in more expensive destinations.  

The most usual transportation mean was the bus – it was seen as the safest and most familiar by 

participants. Travelling by plane was seen as more stressful, more likely to be an issue in terms of 

their health condition and requiring additional skills to book the trip. Once at destination, participants 

were most likely to go round with a sightseeing bus or by car with family or friends.  

Family and friends are the main information sources. For instance, travel agencies were usually 

recommended by someone or tried and tested during earlier trips. Participants who travel with 

organised groups get information from the trip organisers; they trust them and leave the logistics of 

the trip to them. A few participants checked information online, mostly related to sightseeing places. 

As participants rely on a trip organiser, they do not report any difficulties finding the information they 

need: "Everything is perfectly organized for us."  

Participants also expect the trip organiser to take into account their specific needs. Participants are 

not usually offered senior-specific services and are not sure of what this could entail. Besides, they 

do not know what type of accessibility information they could look for. The information they get from 

trip organisers is seen as reliable and understandable. Participants tend to go on trips organised by 

a community or club, or if they go through a travel agency, to book through the travel agent. These 

booking channels are seen as accessible. In contrast, external help is usually required to book via 

other channels, for instance for plane ticket bookings. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

235 

 
 
 
The first consideration when organising a trip is the budget, followed by health. The destination is 

the next most important factor in the trip decision. Transport and accommodation are mentioned 

next. Besides, recommendations and previous experience with the trip organiser and the choice of 

travel companions (like-minded people with similar goals) are important. 

In terms of satisfaction, participants mention the importance of having a good tour guide: someone 

who organises everything properly and is aware of elderly travellers’ needs, for instance a slower 

pace or the availability of medical help. The choice of suitable transport and accommodation is seen 

as a factor depending on the choice of a good tour guide. Once they have found a trip organiser who 

meets their needs, participants tend to travel with them again.  

One of the main obstacles faced by seniors when travelling is travel agencies' lack of interest in 

older customers as they often do not offer trips tailored to this target audience. Another barrier is 

travel insurance: participants tend not to trust it because they experienced issues or heard stories 

where the travel insurance did not cover medical expenses or was invalid.  

Age is seen as a barrier when preparing a trip as it sometimes means a lack of knowledge, 

particularly of modern technology and a poorer understanding of information. Therefore, individual 

trips are seen as complicated and participants favour organised trips, which seem more reliable and 

less stressful. 

Some participants have already benefited from discounts for seniors in museums or on public 

transport, but otherwise find it difficult to imagine what other services they could use. In terms or 

building infrastructures, participants mentioned lifts, en-suite toilets and bathroom, a quiet 

environment, the right temperature (e.g. air conditioning in hot weather), and low curbs and stairs. 

Participants mentioned having to pay more to get an individual room, to get an extra seat or for 

specific meal requirements (for instance vegetarian food). Participants typically had limited financial 

resources and adapted to the circumstances rather than select a more expensive service. 

One of the factors that would encourage participants to travel is travel agencies more widely 

welcoming seniors and considering them attractive clients. Besides, offering travel at reasonable 

prices would be important given the participants’ financial situation. If services likely to reduce stress 

and improve health care when travelling were offered, participants would be likely to consider them 

provided the price was acceptable. Offering these services was seen as a positive move which 

would improve the choice of travel options. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

236 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.7  EU - Hypotheses 

The following hypotheses were identified before the data collection phase.  

H17: People with access needs have specific behavioural patterns when preparing a trip and 

travelling 

H18: People with access needs experience obstacles and barriers of different kinds when 

travelling 

H19: People with access needs are not a uniform group and their type of needs and socio-

demographic characteristics have an influence on their attitudes and behaviour 

H20: Other factors, such as changes to the offer, have an influence on people with access 

needs’ behaviour when travelling 

Based on the results of the survey, it is possible to draw the following conclusions.  

H17. Overall, people with access needs share many behavioural patterns with other travellers, with 

minorities selecting answers specific to this group. For instance, between 7% and 12% of each sub-

group (people aged 65 and above, people with limitations and people who travel with children) 

mention travelling with a personal care worker in the past 12 months, compared with 57% to 63% 

travelling with their partner. The same trend appears for people staying in a medical institution or 

using wheelchairs as transportation – a minority selects this answer, but the majority uses more 

standard infrastructures.  

More striking findings appear for the trip preparation process. Between 28% and 41% of each sub-

group uses specialised sources to get information when making travel plans, while 18% to 37% of 

each sub-group books through an institution or group. Besides, although the most important trip 

aspects are not related to access needs, the items related to access needs with the highest 

importance scores, the accessibility of booking services, information on accessible services and 

medical help or health care at destination, are considered important by large proportions of each 

sub-group. This can also be linked to the finding that between 48% and 67% of each sub-group 

checks accessibility conditions and/or available help before travelling. Overall, large majorities find 

information about accessibility at destination sufficient, reliable and accessible, although these seem 

to be an issue for a minority in each sub-group. Findings from the focus groups similarly support the 

hypothesis that people with access needs have specific behavioural patterns when preparing a trip, 

as they show evidence of advance planning and adaptation behaviours aiming at preventing issues 

and fulfilling their specific needs, for instance by selecting shorter trips to nearby destinations.  

H18. More differentiated results can be seen when looking at barriers. Only a minority mentions 

travelling outside the European Union due to the accessibility of their destination. Interestingly, the 

most frequent accessibility-related answer is not about a lack of information or accessible services, 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

237 

 
 
 
 
but about the lack of affordable accessibility services and infrastructures. Moreover, 32% of seniors, 

49% of people with limitations and 61% of people who travel with children had to pay more than the 

standard price for accessible services at least sometimes with similar proportions mentioning they 

had to switch to a more expensive product or service because they needed them to be accessible. 

These results point towards issues with the price of accessibility. 

Turning to satisfaction, the accessibility-related items with the highest scores are the accessibility of 

restaurant and booking services. Several other accessibility-related items get lower scores, but for 

some of them, this is linked to high proportions of respondents saying these do not apply to them: 

health treatments, medical help, the availability of specific services or products, accessible sports 

equipment, and the destination being adapted to specific groups of people. The last three items are 

least frequently mentioned when respondents are asked which aspects they have experienced 

barriers with. In contrast, medical help and health treatments both get low satisfaction scores and 

are mentioned fairly frequently as barriers. Other accessibility-related aspects often mentioned as 

barriers are the availability of information about accessible services and accessible locations. 

Turning to buildings, satisfaction is the lowest for alarm systems, types of access and access to 

services other than accommodation, although many people feel these do not apply to them. 

It is also important to note that 61% of people aged 65 and over, 36% of people who travel with 

children and 42% of people with limitations say they did not experience barriers with any of the trip 

aspects mentioned. This is consistent with the results of the focus groups, where few participants 

reported issues when travelling. Some participants pointed out that they simply adapt to local 

circumstances and issues as they arise. 

H19. The survey confirms that people with access needs are not a uniform group: their types of 

access needs and personal characteristics have an influence on their behaviour. The survey results 

are different on most questions for the three sub-groups (people who travel with children, people 

aged 65 and above and people with limitations), although some overall trends apply to all three. 

Besides, looking at results for people with limitations by type of limitation (e.g. sensory, mobility) also 

shows important differences between groups. Another difference impacting behaviour is the country 

of origin, with differences appearing on most questions between countries. 

H20. The survey asked a number of questions related to expectations and changes to the 

accessible tourism offer with results pointing towards possible behaviour changes if accessibility 

conditions were improved. Around one third of people aged 65 and above and almost half of the two 

other groups would consider increasing their travel budget in the next 12 months if barriers were 

removed. Besides, over 80% of people who are satisfied with the accessibility conditions of their last 

trip are likely to return to the same destination in future. Results are less clear-cut regarding the 

travel frequency if better accessible services were offered: 36% of people aged 65 and above, 51% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

238 

 
 
 
of people with any limitations and 62% of people who travel with children would be likely to travel 

more often in these circumstances. 

Looking at the aspects that could be improved, 64% of people who travel with children, 58% of 

people with limitations and 32% of people aged 65 and above selected at least one item they would 

use when travelling out of a list of equipment and services. Seniors and people with limitations most 

often mention medical help and menus for special dietary needs. These items are also mentioned 

often by people who travel with children, together with equipment and activities for children. In terms 

of building accessibility, the aspects seen as most important by all three groups are accessible 

toilets, accessible parking spaces and the ease of use of lifts. 

4.2.8 

Inbound markets – Overall results 

A total of 423 interviews were conducted in four inbound markets following the same methodology 

as the main European Union survey: Brazil, China, Russia and the United States. The main results 

of this survey are presented below. 

4.2.8.1  Travel behaviour 

Travel behaviour among seniors and people with limitations in the inbound markets is overall in line 

with the results of the EU surveys, particularly in terms of travel companions, accommodation and 

transport.  

Reasons for not travelling in the past 12 months are close to the EU survey results: 58% of people 

with any limitations and 57% of people aged 65 and above mention financial reasons, followed by 

personal preference with respectively 25% and 35% of answers. 

People with any limitation most often mention travelling over the summer and off-season (both 54%), 

which is also the case of people aged 65 and above with 56% mentioning off-season holidays and 

51% mentioning the summer.  

In terms of travel companions, partners are mentioned most often, by 63% of people with any 

limitation and 54% of people aged 65 and above. Other family or household members come next 

with respectively 47% and 45%. People with any limitation also mention often friends, with 44% of 

mentions.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

239 

 
 
 
Turning to destinations, 85% of people with any limitations and 88% of people aged 65 and above 

mention travelling within their home country in the past 12 months, while respectively 96% and 95% 
of the two surveyed groups mentioned travelling to the EU in the past 12 months.1 

A majority of respondents mentions staying in a hotel or Bed & Breakfast – 77% of people with any 

limitation and 75% of people aged 65 or above. These figures are respectively 36% and 33% for the 

second highest mention, staying with family or friends. 

Looking at transportation means at destination and to and from one’s destination, the main mentions 

among people with any limitations are airplanes and cars (both 73%) while people aged 65 and 

above most often mention the car (74%) followed by airplanes with 65%. 

In terms of activities, the main mentions across both groups are natural visits (68% for people with 

any limitations and 69% of people aged 65 and above), sightseeing (both 64%), cultural visits 

(respectively 61% and 64%), shopping (respectively 64% and 52%) and dining out (respectively 

51% and 50%). 

4.2.8.2  Decision-making and booking 

Travel agencies and tourism providers play a more important role in the booking process in inbound 

markets than in the EU, while respondents in inbound markets are more likely to mention issues with 

information about accessibility conditions. 

People with any limitation most often mention family, friends or colleagues as an information source 

when planning a trip (59%), followed by tourism websites (54%) and travel agencies (46%). People 

aged 65 and above mention the same sources, with respectively 60%, 48% and 45% of answers. 

Turning to booking channels, a majority books through an agency (75% of people with any limitation 

and 65% of people aged 65 and above). Only 32% of seniors book through an institution or group, 

while 54% of people with any limitations do so. There are limited differences between telephone, in 

person and Internet booking, although people with any limitations are more likely to book in person 

or through the Internet than the elderly. 

63% of people with limitations and 51% of people aged 65 and above check accessibility conditions 

before travelling. Among these, the majority think there is enough information and that this 

information is reliable and accessible. Still, these aspects seem to be an issue for minorities in both 

groups: 20% of people with limitations and 28% of people aged 65 or above do not think there is 

1 Respondents were interviewed online and people who did not wish to travel at all were not invited to complete 
the survey – these figures are therefore higher than could be expected for the overall population of people with 
limitation and/or aged 65 and above in the four target countries. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

240 

 
 
 
                                                      
enough information; 20% of the first group and 22% of the second think this information is not 

reliable; and respectively 8% and 18 of the two groups do not think that this information is 

accessible.  

4.2.8.3  Experience 

Respondents in the inbound markets have a slightly different profile than EU respondents in terms of 

barriers and the importance of and satisfaction with trip aspects. 

Looking into the trip aspects that are considered important, safety comes first for all (with average 

scores of 4.7 out of 5 for both groups), while natures comes second (with 4.4). People with any 

limitations also give a 4.4 score on average to the general value for money of a destination. 

Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with the same aspects during their most recent trip. 

Safety and nature come first, with average scores of 4.5 among people aged 65 and above, and 

average scores of 4.4 among people with limitations. 

Shopping opportunities and health treatments (both 3.8) received the lowest scores among people 

with limitations, while health treatments (3.6) and accessible sport equipment (3.7) score the lowest 

among seniors. 

Turning to building accessibility, people with any limitations find the ease of use of lifts (with an 

average score of 4.3 out of 5) and mobility within the room (4.1) most important. People aged 65 and 

above give the highest scores to the ease of use of lifts (4.2), mobility within the room and the ease 

of use of the furniture (both 3.9). People with limitations also find access to services other than 

accommodation more important than people aged 65 and above. 

Satisfaction with these aspects is highest for the ease of use of lifts, ease of use of the furniture and 

accessible toilets and bathroom (all 4.1 out of 5 on average) among people with limitations. People 

aged 65 and above are most satisfied with the same aspects: the ease of use of lifts (4.3), the ease 

of use of furniture and accessible toilets and bathrooms (both 4.2). People aged 65 and above are 

more satisfied with the ease of use of the lifts than people with limitations. 

In terms of barriers, the main mentions for people aged 65 and above are information available once 

at destination (16%), food and drinks available at destination (14%), and the general value for 

money of the destination (13%), although 52% say they have not experienced any barriers with any 

of the aspects mentioned. Among people with limitations, the availability of information about 

accessible services is the main issue with 22% of answers, followed by transport once at destination 

(20%), food and drink available at destination (19%) and the availability of services in a language 

you understand (17%). 33% of people with limitations answered ‘None of these.’ 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

241 

 
 
 
59% of people with any limitations and 44% of people aged 65 and above mention they have to pay 

more than the standard price for accessible services or products at least sometimes. Besides, 

respectively 49% and 36% of the two groups say they have to switch to a more expensive product or 

service at least sometimes for them to be accessible. 

4.2.8.4  Expectations & future 

People in inbound markets seem more likely than EU respondents to mention they would change 

their behaviour if accessibility conditions changed. 

79% of people with limitations and 69% of people aged 65 and above say they would increase their 

travel budget if barriers disappeared. Besides, among people who are satisfied with the accessibility 

of locations during their most recent trip, respectively 85% of people with limitations and 80% of 

people aged 65 and above say they are likely to go back to the same destination in future.  

When asked which items they would use if available at destination, people with any limitations most 

often mention a sign-language interpreter (28%), help to get on board, leave or change transport 

type (25%) and medical help (25%). Among people aged 65 and above, 45% did not pick any of the 

items, while 22% mentioned help to get on board, 19% medical help and 18% a sign-language 

interpreter. 

If they were offered better accessible services, 69% of people with limitations and 55% of people 

aged 65 or above would be likely to travel more often. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

242 

 
 
 
 
 
5  Task 3 – Evaluation of the tourist experience across different 

tourism sectors  

5.1  Task 3a - Case-studies 

3a: Supply: To examine good practice/success stories in the supply of accessible offerings which act 

as enabling factors affecting the quality of the tourist experience of people with access needs  

5.1.1  Methodology 

The aim of the analysis of case-studies is to confirm or to refute the hypothesis stated in section 

5.1.4. The following activities were conducted for this task: 

•  Hypothesis formulation 

•  Provisional criteria to identify case-studies were established 

•  List of potential cases has been analysed 

•  List of study cases has been discussed with the other project team in Avila during the IV. 

International Congress of Tourism for All. 

•  Submission of the provisional list to the EC 

•  Approval of the list with a suggestion for an amendment 

•  Contact with the cases 

•  Reception of documentation from cases 

•  Writing of cases 

•  Analysis and conclusions from the study-cases 

A set of criteria have been defined to select the appropriate study cases. These criteria follow 

consultation with the team carrying out the other studies. The provisional criteria were as follows: 

•  They should be cases from all sectors of the tourism chain 

•  The cases should present evidence of business improvement (number of clients, 

employees, investment return, popularity, etc.) as the aim of this study is to provide 

evidence of the economic impact of Accessible Tourism and therefore we should present 

cases where the accessibility improvements were followed to some degree by business 

success  

•  Where measurements of client numbers are possible, figures about tourists will be 

presented generally, as only a small proportion of impairments is visible (i.e.: an hotel 

manager can recall how many wheelchair users or blind clients have been received, but 

may not know if a guest has an artificial limb, allergies or many other limitations – as 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

243 

 
 
 
Scandic hotels states, 70% of disabilities are invisible).1 

•  They should target the general public (as business opportunities are not only based on 

targeting people with access needs, and the ethical and political will is integration, not 

segregation). 

•  As much as possible the cases are selected from different countries or concern the 

reception of tourists from different EU countries and abroad to ensure a wide 

representation of the EU. 

•  They should be transferable to other locations or sectors 

•  As far as possible, the cases are drawn from both the private sector (SMEs and large 

companies) and the public sector.  

Following definition of the criteria a provisional list of cases was defined and later amended and 

confirmed by the EC. 

Tourism for All can be implemented in many ways. Various experiences across Europe have shown 

that in spite of different approaches, certain factors emerged which positively influence the 

development of a Tourism for All approach. These are the 7 Interdependent Success Factors (ISF), 
which have to be taken into account in order to ensure successful and satisfactory implementation.[1] 

Case studies from all over Europe have shown that there is a strong link between the success of 

projects or initiatives and the simultaneous presence of all 7 ISF. If one or more ISF is missing or 

disappears, there is a high risk of the project not reaching its expected goals or results. 

These ISF are:  

1. Decision-maker commitment: The decision to start and follow the process should be taken at the 

highest level. 

2. Coordinating and continuity: A responsible person should be in charge of the process and 

guarantee the continuity if key players change. 

3. Networking and participation: The internal and external stakeholders should be identified and 

should be involved in the process. 

4. Strategic planning: Actions should be carefully planned in advance and all critical aspects should 

be defined. 

1 http://www.scandichotels.com/Always-at-Scandic/Special-needs/ 
[1] Aragall/Neumann/Sagramola 2008,ECA for Administrations, European Concept for Accessibility Network, 
www.eca.lu . Neumann/ Pagenkopf/Schiefer/Lorenz 2008, IDZ 2009 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

244 

 
 
 
                                                      
5. Knowledge management: Considering both the internal knowledge development and transfer, and 

the knowledge derived from involvement in external networks. 

6. Resources: Devoting the appropriate human, technical and economic resources to the actions 

planned. 

7. Communication and marketing: Both in the sense of external communication in the usual 

dissemination tools but also acknowledge the contribution of all stakeholders. 

In order to collect the information about the cases in a comparable way it was decided to use the 

Seven Interdependent Success Factors (7 ISF) to be used in the recommendations chapter. 

An additional reason for using 7ISF is because our experience and experience of cases already 

collected from other sectors have demonstrated that to succeed in putting Design for All principles 

into practise none of the Interdependent Success Factors should be neglected. We also aim to 

validate or refute this hypothesis by finding out if there is a successful case that has disregarded any 

of the factors. 

After this a questionnaire with open questions was designed and sent to the cases after personal, 

telephone or e-mail contact. 

The completed questionnaires and the complementary information received have been used to write 

the case studies and the conclusions. For the questionnaire see Annex K. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.2  Preliminary results and hypotheses 

Our working hypotheses are: 

H21: In mainstream tourism services investment in accessibility result in an increase in clients. 

H22: Destinations that take account of accessibility are usually focused on quality of service in 

general. 

H23: The successful accessible destinations show evidence of a degree of cooperation among 

service providers. 

H24: At least some destinations succeed in including accessibility, comfort and services in their 

branding. 

One of the most challenging aspects of the case-studies will be to track the investments made at a 

touristic destination and to obtain data about the economic outcomes of a project. This type of data 

is likely to be available for the suggested case-studies and will be requested from the key 

stakeholder, particularly if it is not otherwise available. 

The case-studies have been selected to represent a range of tourism chain sectors and our 

suggestion is indicated on Figure 118. 

The selected cases have been confirmed by the expert team and the EC. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

246 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 118 – Case studies 

Case-study 

Type 

City of Erfurt 

Destination 

Country 

Germany 

Accessible Poland Tours 

Travel agency 

Poland 

Chateau des Ducs de 

Bretagne 

Heritage 

France 

St. Martin Wine Cellar 

Entertainment and shopping 

Luxembourg 

Berlin 

Destination 

Germany 

Barcelona Metro 

Transport 

Spain 

Scandic Hotels 

Accommodation 

Sweden 

GVAM Mobile Guides for 

All 

Assistive Technologies 

Spain 

Restaurant Monnalisa 

Food and beverage 

Restaurant Girasoli 

Food and beverage 

Italy 

Italy 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

247 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.3  Case studies 

5.1.3.1  Case Study: The City of Erfurt  

Erfurt, the capital of the federal state of Thuringia (Germany) with 203,485 inhabitants (31 December 

2012) has a medieval city centre with many points of historical interest. C. 11.2 million guests visit 

Erfurt every year, on average spending 45.20 € per day. The city centre and its principal places of 

interest are, in general, not particularly accessible. However, Erfurt is considered to be one of the 

most famous accessible destinations in Germany. The wide range of barrier-free offers of the Erfurt 

Tourism and Marketing Board includes: 

  Guided tours or sightseeing tours by bus/ tram with access for disabled people 

Inclusive packages 

  Accommodation 

  Culinary specialities 

  Events and visits to the many places of interest 

  Offers in German Sign Language 

Monitoring of the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  Accessible tourism is located at the top of the tourism hierarchy. The CEO of the tourist 

board (Erfurt Tourismus und Marketing GmbH) is responsible for the subject. 

  Political supervision does exist, but politics does not control the tourism board. The decision 

to prioritise accessible tourism derives from marketing needs.   

2. Coordination and continuity 

  The tourist board has worked since 1999 on accessible tourism. 

3. Networking and participation 

  On a local scale, a network of service suppliers from different tourism sectors and other 

associated sectors like transport meets regularly with associations of disabled people. 

  Since 2008 Erfurt has been a member of the association “Barrier-free destinations in 

Germany” (www.barrierefreie-reiseziele.de). This is an association of eight German regions 

particularly committed to the concept of accessible tourism for all. Its members include the 

Eifel region, the city of Erfurt, the Franconian Lake region, the city of Magdeburg, East 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

248 

 
 
 
 
Frisia, the Ruppiner Land region, Saxon Switzerland and Lower Lusatia. The group thus 
works on a national and inter-regional level.1 

  On a national and international scale, the head of the Erfurt tourist board is often invited to 

speak at congresses and meetings. International contacts also exist. 

4. Strategic planning 

  The Erfurt Tourism & Marketing Board is responsible for strategic development.  

  Accessible tourism is part of marketing plans and strategic planning 

  Many offers for disabled guests have been developed; accessible tourism is widely 

understood as tourism for disabled guests. 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  The management and the service team are trained in accessibility in general. Some 

members of the staff have obtained further knowledge, e. g. in sign languages, or have 

attended seminars on guiding tours for blind guests. Furthermore, co-operation with local 

disability NGOs is strong. A constant exchange between guests and service providers is 

assured, and clients’ suggestions are welcomed. 

  City guides have been trained 

  Special training for service suppliers has been offered 

  Exchange of knowledge is assured within the association "Barrier-free Destinations in 

Germany" 

  Member of the new German Project “Entwicklung und Vermarktung barrierefreier Angebote 

und Dienstleistungen im Sinne eines Tourismus für Alle in Deutschland“. The project, 

commissioned by the German Ministry for Economics and conducted by the German 

Seminar for Tourism (DSFT) and the National Coordination Centre for Tourism for All 

(NatKo), aims to implement a German-wide system to validate and label accessible offers in 

tourism. 

1 The catalyst that brought six of these eight destinations together was their selection as test subjects for the 
ongoing study entitled “Success factors and measures to improve quality in barrier-free tourism for all in 
Germany”, commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. The qualitative data for the 
study was collected from these six model regions with their successful approaches and projects in barrier-free 
tourism. The charter of the Barrier-free Destinations in Germany Association was signed at the ITB trade fair in 
2008. The association closely cooperates with the German Tourism Board (DZT) and other important players in 
tourism like German Railway (Deutsche Bahn). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

249 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
6. Communication and distribution 

  Website is highly accessible, including for example easy language and videos with sign 

language (www.erfurt-tourismus.de) 

  Special-interest brochure “Erfurt erlebbar für Alle” lists accessible offers for different target 

groups (guests with walking difficulties, wheelchair users, sight and hearing impairments, 

mentally handicapped guests). 

  On a national scale, accessible offers are promoted through a marketing cooperation within 

the association "Barrier-free Destinations in Germany". 

  On an international scale, offers are promoted by the German Tourism Board (DZT). 

  Offers are promoted by the German Railway 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  Low-floor buses and trams 

  Offer: 

  City guides for disabled guests 

  Arrangements for disabled guests 

  Guidebooks for guests with sight impairments 

  Offers presented in German Sign Language 

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  Constant personal engagement of stakeholders was the main driver of accessible tourism in 

Erfurt 

  Motivation of many service suppliers was often achieved by a social approach  

  The number of guests taking part in guided tours increased and Erfurt has an increasing 

number of individual guests with disabilities. The accessible rooms in the hotels are heavily 

booked.  

  Accessible tourism leads to positive outcomes in internal marketing  

Obstacles 

  The level of necessary investment is higher than expected, especially in time and human 

resources 

  Projects for disabled guests are sometimes rather expensive and need support from public 

bodies, usually from the Ministry for Social affairs in Thuringia 

  Constant personal engagement of stakeholders is needed 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

250 

 
 
 
  Financial investment is currently low in this sector and it can be difficult to motivate partners 

to invest in common marketing projects 

Further comments 

  Erfurt won the award „Willkommen im Urlaub - Familienzeit ohne Barrieren” 2003 

  Erfurt has been nominated for the German Tourism award 2013 for barrier-free projects  

Figure 119 – Official logo of Erfurt tourism board 

5.1.3.2  Case Study: Accessible Poland Tours  

The licensed tour operator “Accessible Poland Tours” has offered services since 2009, when the 

company was the first travel agency strongly focussed upon services for disabled people in Poland. 

Most clients are severely disabled people with mobility problems such as wheelchair users or slow 

walkers and guests with intellectual impairments such as Down syndrome. The offered services 

consist of: 

Incoming and outgoing tourism 

  Package tours 1-6 days within Poland and abroad 

  Arranging accessible hotels 

  Arranging accessible transport: buses, air travel, taxis, trains 

  Tailor-made tours for individuals and groups: NGO organisations 

  Organising accessible routes, including accessible toilets and tourist attractions 

  Booking tickets to tourist attractions, theatres  

  Arranging local guides with multi-language skills 

  Arranging special rehabilitation equipment. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

251 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring of the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  The founder and managing director has a disability herself and therefore is strongly 

committed to the ideas of accessible Tourism for All 

  Where possible, the managing director conducts the tours personally guaranteeing a 

consistent  implementation of accessibility in all its offers 

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  The company started in 2009 and has been managed by the same committed person since 

that time 

  The founder and managing director usually works on her own and is always seeking 

constant improvements 

3. Networking and participation 

“Accessible Poland Tours” is a member of the European Network for accessible Tourism 

(ENAT)  

  Strong and enduring links with NGOs of people with disabilities would be highly desirable  

4. Strategic planning 

  The project has not been planned 

  Methods and strategies gleaned from each tour experience, changes and improvements 

were introduced progressively  

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  The managing director is herself disabled and brings an insider’s knowledge of the needs of 

the target groups 

  The managing director also completed the required training to be a tour guide, but had no 

special educational background when starting the business 

6. Communication and distribution 

  Website (www.accessibletour.pl), which is also available in English due to the high 

importance of foreign markets 

  Brochure is also available in English  

  Congresses and meetings (often abroad) 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

252 

 
 
 
 
  Each tour is unique and demands an individual approach to the range of differing client 

needs 

  The company is reactive to users’ requests; for example, the need for a higher than normal 

bed, a special diet or piece of equipment or the assistance of volunteers, since guests 
frequently travel without a carer 

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  Personal engagement and idealism of the managing director 

  Extended knowledge about guest’s needs of the managing director from her own experience 

  Growing interest in the company’s work, mainly from abroad 

  Encouragement of satisfied guests 

Obstacles 

  No financial or institutional support; the main problem running the business is that it is much 

more expensive than expected. Only between three and six groups with mostly few 

participants take place per year, which is not sufficient to cover costs  

  Lack of accessible rooms for those on limited budgets and lack of accessible means of 

transport in Poland 

  People with disabilities in Poland would like to travel, but often do not have the financial 

means 

  NGOs, as potential clients, avoid using the services of the company and try to organise the 

trips themselves in order to save money 

Further comments 

  The motivation to run the business was from experienced during an organised trip to 

Australia  

  Due to the disappointing financial situation, the business activities may be suspended or the 

business transformed  into a Foundation 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

253 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 120 – Official logo of Accessible Poland Tours 

Figure 121 – English version of the flyer 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

254 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 122 – Example of the official website „http://www.accessibletour.pl” 

5.1.3.3  Case Study: Château des Ducs de Bretagne 

A witness to the history of Nantes and of Brittany, the Chateau of the Dukes of Brittany is a site of 

exceptional heritage. The mediaeval fortress encloses the 15th century ducal residence, built by 

Francis II and his daughter Anne of Brittany. A restoration programme, lasting a number of years, 

has recently been completed by the City of Nantes. It enables the creation of a modern museum, the 

Nantes history museum, labelled Musée de France. 

At the forefront of contemporary museum design, with a number of multimedia features, the Nantes 
history museum occupies 32 rooms of the 15th century former ducal residence and displays more 

than 850 items from its collection. This “portrait of the city”, from its origins as the dukes’ favoured 

residence through to the modern city of today, covers a considerable range of European and world 

history, from the Edict of Nantes, the colonial period and the slave trade right through to the major 

upheavals of the 20th century.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

255 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Every type of disability is catered for: 

•  Visitors with a motor disability: 28 out of 32 rooms are accessible. The ramparts are partly 

accessible and reached by a lift. Free wheelchair loans. 

•  Sight-impaired visitors: touch and sound devices are provided around the museum, with special 

audio guides, visit booklets for the exhibitions… 

•  Visitors with learning disabilities: specific assistance at the visit, large print colour cards, fun areas 

in the exhibitions…. 

Monitoring of the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  The city of Nantes, proprietors of the Chateau of the Dukes of Brittany, re-opened the 

chateau for visitors in 2007 after 15 years of renovation. 

  The museum advertises its commitment to inclusion for everyone. 

  Nantes has a long-standing commitment, both political and practical, to improving facilities 

and services for disabled people across various aspects of city life. Among French 

accessibility professionals is, together with Grenoble, one of the more accessible cities in 
France.  

In 2013, Nantes obtained the Access City Award (European prize), just behind Berlin. 

  The Chateau of the Dukes of Brittany operates a visitor policy based on four main principles: 

to promote the pleasure of discovery, to respect the spirit of the place, to communicate the 

knowledge object, and to develop subjects for further reflection. They declare that they aim 
to create facilitating environments. 

It offers a diversified range of visits, events, educational and learning initiatives, cultural 

programs aimed at people with little or no familiarity with the world of museums and 
heritage. 

  The approaches offered are both interactive and multidisciplinary, making the Castle a place 

of exchange and encounter, inviting its visitors to build a long-term relationship with it. 

  The low-floor tram system provides a good connexion with the city centre.  

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  There is a manager responsible for development and visitor policy who coordinates staff 

activities under the municipal structure.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

256 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Networking and participation 

  The City has adopted a Disability Action Plan. Therefore, the manager worked with technical 

staff from the municipality and with the Nantes Council of Disabled People. Associations of 
disabled people also participated in the project.  

4. Strategic planning 

It was been a planned project since the beginning aiming to devise innovative approaches 
for all visitors. 

  Finance, time and human resources planned from the beginning. 

  The restoration program cost 51,530,000 €. The finance for the restoration programme 

comes from : 58% the municipality ,2% the metropolitan area,7% the department of Loire-

Atlantique,10% the Pays de la Loire region and 10%  European Regional Development 
Fund.  

  The chateau does not have specific budget allocated for improvements to meet the needs 

disabled people. Each project integrates financially the needs of disabled people. 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  The process was based on trial and error through the engagement of users. Disabled 

people tested the infrastructures until a suitable solution was found. 

  An important network including among others museums, associations and design schools 

also contributed to improvements 

  Vocational training has been provided to the staff. 

6. Communication and distribution 

  The chateau website. 

  Brochures. 

Information directly shared with a network of associations 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  Visitors with a disability are welcome at the Chateau of the Dukes of Brittany. Tours and 

features adapted to specific disabilities as the following offer summarises: 

  Sensory tours open to everyone: these visits allow visitors to discover some of the 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

257 

 
 
 
 
 
topics covered by the museum and its exhibitions through the use of objects, as well as 

sound, visual, olfactory and tactile experiences.  

  Accessible exhibition spaces: visitors can use rest areas and borrow wheelchairs or 

folding stools.   

  Guided tours: Visitors with physical disabilities can follow general or themed guided 

tours, family tours (museum and exhibitions) or the museum’s short tours series 

  Audio guide tactile tour of the museum: using both a special audio guide (only available 

in French) and different tactile and sound features available throughout the museum, the 

visit is made accessible to visitors with visual disabilities  

  Exhibition booklets and guides: in Braille, embossed or in large print 

  Guide dogs are welcome 

  The ticket-front desk has induction loops available 

  The multimedia terminals are subtitled and interactive.  

  Leaflets summarizing the content of certain films are also available. 

  Visual descriptions in French Sign Language (FSL) are available all year round in order 

to allow visitors with hearing disabilities to discover the museum and the chateau, 

whether on their own or accompanied.  Tours in FSL linked to exhibitions are also on 

offer. 

  The Internet site offers practical information and a presentation of the site in FSL.  

  A booklet and educational materials designed for visitors with developmental or learning 

disabilities: a selection of objects in a dozen or so rooms is highlighted in a booklet and 

educational materials, for example commentaries, treasure trails, the use of magnets 

and associations of ideas. 

  Different materials allow visitors to discover the museum at their own pace: 

o  Colour maps depicting Nantes in a simplified fashion down through the ages. 

o  Multimedia features (films, terminals, interactive maps) provide information on a 

variety of subjects. 

o  The exhibitions include interactive spaces.   

  Group tours: 

o  With a guide, by reservation only: a variety of bespoke visits have been designed 

based on a sensory approach, observation, the handling/touching of objects and 

participation, such as: the castle down through the ages: architectural tour that 

includes the handling of materials and models; monsters and stone animals: tour of 

the castle followed by a modelling workshop inspired by the castle’s decorative, 

sculpted features; sailors and sea monsters: tour of the museum followed by a 

modelling workshop; and the contours of the city: an interactive tour to enable 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

258 

 
 
 
visitors to better understand the city’s development and transformation down 

through the ages.    

o  Without a guide: the group leader may make use of the booklet and educational 

materials, available free of charge, at the front desk. 

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

The most important factors are commitment at the highest level within the City to improved 

accessibility and a clear and continuing link between the City at political and operational levels and 

citizens with a disability and older citizens. 

The Chateau of the Dukes of Brittany is a core feature of the cultural, economic and tourist 

development of Nantes and its estuary. Their refurbishments, with the creation of the history 

museum, and its artistic events program running throughout the year, have enhanced the site’s 

interest and appeal. 

As of early 2013, six years after the museum reopened to the public, more than 7,500,000 people 

have visited the castle. The museum and the exhibits have received more than 1,100,000 visitors. 

In the museum, people with a disability represent 1.7% of the visitors (those who identify themselves 

as such when obtaining free entrance) - 68% of them are individual visitors and 32% in a group. 

The geographical distribution of the national disabled visitors is as follows:  

 67% come from the surrounding department of Loire-Atlantique  

 7% come from the Brittany region 

 6% come from the Paris region  

 4% come from Pays de la Loire region  

10.5% come from other regions of France 

 5.5% disabled visitors are foreign visitors. They are mainly European. 

The museum team estimates that 6% of those visiting the Castle have some kind of disability that 

impacts their daily lives. 

In 2008, the Castle received the “Museums for everyone” award from the Ministry of Culture, in 

recognition of its accessibility policy. 

In 2011, the castle obtained the label «tourism and disability» for the 4 impairments, mobility, visual, 

audio, and mental. 

The Castle has made accessibility and Design for All a core priority.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

259 

 
 
 
 
Figure 123 – Château des Ducs de Bretagne 

5.1.3.4  Case Study: Cave St Martin Winery – Remich, Luxemburg 

http://www.cavesstmartin.lu  

The Caves St Martin winery is based in the municipality of Remich, one of the most picturesque and 

frequented by tourists village on the left bank of the Moselle river, a few kilometres from the border 

triangle between Luxembourg, Germany and France. 

Monitoring of the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  From the Beginning of the family business on, attention was paid to the clients` needs. So 

that the decision to care for accessibility has been for the family a matter of fact pertaining to 

the internal policy and way of doing business.   

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  The goal of the Caves St Martin has been to be accessible for everyone, so every 

generation of the family made improvements, according to the technical state of the art. 

Improvements take place with the help of new equipment, especially in the area of 

sanitation. 

3. Networking and participation 

  Since 2009 the Cave St Martin Winery has held the EureWelcomeLabel. The EureWelcome 

label is recognized in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg as well as in six neighbouring 

regions of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. In Luxembourg the Ministry of the Middle 

Classes and Tourism is responsible for the delivery of the EureWelcome, showing a strong 

will from the government to include accessible tourism in the mainstream of touristic offers.  

The label is awarded to service providers in the fields of tourism and recreation for their 

special efforts in terms of accessibility and welcoming everyone including people with 

disabilities. The philosophy of EureWelcome label is increasingly orientated to the concept 

of "Design for All". This means that the quality of accessibility is not only the convenience for 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

260 

 
 
 
 
disabled people, but also for society in general. 

The accessible premises are brought to the attention of potential customers and visitors via 

the website www.welcome.lu as well as via brochures and links to nationally and 

internationally repute as cultural and tourist sites. 

4. Strategic planning 

  Different offers for guests have been developed, such as guided tours through the cellars 

accessible for wheelchair users, with the possibility of having explanations in simplified 

language. The guided tour lasts about 45 minutes. On demand, it is also possible to have a 

guided tour in German sign language through the integration service from the city of 

Luxembourg.  

Tasting experiences are offered for different target groups: wine for adults and grape juice 

for children. 

  Accessible tourism is mainly understood as tourism for disabled guests. 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  Management and staff are trained in accessible tourism and have personal experiences with 

guests with special needs. Communication with guests is ensured, management and staff 

are ready to learn from the suggestions of their guests.   

6. Communication and distribution 

Info about the accessibility condition of the winery is available in the EureWelcome Label 

website (www.welcome.lu), but only in French. Other languages are likely to follow soon. 

  Communication about accessibility is mainly due to the word-to-mouth way among visitors. 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  Designated parking place for people with disabilities. 

  Entrance door and internal route without threshold, steps and obstacles. 

  An adapted toilet is available next to the visitor reception. 

  Guided tour in simplified language and with the help of gesture. 

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

•  Constant personal engagement was the main driver of being accessible for the winery 

owners.  

•  The winery owners feel that the loyalty of their clients, disabled or not, is proving that they 

are working in the right way and that they are providing the visitors what they need and look 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

261 

 
 
 
 
for. 

•  According to http://www.wine-pages.com/features/luxembourg-wine.htm they receive 30,000 

visitors per year. 

Obstacles 

  Constant engagement is needed. 

Figure 124 – Parking place and entrance to the Winery (Photo: www.welcome.lu) 

Figure 125 – The Eurewelcome label at the Winery entrance door (Photo: NeumannConsult 

2013) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

262 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 126 – The wine cellar (Photo: NeumannConsult 2013) 

Figure 127 – Webpage www.welcome.lu 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

263 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.3.5  Case Study: Berlin City, Germany 

Berlin, the capital of Germany, covers an area of about 890 square kilometres (nine times bigger 

than Paris), with 3.5million inhabitants, including over 494,400 residents with foreign passports. 

People from more than 185 nations are long-term residents in the city making Berlin the most 

multicultural city in Germany. 

Berlin has 175 museums, 3 UNESCO World Heritage Sites (Museum Island, the Prussian castles 

and gardens, Berlin modernist housing estates). About 44 per cent of its area consists of parks and 

woods, or rivers, lakes and waterways (over 180 kilometres of these are navigable). 

The city’s public road network is about 5,400 kilometres long, lined with more than 400,000 trees. 

The metro, tram, S-Bahn and bus lines already cover about 2,300 kilometres. 

Tourism in Berlin is booming. In 2012, almost 11million people visited Berlin, with a growth in arrivals 

and overnight stays of about 12% (Source: http://www.visitberlin.de/en/plan/city-info/numbers-facts ). 

Since 1992, the City of Berlin is developing accessibility offers through the entire service chain, with 

the Motto: ‘Berlin for disabled people: the city is prepared.’ To honour the efforts of Berlin, the city 

has been rewarded with the Access City Award in 201. Monitoring the success factors reveals the 

following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  The tourism board is committed to Accessible tourism  

  The Accessible Tourism strategy is supported by political authorities 

  All catering establishments opened since 2006 have been required to be accessible 

following a City legal disposition  

  Within the round table Berlin "barrier-free city", under the leadership of the Senate 

Department for Urban Development and Environment, stakeholders from government, 

companies and associations merged. The aim of the cooperation is the pooling of initiatives 

and the expansion of Berlin as a  barrier-free city 

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  Since 1992 the city of Berlin has followed a policy of accessible organisation and design of 

the city itself, from pedestrian crossings, public infrastructures and means of transport, 

buildings and open spaces. The goal is to allow the citizens and tourists equal participation 

in all aspects of life in Berlin, social, economic and cultural. 

  Round table as a guarantee for continuity (see below) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

264 

 
 
 
3. Networking and participation 

  The responsible staff member of the Berlin City Senate is a contributing member of the 

federal state’s tourism boards working group on accessible tourism 

  Berlin is a member of the Eurocities Working group on accessibility 

  Berlin has established links and ongoing co-operation with its twin city Moscow on 

accessibility 

  The label “Berlin barrierefrei” has been developed through collaboration between 

representatives from industry, trade, tourism, culture and science, people with disabilities 

and their organisations, advisory boards, administrations and other institutions. This label 

displayed on a door or shop window, on a  metro lift or a public toilet says that all people, 

including those with disabilities, can clearly get in and have support, where needed. 

Moreover, the label offers business people the opportunity to advertise themselves as 

barrier-free premises and thus to attract new customers. 

Figure 128 – Label “Berlin barrierefrei” (Source: 

www.berlin.de/lb/behi/barrierefrei/signets/index.html ) 

4. Strategic planning 

  According to the city Senate Resolution of 7 June 2011, the guidelines for the development 

of Berlin as an accessible city should be transposed and implemented in terms of Design for 

All 

  The Senate Department for Urban Development and Environment of the city of Berlin has 

developed a draft for the concept of a Round Table “City without barriers/accessible city”. 

Within the Round Table, Accessible/Tourism for all represents a development task, in 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

265 

 
 
 
 
connection with the accessibility of infrastructures of the city itself. This should require a 

coordinated effort on team working between the  Senate and public administrations with 

organisations and initiatives from civil society 

“Accessibility of Destination Berlin" - is a basic empirical investigation of the EBC 

Hochschule Berlin which was initiated by Visitberlin. This study is a comprehensive analysis 

of the situation and represents the status quo in Berlin, making also a comparison with 

Brandenburg 

  Berlin’s further steps towards a more accessible city and tourist offers will be: 

  Creating more accessible packages, 

  Strengthening co-operations and communication 

  Web marketing, fairs participation, Advertisement und Media campaign,  

  Standardising labelling of barrier free offers for all Germany 

  Developing of quality standards 

  Training of staff within the tourism service chain 

  Working closely with political decision makers 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  Knowledge stems from internal capacities, engagement and qualification 

  Staff of Berlin’s transport system gets regular training in services for disabled guests 

  Berlin takes part in many working groups like the federal state’s working group on 

accessible tourism, the Eurocities Network and twin cities partner programmes, all meant to 

transfer know-how and knowledge  

6. Communication and distribution 

•  On the website www.visitBerlin.de there is a great deal of information about offers of 

accessible tourism. The site works closely in joint working groups with different partners in 

order to formulate offers responding to the requirements of the different target groups. The 

offers cover the entire service chain: arrival, mobility on site, accommodation, food and drink, 

entertainment and departure. 

•  Information about accessibility issues: http://www.berlin.de/tourismus/infos/1730823-721039-

barrierefreies-berlin.html  http://www.visitberlin.de/en/plan/city-info/accessible-berlin  

http://www.berlin.de/lb/behi/barrierefrei/ 

•  Mobidat provides an important database on tourism and accessibility in Berlin 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

266 

 
 
 
 
•  http://www.mobidat.net/links/tourismus/ 

•  The "Berlin Special Guides" guide people with and without disabilities in the Reichstag, 

through the “Mitte” city quarter, or to Potsdam. In special tours of Berlin's past historical 

episodes are described, as well as providing a wealth of information and background on the 

topic "barriers and disabilities” 

•  Cross-border cooperation with Potsdam / Brandenburg is continually being expanded and 

deepened in joint projects 

•  The issue of "accessibility" is also integrated in the work program of "service in the City”. 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  Qualification of individuals (e.g. continuing training programme of staff of Berlin’s public 

transport system) 

  Networking and collaboration with the main service providers of the city 

  The wide range of barrier-free offers in Berlin includes: 

  Guided tours or sightseeing tours by bus with access for disabled people 

  Accessible accommodation, restaurants and shops 

Inclusive packages 

  Events & visits to the many places of interest 

  Offers in German Sign Language and in Braille, audio-guides, experiences for the 

senses of smell and touch  

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  Constant engagement  

  Accessible tourism leads to positive results in marketing  

  Access City Award 2013 as an additional motivation for stakeholders and politicians 

Obstacles 

  Large investments needed 

  Constant engagement of stakeholder is needed. 

Further comments  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

267 

 
 
 
 
In the third edition of the European Commission Access City Award 2013, the Award was 

given to Berlin. The Access City Award recognises and celebrates cities of over 50,000 

inhabitants in EU which have put into action exemplary initiatives to improve accessibility in 

the urban environment, allowing people with disabilities to participate fully in society and to 

enjoy their fundamental rights on an equal footing with others. 

The award covers four key areas of accessibility: 

  built environment and public spaces 

transport and related infrastructure 

information and communication, including new technologies 

  public facilities and services, and the city must also demonstrate that it is committed to 

continued improvements in accessibility in a sustainable way, so that it can act as a role 

model and encourage the adoption of best practices in all other European cities. 

  Berlin was selected on the basis of its strategic policy and inclusive approach to 

disability. In fact, massive investments have been made to transform the city into an 

accessible and barrier-free environment (for instance transport system and 

reconstruction projects to facilitate the access of people with disabilities).  

Figure 129 – Website www.visitberlin.de 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

268 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.3.6  Case Study: Barcelona metro  

The Catalan railways (FGC) transport more than 80 million passengers every year. FGC operates 

some of the Barcelona commuter rail network. There are two distinct (and separate) systems: 

the Metro del Vallès and Línia de Balmes are standard-gauge lines, while the Metro del Baix 

Llobregat and Línia Llobregat-Anoia are metre-gauge lines.  

The check of the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  Since late eighties when Catalan society become aware of the need to improve the city for 

the organisation of the 1992 Olympics and Paralympics Games the top management of the 

company has supported the constant accessibility improvements.  

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  The company’s management staffs have been always aware that accessibility and Design 

for All are key elements of the service quality. 

  Design for All principles have been transmitted in a “viral” way among all company 

department, from planning and design to service provision, information, public relations, 

ticketing, etc. 

3. Networking and participation 

  Since FGC was aware of the need for improving accessibility has been in close contact and 

consultation with administrations and NGOs dealing with the People with Reduced Mobility 

but also with experts. 

  They have a close collaboration with the other metro company and transport authorities to 

guarantee the easy navigation of passengers along the different transport networks. 

  They have actively participated in public transport international organisations and have also 

been invited to lecture at international events dealing with Design for All. 

4. Strategic planning 

  All the improvements made have been accurately planned and budgeted over the years. 

  Assessment of accessibility conditions considering the typical accessibility aspects but also 

lighting, loudspeakers, etc. 

  Satisfaction survey and constant contact with customers’ representatives (disabled or not 

disabled) bring new improvement opportunities. 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

269 

 
 
 
  Personnel training is also included in the planned activities (for example a course on how to 

communicate with deaf customers) 

  Staff aware of Design for All and provided with appropriate training 

6. Communication and distribution 

  Website www.fgc.cat , which is also available in English. 

  Brochure and maps also available in English  

  Website indicates which client offices can deal with deaf clients and the accessibility 

facilities for each station. 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  95% of their stations are accessible. The cumulative investments in these stations were 17.1 

M€. 

Figure 130 – Evolution of the adapted stations 

  Accessibility is one of the aspects evaluated in the Clients‘ Satisfaction Index that is 

constantly improving 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

270 

Line Barcelona-Vallès Evolution of the stations adapted to PRM05101520253035198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008BV adaptedBV not adapted 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 131 – Evolution of the client satisfaction index 

It should be underline that, although other factors (like mobility trends, tourism and immigration, etc.) 

have intervened in the overall mobility data, while population have increased 5.3% in the period 

1997-2006, the number of journeys have increased by 69%. Comparing it with the other metro 

company who started the accessibility improvement later, in the period 2001-2006 TMB increased 

the number of passengers by 16% while FGC increased its number of customers by 23%. 

Although FGC attributes this increase to quality improvements in general (including accessibility) 

their own analysis concludes that renovation to make a station accessible increases the number of 

passengers at a station by 16%. 

Accessibility is not an isolated issue but a component of the overall quality of the service provided. 

No evidence exists for a direct relationship between the level of investment and the number of 

customer journeys, but we can observe a continuous increase in the number of passengers in the 

period 1997-2006 where the improvement in accessibility was constant (important changes like the 

integration of tariffs in the Metropolitan Area did not dramatically affect the rate of progress). 

Obstacles 

  The main obstacle at present is the dramatic economic restrictions in the public sector that 

delay further improvements and involvement in international networks. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Further comments 

  Although it is not the object of this case study FGC manages five ski stations and their 

premises (ski facilities, hotels, restaurants, etc.) and also manages the transport systems 

(cable car, funicular, mountain train) in Montserrat, one of the most outstanding religious 

tourism destinations with more than 2m visitors/year. The same Design for All criteria are 

also applied to these other services. 

Figure 132 – Official logo of the FGC 

Figure 133 – Website of the FGC 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

272 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.3.7  Case Study: Scandic Hotels 

Scandic Hotels is a hotel chain operating in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, the 

Netherlands, Belgium and Poland. 

The first hotel was established in 1963 and now they have 155 hotels in operation with 29,696 

rooms and they plan to open three new hotels soon. They have 7,500 employees. 

Their offer is aimed at companies, families, couples and events. 

Around 500 hotel rooms have been adapted to meet the requirements of people with some kind of 

disability. 

All the 155 hotels are working with Scandic’s own accessibility concept which is their Accessibility 

Standard. The standard has grown over the years and today it contains 110 check points to follow. 

81 of these points are mandatory for all hotels and for new hotels all points must be considered. This 

standard works as a checklist and template for the hotels. 

Scandic offers: 

•  Rooms for disabled people (equally well-designed as any other room) 

•  Full accessibility information online – every Scandic Hotel has its own page with unique 

information about the hotel and its facilities. They also provide a general information page about 

accessibility such as recommended hotels in different cities, tips and advice, useful links and 

more 

•  Public areas at the hotel that are adapted for people with special needs, such as a lowered 

reception desk for wheelchair users, a hearing loop in conference facilities, vibrating alarm clock 

and more. 

•  Food & Beverage - No allergenic garnish on the buffet breakfast, Gluten- and lactose-free bread 

at breakfast 

•  Guide dogs are always welcome at the hotels 

Monitoring the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  The Scandic Group Executive Committee is responsible for any action carried out about 

accessibility, the Disability Ambassador report directly to them. 

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  The accessibility commitment started in 2003. Since then Magnus Berglund, now appointed 

as Accessibility Director at Scandic is responsible for this activity. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

273 

 
 
 
 
3. Networking and participation 

  Magnus Berglund is member of ENAT 

  They work continuously with disability organizations, hotel guests and team members 

4. Strategic planning 

Its strategy is to include accessibility and Design for All in all operations of the company. 

  A check list is applied to any new hotel and renovation. 

  Staff education has been included as a planned strategy. 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  To increase constantly their own knowledge and listen to the clients is the key factor for 

qualification. 

 6. Communication and distribution 

  The Scandic group us their website, marketing material, PR, internal communications and 

lectures, for instance at accessibility conferences to advertise their business. 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  As the accessibility improvements are included in the general budget there is no need for 

any special resource. 

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  A former employee of Scandic suggested using accessibility to gain a competitive 

advantage after being affected by a long term illness.  

  Their goal is that everyone should be welcome at Scandic regardless of whether they have 

a disability or not. 

  A high level of satisfaction feedback. Some of their guests said they weren’t able to stay at a 

hotel until they started to work with disability. 

 Already 2005 they could see that they sold 15,000 more room nights in Sweden due to that 

they can offer rooms for disabled. 

  They can see increased business every year in all countries. 

  Many of their investments have been repaid in less than one year. 

Obstacles 

  No specific obstacles were mentioned by the stakeholder 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

274 

 
 
 
 
 
Further comments 

There is a critical issue in order to succeed: Service providers need to combine business knowledge 

with knowledge of special needs. 

www.scandichotels.com/specialneeds presents their approach to Tourism for All. 

Figure 134 – Official logo of Scandic 

Figure 135 – Scandic webpage 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

275 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.3.8  Case Study: GVAM 

GVAM was created in 2007 with the aim of reinventing the concept of a guided tour. Their aim was 

to provide the best educational and emotional experience when exploring cultural and tourist areas. 

Their business model is based on focussing on people. They consider accessibility as synonymous 

of good design and good performance. Their aim is that their technologies are and will always be 

easy to understand, simple and cost-effective implemented. 

The team consists of professionals from the world of graphic, industrial and interactive design, 

computer engineering, social communication, international marketing and research. 

They offer accessible mobile apps made with GVAM, an online system for creating and publishing 

audio tours and multimedia guides on major mobile platforms 

GVAM was conceived as a universal guidance system including people with disabilities. 

The check of the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  Culture must be accessible for all. That was the main idea of founder partners since 

beginning. 

It is not only a rewarding point but a responsible attitude before society. 

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  The company started as a partnership between Dos de Mayo SL (multimedia and web 

production), Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (R&D&i), ONCE (Spanish blind people main 

NGO) and CESyA (Spanish Centre for Audio description and subtitling) ), CNSE and 

FIAPAS (both federations of associations of deaf people, one with a more sign language 

approach and the other with a more oral one) ) and with the support of the Real Patronato 

sobre Discapacidad (Official Spanish organisation dealing with disability). Although they 

maintain excellent relations the company is run by their staff independently. 

3. Networking and participation 

  The service was launched with the advice of national associations of people with disabilities 

and the National Administration and they still keep strong links. 

4. Strategic planning 

  The process was planned since the beginning but improvements have been made in order 

to benefit customers from the latest technology and user’s requests. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

276 

 
 
 
 
 
5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  GVAM have in its team external advisers about special access needs although internal 

knowledge grows day by day.  

6. Communication and distribution 

  Their own web site, Apps (can be downloaded in Apple Store the ones for  Museo Lázaro 

Galdiano, Alcázar, Museo Sorolla) and brochures. 

  Speeches in professional museum and accessibility events. 

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  The requested investments for initial R&D&i were planned from the beginning but not the 

ones related to technical evolution. The investment pay back for the start-up was 3 years. 

  They are really proud of GVAM as the only accessible guiding system in the market, as they 

claim. It was a good investment for society because they consider that we all have special 

accessibility needs. Although their clients are increasing they don’t know if the number of 

museums‘ visitors increased but they perceive that all enjoy richer experiences with no extra 

costs. 

  The published Apps are compatible with the native accessibility features in iOS and Android, 

such as VoiceOver and TalkBalk.  

  They claim that visitors of all ages, abilities and languages may use the guides thanks to the 

advanced editing tools that incorporate:  

•  Automatic audio-navigation for the visually impaired.  

•  Subtitled voiceover speeches and automatic full review online editor.  

•  Sign language videos.  

•  Easy reading texts and pictograms.  

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  Social Responsibility and detection of a lack of communication about accessibility in cultural 

premises.  

Obstacles 

  The critical issues are institutions in charge of incorporating accessible products or services. 

They have no knowledge about what to do and they are afraid of costs and technologies.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

277 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 136 – GVAM webpage 

Figure 137 – Official logo of SGVAM 

5.1.3.9  Case study: Restaurant Monnalisa Beach Restaurant  

The Monnalisa Beach Restaurant is situated inside the Holiday Village Florenz in Lido degli Scacchi, 

Comacchio (Ferrara),built in 2008 according to the Italian accessibility laws.  

The menu is normally based on seafood and fish. On demand it is also possible to have meals for 

people with food allergies and intolerances. 

The restaurant is open also to external guests and is available for special events, celebrations and 

parties. 

Monitoring the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  The property owner are aware of Accessible tourism and committed to it 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

278 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  The propriety decided in 2006 to arrange in an accessible way the facilities within the 

Holiday Village. In this perspective, some bungalows and holiday flats had been built and 

furnished in a way that could fit the needs of as many guests as possible; moreover the 

restaurant Monnalisa was built barrier-free to allow every guest (internal and external) to 

fully enjoy the time within the Holiday Village. 

2. Coordinating and continuity 

  Since 2006 the internal policy of the propriety has started to develop the accessibility 

organization and design of the Holiday Village, from car parks, to paths leading to the 

facilities, to the restaurant and to the beach, toilets and to the restaurant itself. Moreover, the 

staff is also specifically trained to meet the needs of guests with disabilities. They have the 

idea to developing it always consistently further, for example, for the next season it is 

foreseen to install some fittings for people with visual impairments and also to have menus 

in Braille.  

3. Networking and participation 

  The Restaurant Monnalisa, being in the Holiday Village Florenz, belong also to the Network 

Village4All, a Quality Brand Hospitality for All, that provides accessibility survey and makes 

the info freely available in the own website. 

  The property has regular exhibits at the tourism Fair “Gitando”, since its inception. 

4. Strategic planning 

  The property’s commitment to accessibility is based on both social and business reasons. 

It carries out careful and constant promotion activities on its website and through specific 

sporting events and tourist promotions. 

  The further steps towards more accessible offers will be: 

  Creating more accessible packages and providing more fittings and facilities for guest 

with different disabilities 

Increase Web marketing, fairs participation, Advertisement and Media campaigns 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  Staff have been trained in services to fulfil the needs of guests with disabilities 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

279 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Communication and distribution 

  Through the link www.campingflorenz.it/eng/village/camping-for-disabled.php  it is possible 

to find out much information about the accessibility of the Holiday Village.  

Info about the accessibility condition are also available here: www.villageforall.net/en/italia-

emilia_romagna-lido_degli_scacchi_comacchio_ferrara-campeggio_villaggio_accessibile-

holiday_village_florenz/  

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  Website improvement  

  Networking and collaboration  

It is possible to rent a wheelchair to move within the Holiday Village and also to reach the 

Restaurant. It is possible to have the meals delivered from the restaurant to the holiday 

houses within the village.  

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  Constant engagement  

  Accessible tourism leads to positive results in marketing and business 

Obstacles 

Investment is needed 

Further comments 

  The accessibility improvements have given to the restaurant and Village the possibility of 

hosting groups of people with disabilities and also to host accessible sporting events. 

Moreover, the accessibility of the facilities guarantees more comfortable experiences for all 

the guests, who are mainly families. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

280 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 138 – Monnalisa restaurant (Photo: 

http://www.campingflorenz.it/ita/servizi/monnalisa.php ) 

5.1.3.10 Case study: Restaurant I Girasoli 

I Girasoli Restaurant is situated within the Casa Vacanze I Girasoli in the southern part of Tuscany. 

The all facilities haves been built in 2000 according to the Italian accessibility laws. Everything was 

designed and built with a special focus to the needs of guests with mobility impairment. The Casa 

Vacanze belongs to AISM, (Italian Multiple Sclerosis Society), an Italian national charity on Multiple 

Sclerosis and it was foreseen to host the own members and families. 

On demand it is possible to have meals for people with food allergies and intolerances. 

The restaurant is open to external guests and is available for meetings and special events. 

Casa Vacanze is fully accessible to people with mobility impairment. In this perspective, the 51 

rooms and 9 bungalows, the restaurant, the paths in the surrounding park and the external areas 

can be fully enjoyed by all the guests (there are also 2 swimming pools with lifting equipment to 

access to water and a gym). 

Not only the buildings, connection paths and open spaces are accessible, but the staff can propose 

a series of accessible service to the guests, i.e. shuttle service from and to the airports or arrival 

spots, accessible guided tour to the main tourist highlights of the surroundings and of the neighbour 

regions, wine tours and testing, educational tour with sommelier. Wheelchairs and other equipment 

can be borrowed free of charge. Moreover, the staff is also specifically sensitised and trained to 

match the needs of guest with mobility impairment.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

281 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the success factors reveals the following findings: 

1. Commitment of decision-makers 

  The aim of the propriety was since the beginning to allow the members of AISM and their 

families to enjoy an active and relaxing holiday in the wonderful Tuscan setting. Accessible 

tourism for people with mobility impairment was (and still is) the goal of the propriety. 

2. Coordinating and continuity  

  The propriety has started since some years to become mainstream and to open up to the 

market, national and international. In this respect, they have already gained a lot of new 

tourists. To go further in this direction, they have the intention to start renovating some of the 

rooms in the direction of Design for All, thus maintaining the high accessibility level that they 

already have.  

3. Networking and participation 

  The Restaurant I Girasoli and the all Casa Vacanze belongs to the Network of AISM 

properties likehome.it. 

It is also included in the Network Village4All, a Quality Brand Hospitality for All that performs 

accessibility surveys and makes the information freely available on their website. 

It is also member of ENAT - European Network for Accessible Tourism (non-profit 

association). 

  The facility is also present on booking.com, expedia.com and other national and 

international tourist booking internet portals. 

4. Strategic planning 

  The property’s commitment to accessibility is based on social reasons. 

  The further steps towards a more accessible offers will be: 

  Providing more fittings and facilities for guest with different disabilities  

  Re-designing in a more appealing way the accessible rooms. 

5. Qualification and knowledge transfer 

  Staff have been trained in services to fulfil the needs of guests with disabilities 

6. Communication and distribution 

  The link www.igirasoli.ar.it/  provides information on accessibility of the Casa Vacanze and 

the restaurant.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

282 

 
 
 
 
 
Information about the accessibility of the property are available on www.likehome.it and 

http://www.villageforall.net/en/italia-toscana-croce_di_lucignano_arezzo-

villaggio_accessibile-casa_vacanze_i_girasoli/ 

  They carry out promotional activities through specific events and tourist promotions. 

  For some years the property has been to the national and international mainstream market  

7. Improvement of resources and capabilities 

  Networking and collaboration  

Drivers & Obstacles 

Drivers 

  Constant engagement  

  Opening to mainstream tourism having accessible facilities leads to positive results 

Obstacles 

  The house is clearly devoted to guests with disabilities. This may lead to a social 

segregation of guests.  

Further comments  

  The management has also to opened other facilities (i.e. the swimming pools) to the citizens 

of the surrounding area and it is also organising events open to all (aqua gym courses and 

other special events). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

283 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 139 – Girasoli restaurant (Photos: http://www.igirasoli.ar.it) 

5.1.4  Analysis of the case studies 

To analyse the case studies the available information about organisation and actions were collected 

and the results grouped according to the already mentioned 7 ISF. 

To render the analysis easier to understand we have grouped the case studies in a table that state 

whether in each case the available information tends to confirm “X” or refute “O” our hypotheses: 

H21: In mainstream tourism services investment in accessibility results in increased client 

numbers. 

H22: Destinations that take care for accessibility usually are focused on service quality in 

general. 

H23: The successful accessible destinations show some kind of cooperation among service 

providers. 

H24: Some destinations succeed in including accessibility, comfort and services in their 

branding. 

In the same row the 7 ISF have been listed to show if each of the Success Factors has been well 

developed “X” or neglected “O” (Figure 140). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 140 – Case studies and success factors 

CASE 

H2

H2

H2

H2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1 

x 

* 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

2 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

3 

x 

o 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

4 

ISF 

IFS 

ISF 

ISF 

ISF 

ISF 

ISF 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

o 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Erfurt 

Acc. Poland 

Château 

Wine Cellar 

Berlin 

Barcelona 

Metro 

Scandic 

GVAM 

Rest. 

Monnalisa 

Rest. I Girasoli 

* 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

*H21 is not applicable to these cases as they do not address mainstream tourism. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

285 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 141 shows if the cases provided economic data or comments that allow an understanding of 

the return on investment, their approach to tourism (more mainstream oriented or disability oriented), 

whether they use accessibility as a marketing tool and the perceived economic results. 

Figure 141 – Case study analysis 

CASE 

€ Data 

Approach 

Marketing 

€ Results 

accessibility 

Erfurt 

Some 

Mainstream 

Acc. Poland  No 

Disability 

Château 

Yes 

Mainstream 

Wine Cellar  Some 

Mainstream 

Berlin 

Some 

Mainstream 

Barcelona 

Yes 

Mainstream 

Metro 

Scandic 

Yes 

Mainstream 

GVAM 

Yes 

Mainstream 

Rest. 

Some 

Mainstream 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Good 

Poor 

Good 

Good 

Good 

Good 

Good 

Good 

Good 

Monnalisa 

Rest. I 

Girasoli 

No 

Disability/Mainstream  Yes 

Good 

The data analysis shows that although the initial intention was to select only cases with a 

mainstream orientation a closer analysis reveals that in one case, Accessible Poland, the approach 

is disabled guest oriented towards guests who have disabilities while in the case of the Restaurant I 

Girasoli they have been disability oriented although recently they are evolving to a more mainstream 

approach to improve their economic results. Due to the lack of orientation towards mainstream 

tourism the Hypothesis H21 can’t be confirmed in these two cases. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

286 

 
 
 
In the cases of Erfurt and Berlin the lack of available economic data is understandable as the 

investments for improving accessibility are assumed by many public and private operators in an 

isolated way. 

In the case of St. Martin Wine Cellar it was only possible to obtain indirect data about guests 

received without indication of the evolution of these numbers. We estimate that there are two 

reasons for this: their main activity is to produce and sell wine, the visits being a marketing tool and, 

on the other hand, the small investments done to improve accessibility are considered by them as 

valuable for all guests as they are not especially focussed on disabled guests. 

Finally in the Restaurant Monnalisa case the economic data cannot be concretised as they have 

designed and built the property to be accessible from the beginning and therefore no special 

investment was made although they declare that more investment should be made without defining 

its amount. We have also been unable to obtain data about the increase in guest numbers. 

5.1.5  Conclusions 

The hypotheses status confirmed for the analysed cases: 

It has emerged that the increase in guest numbers consists not only of disabled customers but of 

customers in general. 

It has emerged that in most cases accessibility is integrated as part of the quality policy. 

It is clear that cooperation with other local service providers is close success is greater although if 

cooperation is not close, but the provision of accessible services is assured along the tourism chain 

the results are also good.  

In most of the cases the way of including accessibility in their advertising tools is as a characteristic 

or service included among others emphasising more what they offer than to whom the offer it. The 

style is always positive and avoiding “charity or social service” style language.   

•  Accessible Poland Tours is not a mainstream service. Their economic results are not 

good  

•  I Girasoli is evolving from a disabled marketing orientation to a more mainstream 

orientation. Their economic results are improving. 

•  It is more likely that a business will succeed if the management are professionals in 

their sector with awareness of accessibility needs rather  than being disability 

professionals running a tourism business. 

•  All the  cases that show good economic results and that communicate their offer 

efficiently have been managed well each aspect  of the 7 ISF: 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

287 

 
 
 
Although social responsibility is a motivation it does not make the company deviate from its own 

business focus. 

The engagement and training of all the staff is a key issue that improves results. 

Knowledge transfer flows more easily when the organisation is part of a number of professional 

networks such as Design for All. 

 To plan the actions and anticipate the results before starting is also a key element of success. 

The importance of investment varies largely depending on the type of services provided and whether 

the accessibility improvements have been included since inception, have been planned or have 

been made in response to demand. But even in the case of the highest investment among the cases 

discussed, 17.1M€ invested by FGC in stations’ accessibility, which resulted in an investment of 

1.36€ for each new passenger in the following year, this implied a payback in less than two years, 

based on an increase of 16% in passenger numbers as estimated by the company. This example, 

together with the others from cases from which we have obtained concrete economic data, allow us 

to conclude that planned and reasonable investments pay back in a short period if the 7 IFS has 

been correctly addressed. 

Finally it should be underlined that all cases that have succeed in managing the 7 ISF have 

validated all the working hypotheses proposed. 

5.2  Task 3b - Desk research on existing barriers faced or perceived by people with 

access needs  

5.2.1  Methodology 

5.2.1.1  Desk research 

The main aim for task 3b is to reach a thorough understanding of the barriers faced by people with 

access needs. It is important that the barriers for each tourism sector are identified in order to allow 

for the development of specific action plans to eliminate existing obstacles. Findings from task 3b 

are channelled into the recommendation section (section 7). 

In order to meet the objective of Task 3b, desk research was employed. Desk research, e.g. the 

collection of secondary data, is a widely used research technique in market research. The 

systematic review of the literature on access barriers was essential to fulfil four purposes (see Figure 

142). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

288 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 142 – Purposes of desk research 

Purpose 1: Identify and determine the extent to which past research covers the barriers faced by 

individuals with access needs.  

Purpose 2: Conduct a comparative assessment/ examination of existing sources.  

Purpose 3: Develop hypotheses to be tested  

Purpose 4: Compare the existing literature with the findings from the primary data. 

5.2.1.1.1  First round of desk research: Identification of secondary sources 

The identification and determination of the extent of past research covering the barriers faced by 

people with access needs is crucial to identify gaps in the existing literature. For the identification of 

secondary sources (1), such as reports, studies and academic articles, the comprehensive 
databases provided by EBSCO Information Services1 were used. More specifically, the Hospitality 
and Tourism Index2 (part of the EBSCO databases) was identified and utilised as the main source as 

this index is the key database for academic articles and industry news from all areas of the 

hospitality and tourism sector. The coverage of publications in this index dates back to 1930 and 

contains more than 990,000 records and almost 830 publications. Most of these publications are 

peer-reviewed journal articles, following a double-blind review process. This ensures that the 

publications are of an appropriate standard, acting as a quality-insurance mechanism for the desk 

research conducted.  

For this initial stage of the desk research, eight key words/ parameters were generated to enable the 

first search for reports and articles that potentially deal with the subject. These keywords/ 

parameters were used in various combinations as shown inty or representational aspects. 

Figure 143 below. The initial results were checked to identify those sources that deal explicitly with 

access barriers from the demand-side, which is the overall selection criterion. Through thoroughly 

1 EBSCO is the name of a publishing service, which supplies online databases to libraries. Available via 
EBSCO are 375 full-text and secondary research databases, over 420,000 e-books and 355,000 e-journals and 
e-journal packages (http://www.ebsco.com).  
2 The Hospitality and Tourism Index includes wide-ranging publications of three internationally recognised 
collections, which are: the former hospitality database of Cornell University, articles in Hospitality and Tourism 
(AHT) (formerly co-produced by the Universities of Surrey and Oxford Brookes) and the Lodging, Restaurant & 
Tourism Index (LRTI), formerly produced by Purdue University. The geographical scope of the material 
available from the Hospitality and Tourism Index comprises Europe, Canada, Australia and Asia, offering 
domestic and international sources of reference (http://www.ebscohost.com/corporate-research/hospitality-
tourism-index).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

289 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
assessing the relevance of all identified sources, articles have been left out that deal for example 

with conceptual developments of disability studies, disability and identity or representational aspects. 

Figure 143 – Keywords/ parameters used for the identification of secondary sources 

Following this methodological approach, 118 potential reports and articles were identified through 

the database search, with 48 suitable for analysis (Annex L). These 48 articles are all relevant in that 

they deal explicitly or partially with access barriers from a demand-side perspective, which 

represents the main selection criterion.  

For any desk research, ensuring quality in terms of rigour and reliability of the sources used is 

crucial. This has been achieved as the majority of articles listed in Annex L are published in journals 

that follow a thorough double-blind review process.  

The publication period of articles is a very good indicator of the importance given to a specific 

research topic. With regard to the subject of access barriers, the identified articles cover a time 

frame from 1987 to 2012. Looking at the historical development, it is apparent that the topic gained 

far more importance from 2000 onwards. This is reflected in the number of articles and reports 

identified in this later time period. The large number of articles and reports published between 2010 

and 2012 is particularly noticeable. In only two years, 10 articles were published which deal with 

access barriers. This is almost one-third of all articles appearing from 2000 – 2009 and already more 

than during the time period from 1980-1999 (Figure 144). The same tendency was observed by an 

Italian study investigating the start date of projects related to disability/ accessibility. Findings show 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

290 

 
 
 
 
that a high percentage of projects were initiated from 2009 – 20121, which indicates that the topic 

has received more attention and achieved more significance over the last ten years.  

Figure 144 – Publication period of articles identified during the first search round 

With regard to the nature of the research approach of the identified sources, some articles deal with 

access barriers in a purely conceptual manner (e.g. Smith, 1987) and relatively few articles deal with 

the topic from a quantitative perspective. Thus, the majority of sources focus on an exploratory, 

qualitative approach mainly based on interviewing people with access needs.  

The qualitative nature of the data found on barriers can be explained as follows:  

•  Research into disability is a relatively new and evolving area in tourism and hospitality, therefore 

qualitative research is mainly employed to build theory which can be tested at a later stage 

through quantitative methods  

•  The focus of the research is mainly based on gaining a better understanding of individual, 

subjective tourist experiences which are often investigated by using qualitative methodologies2 

•  Due to the subjective perceptions of barriers, concepts and issues have to be defined by the 

people who face access constraints (qualitative methods) instead of providing definitions in 

advance (quantitative methods) 

In summary, qualitative, exploratory research has been mostly employed in order to gain a deeper 

understanding of the subjective experiences of barriers in a tourism context. The information 

collected through this approach does not lend itself to statistical analysis as the focus is placed on 

1 Presidenxa del Consiglio dei Ministri (2013). Accessibile è meglio: Primo Libro Bianco sul Turismo per Tutti in 
Italia 2013. Comitato per la Promozione e il Sostegno del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unifg.it/dwn/ateneo/sportello_west/accessibile_libro_bianco.pdf  
2 McCabe, S., & Stokoe, E. (2009) "Have you been away?": Holiday Talk in Ordinary and Institutional 
Interaction. IN Richards, V. & Raguz, A. (Eds.) 3rd Critical Tourism Studies Conference. Connecting Academies 
of Hope: Critical Actions and Creative Vistas. Zadar, Croatia, 21.-24. June 2009. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

291 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
gathering large amounts of relatively detailed information about a relatively few cases. However, a 

primary data collection process based on the online survey (task 2b) is used after the completion of 

the desk research to obtain more quantitative information related to the barriers faced by people with 

access needs.   

5.2.1.1.2  First round of desk research: Examination/ assessment of relevant secondary 

sources 

After assessing the relevance of sources, focusing only on articles that deal with access barriers 

faced by people with access needs, the examination/ assessment of reports and academic articles 

was conducted (2). This was based on following a simultaneous screening process related to three 

dimensions (Annex M): 

Type of impairment/ restriction1 

Tourism sector  

Geographical coverage  

Figure 145 – Simultaneous screening process used for the examination/ assessment of 
secondary sources 

1 Both, ‘impairment’ and ‘restriction’ is used as people with access requirements include individuals who have 
impairments, such as for example mobility or sight impairments, as well as people who are temporarily 
restricted due to e.g. travelling with small children. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

292 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Using these screening dimensions at the same time allows for a comprehensive understanding of:  

  Which types of impairment/ restriction are covered by secondary data  

  Which tourism sectors are covered by secondary data  

  Which countries have been investigated by existing research  

The initial search enabled the first round of evaluation/ assessment providing an overview of the 

barriers faced by individuals with access needs. The next section provides an explanation on how 

the identified sources were assessed, followed by a justification for pursuing a second round of 

literature search.   

Following the simultaneous screening process based on three dimensions (Figure 145), the 

identified 48 articles revealed the following subcategories which have been used for assessment: 

Dimension: 

Type of impairment/ restriction: 

  Mobility Impairment 

  Blind/ Vision Impairment  

  Deaf/ Hearing Impairment 

  Speech Impairment 

  Cognitive Impairment 

  Hidden Impairment 

  Elderly Population 

  Parents of disabled children 

  Families 

In addition to these 9 groups, a large number of sources did not explicitly specify the impairment/ 

restriction, leading to the establishment of an additional category labelled ‘Restriction not directly 

specified’.  

Examining the category of ‘type of impairment/ restriction’ covered, the majority of articles deal with 

barriers faced by individuals with mobility impairments, followed by articles not directly specifying the 

type of impairment/ restriction and people with vision impairments. Very limited research exists 

which deals with barriers faced by people with hidden impairments, cognitive impairments, speech 

impairments or families and parents with disabled children (Figure 146). These findings are in line 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with research conducted in Italy, as the majority of projects were tailored towards physical 
disabilities (58.4%), followed by sensory disabilities (27.5%)1. 

Figure 146 – Articles dealing with access barriers by type of impairment/ restriction 

Dimension: 

Tourism sector  

The establishment of subcategories for the second dimension is based on the BMWi study2 listing 

tourism sectors across the service chain. Given the limited and sometimes vague specification of 

tourism sectors in the identified reports and articles, tourism sectors have been grouped into 6 main 

categories representing key stages of the travel journey.  

In addition, as some sources do not refer specifically to any sector, an additional category ‘Tourism 

sector not directly specified’ was added. The 7 main categories for the assessment are hence as 

follows: 

  Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage 

  Transit: Arrival / Departure  

  Transport at destination & access paths   

  Accommodation  

  Catering / Gastronomy/ Food & Beverage 

  Attractions/ Activities 

  Tourism sector not directly specified 

1 Presidenxa del Consiglio dei Ministri (2013). Accessibile è meglio: Primo Libro Bianco sul Turismo per Tutti in 
Italia 2013. Comitato per la Promozione e il Sostegno del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unifg.it/dwn/ateneo/sportello_west/accessibile_libro_bianco.pdf  
2 BMWi (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All, Berlin, Federal Ministry of Economics and 
Technology. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
With regard to the coverage of different tourism sectors, the identified sources reveal that the 

majority of articles do not directly specify the barriers faced by people with access needs in relation 

to specific tourism sectors (Figure 147), which was anticipated in the proposal by the Team. The 

majority of sources identified in the first search round focus on the tourism context in general without 

referring to specific sectors. Some of these articles investigate barriers in a tourism context by 

focusing on specific impairments while others do not mention a particular type of impairment.  

For the sources that do specify the tourism sector, the following understanding could be gained: 

Sectors that received most research attention include the attractions/ activities sector and the transit/ 

transport sector. This is not surprising, as attractions are the main reason why people travel to a 

destination, and transport is an indispensable element for getting to and from the destination.  

Very little is yet known about barriers reported for the Food & Beverage sector (catering/ 

gastronomy) and transport at the destination, including access paths. Particularly with regard to 

transport at the destination, it is anticipated that more research needs to be conducted in this area, 

as isolated accessible facilities (e.g. an accessible hotel or an accessible attraction) do not add to 

the quality of the tourist experience if accessible access pathways between different facilities or 

services are not guaranteed. 

Figure 147 – Articles dealing with access barriers by tourism sector 

It is notable that the large majority of articles dealing with access barriers without specifying the 

tourism sector follow a qualitative approach to interpreting barriers and constraints, whereas articles 

that do specify the tourism sector are starting to employ quantitative methods.  

Dimension:  Geographical coverage  

The third screening dimension investigates the geographical coverage of access barriers reported. 

As with the second dimension (coverage of individual tourism sectors), most reports and articles do 

not directly specify the geographical coverage (Figure 148).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

295 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 148 – Articles dealing with access barriers by geographical coverage 

Based on the first round of the search, the top three countries covered include the United States, the 

United Kingdom and Australia. This might be partially attributable to the fact that English language is 

required for publications in highly-ranked quality tourism journals. However, given the current 

dominance of English-speaking countries covered in the desk research, a second round of the 
search1 is necessary to specifically identify those sources that cover other European countries and 

other international source markets, which is explained next.  

5.2.1.1.3  Second round of desk research: Identification of additional secondary sources 

As is common for desk research, this initial search of the literature helps with the re-definition of 

more precise keywords/ parameters used to undertake further searches (Figure 149).  

1 As highlighted above and in Figure 149 this is a common procedure to ensure quality in the desk research 
methodology where the results of the first search (e.g. lack of sources covering European countries) contributes 
or informs the second round of the search.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 149 – The desk research process1 

Thus, for the second round of search, the focus is placed on relevant material not identified through 

the first round of search following a set of different variables, such as for example keywords/ 
parameters in different languages and/ or geographical areas2. The variables employed for the 

second round of search focused on expanding the source of literature and keywords/ parameters 

used to cover different geographical areas: 

1 Saunders,  M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Studies. Harlow, Pearson 
Education Limited. 
2 Saunders,  M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Studies. Harlow, Pearson 
Education Limited. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

297 

Research questions and objectivesDefineparametersGenerateand refinekeywordsStart draftingreviewRedefineparametersGenerateand refinekeywordsUpdate and revisedraftRedefine parameters1. Conductsearch2. Obtainliterature3. Evaluate4. RecordGenerateand refinekeywords1. Conductsearch2. Obtainliterature3. Evaluate4. Record1. Conductsearch2. Obtainliterature3. Evaluate4. Record 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
•  Source of literature: Keywords/ parameters were employed for searching for relevant sources on 

different internet sites. While the internet is a useful source, attention was paid to ensure a quality 

control procedure. Reports were considered for inclusion if they are, for example, published by 

recognised disability and/ or elderly organisations or other established social institutions in the 

respective countries.  

•  Keywords/ parameters: Using keywords/ parameters in different languages:  

•  To identify sources in Spanish language:  

barreras/ obstáculos (barriers)  restricciónes (constraints)  personas con nececidades 

especiales/ personas con discapacidades/ personas con movilidad reducida (people/ 

individuals with access needs)  familias (families)  Personas de la tercera edad (seniors)  

ancianos (elderly)  incapacidad/ discapacidad/ minusvalía (disability)  

•  To identify sources in German language: 

Barrieren (barriers)  Mobilitätseingeschränkte Menschen/ Aktivitätseingeschränkte 

Menschen/ behinderte Menschen (people/ individuals with access needs)  Familien 

(families)  Senioren (seniors)  Ältere Bevölkerung (elderly population)  Behinderung 

(disability) 

•  To identify sources in French language:  

Barrières  (barriers)  limitations (constraints)  personnes handicapées/ individus atteints 

d'un handicap moteur (people/ individuals with access needs)  familles (families)  séniors 

(seniors)  personnes âgées (elderly population)  déficience/ handicap (disability) 

•  To identify sources in Portuguese language:  

Barreiras (barriers)  restrições (constraints)  pessoas/individuos com necessidades de 

acessibilidade (people/ individuals with access needs)  familias (families)  idosos (seniors) 

 população idosa (elderly population)  deficiência (disability) 

•  To identify sources in Italian language:  

barriere (barriers)  vincoli (constraints)  persone con bisogni/esigenze di accessibilità 

(people/ individuals with access needs)  famiglie (families)  anziani/senior (seniors)  

popolazione anziana (elderly population)  disabilità (disability) 

Applying different keywords/ parameters and expanding on the source of literature led to the 

inclusion of 75 new sources to ensure a sufficient coverage of European countries and major 

inbound source markets. The full list of a total of 123 sources (from the first and second round of 

desk research) used can be found in Annex N. Overall, the addition of these new sources 

contributed to: 

•  Substantiate or re-define the hypotheses (purpose of desk research 3) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

298 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Enable a comparative analysis of primary and secondary data (purpose of desk research 4) 

Both assisted in providing new insights that enable a better understanding of the existing barriers 

faced by people with access needs per tourism sector in European countries and beyond. 

5.2.1.2  Development of hypotheses and hypothesis testing procedures  

After the two rounds of desk research, the full set of findings represents the prerequisite for the 

development of hypotheses, which are essential to examine the relationships between different 

variables related to the barriers that people with access needs face. Important for this task is a 

thorough understanding that access needs do not only refer to impairments but also to difficulties 

encountered with daily activities and/ or travelling with children. Thus, five main categories of access 

needs form the basis for the analysis:  

Figure 150 – Five main categories of access needs for analysis 

Individuals with mobility difficulties:  

e.g. walking long distances or moving in general, picking up objects, carrying, language, etc.   

Individuals with sensory difficulties:  

e.g. seeing, hearing or other senses, etc.  

Individuals with communication difficulties:  

e.g. speaking with other people or being understood, understanding complex information or 

concentrating, etc.  

Individuals with behavioural difficulties:  

e.g. fears or mental, nervous or emotional problems, learning difficulties, etc. 

Individuals with hidden limitations:  

e.g. allergies or intolerances to food or other substances, chronic diseases, etc.  

The very few quantitative research articles that are currently available assisted in the development 

of hypotheses. While these articles derive from a non-European context, the developed hypotheses 

are essential to test relationships within a European context. Based on the information available, 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

299 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
hypotheses are set up to statistically test if the findings from the previous studies can be empirically 

supported by the primary data in the European context.  

The primary data used for the testing of the hypotheses derives from the online survey (task 2b) 

(based on the categories of access needs outlined in Figure 150) which targets respondents from 12 

European countries. The large sample size and the wide coverage of the survey data ensure that 

reliable results are generated. In total, 12 hypotheses are developed for task 3b, among which 9 are 

developed to examine the 6 identified sectors/ stages, and 3 for cross-sector comparisons. The 

basis of the development of the following hypotheses will be discussed in the corresponding 

sections of each sector. 

Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage 

•  H24: The lack of information about accessible services is the most important barrier compared to 

other barriers (access to information before trip and at destination, and accessibility of booking 

services) in the pre-travel stage. 

•  H25: The information contained in general travel sources is more important compared to the 

specialised sources of information. 

•  H26: The information available about accessibility conditions is sufficient, reliable and accessible. 

Transit: Arrival/Departure 

•  H27: In the transit stage, attitudinal barriers, such as how tourists with access needs are treated 

by service staff, are equally as important as physical access barriers, particularly in terms of 

assistance with getting on board, leaving or changing. 

Transport at destination & access paths 

•  H28: Access pathways, e.g. continuous, accessible routes between facilities and services, and 

accessible parking spaces, are the most important aspects for people with access needs when 

moving around at the destination. 

Accommodation 

•  H29: In the accommodation sector, physical access barriers, particularly related to toilets and 

mobility within rooms, are more important than attitudinal barriers, such as how tourists with 

access needs are treated by service staff. 

•  H30: Among the physical access barriers encountered in the accommodation sector, people with 

access needs are least satisfied with toilets. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

300 

 
 
 
 
Catering / Gastronomy/ Food & Beverage 

•  H31: The barriers faced by people with access needs in the food & beverage sector are 

encountered most often compared to other sectors. 

Attractions/Activities 

•  H32: In the attraction sector, people with access needs experienced barriers most frequently with 

nature based activities or attractions. 

Cross-sector 

•  H33: Across all sectors, physical access barriers are encountered more often than attitudinal 

barriers. 

•  H34: People with access needs encounter different levels of frequency of barriers across key 

tourism sectors (accommodation, food and beverage, attractions and transportation). 

•  H35: The lack of accessible toilets is the most important barrier encountered by people with 

access needs across all sectors. 

Testing procedures 

Given the types of variables in the questionnaire and the objectives of different hypothesis tests, 

binomial tests and paired-samples t-tests are performed. Each of the 12 hypotheses is tested 

against its corresponding null hypothesis. In a test, if the p-value associated with the statistic is less 

than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. As the alternative hypothesis, the proposed hypothesis is 

thus supported.  

If the variables related to a hypothesis are dichotomous with only two possible answers, the binomial 

test is used to compare the observed frequencies of these two categories with the expected 

frequencies. As the experienced barriers are measured by yes and no answers only, the binomial 

test is used to examine the hypotheses H24, H25, H26, H27, H31, H32, H33 and H34. Although the 

chi-square test can also be used in some cases, the sample size for each sub-category is not 

always above 5 which violates the minimal requirement for the chi-square test. Therefore, the 

binomial test is employed for a consistent and comparable result. 

For the variables measured by Likert scale, the paired-samples t-test is employed to compare the 

difference between the means of two variables for the same group of respondents. In the 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

301 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
questionnaire, respondents are asked to evaluate their perceived importance and satisfaction with a 

five-point Likert scale. The paired-samples t-test is thus used to test the importance- or satisfaction-

related hypotheses H28, H29, H30 and H35. 

The purpose of the hypothesis test is to examine the barriers encountered by people with access 

needs (Figure 150).  To analyse the barriers by category of access needs, the respondents who 

experience or care for people with either permanent or temporary difficulties are regarded as the 

sample of the answered type(s) of access needs. To further test the barriers by destination, 15 of the 

most popular destinations are selected based on the sample size. In addition to the 12 countries of 

residence in the survey, Croatia, Germany and Greece are chosen as the representative 

destinations. The sample of each destination includes both domestic and international travellers.  

A summary of testing methods, variables and samples for each hypothesis is shown in Figure 151. 

Figure 151 – Summary of testing procedures 

Hypothesi

Method 

Variables 

Samples 

s 

H24 

Binomial 

q13_17 vs. q13_16, q13_18 

5 types of access needs, 

test 

12 countries of origin 

H25 

Binomial 

q10x1 

5 types of access needs,  

test 

12 countries of origin 

H26 

Binomial 

q20_a, q20_b, q20_c vs.  

5 types of access needs,  

test 

50% 

12 countries of origin 

H27 

Binomial 

q13_2 vs. q13_13, q13_24 

5 types of access needs,  

test 

15 destinations 

H28 

Paired-

q17a_1, q17a_2 vs.  

5 types of access needs,  

samples t-

test 

q12ax1_11, q12ax3_24 

15 destinations 

(averages) 

H29 

Paired-

q17a_3, q17a_7 vs. q12ax1_2 

5 types of access needs,  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

302 

 
 
 
 
samples t-

test 

15 destinations 

H30 

Paired-

q17b_3 vs. q12bx1_7, q12bx3_20  5 types of access needs,  

samples t-

test 

15 destinations 

H31 

Binomial 

q13_16, q13_17, q13_18  vs. 

5 types of access needs,  

test 

q13_13, q13_24 vs. 

15 destinations 

q13_11, q13_24 vs. 

q13_7, q13_20 vs. 

q13_6, q13_21 vs. 

q13_1, q13_4, q13_5, q13_8, 

q13_19, q13_22, q13_23 

(average percentages) 

H32 

Binomial 

q13_1 vs. 

5 types of access needs,  

test 

q13_4, q13_5, q13_8, q13_19, 

15 destinations 

q13_22, q13_23  

H33 

Binomial 

q13_2 vs. 

5 types of access needs,  

test 

q13_1, q13_4, q13_5, q13_8, 

15 destinations 

q13_19, q13_22, q13_23, q13_7, 

q13_20, q13_6, q13_21, q13_11, 

q13_13, q13_24 (average 

percentages) 

H34 

Binomial 

q13_16, q13_17, q13_18  vs. 

5 types of access needs,  

test 

q13_13, q13_24 vs. 

15 destinations 

q13_11, q13_24 vs. 

q13_7, q13_20 vs. 

q13_6, q13_21 vs. 

q13_1, q13_4, q13_5, q13_8, 

q13_19, q13_22, q13_23 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

303 

 
 
 
(average percentages) 

H35 

Paired-

q17a_3 vs. 

5 types of access needs,  

samples t-

q12ax1_1, q12ax1_2, q12ax1_3, 

test 

q12ax1_4, q12ax1_5, q12ax1_6, 

15 destinations 

q12ax1_7, q12ax1_8, q12ax1_9, 

q12ax1_10, q12ax1_11, 

q12ax1_12, q12ax2_13, 

q12ax2_14, q12ax2_15, 

q12ax2_16, q12ax2_17, 

q12ax2_18, q12ax3_19, 

q12ax3_20, q12ax3_21, 

q12ax3_22, q12ax3_23, 

q12ax3_24, q12ax3_25, 

q12ax3_26, q12ax3_27, 

q12ax3_28, q17a_1, q17a_2, 

q17a_4, q17a_5, q17a_6, 

q17a_7, q17a_8, q17a_9 

Note:   The definition of the variables can be found in Annex O. 

5.2.1.3  Comparative analysis of primary and secondary data sources  

After the empirical testing of the hypotheses, a comparative analysis of primary and secondary data 

has been conducted, leading to new insights into the barriers faced by people with access needs for:  

•  different tourism sectors 

•  different perceptions among individuals with different access needs  

•  different European countries 

5.2.2  Findings  

This section provides an overview of reports and articles that deal with access barriers. The 

comparative assessment will first focus on qualitative evaluations. For the very few cases where 

quantitative data is available this information is added, leading to the establishment of a number of 

hypotheses, which are subsequently tested for people with different types of access 

requirements in different European countries.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

304 

 
 
 
In general, articles which deal with access barriers without specifying the type of restriction focus on 

establishing categories of barriers. The seminal paper by Smith (1987) highlights three main barriers 

to tourism participation. The first category relates to intrinsic barriers, including lack of knowledge, 

health-related problems, social ineffectiveness and physical and psychological dependency. The 

second category embraces environmental barriers, encompassing attitudinal, architectural, 

ecological, transportation, and rules and regulations barriers. The last category refers to interactive 
barriers highlighting skill challenges, incongruities and communication barriers1. A study conducted 
in the UK confirms that these barriers also apply to people with hidden disabilities2.  

Eichhorn and Buhalis (2011) also refer to three categories of barriers but focus on those constraints 

that can be addressed by the tourism industry. These include: physical access barriers, attitudinal 
barriers and the lack of information3. This coincides with other studies emphasising physical barriers 

(e.g. inaccessible transport and holiday resorts) as well as environmental, economic, social and 

attitudinal barriers. The lack of information and appropriate assistance is also highlighted in addition 

to stressing the problem that accessibility is not consistently defined across sectors, leading to 
standards and legislation not being enforced4.  

Industry reports outline the main barriers as being low income, acceptance, marketing/ information, 

transport, physical environment, service barriers, and wider social and economic issues (e.g. the 
social exclusion experienced by people with access needs as reflected in wider society)5.  

Figure 152 provides a summary of all categories of barriers. Overall, there is a strong consensus 

that interactive barriers exist throughout all sectors. These interactive barriers often relate to 

negative, demeaning and condescending attitudes. Together with the lack of information, these 

barriers have a very detrimental effect on the overall quality of the tourism experience and are 

overall rated as being stronger than other barriers. This is mainly because people with access needs 

require more detailed information before embarking on a holiday experience, with information acting 

as an ‘enabler’ to travel. Further, while it is often stated that individuals can negate physical access 

barriers if detailed and reliable information is available, they cannot plan for avoiding negative 

attitudes. 

1 Smith, R.W. (1987). Leisure of Disabled Tourists - Barriers to Participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 
376-389. 
2Horgan-Jones, M., & Ringaert, L. (2001). Accessible Tourism in Manitoba. TTRA - Travel and Tourism 
Research Association. Niagara Falls, Canada, 14.-16. October 2001 
3 Eichhorn, V. & Buhalis, D. (2011). Accessibility: A Key Objective for the Tourism Industry. IN D. Buhalis & S. 
Darcy (Eds.) Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues, (pp. 46-61). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
4 EDF - European Disability Forum (2001). EDF Position Paper: Framing the Future of European Tourism, Doc. 
EDF 01/13 EN, (pp. 1-10). London, European Disability Forum. 
5 Veitch, C., & Shaw, G. (2004). Understanding Barriers to Tourism in the UK. IN British Tourist Authority (Ed.) 
Insights - Tourism Intelligence Papers, A-185, May 2004. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

305 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 152 – Summary of categories of barriers 

By looking at different tourism sectors, the analysis revealed the following results:  

5.2.2.1  Barriers encountered in the pre-travel / information-gathering stage 

The majority of articles deal with the lack of information in the pre-travel stage. Overall, this barrier 

exists due to the inconsistent distribution of reliable and accurate information about the level of 
accessibility of facilities and services for people with a disability1 2 3. Also seniors demand high levels 
of information and communication and require comprehensive information before the trip4.  

1 Stumbo, N.J. & Pegg, S. (2005) Travelers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, 8, 195-209. 
2 Darcy, S. (2002) Marginalised Participation: Physical Disability, High Support Needs and Tourism. Journal of 
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72. 
3 Darcy, S., Cameron, B. & Schweinsberg, S. (2012) Accessible Tourism in Australia. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & 
I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, 
(pp. 79-113). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
4 Neumann, P. & Pagenkopf, K. (2011) Informieren und Orientieren IN RKW Kompetenzzentrum (Ed.) 
Tourismus 50plus: Anforderungen erkennen – Wünsche erfüllen, (pp. 14-17). Available at: http://www.dehoga-
bundesverband.de/fileadmin/Inhaltsbilder/Publikationen/WifA_Tourismus_www.pdf   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

306 

Categories of barriersIntrinsic barriersInteractive barriers (social, attitudinal & service barriers)Lack of information & marketing Physical barriers(architectural, ecological & environmental)Inconsistent definition of accessibility (standards, legislation, rules & regulations)Economic barriers (income)Social exclusion in wider society 
 
 
 
                                                      
Reliable and accurate information is needed for all types of trips (short break, holiday or business 

trip) and compliance with the informational needs of people with access requirements can make the 
difference between winning and losing customers at the organisational or destination level1.  

Further, the lack of reliable and accurate information is recognised across all tourism sectors, 
including transport, accommodation, attractions and hospitality2, and often represents the main 

barrier in the travel process. For example, in a Canadian study examining the barriers faced by 

senior people and individuals with a disability, it is reported that 60% of the respondents highlighted 
the lack of information as a primary barrier3. In a European context, 70.6% of German travellers with 

activity limitations highlighted that the organisation of a holiday, including the availability of 

information about accessible facilities, is very important. Yet, almost 40% pointed out that they 
experience barriers in the pre-travel stage of planning their holidays4. This can be mainly attributed 
to the imbalance of information required and information provided (Figure 153)5, since the higher the 

level of information required by people with various access needs, the lower the provision of 

information by service providers.   

Figure 153 – Imbalance between Information Requirements and Information Provision 

1 Daines, A. & Veitch, C. (2012). Visit Britain: Leading the World to Britain. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 322-335). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Darcy, S. (1998). Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People With a 
Physical Disability, Sydney, Tourism New South Wales. 
3 Horgan-Jones, M., & Ringaert, L. (2001). Accessible Tourism in Manitoba. TTRA - Travel and Tourism 
Research Association. Niagara Falls, Canada, 14.-16. October 2001. 
4 BMWI (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All, Berlin, Federal Ministry of Economics and 
Technology. 
5 Pühretmair, F., & Nussbaum, G. (2011). Web Design, Assistive Technologies and Accessible Tourism. IN D. 
Buhalis & S. Darcy (Eds.) Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues, (pp. 274-286). Bristol, Channel View 
Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

307 

Degreeof disabilityInformation 
 
 
 
                                                      
This is confirmed by a mystery shopper study, investigating the provision of information by 

accommodation establishments in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. The results revealed that 

people with access needs were only inadequately served. It was particularly the limited supply of 
information specific to the individual’s needs and demands that caused dissatisfaction1. This was 

supported by a study in Spain, reporting that a person with access needs encounters numerous 

difficulties in obtaining the right information. Very few service providers offer the information that 

people with access needs require and as a consequence, individuals often have to contact the 
provider numerous times, which adds to levels of stress and anxiety in the travel planning process2. 

As a result of these information deficiencies, a number of projects have been initiated in Italy to 
improve the information provision for people with access needs3. 

The limited availability of information is one of four recurrent themes4 in the discussion about 

informational barriers for people with access needs: 

1) Lack or limited availability of information  

E.g. service providers not making information about the level of accessibility for people with different 

access needs available  

2) Lack of accuracy of information provided  

E.g. service providers claim that the hotel is fully accessible but hotel restaurant contains steps to 

gain entry  

3) Low levels of detail of the information provided  

E.g. lack of objective measurements, such as the width of the door  

4) Format of the information provided 

1 Deutsches Seminar für Tourismus (DSFT) (2007). Sonderbefragung zum Thema „Barrierefreiheit“ -
MysteryCheck 2007 – das Abenteuer Unterkunftssuche. Deutsches Seminar für Tourismus (DSFT), Berlin. 
Available at: http://www.wissen.dsft-berlin.de/medien/PRE/pre_mysterycheck-2007_dsft-
studie_barrierefreiheit.pdf  
2 IMSERSO (2006). El Hotel Accesible - Guía para su diseño, organización y gestión. Ministerio de Trabajo y 
Asuntos Sociales - Secretaría de Estado de Servicios Sociales, Familias y Discapacidad. Instituto de Mayores y 
Servicios Sociales (IMSERSO), Madrid, Spain. Available at: 
http://www.imserso.es/InterPresent2/groups/imserso/documents/binario/hotelaccesible.pdf  
3 SL & A: Turismo e Territorio (2008). Turismo Accessiblle in Italia: La Domanda e L’Offerta. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/access0_rapp_tur_acc.pdf  
4Darcy, S. (1998) Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People With a 
Physical Disability, Sydney, Tourism New South Wales. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

308 

 
 
 
                                                      
E.g. Alternative ways to provided information (Braille, large sign, audio recordings) are often absent 

and websites are often inaccessible (e.g. not providing alternative text for images), hence not 
following strategies and guidelines by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)1 

In examining these four access barriers, the lack of information about accessible services (1) is 

often stated as the main constraint. This is supported by a study from Italy reporting that the lack 
of correct and reliable information on accessibility features is the most important barrier2. The 

general lack of information is followed by the lack of accuracy (2) and less detailed information (3).  

With regard to the format of information (4), the main barrier relates to websites being inaccessible 

for people with access needs. This contributes to the exclusion of people with mobility, visual, 
hearing or cognitive impairments3. Yet, the format of the information provided affects people with 

different impairments differently. For example, for someone in a wheelchair, the lack of alternative 

text for images or alternative means to provide information might not represent an obstacle, whereas 

it would restrict a blind person to access certain information necessary to plan his/ her holiday.    

Outside Europe, numerous studies can be identified that deal with the problem of inaccessible 

websites. For example, a study of businesses on the West Coast of the South Island of New 

Zealand found that more than half of the tourist information sites were difficult to access and 
navigate although claiming to be accessible4. Particularly with regard to the format of information 

provided, it is argued that so far limited insights are available that outline what the ‘acceptable’ 
formats of information provision in the accommodation sector actually are5. Specific to the Asia-

Pacific region, inaccessible websites are also a great problem as the adoption of accessible Internet 
technologies remains very limited6.  

Within Europe, studies confirm the inaccessibility of websites as a major problem. For example, in 

Italy it has been reported that particularly young mobility-restricted individuals rely on the internet for 

1 Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) http://www.w3.org/WAI/guid-tech.html 
2 Minuti, M.S. (2012) Turismo sostenibile, “turismo per tutti”: l’accessibilità come elemento di qualità e volano di 
sviluppo dei sistemi turistici territoriali. Available at: 
http://www.sinergiejournal.it/rivista/index.php/slow/article/view/768  
3 Pühretmair, F. (2004). It's Time to Make eTourism Accessible. IN Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W. & 
Burger, D. (Eds.) Computers Helping People with Special Needs, (pp. 272-279). Berlin, Springer. 
4 Rhodda, S. (2012). Accessible Tourism in New Zealand. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best 
Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 114-123). Bristol, 
Channel View Publications. 
5 Darcy, S. (2007). A Methodology for Testing Accessible Accommodation Information Provision Formats. 
CAUTHE 2007 Conference ‘Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges’, Sidney, Australia. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/sdarcy_2007_cauthe_conference_paper_en.pdf  
6 Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2003). Barrier-free Tourism for People with 
Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Regions, United Nations, New York. Available at: 
http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/pub_2316/pub_2316_tor.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

309 

 
 
 
                                                      
obtaining information. Yet, often the information is misleading so that young mobility-restricted adults 
are forced to call the service provider to find out that the establishment is not accessible to them1. 

Investigating the usability of websites for different user groups, a Swiss study found that none of the 

50 websites which were tested is fully accessible for people with multiple restrictions, blind or 
visually impaired people or seniors2. This can be supported by a study conducted in 2004 showing 

that none of the destination management systems and web pages of the National Tourism Boards in 

Europe are accessible due to not complying with the guidelines by the Web Accessibility Initiative 
(WAI)3. The website analysis (task 2a) has also shown that only 17% of the investigated websites 

are technically accessible at a high level, which causes difficulties to people with access needs to 

obtain the information they need to successfully plan their holiday trip. Particularly disadvantaged 

and excluded are individuals with visual difficulties or people with special needs. The general lack of 

implementing access standards also leads to navigation difficulties on other devices which affect all 

users regardless of their specific access needs. Thus, it can be argued that inaccessible websites 

still remain a major obstacle in the pre-travel information gathering stage.  

Overcoming the barrier of accessible websites is of high importance as research shows that people 
with disabilities use the internet more than people without disabilities4. Further, the internet is not 

only used as a vital source for obtaining travel-related information about establishments and 

destinations, but represents also a central booking tool. In the United States, a study confirms the 

importance of the internet to book holidays. For those individuals that search for information 

online, 33% also booked their trips online in 2002. In 2005, half of the people who travel (51%) used 
the internet to book their trips. This is higher than the usage by the general population5.  

1 Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Gioventù (no date). Turisti Senza Ostacoli – Indagine 
Sull’Evoluzione Della Domanda E Dell’Offerta del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unisa.it/uploads/2405/turisti_senza_ostacoli.pdf  
2 Zugang für alle (2007) Schweizer Accessibility-Studie 2007 - Bestandesaufnahme der Zugänglichkeit von 
Schweizer Websites des Gemeinwesens für Menschen mit Behinderungen. Schweizerische Stiftung zur 
behindertengerechten Technologienutzung, Schweiz. Available at: 
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.edi.admin.ch%2Febgb%2F01700%2F01707%2Findex.html%3Fdownload%3DNHzLpZeg7t%2Clnp6I
0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDe3x3gGym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--
%26lang%3Dde&ei=a4DEUYyvPKqF4gTn9YGwBg&usg=AFQjCNFmDdMR0mQHWD_JTRfnow1La7bc0w&sig
2=Gii_coMC6jc6_CVRvsvPvw  
3 Oertel, B. et al., (2004). Accessibility of Tourism Web Sites within the European Union. Proceedings of the 
11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (ENTER 2004). 
ISBN 3-211-20669-8, Springer Verlag, pp. 358-368, Cairo, Egypt.  
4 Huber, W. & Vitouch, P. (2008) Usability and Accessibility on the Internet: Effects of Accessible Web Design 
on Usability. 11th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP 2008). 
ISBN 3-540-70539-2, Springer Verlag, pp. 482-489, Linz, Austria. 
5 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

310 

 
 
 
                                                      
In addition to websites not being accessible, hence disallowing an efficient and effortless booking 

procedure, it is the existence of segregated booking systems that represents an additional barrier. 

This was particularly noted when analysing airline procedures, as people with access needs will 

need to call airlines to ensure that the airline will permit them onto the aircraft. During the phone 

conversation, people with access needs are often asked about their level of health, independence, 

equipment needs and baggage, which leads to feelings of discomfort. Further, low cost carriers have 

introduced ‘independence criteria’, which state that if a person needs assistance for putting on the 
oxygen mask, for example, then he/ she is required to travel with a ‘carer’1.  

The same situation occurs when analysing current practices by tour operators. For example, in May 

2013, Thomson/ TUI told a blind couple just two weeks before their holiday and after they had 
booked a package to Mallorca that they were not allowed to travel without a chaperone2.  

This already shows that tour operators and travel agencies often also represent a barrier in the 

pre-travel stage. For example, a study conducted in the US highlights four main difficulties for people 

with access needs when dealing with travel agencies and tour operators. These are: 

Travel agencies and tour operators not having access to all disability-related information, which is 

necessary for people with access needs to plan their trip 

E.g. this is the case when not all service providers that are part of the package holiday (e.g. an 

attraction facility) provide information about the level of accessibility 

Travel agencies and tour operators not being able to provide information about ground 

transportation 

E.g. lack of comprehensive information about ground transportation related to air travel  

Not providing accurate information about accessibility 

E.g. hotel and restaurants which are less than fully accessible for different access requirements 

Not understanding the different needs of people with access needs3 

E.g. often service providers only think about wheelchair users, ignoring the access needs of people 

with sight, speech or hearing impairments, for example 

1 Darcy, S. (2007). Improving Airline Practices by Understanding the Experiences of People with Disabilities. 
Travel and Tourism Research Association - TTRA. Charlottetown, Canada, TTRA, 17.- 20. October 2007. 
2 TravelMole (2013). Thomson tells blind couple they can't travel alone, May 2nd 2013, 
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2006258 
3 Cavinato, J., & Cuckovich, M. (1992). Transportation and Tourism for the Disabled: An Assessment. 
Transportation Journal 31, 46-53. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

311 

 
 
 
                                                      
In fact, it can be argued that the lack of understanding of different needs of individuals with different 

access requirements triggers the inability to provide accurate and comprehensive information, which 

is necessary to successfully plan a holiday trip. This is supported by Stumbo and Pegg (2005), 

highlighting that the information provided by tour operators is often misleading and inaccurate. For 

example, 45% of people with a physical impairment in New South Wales/ Australia noted that the 
information provided by tour operators is either misleading or inaccurate1, which often leads to high 
levels of dissatisfaction with travel agencies and tour operators2. As a consequence, people with 

access needs have to rely on their own experiences and the recommendations of others with similar 
access needs3.  

An additional barrier relates to the discrimination by travel services and operators4. For example in 

Hong Kong, a research study reported that some travel agents hold the extreme belief that travelling 

and having a disability are not compatible. Further, and by focusing on specific types of impairments, 

it is argued that the inflexible design of package holidays is seen as major problem in addition to 
negative attitudes on behalf of travel agencies5. This was highlighted by mobility and visually 

impaired individuals alike.  

Thus, in sum, the main barriers faced by people with access needs in the pre-travel stage are 

summarised in Figure 154.  

1Darcy, S. (1998). Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People With a 
Physical Disability, Sydney, Tourism New South Wales. 
2 Hitsch, W. (2005). Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
3 Stumbo, N.J., & Pegg, S. (2005). Travelers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, 8, 195-209. 
4 EDF - European Disability Forum (2001). EDF Position Paper: Framing the Future of European Tourism, Doc. 
EDF 01/13 EN, (pp. 1-10). London, European Disability Forum. 
5McKercher, B., Packer, T., Yau, M.K. & Lam, P. (2003). Travel agents as facilitators or inhibitors of travel: 
Perceptions of people with disabilities, Tourism Management, 24:465-474. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

312 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 154 – Barriers in the pre-travel stage 

Sources 

Barriers 

Travel agencies/Tour operators 

Lack of accuracy/reliability of information 

Lack of availability of information 

Lack of detailed information 

Not understanding the needs of people with access 

needs 

Negative attitudes 

Lack of accuracy/reliability of information 

Lack of availability of information 

Websites of individual service providers 

Lack of detailed information 

Inappropriate format 

Segregated booking systems 

The barriers reported so far relate to mainstream sources, which triggers the need to compare the 

importance of mainstream versus specialised sources. A research study from Sweden 

highlights that people with access needs often do not trust the information that is provided in 
mainstream brochures1. This indicates that general information sources, such as websites of 

individual service providers, are perceived as falling short in providing reliable information.  

It is hence argued that in contrast to mainstream operators, specialised tour agencies are able to 

provide reliable and accurate information. For example, in France, specialised organisations exist for 

people with mobility restrictions (e.g. individuals with osteoarthritis) to help with information provision 

1 Müller, L. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Sweden: Experiences, Stakeholders, Marketing. IN D. Buhalis, S. 
Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and 
Tourism, (pp. 157-167). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

313 

 
 
 
                                                      
particularly at the pre-travel stage1. Also ‘Accessible Portugal’ (a specialised tour operator) stresses 

that the specialised organisation is able to address the main difficulties that a person with access 
needs might encounter2.  

In this context, research from Denmark emphasises that disability organisations play an important 
role by providing trustworthy information3, ultimately assisting in reducing informational barriers. 

Many of these organisations operate accessible tourism information schemes. A study investigating 
accessible tourism information schemes4 established a list of existing schemes through secondary 

research. With the subsequent employment of snowball sampling, 43 access schemes were 

identified. The geographical coverage of the schemes is shown below in Figure 155. 

1 Euller-Ziegler, L., & Bieganowski, G. (2004). Arthrose, Handicap, voyages et loisirs: Le regard des médecins 
et des professionnels du tourisme, La Presse Médicale, 33(9):19–20. 
2 Prates, J., & Garcia, A. (2009). Turismo Acessível em Portugal - O Caso do Turismo para Pessoas com 
Mobilidade Reduzida, Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento N.º 11, pp.171-173. 
3Stilling Blichfeldt, B., & Nicolaisen, J. (2011). Disabled Travel: Not Easy, But Doable, Current Issues in 
Tourism, 14(1):79-102. 
4 Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2008) Enabling Access to Tourism through 
Information Schemes. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 189-210. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

314 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 155 – Geographical coverage of analysed Accessible Tourism Information Schemes 

The majority of these schemes were set up by charities, private or non-governmental organisations, 

and nine schemes were operated by governmental or public bodies. All schemes were sent a survey 

covering aspects such as information content, target audience, accessibility information, online and 

offline schemes, and accessibility criteria. All organisations operating a scheme and participating in 

this survey were ensured anonymity. The responses obtained from these organisations were 

checked against a framework of inter-related informational needs, as shown in Figure 156.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

315 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 156 – Framework of interrelated information need components1 

Summarising the findings on access schemes assists in outlining the areas in which access 

schemes are helpful or counterproductive (Figure 157). Apart from providing examples to illustrate 

the positive as well as negative aspect of the 43 schemes, the evaluation contains qualitative and 

quantitative arguments.  

1 Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Enabling Access to Tourism through 
Information Schemes. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 189-210. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

316 

Information•Richness•ReliabilityAppropriatetourisminformation sourcesCommunication services•Exchange of experiencesamongcustomers•Demandof personalisedinformationfromsuppliersCustomer-orientatedservice•Tailoredtowardsdifferenrtypes of impairments•Tailoredtowardsdifferentlevelsof accessibilityInformationalneedcomponents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 157 – Useful and counterproductive aspects of access schemes1 

While specialised organisations are able to provide accurate and reliable information, mainly due to 

operating access schemes, the analysis above shows that schemes are limited in number and 

geographical coverage. Furthermore, a study from the Rhône-Alpes region in France reports that the 

accessibility labelling system that was developed only offers limited economic benefits for tourism 
providers so far2.  

1 Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E. & Buhalis, D. (2008). Enabling Access to Tourism through 
Information Schemes. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 189-210. 
2 Tourisme & Handicap (2011). Tourisme et Handicap - État des Lieux et Perspectives. Rhône-Alpes Tourisme, 
Association Tourisme et Handicaps. Available at: 
http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/23ls7j8v0g16p8cf.pdf?t=1318584308  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

317 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
In addition, Norway’s experience in developing an accessibility labelling system for tourist 
destinations highlights three main challenges in the process of standardising access criteria1:  

1.  Variety of user requirements within each user group 

-  E.g. competing and conflicting interests have to be dealt with  

2.  Conflicts of requirements between different groups  

-  E.g. requirements of one user group may conflict with requirements of another 

user group 

3.  Balance between requirements of people with access needs and the requirements for 

designing a practical market-oriented tool 

-  E.g. the requirements of people have to be met while at the same time ensuring 

the industry that the tool can be implemented easily  

Given these difficulties and counterproductive aspects as highlighted above, specialised sources of 

information might not be able to fully overcome the informational barriers that people with access 

needs face. In addition, specialised operators have been criticised for restricting the individual input 

by people with access needs, hence limiting the flexibility with regard to changing elements of the 
package by the traveller him/herself2. Also the higher costs for this type of travel represents a major 
barrier3. All these arguments have led numerous European countries to highlight the importance of 
mainstreaming accessibility information4 5 6 7.  

Based on the whole discussion on barriers encountered in the pre-travel/ information gathering 

stage, three main problem areas can be identified which are used for the hypotheses testing stage.  

1 Jørgensen, I.S. (2008). Norway’s experience with standard for accessible tourist destinations. ISO 
Management Systems. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/norway_accesible_destinations_standards_article.pdf  
2 Cavinato, J., & Cuckovich, M. (1992). Transportation and Tourism for the Disabled: An Assessment. 
Transportation Journal 31, 46-53. 
3 Cavinato, J., & Cuckovich, M. (1992) Transportation and Tourism for the Disabled: An Assessment. 
Transportation Journal 31, 46-53. 
4 Neumann, P. (2012). Accessible Tourism for All in Germany. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best 
Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 46-54). Bristol, 
Channel View Publications. 
5 Voulgaropoulos, N., Strati, E. & Fyka, G. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Greece: Beaches and Bathing for All. 
IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing 
Population and Tourism, (pp. 55-64). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
6 Müller, L. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Sweden: Experiences, Stakeholders, Marketing. IN D. Buhalis, S. 
Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and 
Tourism, (pp. 157-167). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
7 Sandøy Tveitan, B. (2012). VisitOSLO, Norway: Supporting Accessible Tourism Content within Destination 
Tourism Marketing. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, 
Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 297-309). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

318 

 
 
 
                                                      
First, the literature from European and non-European countries has highlighted throughout that the 

main barrier encountered in the holiday planning stage relates to the lack of information about 

accessible services. By comparing the importance of obtaining information versus booking 

procedures, it has been shown that all these elements encompass barriers, mainly due to the 

inaccessibility of websites. Yet, the need to first receive information about accessible services is 

seen as more important than the subsequent booking process. Hence, the hypothesis is: 

H24: The lack of information about accessible services is the most important barrier compared to 

other barriers (access to information before trip and at destination, and accessibility of booking 

services) in the pre-travel stage. 

Second, while specialised operators together with the operation of access schemes are able to 

provide information about accessible services, a strong need has been identified to mainstream 

information about accessible products and services. This is has been supported by people with 

access needs as it is argued that tourism will not become inclusive if the information needed for 
planning a trip cannot be found in the same channels as used by the able-bodied population1. Given 

the importance attached to mainstream sources, the hypothesis to be tested for European travellers 

with access needs is:  

H25: The information contained in general travel sources is more important compared to the 

specialised sources of information.  

Third, while information provided in mainstream channels is regarded as key for overcoming the 

barriers in the pre-travel/ information gathering stage, and ultimately for overcoming exclusion in this 

tourism sector, it is still important to ensure that the information used by travellers with access needs 

is sufficient, reliable and accessible, leading to the third and final hypothesis for the pre-trip stage: 

H26: The information available about accessibility conditions is sufficient, reliable and accessible  

After testing the first hypothesis H24 (The lack of information about accessible services is the most 

important barrier compared to other barriers (access to information before trip and at destination, 

1 Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2008) Enabling Access to Tourism through 
Information Schemes. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 189-210. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

319 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
and accessibility of booking services) in the pre-travel stage), findings reveal that the hypothesis is 

partially supported.  

The lack of information about accessible services is the most important barrier in the pre-travel stage 
which confirms findings from outside Europe1 and Italy2. Statistically, information about accessible 

services is more important than access to information before trip and at destination, and as 

important as the accessibility of booking services. By comparing different types of access needs, the 

results revealed that for individuals with communication and hidden difficulties, information about 

accessible services, access to information before and at the destination and the accessibility of 

booking services weigh equally (Figure 158).  

1 Darcy, S. (1998) Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People With a 
Physical Disability, Sydney, Tourism New South Wales. 
2 Minuti, M.S. (2012) Turismo sostenibile, “turismo per tutti”: l’accessibilità come elemento di qualità e volano di 
sviluppo dei sistemi turistici territoriali. Available at: 
http://www.sinergiejournal.it/rivista/index.php/slow/article/view/768 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

320 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 158 – H24: Barriers - Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage by type of access 
need 

Type of access 

Hypothesis 

need 

supported 

Most important barrier  

Mobility 

Partially* 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Senses 

Partially* 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Communication 

No** 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Behaviour 

Partially* 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Hidden limitations 

No** 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Barrier 

experience

d 

12.6% 

12.2% 

13.6% 

13.3% 

11.2% 

Note: 

* The listed barrier is not always statistically more important than other barriers; ** The listed 

barrier is not statistically more important than any other barriers. 

Particularly for people with communication difficulties, understanding the complex information 

entailed in booking procedures represents a major challenge, while for people with hidden 

restrictions, such as food intolerance and allergies, the access to information while being on holiday 

is also important. The lack of this information while being at the destination makes it harder to find, 

for example, suitable food and beverage establishments where the offer corresponds to their needs.    

Given that individuals have different needs and wants, the analysis by country of origin of the 

respondents emphasises that people from Bulgaria experience the highest percentages of all 

barriers – lack of information about accessible services (17.2%), access to information before the 

trip and at the destination (16.4%), and the accessibility of booking services (17.2%) – compared to 

citizens from other European countries (Figure 159 and Annex O).   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

321 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 159 – H24 Barriers - Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage by country of origin 

Country of Origin 

Hypothesis 

supported 

Most important barrier  

Barrier 

experienced 

Belgium 

Yes 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Availability of information about accessible 

Bulgaria 

No* 

services 

France 

Ireland 

No* 

No* 

Italy 

No* 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

No* 

No* 

No* 

No* 

No* 

The Netherlands 

No* 

Accessibility of booking services 

Accessibility of booking services 

Accessibility of booking services 

Access to information before trip and at 

destination 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Accessibility of booking services 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

Accessibility of booking services 

Access to information before trip and at 

destination 

Availability of information about accessible 

services 

12.3% 

17.2% 

13.3% 

10.9% 

10.0% 

11.1% 

15.1% 

7.1% 

13.0% 

8.9% 

7.7% 

United Kingdom 

No* 

Accessibility of booking services 

9.7% 

Note:   * The listed barrier is not statistically more important than any other barriers. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

322 

 
 
 
 
Importantly, residents in Belgium perceive the lack of information about accessible services as the 

main barrier compared to people from other European countries where the hypothesis (H24) could 

not be supported. As shown in the Annex O, the percentages of the other two barriers (5.7% and 

4.9% respectively) are lower than the average, which makes the lack of information about accessible 

services stand out as the most significant barrier for travellers from Belgium. Additionally, three 

potential interpretations can be provided for this result: 

1. 

It is possible that respondents referred to the lack of information sources outside their home 

country. 

2. 

If respondents referred to the lack of information sources in Belgium, then the argument can 

be established that Belgium has limited success in offering access information for its 

citizens. Accessibility analyses in 1999 and 2000 have shown that parts of Belgium need to 

improve their infrastructure in terms of accessible facilities together with the provision of 

reliable information. Particularly with regard to the latter, the lack of information has been 

identified as a major obstacle for people with access needs in the region of Flanders. While 

a number of efforts were invested to improve the situation over the years, it is argued that 
informational barriers still persist1 

3.  Over the years, Belgium has developed various labels for accessible tourism, such as the 

Flemish label established by the ‘Toegankelikheidsbureau’2. While labels ensure high levels 

of reliability, the absence of information in mainstream channels might explain why people 

from Belgium report the lack of information about accessible services as the most important 

barrier. In this case, it is not necessarily the general lack of access information but the 

perceived lack of this vital information as part of mainstream travel sources which is being 

expressed.   

The previous argument leads directly into presenting the results of H25 (The information 

contained in general travel sources is more important compared to the specialised sources 

of information). After the hypothesis testing procedure, H25 is supported. The information 

contained in general travel sources is more important compared to the specialised sources of 

information when investigating the responses by individuals with different access needs (Figure 

160). Individuals with mobility, sensory, communication, behavioural or hidden difficulties all 

1 Ghijsels, P. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Flanders: Policy Support and Incentives. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & 
I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, 
(pp. 36-45). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Ghijsels, P. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Flanders: Policy Support and Incentives. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & 
I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, 
(pp. 36-45). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

323 

 
 
 
                                                      
emphasise the importance of information being provided in mainstream communication sources with 

an almost identical percentage average of 7% to 7.1%, compared to an average of 2.6% to 3.1% for 

specialised sources (Annex O). 

Figure 160 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: importance of 
general information sources by type of access need 

Type of access 

Hypothesis 

More important sources 

Average 

need 

supported 

of information 

percentage 

Mobility 

Senses 

Yes 

Yes 

General sources 

General sources 

Communication 

Yes 

General sources 

Behaviour 

Yes 

General sources 

Hidden limitations  Yes 

General sources 

7.0% 

7.1% 

7.0% 

7.1% 

7.0% 

Equally, testing the hypothesis by different countries of origin of the respondents revealed the 

importance of general/ mainstream sources for the provision of information (Figure 161). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

324 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 161 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: importance of 
general information sources by country of origin 

Country of origin 

Hypothesis 

supported 

Most important sources 

Average 

of information 

percentage 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

General sources 

The Netherlands 

Yes 

General sources 

United Kingdom 

Yes 

General sources 

7.1% 

7.2% 

7.1% 

7.3% 

6.6% 

7.0% 

7.2% 

7.2% 

7.0% 

7.3% 

7.2% 

7.2% 

These findings are in line with and correspond to numerous European initiatives. For example, in 

Germany, the need to mainstream accessibility (including the provision of information) was 
recognised by the ‘German Federal Government Policy Guidelines on Tourism’1. Also in Greece 

recommendations have been published on how to mainstream accessible tourism and the provision 

1 Neumann, P. (2012) Accessible Tourism for All in Germany. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best 
Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 46-54). Bristol, 
Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

325 

 
 
 
                                                      
of information1. The same holds true for Sweden as providing information in mainstream channels is 
regarded as being of great importance2. At the regional level, the presentation of accessibility 

content within mainstream channels is emphasised since it allows for capturing a larger and wider 
audience for all channel partners of VisitOslo3. 

Having stressed the importance of general/ mainstream information sources, it is also vital to identify 

the specific sources which are used for obtaining travel-related information. By comparing 

individuals with different types of access needs, it is recognisable that for people with mobility and 

communication difficulties as well as for persons with hidden restrictions, information provided by 

family, friends or colleagues is the most important source, followed by the individual’s own 

experience and tourism websites. For individuals with sensory and behavioural difficulties, tourism 

websites and their own experiences ‘are’/ ‘are almost’ given equal importance (Figure 162 to Figure 

166). Social media is the least important primary source and also specialised sources, such as 

specialised websites and specialised guidebooks rank relatively low.  

1 Voulgaropoulos, N., Strati, E., & Fyka, G. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Greece: Beaches and Bathing for All. 
IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing 
Population and Tourism, (pp. 55-64). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Müller, L. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Sweden: Experiences, Stakeholders, Marketing. IN D. Buhalis, S. 
Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and 
Tourism, (pp. 157-167). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
3 Sandøy Tveitan, B. (2012). VisitOSLO, Norway: Supporting Accessible Tourism Content within Destination 
Tourism Marketing. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, 
Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 297-309). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

326 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 162 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important 
source of information – Individuals with mobility difficulties 

Figure 163 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important 
source of information – Individuals with sensory difficulties 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

327 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 164 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important 
source of information – Individuals with communication difficulties 

Figure 165 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important 
source of information – Individuals with behavioural difficulties 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

328 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 166 – H25 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Most important 
source of information – Individuals with hidden difficulties 

These findings are in line with other research studies:  

1st ranked source: Family, friends or colleagues 

It is often argued that word-of-mouth communications are regarded as highly valued and utilised by 
people with access needs1. Research in Spain has also shown that people with access needs rely 

on family and friends when searching for travel-related information as the main source of 

information. 36% said that family members and friends are ‘often used’ and ‘sometimes used’ by 
36.8%2. The results further reflect the situation outside Europe as 85% of American travellers with 
access needs highlighted that word-of-mouth is an extremely important source of information3.  

1 Ray, N.M., & Ryder, M.E. (2003). ‘Ebilities’ tourism. An exploratory discussion of the travel needs and 
motivations of the mobility disabled. Tourism Management, 24, 57-72. 
2 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005) Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf 
3 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

329 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
2nd ranked source: Own experience 

The results confirm that individuals often have to rely on their own experiences when planning a 
holiday1. This also indicates that people with access needs frequently return to destinations which 

they have experienced and tested as it ensures that the level of accessibility actually corresponds to 

their requirements. It is the own experience that provides the guarantee that the destination will offer 

an enjoyable holiday.  

3rd ranked source: Tourism websites 

The importance of tourism websites as a source of information substantiates the assumption that the 
internet is an important source for people with access needs2 3. This corresponds to research 

findings from America, where almost half of the respondents (46%) reported that the internet is used 
for obtaining travel-related information4. Also in an European context, the Internet is stated as an 
‘often used’ source by 20.7% of respondents in Spain5. 

Also in line with other research is that only a few people with access needs use dedicated, 

specialised websites and guidebooks. In Spain, only 9% of survey participants reported that 
disability brochures are ‘often used’ and 18.3% said that they are ‘sometimes used’6.  

While highlighting the importance of general/ mainstream sources of information, it is central to 

investigate the reliability of the information sources consulted, which was stressed as a key aspect 

when discussing the barriers faced by people with access needs in the pre-travel stage. This is 

addressed by hypothesis H26 (the information available about accessibility conditions is 

sufficient, reliable and accessible). 

1 Stumbo, N.J., & Pegg, S. (2005) Travelers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, 8, 195-209. 
2 Huber, W., & Vitouch, P. (2008) Usability and Accessibility on the Internet: Effects of Accessible Web Design 
on Usability. 11th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP 2008). 
ISBN 3-540-70539-2, Springer Verlag, pp. 482-489, Linz, Austria. 
3 Pühretmair, F. (2004). It's Time to Make eTourism Accessible. IN Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W. & 
Burger, D. (Eds.) Computers Helping People with Special Needs, (pp. 272-279). Berlin, Springer. 
4 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
5 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005) Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf 
6 Huesca González, A.Mª. & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

330 

 
 
 
                                                      
The results revealed that H26 is supported. The information available about accessibility conditions 

is regarded as sufficient, reliable and accessible as the hypothesis could be supported for all types 

of access needs (Figure 167). 

Figure 167 – H26 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Information is 
sufficient, reliable and accessible by type of access need 

Type of access need 

Hypothesis supported  Percentage answered 

Sufficient information 

Mobility 

Senses 

Communication 

Behaviour 

Hidden limitations 

Reliable information 

Mobility 

Senses 

Communication 

Behaviour 

Hidden limitations 

Accessible information 

Mobility 

Senses 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

"Yes" 

83.4% 

84.6% 

84.1% 

83.1% 

83.8% 

80.0% 

81.4% 

81.4% 

80.5% 

79.3% 

87.0% 

88.3% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

331 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Communication 

Behaviour 

Hidden limitations 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

87.7% 

86.3% 

86.7% 

The positive results are justifiable as one’s own experiences as well as recommendations by friends, 

family members and friends or colleagues are trusted and credible sources, which are easy to 

access.  

With regard to tourism websites, the findings indicate that progress has been made to integrate not 

only sufficient but also reliable information about accessible products and services into mainstream 

tourism internet pages. As the hypothesis could be supported for all three aspects (sufficiency, 

reliability and access), it can be claimed that the general accessibility of tourism websites, which are 

consulted by the survey participants of this study, has also been improved. Yet, familiarity with the 

existing sources that have been proven to be reliable together with the tendency to go back to these 

specific sources does not necessarily indicate that all suppliers and destination marketing 

organisations have made equal progress in providing sufficient, reliable and accessible information. 

As this was highlighted in the website analysis (Task 2a), tourism providers as well as destination 

marketing organisations need to further work towards dismantling the barriers associated with 

inaccessible internet pages. 

Taking into consideration that survey respondents most likely refer to their information sources 

which are already used and more importantly be tested and approved by them, the hypothesis could 

also be supported when analysing the responses obtained from different source markets. 

Respondents stated that the information available is sufficient, reliable as well as accessible (Figure 

168).   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

332 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 168 – H26 Barriers: Pre-travel stage/ Information gathering stage: Information is 
sufficient, reliable and accessible by country of origin 

Country of origin  

Hypothesis supported  Percentage answered 

Sufficient information 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

Reliable information 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

France 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

"Yes" 

90.7% 

74.6% 

84.1% 

84.6% 

80.2% 

72.2% 

91.4% 

88.5% 

73.6% 

77.6% 

85.7% 

92.0% 

84.0% 

64.2% 

80.6% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

333 

 
 
 
 
 
Country of origin  

Hypothesis supported  Percentage answered 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

Accessible information 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

"Yes" 

86.1% 

76.1% 

81.3% 

90.0% 

83.0% 

74.4% 

78.7% 

87.1% 

84.7% 

89.1% 

83.6% 

85.2% 

83.3% 

84.2% 

77.8% 

93.5% 

94.3% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

334 

 
 
 
 
Country of origin  

Hypothesis supported  Percentage answered 

Spain 

Sweden 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

"Yes" 

81.2% 

89.8% 

89.1% 

88.6% 

5.2.2.2  Barriers encountered in the transit/ transport stage: arrival/ departure 

Overall, the literature (reports and academic articles) emphasises that the transit/ transportation 
sector still remains largely inaccessible1. A study conducted in the UK highlights that particularly the 
use of airlines represents a major area for barriers to be encountered2. The top barriers faced by 

people with access needs at airports and the barriers encountered with airlines are illustrated in 
Figure 169.3 4 

1 Stumbo, N.J., & Pegg, S. (2005). Travelers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, 8, 195-209. 
2Yates, K. (2007). Understanding the Experiences of Mobility-Disabled Tourists. International Journal of 
Tourism Policy, 1, 153-166. 
3 Chang, Y.C., & Chen, C.F. (2012). Meeting the needs of disabled air passengers: Factors that facilitate help 
from airlines and airports, Tourism Management, 33:529-536. 
4 Darcy, S. (2007). Improving Airline Practices by Understanding the Experiences of People with Disabilities. 
Travel and Tourism Research Association - TTRA. Charlottetown, Canada, TTRA, 17.- 20. October 2007. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

335 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 169 – Barriers at airports and airlines 

With regard to the barriers experienced at airports, a ranking with regard to the importance of these 

barriers can be established based on frequency calculations (see Figure above). Among the top 
three barriers are the distance between the parking lot and the terminal (ranked in 1st position/ 
frequency: 70), followed by the lack of barrier-free lifts (2nd position/ frequency: 68) and the lack of 
barrier-free ramps (3rd position/ frequency 53). With regard to parking spaces, it can be added that 
help points near the car parking spaces are absent in most cases in the UK1. 

When examining the barriers experienced with airlines, Austrian travellers emphasised the lack of 

the secure transport of the wheelchair as the greatest barrier, which leads to feelings of social 

1 Sentinella, J. (2006) Access to Air Travel for Disabled People: 2005. Monitoring study. Department for 
Transport, Mobility and Inclusion Unit. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/2_access_air_travel_trl_monitoring_en.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

336 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
exclusion and discrimination1. Further, issues related to on-board toilets (including lack of user-

friendly on-board toilets, lack of space in on-board toilets and the distance between the cabin seats 

and the toilets on board) seem to represent the most significant barriers. In addition, it is anticipated 

that these barriers augment when choosing low-cost carriers. The most crucial barriers here refer 
to2: 

-  Fares and baggage allowances 

e.g. people with a disability are charged a higher fare due to strict baggage 
allowances  

-  Airport (ground) facilities and services 

e.g. lack of trained staff / staff not understanding the needs of people with 
different access needs 

-  In-flight services and facilities 

e.g. seating density 

-  Aircraft used 

e.g. lack of accessible toilets and on-board aisle chairs   

Apart from the on-board toilets, inappropriate customer service triggers the emergence of other 

barriers, which are:  

•  At the boarding and disembarking stage:  

Staff not trained in understanding different access needs are unaware of the importance of 

providing information about services that are available to wheelchair users (barrier of ‘airline 

wheelchair services’). Further, not understanding different access needs often leads to ignoring 

the desire of people with access needs to remain in their wheelchair as long as possible (barrier 

of ‘lack of comfortable transfer wheelchairs) 

•  At the equipment handling stage:  

Staff not trained in understanding different access needs will not know how to securely stow 

wheelchairs (barrier of ‘insecure stowing of wheelchairs’ 

1 Hitsch, W. (2005) Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
2 Darcy, S., & Ravinder, R. (2012) Air Travel for People with a Disability. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 207-221). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

337 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
•  Additional services: 

Staff not trained in understanding different access needs have very limited knowledge about how 

a specialist cushion can contribute to personal comfort on the plane (barrier of ‘lack of provision of 

specialist cushions’) 

It is surmised that all of these barriers contribute to feelings of helplessness and the fact of needing 

help results in feelings of embarrassment and discomfort. 

When more specific information on the barriers faced by people with different types of access needs 

is included, an additional important element can be added to the debate. For both types of difficulty 

(mobility and visual) there appears to be a question with regard to the importance of attitudinal 

barriers versus physical access barriers in the transit stage. For example, a study conducted in 

Israel strongly highlights that social obstacles, e.g. negative attitudes, weigh stronger than physical 

access barriers. This is because social barriers affect the feelings of individuals to a greater extent 
than physical access issues1. Similar results were revealed by a study in the UK, where respondents 

reported the greater importance of attitudinal barriers (e.g. staff not understanding the needs of 

people with access needs) at 75% compared to physical access barriers (e.g. problems boarding the 
aircraft) at 66%2. 

However, in contrast, studies from China and the United States stress that people with mobility 
impairments perceive physical access barriers as being more important than attitudinal barriers 3 4. A 

study by the Open Doors Organization (ODO) reports that the biggest barrier refers to physical 

obstacles (67%) with cramped seating areas (52%) heading the list, followed by service/ personnel 
issues with 60%5. In Germany, and by focusing on visually restricted individuals, it was found that 

1Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2010). The flight experiences of people with disabilities: An exploratory 
study, Journal of Travel Research, 49(2):216-227. 
2 Wright, A. (2012) Tour Operating for the less mobile traveller. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) 
Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 195-206). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
3Bi, Y., Card, J.A., & Cole, S.T. (2007). Accessibility and Attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese Travellers 
with Physical Disabilities, International Journal of Tourism Research, 9:205-216. 
4Card, J. A., Cole, S. T., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006) A Comparison of the Accessibility and Attitudinal Barriers 
Model: Travel Providers and Travelers with Physical Disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 
161-175. 
5 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

338 

 
 
 
                                                      
fewer attitudinal barriers (e.g. assistance from personnel) exist compared to physical access 
barriers1. 

As the importance attached to physical access barriers versus attitudinal access barriers remains an 

unresolved question in the debate on barriers encountered in the transit stage, the hypothesis to be 

tested for the European context is:  

H27: In the transit stage, attitudinal barriers, such as how tourists with access needs are treated by 

service staff, are equally as important as physical access barriers, particularly in terms of assistance 

with getting on board, leaving or changing. 

The hypothesis test results revealed that H27 is partially supported for the European context. 

Attitudinal barriers are more important than physical access barriers in the transit stage, 
which does not only support the research conducted in Israel2, highlighting the importance of 

negative attitudes in the transit stage weighing stronger than physical access barriers, but also 

backs-up the monitoring study of access to air travel in the UK, indicating that further improvements 

are needed to enhance the communication between staff and passengers. In addition, greater 
attention needs to be paid to the general disability awareness of staff working in this sector3. Yet, 

attitudinal barriers are equally as important as some physical access barriers, such as transport to 

and from the destination for people with communication and hidden limitations (Figure 170). 

1 Becker, M. (2007). Barrierefreier Tourismus für Alle – untersucht am Beispiel von Reisen blinder und 
sehbehinderter Menschen. Universität Paderborn, Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften – Geografie, Deutschland. 
Available at: http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/magister_monika_becker_de-2.pdf  
2 Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2010). The flight experiences of people with disabilities: An exploratory 
study, Journal of Travel Research, 49(2):216-227. 
3 Sentinella, J. (2006). Access to Air Travel for Disabled People: 2005. Monitoring study. Department for 
Transport, Mobility and Inclusion Unit. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/2_access_air_travel_trl_monitoring_en.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

339 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 170 – H27 Barriers: Transit stage: Attitudinal versus physical access barriers by type 
of access need  

Type of access need  Hypothesis 

More important 

Barriers 

supported 

barriers 

experienced 

Mobility 

Senses 

No 

No 

Attitudinal barriers 

14.8% 

Attitudinal barriers 

14.5% 

Communication 

Partially* 

Attitudinal barriers 

15.7% 

Behaviour 

No 

Attitudinal barriers 

15.5% 

Hidden limitations 

Partially* 

Attitudinal barriers 

13.4% 

Note:   * Statistically, attitudinal barriers are equally as important as transport to and from 

destination, and more important than accessible transport types 

Given that people with communication difficulties give equal importance to attitudes, e.g. how they 

are treated, and physical aspects, e.g. transport to and from the destination, it can be argued that 

the National Society for the Deaf in Italy has taken appropriate actions in tailoring its efforts to both 

of these aspects. Together with the State Railways for transport by rail and the ‘Autostrade’ for 

private car transport, a programme to remove physical access barriers was put in place in addition to 
improving levels of awareness among the general public, including service personnel1.   

5.2.2.3  Barriers encountered with transport at the destination and access paths 

Overall, barriers related to transport at the destination often only highlight that these services, 
including taxis and trains, remain largely inaccessible23. Further barriers include missing kerb cuts, 

1 Collu, I. (2010). The access to tourism for deaf people: requirements and good practice. IN IsITT – Istituto 
Italiano per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
2 Stumbo, N.J., & Pegg, S. (2005). Travelers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, 8, 195-209. 
3 Murray, M., & Sproats, J. (1990). The Disabled Traveller: Tourism and Disability in Australia. Journal of 
Tourism Studies 1, 9-14. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

340 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
lack of suitable transportation from and to the airport and taxi drivers not understanding the different 
needs of people with access needs1.  

Studies from Germany2 and Israel3, examining the barriers faced by mobility-restricted individuals, 

contribute to reaching a better understanding of the barriers experienced when moving around at the 

destination (Figure 171).  

Figure 171 – Barriers experienced when moving around at the destination 

In order to determine which of these barriers weighs higher than other barriers, a study conducted in 

Australia reported that the lack of accessible public transport is one of the main weaknesses for 

1 Horgan-Jones, M., & Ringaert, L. (2001). Accessible Tourism in Manitoba. TTRA - Travel and Tourism 
Research Association. Niagara Falls, Canada, 14.-16. October 2001. 
2BMWI (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All, Berlin, Federal Ministry of Economics and 
Technology. 
3Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2009). People with disabilities visit art museums: an exploratory study of 
obstacles and difficulties, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4(2):117-129. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

341 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Australia as a holiday destination1. Another research study, also from outside Europe, ranked the 

relative importance of certain accessibility features. It was found that when the number of visitations 

increases, the relative importance of paths and accessible parking increases, while the 
significance of restrooms, sidewalks, elevators and access ramps decreases2. In order to test this 

assumption for the European context, the following hypothesis was set-up: 

H28: Access pathways, e.g. continuous, accessible routes between facilities and services, and 

accessible parking spaces, are the most important aspects for people with access needs when 

moving around at the destination. 

The statistical analysis has shown that H28 is partially supported. Access pathways and accessible 

parking spaces are perceived as the most important aspects for people with access needs when 

moving around at the destination for people with mobility difficulties ( 

1 Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2003). Barrier-free Tourism for People with 
Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Regions, United Nations, New York. Available at: 
http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/pub_2316/pub_2316_tor.pdf  
2Israeli, A.A. (2002). A Preliminary Investigation of the Importance of Site Accessibility Factors for Disabled 
Tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 101-104. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

342 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 172). This not only supports research from non-European countries such as Israel1 and 
Australia2 but also existing studies from a European context, such as Italy3, Finland4 and Spain5.   

1 Israeli, A.A. (2002) A Preliminary Investigation of the Importance of Site Accessibility Factors for Disabled 
Tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 101-104. 
2 Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Schweinsberg, S. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Australia. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy 
& I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, 
(pp. 79-113). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
3 Vitali, G., & Vitali, R. (2010). The results of a complex project to the sea: statistics, economic impact, best 
practices and customer satisfaction. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza 
limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
4 Ministry of Transport and Communications (2003) Towards Accessible Transport – Accessibility Strategy of 
the Ministry of Transport and Communication. Programmes and Strategies of the Ministry of Transport and 
Communications, Finland. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/18_toward_accessible_transport_en.pdf  
5 Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (no date) Decálogo de Buenas Prácticas en Accesibilidad 
Turística. Available at: 
http://www.planaccesibilidadturistica.es/UserFiles/publicaciones/ficheros/Decalogo_Buenas_Practicas_Accesibi
lidad_Turistica.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

343 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 172 – H28 Barriers: At the destination: Importance of access pathways and accessible 
parking by type of access need   

Type of 

Hypothesi

Importance 

Importance 

More important 

access need 

s 

score - Access 

score - 

aspect 

supported 

pathways and 

Transport at 

accessible 

the destination 

parking spaces 

(outdoors) 

Mobility 

Yes 

4.02 

3.91 

Access pathways and 

Senses 

No 

Communicatio

No 

n 

Behaviour 

Hidden 

limitations 

No 

No 

3.93 

4.00 

3.94 

3.95 

3.90 

3.94 

3.91 

3.91 

accessible parking 

spaces 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Yet, for people with different access needs various aspects of transport at the destination are equally 

important. This includes an accessible transportation system for all user groups incorporating tactile 

guiding systems to ensure a better orientation in public transport stations. Such an improved 

transport system has been put in place by Vienna Lines in Austria, ensuring a fully accessible 
network of buses, tramways and underground lines for all user groups1.  

By analysing destination-specific differences and comparing the top destination countries visited by 

the respondents of the survey (Figure 173), travellers to Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Greece, 

Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom perceive various 

aspects of the transport at the destination as equally important.  

1 Krpata, R. (2012). Accessible Public Transport: Vienna City Tourism. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 222-240). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

344 

 
 
 
                                                      
Evidence can be found that some of these countries already pay attention to reducing the barriers 

encountered with transport at the destination and access paths. For example in Italy, the city of 

Genoa has improved access paths by designing new barrier-free pedestrian crossings and public 
elevators to reach specific tourism facilities1. Yet, improving access paths can be challenging for 

cities such as Venice. While improvements have been made in terms of making individual 

attractions, such as museums accessible, the most predominant difficulty rests with improving the 
pathways from and to specific attractions which requires the involvement of all stakeholders2.   

1 Coop. Sociale La Cruna (2008). Genova per tutti noi – a guide for tourism without barriers. Ambient 
Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility impaired users (ASK-
IT), Genova, Italy. Available at: http://www.lacruna.com/amministra/media/9.pdf  
2 Mengardo, G. (2012). Turismo Accessibile a Venezia. Un' "isola dell'accessibilità" attorno ai Musei Civici per 
una cultura senza barrier. Università Ca’Foscari Venezia, Venice, Italy. Available at: 
http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/2057  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

345 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 173 – H28 Barriers: At the destination: Importance of access pathways and accessible parking by destination   

Destination 

Hypothesis 
supported 

Importance score - Access 
pathways and accessible 
parking spaces 

Importance score - 
Transport at the destination 
(outdoors) 

More important aspect 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Lithuania 

Yes 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

No 

No 

No 

No 

The Netherlands  No 

United Kingdom 

No 

3.91 

3.91 

3.83 

3.92 

4.14 

3.70 

3.99 

4.08 

4.24 

4.12 

3.77 

3.73 

3.90 

3.71 

3.93 

3.81 

3.57 

3.68 

3.75 

4.00 

4.04 

4.08 

4.00 

3.66 

4.00 

3.64 

3.89 

3.65 

3.79 

3.84 

Equally important 

Access pathways and accessible parking spaces 

Equally important 

Access pathways and accessible parking spaces 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Access pathways and accessible parking spaces 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Transportation at destination (outdoors) 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

346 

 
 
 
 
In contrast to the destinations mentioned above, where various aspects of the transport at the 

destination are perceived as equally important by travellers, tourists visiting Bulgaria, France and 

Lithuania found that access paths and accessible parking spaces represent the most important 

aspects. This highlights the need for these countries to invest their efforts in ensuring that visitors 

can fully enjoy the destination by creating uninterrupted paths to or within a building providing 
access to all required facilities, also incorporating accessible parking1. Evidence can be found that 

France seems to tackle these problems as among the suggestions provided by the National Tourist 

Board it is highlighted that the concept of ease of use should become a predominant value for all 
touristic services provided2.  

Spain was identified as the only country where transport at the destination represents the most 

important aspect by visitors. This is line with other research conducted in Spain highlighting that 

55.4% of the research participants encountered major problems particularly with the transfers at the 
destination3 while improvements have been made with regard to improving accessible parking in 
cities such as Avila4.  

5.2.2.4  Barriers encountered in the accommodation sector 

In the accommodation sector, an often-stated barrier refers to hotels not complying with access 

standards and legislation, such as in the United States despite the existence of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA)5. In addition to this, a number of other barriers are reported with regard to 
hotel establishments6 7 8 9 1 2 (Figure 174). 

1 Darcy, S., Cameron, B., Pegg, S., & Packer, T. (2008) Developing Business Case Studies for Accessible 
Tourism. STCRC (Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre), Queensland, Australia. Available at: 
http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/images/disc%20of%20images%20and%20pdfs/for%20bookshop/do
cuments/90042_Darcy_DevBusCaseWEB.pdf  
2 Conseil National du Tourisme (no date). Tourisme & Handicap: La chaîne de l’offre touristique pour le droit 
aux vacances. Available at: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-
publics/054000368/0000.pdf  
3 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  
4 Melgosa Arcos, F.J. (2009). Turismo accesible, Turismo para Todos en una Ciudad Patrimonio de la 
Humanidad: el caso de Ávila. Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento N.º 11. 
5 Stumbo, N.J., & Pegg, S. (2005). Travelers and Tourists with Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties. 
Tourism Review International, 8, 195-209. 
6 Murray, M., & Sproats, J. (1990). The Disabled Traveller: Tourism and Disability in Australia. Journal of 
Tourism Studies 1, 9-14. 
7 Murray, M., & Sproats, J. (1990). The Disabled Traveller: Tourism and Disability in Australia. Journal of 
Tourism Studies 1, 9-14. 
8 Horgan-Jones, M., & Ringaert, L. (2001). Accessible Tourism in Manitoba. TTRA - Travel and Tourism 
Research Association. Niagara Falls, Canada, 14.-16. October 2001. 
9Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised Participation: Physical Disability, High Support Needs and Tourism. Journal of 
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

347 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 174 – Barriers experienced with hotel establishments 

Comparing the relative importance of physical access barriers versus attitudinal barriers within the 

accommodation sector reveals that obstacles in the physical environment are encountered more 

often than attitudinal barriers (Figure 175). 

Figure 175 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in the accommodation 
sector (United States)3 

1Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of hotel experiences of people with disabilities: An 
exploratory study, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5):571-591. 
2 Wright, A. (2012). Tour Operating for the less mobile traveller. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) 
Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 195-206). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
3Card, J. A., Cole, S. T., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006). A Comparison of the Accessibility and Attitudinal Barriers 
Model: Travel Providers and Travelers with Physical Disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 
161-175. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

348 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                   
Physical access barriers 

Attitudinal barriers  

Accommodation  

81% 

Accommodation  

65% 

The tendency for physical access barriers to be perceived as greater than attitudinal barriers in the 

accommodation sector is supported by another study from the United States where the biggest 

barrier relates to physical obstacles (48%) followed by service/ personnel (45%). Among the most 

prevailing physical access barriers are doors being too hard to open (36%), limited mobility in the 
rooms (20%) and inaccessible bath facilities (19%)1. 

Similar results highlighting that physical access barriers are greater when compared to attitudinal 

barriers were also obtained from a Chinese study (Figure 176).  

Figure 176 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in the accommodation 
sector (China)2 

Physical access barriers 

Attitudinal barriers  

Accommodation  

2.80 

Accommodation  

2.21 

Note:  The numbers in the table refer to the means of physical and attitudinal barrier levels, based 

on a 1 to 5 measurement scale, where 1 means few and 5 means many. 

The studies discussed above have provided crucial information and assist in establishing the first 

hypothesis for the accommodation sector. Key information deriving from these qualitative and 

quantitative findings from various studies outside Europe highlights that physical access barriers 

are ranked higher compared to attitudinal barriers in the accommodation sector. Therefore, 

the hypothesis to be tested for the European context is:  

H29: In the accommodation sector, physical access barriers, particularly related to toilets and 

mobility within rooms, are more important than attitudinal barriers, such as how tourists with access 

needs are treated by service staff. 

1 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2Bi, Y., Card, J.A., & Cole, S.T. (2007). Accessibility and Attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese Travellers 
with Physical Disabilities, International Journal of Tourism Research, 9:205-216. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

349 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Following on from this hypothesis and particularly focusing on individual physical access barriers 

within the accommodation sector (Figure 174), a study from Italy highlights a variety of features, 

such as architectural barriers, unsuitable lifts, inaccessible bathrooms and rooms being too small as 
barriers1, yet without indicating the relative importance of these aspects. In contrast, focusing on the 

relative importance of different physical access barriers, studies from the United States, Israel and 

Australia found that the inaccessibility of toilets and bathrooms resides among the greatest 
barriers2 3 4 5.  

Specialised tour operators confirm toilets and bathrooms as representing a major obstacle6. As 

these studies derive from a non-European context, it is essential to examine this assumption by 

investigating whether toilets represent the barrier which causes the greatest dissatisfaction among 

individuals with access needs for the European context. As such, the second hypothesis for the 

accommodation sector is as follows: 

H30: Among the physical access barriers encountered in the accommodation sector, people with 

access needs are least satisfied with toilets. 

The hypothesis testing procedure for H29 (in the accommodation sector, physical access barriers, 

particularly related to toilets and the mobility within rooms, are more important than attitudinal 

barriers, such as how tourists with access needs are treated by service staff) revealed that H29 is 

partially supported for the European context. Physical access barriers are perceived as being 

equally as important as attitudinal barriers in the accommodation sector for all groups of individuals 

with access needs (Figure 177), with the exception of one destination country (discussed further 

below).  

1 Presidenxa del Consiglio dei Ministri (2013). Accessibile è meglio: Primo Libro Bianco sul Turismo per Tutti in 
Italia 2013. Comitato per la Promozione e il Sostegno del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unifg.it/dwn/ateneo/sportello_west/accessibile_libro_bianco.pdf  
2Turco, D.M., Stumbo, N.J., & Garncarz, J. (1998). Tourism Constraints for People with Disabilities. Parks and 
Recreations, 33, 78-84. 
3Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of hotel experiences of people with disabilities: An 
exploratory study, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5):571-591. 
4Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised Participation: Physical Disability, High Support Needs and Tourism. Journal of 
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72. 
5 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
6 Wright, A. (2012). Tour Operating for the less mobile traveller. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) 
Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 195-206). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

350 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
The result that respondents of the survey stated that physical access barriers are equally as 

important as attitudinal barriers in the accommodation sector contradicts research findings from the 
United States1 and China2. It also stands in contrast to other studies. For example, particularly for 

visually restricted people, it has been reported that physical access barriers, such as navigating 

through areas with steps, are less important when compared to attitudinal or emotional aspects of 
the service3. Yet, the equal importance afforded to attitudinal barriers highlights the crucial role of 

well-trained personnel, since positive attitudes and professionalism in the accommodation sector 
contribute greatly to the satisfaction of visitors with access needs4. A French report goes even 

further by arguing that accommodation establishments should be in the position of offering 
‘companionship services’ as people with access needs often feel isolated when holidaying5. 

1 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Bi, Y., Card, J.A., & Cole, S.T. (2007) Accessibility and Attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese Travellers 
with Physical Disabilities, International Journal of Tourism Research, 9:205-216. 
3 Rolli, R. (2010). Tourism for all and people with visual impairment. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano per il Turismo per 
Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
4 Weiß, C., Adler, P., Grundner, M.R., Hirschmugl-Fuchs, M., Kirchsteiger, D., Marano, D., Petrovics, G., 
Pisecky, J., Strzalka, A., Wanecek, H., & Zimmer, C. (2011). Tourismus für alle - Barrierefreies Reisen - ein 
Leitfaden zum Umgang mit dem Gast. BMWFJ, Sektion Tourismus und Historische Objekte WKO, 
Bundessparte Tourismus und Freizeitwirtschaft. Available at: 
http://www.bmwfj.gv.at/Tourismus/TourismusstudienUndPublikationen/Documents/Leitfaden_umgang%20mit%
20dem%20Gast%20MINIMIERT.pdf  
5 Rigalleau, R. (2001). Incitation au départ en vacances des non-partants. Conseil National du Tourisme, 
Commission Droit aux vacances. Available at: http://www.vacances-
ouvertes.asso.fr/publications/cnt/cnt2001.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

351 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 177 – H29 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Physical access barriers versus 
attitudinal barriers by type of access need 

Type of 

Hypothesis 

Importance 

Importance 

More important 

access need 

supported 

score - Physical 

score - 

barrier 

access barriers 

Attitudinal 

barriers 

Mobility 

Senses 

No 

No 

Communication  No 

Behaviour 

Hidden 

limitations 

No 

No 

4.16 

4.11 

4.16 

4.13 

4.14 

4.17 

4.16 

4.17 

4.13 

4.17 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Only one destination country (Sweden) was identified where physical access barriers are considered 

more important than attitudinal barriers (Figure 178). Possible explanations for this are provided by 

Müller (2012). First, there is a widespread willingness in Sweden ‘to do what is possible in order to 

welcome customers with special needs’ (p.159), highlighting the emphasis placed on attitudinal 

aspects. Second, many Swedish regions run training and awareness courses to be able to 

constantly improve customer services and change attitudes. These training courses employ a role 
play technique of learning and understanding1. Further, it is argued that in Sweden many service 

operators are not driven by market principles but rather respond to national policies and laws before 

making changes to their establishments – and even then these changes include only what is 
absolutely necessary2.  

These arguments provide a justification why Sweden can be seen as an example where many 

efforts are in place to eliminate attitudinal barriers. Yet, physical barriers are still apparent as 

1 Müller, L. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Sweden: Experiences, Stakeholders, Marketing. IN D. Buhalis, S. 
Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and 
Tourism, (pp. 157-167). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Turism för Alla, European Union & Växtkraft 3 (no date) Att resa utan hinder - Slutrapport från ett 
utvecklingsprojekt: 2003 - 2006. Available at: 
http://www.skane.se/upload/Webbplatser/Naringsliv/Dokument/AttResaUtanHinder.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

352 

 
 
 
                                                      
perceived by the respondents of the survey, potentially also due to the fact that Sweden is a key 

destination for nature-based activities and attractions which entail greater barriers compared to other 

activities and attractions (see section 5.2.2.6 – barriers in the attraction sector).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

353 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 178 – H29 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Physical access barriers versus 
attitudinal barriers by destination 

Destination 

Hypothesi

Importance 

Importance 

More important 

s 

score - Physical 

score - 

barrier 

supported 

access barriers 

Attitudinal 

barriers 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Sweden 

Yes 

The 

Netherlands 

United 

Kingdom 

No 

No 

3.97 

4.05 

4.10 

4.01 

4.02 

4.02 

4.13 

4.18 

4.39 

4.30 

3.96 

4.07 

4.30 

3.98 

4.08 

4.02 

4.09 

3.91 

4.43 

4.36 

4.18 

4.33 

4.13 

4.05 

4.19 

3.89 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Equally important 

Attitudinal barriers 

Physical access 

barriers 

3.95 

4.15 

Equally important 

4.11 

4.04 

Equally important 

For all other destination countries, travellers place an equal importance on both physical access and 

positive attitudes. It is anticipated that for some countries, overcoming both types of barriers might 

represent a problem. For example, in Poland and Slovenia and specific to the removal of attitudinal 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

354 

 
 
 
 
barriers, staff competences are rather weak and participation levels in training courses for the 

industry are still relatively low. This is mainly due to two reasons. First, there is limited supply of 
training courses and second, the demand for accessibility training is still very low1.  

While respondents rate physical access and attitudes as equally important, it is still essential to 

identify the specific physical access barriers that cause the greatest dissatisfaction, leading to the 

presentation of the results of the hypothesis testing for H30 (among the physical access barriers 

encountered in the accommodation sector, people with access needs are least satisfied with 

toilets). The hypothesis H30 is partially supported. People with access needs are least satisfied with 

toilets among all physical access barriers encountered in the accommodation sector. This supports a 

study from Austria, pointing out that the lack of accessible bathrooms and toilets represent the 

greatest barriers for people with mobility difficulties, including the elderly population in the 
accommodation sector2.  

Yet, in order to reach a more nuanced understanding, the current study shows that individuals with 

behavioural restrictions rank toilets as equal when compared to other physical access elements 

(Figure 179). In this context, it can be argued that this is mainly due to the nature of behavioural 

limitations as learning disabilities and/ or emotional and mental problems do not interfere with the 

ability to use bathrooms. Thus, people with behavioural restrictions face different sets of barriers. 

This has been identified by UNAPEI, a specialised organisation in France, which has subsequently 

outlined how the existing barriers for people with behavioural problems can be addressed by 
developing a special access guide for this group3.       

1 MIT! – Make It Accessible (no date).WP3 Report on Research & Exploitation – Learning about MIT! Target 
Groups. Available at: http://www.mit-
makeitaccessible.eu/MIT%20WP3%20Report%20on%20Research%20&%20Exploitation.pdf  
2 Hitsch, W. (2005) Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
3 UNAPEI (Union National des Associations de Parents, de Personnes Handicapées Mentales et de leurs Amis) 
(2009). Guide pratique de l'accessibilité - Pour vous accompagner dans vos démarches en matière 
d'accessibilité en faveur des personnes en situation de handicap mental. UNAPEI. Available at: 
http://www.unapei.org/IMG/pdf/GuidePratiqueAccessibilite.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

355 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 179 – H30 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Satisfaction with toilets by type of access 
need 

Type of 

Hypothesi

Satisfactio

Satisfaction score - 

People are least 

access need 

s 

n score - 

Accommodation 

satisfied with 

supported 

Toilets 

availability and 

accessibility 

Mobility 

Senses 

Yes 

Yes 

Communicatio

Yes 

n 

Behaviour 

No 

Hidden 

Yes 

limitations 

4.28 

4.27 

4.25 

4.28 

4.32 

4.37 

4.35 

4.32 

4.31 

4.37 

Toilets 

Toilets 

Toilets 

Equally satisfied 

Toilets 

While previous studies based on qualitative research identified that inaccessible toilets represent the 
greatest barrier in the United States, Israel and Australia1 2 3, the data collected for this study also 

provides a more comprehensive understanding for different European destinations. It was found that 

respondents visiting France were least satisfied with toilets in their accommodation establishments 

(Figure 180). This provides valuable guidance for France, as a major and important tourist 

destination in Europe, to prioritise its efforts in making its offering, particularly related to toilets and 

bathrooms in the accommodation sector, more accessible.  

Figure 180 – H30 Barriers: Accommodation sector: Satisfaction with toilets by destination 

1Turco, D.M., Stumbo, N.J., & Garncarz, J. (1998). Tourism Constraints for People with Disabilities. Parks and 
Recreations, 33, 78-84. 
2Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of hotel experiences of people with disabilities: An 
exploratory study, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5):571-591. 
3Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised Participation: Physical Disability, High Support Needs and Tourism. Journal of 
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

356 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Destination  Hypothesi

Satisfactio

Satisfaction score - 

People are least 

s 

n score - 

Accommodation 

satisfied with 

supported 

Toilets 

availability and 

accessibility 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

No 

No 

No 

France 

Yes 

Germany 

No 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

No 

No 

No 

Lithuania 

No 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

The 

Netherlands 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

4.17 

3.85 

4.30 

4.12 

4.44 

4.39 

4.47 

4.32 

4.63 

4.31 

4.11 

4.24 

4.37 

4.29 

4.07 

3.97 

4.36 

4.38 

4.38 

4.48 

4.51 

4.32 

4.67 

4.36 

4.20 

4.33 

4.42 

4.25 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Toilets 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

Equally satisfied 

United 

No 

4.64 

4.61 

Equally satisfied 

Kingdom 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

357 

 
 
 
 
5.2.2.5  Barriers encountered in the catering/ gastronomy/ food & beverage sector 

Overall, very limited research has been conducted that investigates the barriers encountered by 

people with access needs in the food and beverage sector. The few existing studies report that the 
accessibility of gastronomic organisations is regarded as highly problematic1. For example, it was 

reported that many catering establishments in Greece are promoted as accessible while in reality 
they are not2. In addition, discrimination by restaurants providers plays a crucial role in the debate on 
barriers in this sector3, apart from the existence of physical access barriers.  

Particularly, in the United States, physical access barriers represent a major concern. These include 

the lack of room between tables (stated by 40% of respondents), doors being too heavy to open 

(stated by 33% of respondents) and steps at the entrance or in the restaurant (stated by 28% of 
respondents)4. By investigating individuals with different access needs, the following specific barriers 

can be summarised (Figure 181): 

1 Hitsch, W. (2005). Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
2 MIT! – Make It Accessible (no date).WP3 Report on Research & Exploitation – Learning about MIT! Target 
Groups. Available at: http://www.mit-
makeitaccessible.eu/MIT%20WP3%20Report%20on%20Research%20&%20Exploitation.pdf  
3 EDF - European Disability Forum (2001). EDF Position Paper: Framing the Future of European Tourism, Doc. 
EDF 01/13 EN, (pp. 1-10). London, European Disability Forum. 
4 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

358 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 181 – Barriers experienced in the Food and Beverage Sector1 2 

By assessing the overall scope of barriers based on quantitative findings from the United States3 4, it 

is assumed that the food and beverage sector causes the greatest amount of barriers to 

people with access needs. In order to test this assumption for the European context, the 

hypothesis is:   

H31: The barriers faced by people with access needs in the food & beverage sector are encountered 

most often compared to other sectors. 

The analysis showed that H31 is not supported. Respondents did not encounter barriers most often 

in the food and beverage sector. Hence, findings from a European context differ from studies 

1Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of hotel experiences of people with disabilities: An 
exploratory study, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5):571-591. 
2 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
3Takeda, K., & Card, J.A. (2002). U.S. Tour Operators and Travel Agencies: Barriers Encountered When 
Providing Package Tours to People Who Have Difficulty Walking. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 12, 
47-61. 
4Card, J. A., Cole, S. T., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006). A Comparison of the Accessibility and Attitudinal Barriers 
Model: Travel Providers and Travelers with Physical Disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 
161-175. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

359 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
conducted in United States1 2 as for the US it has been reported that most barriers are encountered 

in the food and beverage sector whereas this is not the case for Europe. Instead barriers are faced 

by people with access needs in the transport (at destination) sector most often compared to other 

sectors, particularly for individuals with mobility, sensory, behavioural and hidden difficulties (Figure 

182).  

Figure 182 – H31 Barriers: Food & Beverage sector compared to other sectors by type of 
access need 

Type of access need  Hypothesis 

Sector with most barriers 

Barriers 

supported 

experienced 

Mobility 

Senses 

No 

Transport at destination 

12.6% 

Partially* 

Transport at destination 

12.1% 

Communication 

Partially* 

Transit 

13.4% 

Behaviour 

No 

Transport at destination 

13.3% 

Hidden limitations 

Partially* 

Transport at destination 

12.0% 

Note:   * Barriers in the food & beverage sector are encountered significantly more often than in the 

accommodation sector. See Annex O for details. 

For people with communication difficulties barriers are encountered most often in the transit sector. 

Hence, for no single group of people with access needs is the food and beverage sector the most 

problematic. Yet, for individuals with sensory, communication and hidden limitations, barriers in the 

food & beverage sector are encountered significantly more often than in the accommodation sector. 

After investigating different geographical regions, the study found that the food and beverage sector 

is not the sector where survey participants encountered barriers most often (Figure 183). These 

1Takeda, K., & Card, J.A. (2002) U.S. Tour Operators and Travel Agencies: Barriers Encountered When 
Providing Package Tours to People Who Have Difficulty Walking. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 12, 
47-61. 
2Card, J. A., Cole, S. T., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006) A Comparison of the Accessibility and Attitudinal Barriers 
Model: Travel Providers and Travelers with Physical Disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 
161-175. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

360 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
findings are in line with a report from Spain, highlighting that only 22% of people with access needs 
had indicated that restaurants have little or no accessibility1.  

Figure 183 – H31 Barriers: Food & Beverage sector compared to other sectors by destination 

Destination 

Hypothesis 

Sector with most barriers 

Barriers 

supported 

experienced 

Belgium 

Partially* 

Food and beverage 

12.5% 

Bulgaria 

Partially* 

Information 

18.9% 

Croatia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Attractions/Activities 

8.4% 

Transport at destination 

15.4% 

Transport at destination; 

10.9% 

Accommodation 

Attractions/Activities 

14.9% 

Accommodation 

16.0% 

Attractions/Activities 

11.5% 

Transit; 

10.9% 

Transport at destination 

Attractions/Activities 

13.2% 

Transport at destination 

8.1% 

Transport at destination 

12.4% 

1 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

361 

 
 
 
                                                      
Sweden 

Partially* 

Food and beverage 

10.3% 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

No 

No 

Accommodation 

Accommodation 

9.2% 

9.4% 

Note:   * Barriers in the food & beverage sector are not always encountered significantly more often 

than in other sectors.  

See Annex O for details. 

For Belgium and Sweden, most barriers are encountered in the food and beverage sector, yet the 

results show that they are not experienced significantly more often than in other sectors, except in 

the accommodation sector in Belgium and in attractions in Sweden. The same can be argued for 

Bulgaria as most barriers are faced in the pre-travel stage. Respondents who visited Bulgaria 

experienced more barriers in the food and beverage sector than in the attractions sector, but again 

the percentage is not different enough from other sectors to support the hypothesis (Annex O). 

5.2.2.6  Barriers encountered with attractions/ activities 

It is often reported that the attractions/ activities sector remains inaccessible due to a number of 
environmental and architectural barriers1. For example, studies call for the elimination of 
architectural barriers in places of cultural interest2 3. Museums and galleries count as sites of cultural 

interest and the emphasis of the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries in the UK is placed on 
removing barriers, which are physical and sensory, intellectual, cultural, attitudinal and financial4. 

Further, museum operators need to find a balance between providing access for people with 

different requirements while at the same time ensuring the conservation of historical and artistic 

1Turco, D.M., Stumbo, N.J., & Garncarz, J. (1998). Tourism Constraints for People with Disabilities. Parks and 
Recreations, 33, 78-84. 
2 Cirelli, C. (2011). Turismo Urbano e Disabilità. Available at: http://www.siciliaccessibile.it/wp-
content/uploads/paper-turismo-urbano-disabilit%C3%A0-caterina-cirelli.pdf  
3 National Disability Authority (NDA) (2012). Access - Improving the Accessibility of Historic Buildings and 
Places. Government of Ireland. Available at: 
http://www.nda.ie/website/nda/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/911AA8C52EA2A0D98025798700303E93/$File/Access_Impr
oving_accessibility_Historic_Buildings_and_Places.pdf  
4 The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries (2001). Disability Directory for Museums and Galleries. 
London, UK. Available at: http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/uk_museumsand-
galleries_disability_directory_pdf_6877.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

362 

 
 
 
                                                      
heritage1. The same challenge has been reported by the National Disability Authority in Ireland when 
examining ways of improving access to historic buildings and places2.  

Particularly related to the context of historic environments/ attractions in the United Kingdom, main 

barriers are summarised in Figure 184. 

Figure 184 – Main barriers encountered when visiting historic attractions3 

Main general barriers 

Informational barriers 

Lack of accurate and comprehensive information 

Design barriers 

Exclusionary design of signage, notices, display boards, announcements 

and alarm systems which triggers communication difficulties for people 

with sensory or learning difficulties 

Lack of awareness of 

Lack of awareness of the different needs of people with a disability  

service providers 

Attitudinal barriers 

Negative attitudes of managers and staff 

Intrinsic/ personal 

Low aspirations/ expectations which triggers the loss of dignity and 

barriers 

independence 

Investigating the specific barriers of people with different access needs, a more nuanced 

understanding can be achieved (Figure 185). 

Figure 185 – Main barriers encountered when visiting historic attractions and outdoor 
attractions (Australia)4 

1 Mengardo, G. (2012). Turismo Accessibile a Venezia. Un' "isola dell'accessibilità" attorno ai Musei Civici per 
una cultura senza barrier. Università Ca’Foscari Venezia, Venice, Italy. Available at: 
http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/2057  
2 National Disability Authority (NDA) (2012). Access - Improving the Accessibility of Historic Buildings and 
Places. Government of Ireland. Available at: 
http://www.nda.ie/website/nda/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/911AA8C52EA2A0D98025798700303E93/$File/Access_Impr
oving_accessibility_Historic_Buildings_and_Places.pdf  
3 Goodall, B., Pottinger, G., Dixon, T., & Russell, H. (2005). Access to Historic Environments for Tourists with 
Disabilities: A Compromise? Tourism Review International, 8, 177-194. 
4Muloin, S. (1992). Wilderness Access for Persons with a Disability. IN Harper, G. & Weiler, B. (Eds.) 
Ecotourism, (pp. 20-25). Canberra, Australian Bureau of Research. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

363 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Main general barriers 

Barriers faced by mobility-

Barriers faced by sight-

impaired people 

impaired people 

Informational barriers: Lack of accurate 

and comprehensive information 

Informational barriers: 

Lack of printed material in 

large print  

Design barriers: Exclusionary design of 

Design barriers: 

Design barriers: limited 

signage, notices, display boards, 

inaccessible public 

possibilities to feel exhibits  

announcements and alarm systems 

washrooms and BBQ 

which triggers communication difficulties 

facilities  

for people with sensory or learning 

difficulties 

Picnic tables not useable  

Lack of awareness of the different needs 

of people with a disability  

Attitudinal barriers: Negative attitudes of 

managers and staff 

Intrinsic/ personal barriers: Low 

aspirations/ expectations which triggers 

the loss of dignity and independence 

Attitudinal barriers: 

Interaction with and 

attitudes of other visitors 

and condescending 

attitudes by service 

personnel  

Specific to the European context, studies from Denmark report that advancements were made in 

removing physical access obstacles by installing ramps with illuminated directional guidance, 

positioning textual information about exhibits at an accessible height, integrating touch-screen 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

364 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
displays and providing text in large print. Yet, it has equally shown that outdoor settings are still 
inadequately designed with regard to access and use1 2.  

Numerous studies report that many outdoor settings, such as parks in general or national parks in 

particular are still not accessible, causing numerous barriers to people with different access needs 
when wanting to access these natural attractions or activities3 4 5. For example, it is argued that the 

accessibility of national parks is quite poor in Spain and much remains to be done to ensure equal 

access to facilities, activities and programs offering positive experiences in protected natural areas 
to people with access needs6. Similar results were reported in Italy, as mountain areas are often 
difficult to access for people with mobility restrictions7 8. In fact, mountainous areas are said to 

represent the least accessible attractions as only 1.9% of respondents of a study in Spain found 
these to be accessible (33.2%)9.  

Barriers to the enjoyment of nature-based activities and attractions such as parks, national parks 

and other protected natural areas need to be reduced as studies illustrate that, for example, 

Germany’s elderly travellers show high preferences and motivation to experience nature-based 
activities and attractions10.  

1 Jensen, P.H. (2008). Merging Architecture and Accessibility, IN: Ethical – Barrier-Free Tourism. Available at: 
www.tourism-review/com/fm485.org/ethical-barrier-free-tourism.pdf   
2 Jensen, P.H. (2007). Merging architecture and accessibility. Ordrupgaards and the Danish Jewish Museum. 
Access by Design, Issue 112. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/jensen_2007__merging_architecture_and_accessibility-1.pdf 
3 Kreiter, J.N. (2010). A holiday for all from the perspective of a tourist with disabilities. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano 
per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
4 Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (no date). Decálogo de Buenas Prácticas en Accesibilidad 
Turística - Destinos y Recursos Culturales y Naturales. Available at: 
http://www.planaccesibilidadturistica.es/UserFiles/publicaciones/ficheros/Decalogo_de_Buenas_Practica_2.pdf  
5 Marcos Pérez, D. & González Velasco, D.J. (2003). Turismo Accesible - Hacia un Turismo Para Todos. 
Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad – CERMI. Available at: 
http://www.planaccesibilidadturistica.es/UserFiles/publicaciones/ficheros/Turismo_Accesible.pdf  
6 Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (2008). El mercado potencial del turismo accesible para el sector 
turístico español. Available at: 
http://www.planaccesibilidadturistica.es/UserFiles/publicaciones/ficheros/Mercado_Potencial_Turismo_Accesibl
e.pdf  
7 Cosentino, M. (2010). Accessible tourism in mountain areas: tourism for all in a hostile environment. IN IsITT – 
Istituto Italiano per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
8 Martin, G. (2010). The ideal winter resort: professionalism and organisational skills in the service of tourism. IN 
IsITT – Istituto Italiano per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. 
Available at: http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
9 Huesca González, A.Mª. & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  
10 Lohmann, M. & Grimm, B. (2011). Urlaubsreisen und –motive der Altergruppe 50plus: Daten und Trends IN 
RKW Kompetenzzentrum (Ed.) Tourismus 50plus: Anforderungen erkennen – Wünsche erfüllen, (pp. 11-13). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

365 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
As part of the nature-based offering, beach holidays play a crucial role and are in high demand by 
seniors as reported by an Italian study1 or other European travellers with access needs such as 
Spaniards2. Yet, it is the beach offer that causes the greatest concern and complaints3. For example, 

investigating nature-based activities at the French Riviera, it was found that providers are making 

progress with regard to offering accessible products and services. Yet, this is a result of general 

willingness and pressure in terms of complying with the regulations. With the latter in mind, people 

with access needs are still not considered as ‘real’ customers which often leads to separating them 
from other tourists with the aim of upholding the image of a ‘perfect destination’4.  

The discussion above has highlighted that nature-based activities (e.g. recreation in mountainous 

areas or beach holidays) represent a very important element for people with access needs in the 

attraction sector. Yet, it was equally highlighted that these activities are accompanied by the 

most barriers. Thus, it is important to better understand this barrier for Europe as a whole, moving 

away from individual national studies. In addition, greater levels of detail are required with regard to 

frequency calculations of barriers with nature-based activities and attractions. Thus, the hypothesis 

can hence be summarised as:  

H32: In the attraction sector, people with access needs experienced most frequently barriers with 

nature based activities or attractions.  

After the hypothesis testing, H32 is partially supported. People with access needs experienced most 

frequently barriers with nature based activities or attractions. Yet, for people with sensory and 

behavioural impairments, both nature and shopping opportunities are the equally important barriers 

in the attractions/activities sector (Figure 186). This coincides with a study investigating if Italy is an 

Available at: http://www.dehoga-
bundesverband.de/fileadmin/Inhaltsbilder/Publikationen/WifA_Tourismus_www.pdf  
1 Monti, M. (2010). Tourism for Senior citizens: needs and good practice. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano per il 
Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
2 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  
3 Hitsch, W. (2005). Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
4 Christofle, S., & Massiera, B. (2009). Tourist Facilities for Disabled People on the French Riviera: A Strategic 
Model of the Controversial Plans to Develop the Seafront Areas, Journal of Coastal Conservation, 13(2/3):97-
107. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

366 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                   
accessible destination. While not specifying the type of restriction, it was found that shopping malls 
and mountainous areas often pose the greatest difficulties to people with access needs1.  

Figure 186 – H32 Barriers: Attraction sector: Nature-based activities by type of access need 

Type of access 

Hypothesis 

Most important barrier 

need 

supported 

Barrier 

experienced 

Mobility 

Yes 

Nature 

Senses 

Partially* 

Nature 

Communication 

Yes 

Nature 

Behaviour 

Partially* 

Nature 

Hidden limitations 

Yes 

Nature 

15.6% 

14.5% 

17.1% 

15.5% 

14.5% 

Note:   * Nature is not always statistically more important than other barriers. See Annex O for 

details. 

Although not always statistically significant, nature based activities or attractions are the most 

important barriers at 10 out of 15 destinations. Greece, Poland and Ireland are the top three 

destinations where people experienced most frequently barriers with nature based activities or 

attractions (Figure 187). 

Figure 187 – H32 Barriers: Attraction sector: Nature-based activities by destination 

Destination 

Hypothesis 

Most important barrier 

supported 

No* 

Shopping opportunities 

Partially** 

Shopping opportunities 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Barrier 

experienced 

16.7% 

16.8% 

Partially** 

Accessible sport or leisure equipment or 

15.2% 

service 

1 Tournour-Viron, P. (2010). Is Italy an accessible destination? The opinion of foreign tour operators, 
suggestions to increase the flows according to the data from TTG Italy Observatory. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano 
per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

367 

 
 
 
                                                      
Destination 

Hypothesis 

Most important barrier 

supported 

Barrier 

experienced 

France 

Partially** 

Nature 

Germany 

Partially** 

Nature 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Partially** 

Nature 

Partially** 

Nature 

Partially** 

Nature 

Lithuania 

Partially** 

Nature; 

Accessible locations; 

Accessible shops or shopping services 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Yes 

No* 

Nature 

Accessible locations; 

13.6% 

18.8% 

26.1% 

22.6% 

15.5% 

13.0% 

23.1% 

8.1% 

Spain 

No* 

Excursion activities available at destination 

10.4% 

Accessible shops or shopping services 

Sweden 

Partially** 

Nature 

The Netherlands 

Partially** 

Nature 

United Kingdom 

Partially** 

Nature 

11.0% 

12.3% 

12.5% 

Note:   * The listed barrier is not statistically more important than any other barriers; 

** Nature is statistically more important than certain other barriers. See Annex O for details. 

This is supported by reports from Greece, highlighting that while some nature-based activities (e.g. 

beaches) offer accessible features, the situation does not apply to the majority of areas where 
nature-based beach activities can be enjoyed1. Yet, improving access to nature-based activities is 

not impossible as shown by the city of Arona (Spain), acting as a best practice case for nature-

1 Voulgaropoulos, N., Strati, E., & Fyka, G. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Greece: Beaches and Bathing for All. 
IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing 
Population and Tourism, (pp. 55-64). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

368 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
based beach activities as numerous obstacles have been removed to allow for the enjoyment of 
beaches by all users1.  Similar examples can be found in Germany, where not only barriers were 

removed but solutions found to enable greater independence, for example by providing a well-
designed vehicle (Mobile Strand- und Badeinsel) to move around and to enter the water2.  

Nature based activities or attractions also include the enjoyment of national parks and a pre-

requisite for overcoming barriers is a thorough understanding of all different requirements as well as 

the incorporation of people with access needs in all aspects of planning, implementation and 
operation3. Portugal has shown that successfully reducing the barriers in parks and nature reserves 

is possible when implementing principles of universal access to allow for the enjoyment of this part 
of the attraction sector4. Further, Greenways are said to provide the most inclusive access to natural 

areas. Greenways are characterised by being among the few nature routes which are accessible to 

all people with access needs. Due to the importance of Greenways, they have been incorporated 

into the grant programme of the European General Directorate of Tourism (2011) in recognition of 

their great potential and value for the development of sustainable tourism development in Europe. 

Among the most important benefits of Greenways is the higher level of safety due to their separation 

from roads. Yet, while Greenways are said to be fully accessible and safe, all destinations need to 

ensure that all elements of the tourism system contribute to or enhance the accessibility of 
Greenways. Particularly important in this context is transport to and from dedicated Greenways) 5.  

5.2.2.7  Barriers: cross-sector comparisons 

After discussing the results of the specific hypotheses for each individual tourism sector, this section 

introduces three main cross-sector hypotheses and their results. This is important as it permits a 

holistic overview of the relative importance of barriers encountered in each sector. These cross-

1 Hernández Galán, J. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Spain: Arona and Madrid. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. 
Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 
310-321). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Knigge, M. (2011). Mehr Gäste durch komfortables and attraktives Design, IN: RKW Kompetenzzentrum (Ed.) 
Gesund und sicher unterwegs - Konzepte und Marktchancen für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im 
Tourismus. Available at: http://www.rkw-
kompetenzzentrum.de/fileadmin/media/Dokumente/Publikationen/2011_LF_dfa-gesund-unterwegs.pdf  
3 Frank, G. (2011). Natur erlebbar machen – Rangertouren im Nationalpark Eifel, IN: RKW Kompetenzzentrum 
(Ed.) Gesund und sicher unterwegs - Konzepte und Marktchancen für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im 
Tourismus. Available at: http://www.rkw-
kompetenzzentrum.de/fileadmin/media/Dokumente/Publikationen/2011_LF_dfa-gesund-unterwegs.pdf  
4 Espírito Santo, R. (2009). Iniciativa Natureza para Todos: o acesso universal às áreas protegidas 
portuguesas, Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento N.º 11. 
5 Hernández Colorado, A., & Aycart Luengo, C. with the collaboration of Martínez Pastor, I. (2013). Guide to 
Best Practices and Recommendations for Accessible Greenways. Environmental Activities and Greenways 
Department (FFE). Available at: http://www.aevv-
egwa.org/SiteResources/data/MediaArchive/pdf/Greenways4tour/G4T_Guide%20to%20best%20practices%20f
or%20accesible%20Greeways.pdf 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

369 

 
 
 
                                                      
sector hypotheses derive from the qualitative and quantitative assessments of barriers faced by 

people with access needs reported within the individual sectors (sections 5.2.2.1 to 5.2.2.6). Reports 

and studies from both European and non-European countries have assisted in establishing these 

hypotheses.  

5.2.2.7.1  1st cross-sector hypothesis: Physical access versus attitudinal barriers across all 

sectors  

Almost throughout all sectors, the desk research highlighted the importance of investigating physical 

access barriers compared to attitudinal barriers. In analysing studies from non-European and 

European countries, contrasting evidence was found with regard to the extent of physical and 

attitudinal barriers across different tourism sectors.  

For example, when talking about the most positive holiday experience, Austrian travellers referred to 
positive attitudes and willingness to help1. Also Australian tourists with access needs highlighted 
knowledge and positive attitudes of others as key in reducing exclusion in the tourist experience2. 

Similar results were reported by a number of Italian studies. Overall, it was found that attitudinal 

barriers weigh higher compared to physical access barriers particularly with regard to how tour 
operators treat customers with access needs3. The main barriers often relate to information and 

reception (attitudinal perspective – 57%) compared to infrastructural barriers (physical access 
barriers – 43%) from a service provider perspective as well4 5. As a consequence, it is argued that 

not only physical access barriers need to be dismantled but also efforts need to be in place to 
improve staff qualification6. Yet, by comparing the perceptions of the population without immediately 

apparent access needs with people who do have explicit access needs, it was highlighted that the 

1 Hitsch, W. (2005). Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
2 STCRC (Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre) (2008). Accessible Tourism – Challenges and 
Opportunities. Understanding an evolving aspect of Australian tourism. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative 
Research Centre (STCRC), Queensland. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/crc_accessible_tourism_final_en.pdf  
3 Mengardo, G. (2012). Turismo Accessibile a Venezia. Un' "isola dell'accessibilità" attorno ai Musei Civici per 
una cultura senza barrier. Università Ca’Foscari Venezia, Venice, Italy. Available at: 
http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/2057  
4 SL & A: Turismo e Territorio (2008). Turismo Accessiblle in Italia: La Domanda e L’Offerta. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/access0_rapp_tur_acc.pdf  
5 Presidenxa del Consiglio dei Ministri (2013). Accessibile è meglio: Primo Libro Bianco sul Turismo per Tutti in 
Italia 2013. Comitato per la Promozione e il Sostegno del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unifg.it/dwn/ateneo/sportello_west/accessibile_libro_bianco.pdf  
6 Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Gioventù (no date). Turisti Senza Ostacoli – Indagine 
Sull’Evoluzione Della Domanda E Dell’Offerta del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unisa.it/uploads/2405/turisti_senza_ostacoli.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

370 

 
 
 
                                                      
physical environment represents a major barrier. 73.4% of people with a disability stated that 

physical access barriers represent the greatest obstacle compared to only 18% of the population 
without explicit access needs)1.  

In addition, by investigating the development of removing physical access barriers through the 

implementation of Universal Design criteria, it was revealed that progress is still limited in Greece 
with the biggest barrier referring to society’s attitude2, emphasising the importance of attitudinal 

barriers.  

Yet, in the United States, physical access barriers were encountered more often compared to 
attitudinal barriers and thus represent the bigger barriers3. This was supported by another US study. 

Based on quantitative findings (Figure 188), it was suggested that American people with access 

needs encounter more physical than attitudinal barriers in all four tourism sectors that were 
investigated (food & beverage, accommodation, attraction and transportation sector)4. 

Figure 188 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in different sectors (United 
States) 

Physical access barriers 

Attitudinal barriers  

Eat/ Drink 

83% 

Eat/ Drink 

66% 

Accommodation  

81% 

Accommodation  

65% 

Attractions  

78% 

Attractions  

56% 

Transportation  

67% 

Transportation  

55% 

1 Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Gioventù (no date). Turisti Senza Ostacoli – Indagine 
Sull’Evoluzione Della Domanda E Dell’Offerta del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unisa.it/uploads/2405/turisti_senza_ostacoli.pdf  
2 Vozikis, K.T. (2009). Are there accessible environments in Athens, Greece today? WSEAS Transactions on 
Environment and Development, Vol. 5 (7):488-497. Available at: http://www.wseas.us/e-
library/transactions/environment/2009/29-523.pdf     
3 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
4Card, J. A., Cole, S. T., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006). A Comparison of the Accessibility and Attitudinal Barriers 
Model: Travel Providers and Travelers with Physical Disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 
161-175. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

371 

 
 
 
                                                      
Similar results were obtained from a study in China (Figure 189) stating that people with access 
needs experience more physical access barriers than attitudinal barriers across four sectors1.  

Figure 189 – Physical access and attitudinal barriers encountered in different sectors (China) 

Physical access barriers 

Attitudinal barriers  

Transportation  

3.07 

Transportation  

2.44 

Accommodation  

2.80 

Accommodation  

2.21 

Eat/ Drink 

Attractions 

2.89 

3.41 

Eat/ Drink 

Attractions 

2.27 

2.65 

Note:  The numbers in the table refer to the means of physical and attitudinal barrier levels, based 

on a 1 to 5 measurement scale, where 1 means few and 5 means many. 

Given these contrasting opinions with regard to physical access barriers versus attitudinal 

barriers, there is a need to examine the situation for the European context, investigating which 

overall category of barriers (physical access barriers or attitudinal barriers) are experienced most 

often across the six main sectors (pre-travel/ information gathering stage, transit/ transportation, 

transport at the destination and access paths, accommodation sector, food and beverage as well as 

the attraction sector). Thus, the hypothesis is: 

H33: Across all sectors, physical access barriers are encountered more often than attitudinal 

barriers. 

 The statistical analysis for this hypothesis revealed that H33 is not supported with the exception of 

one destination country (which is discussed below in further detail). Attitudinal barriers are 

encountered more often than physical access barriers by comparing the perceptions of individuals 

with different types of access needs (Figure 190).  

Figure 190 – H33 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Physical access vs. attitudinal barriers 
by type of access need 

1 Bi, Y., Card, J.A., & Cole, S.T. (2007) Accessibility and Attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese Travellers 
with Physical Disabilities, International Journal of Tourism Research, 9:205-216. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

372 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Type of access need 

Hypothesis supported  More important barriers  Barriers experienced 

Mobility 

Senses 

Communication 

Behaviour 

Hidden 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Attitudinal barriers 

14.8% 

Attitudinal barriers 

14.5% 

Attitudinal barriers 

15.7% 

Attitudinal barriers 

15.5% 

Attitudinal barriers 

13.4% 

By investing destination-specific differences, only Spain was identified as the country supporting the 

hypothesis. This means that visitors to Spain encounter more physical access barriers compared to 

attitudinal barriers. Yet, in most other cases, attitudinal barriers are encountered more often than 

physical access barriers (Figure 191). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

373 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 191 – H33 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Physical access vs. attitudinal barriers 
by destination 

Destination 

Hypothesis supported  More important 

Barriers experienced 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

France 

No 

No 

No 

No 

barriers 

Attitudinal barriers 

16.7% 

Attitudinal barriers 

20.0% 

Attitudinal barriers 

23.9% 

Attitudinal barriers 

16.0% 

Germany 

No* 

Physical access 

10.3% 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

No 

No 

No 

No* 

No 

No 

Yes 

No* 

No 

No 

barriers 

Attitudinal barriers 

17.4% 

Attitudinal barriers 

20.8% 

Attitudinal barriers 

15.5% 

Attitudinal barriers 

8.7% 

Attitudinal barriers 

18.2% 

Attitudinal barriers 

13.5% 

Physical access 

8.9% 

barriers 

Attitudinal barriers 

8.2% 

Attitudinal barriers 

13.8% 

Attitudinal barriers 

9.4% 

Note:   * The encounter frequencies of attitudinal barriers and physical barriers are not significantly 

different. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

374 

 
 
 
 
While reports from Spain underline that people with access needs were not treated adequately and 
with limited respect1 2, the findings from this current study draw attention to the need to focus on the 

removal of physical access barriers alongside changing attitudes of service providers.  

In addition to investigating the relative importance of physical access barriers versus attitudinal 

barriers, it is also important to gain a more in-depth understanding of the frequency of barriers 

across all sectors, which is discussed next.  

5.2.2.7.2  2nd cross-sector hypothesis: Frequency of barriers across all sectors  

In order to be able to develop initiatives and set-up policies to reduce barriers in the tourism industry, 

it is essential to identify the sector where most barriers are experienced by people with access 

needs.  

In this context, the desk research assisted in providing a preliminary overview of the frequency of 

barriers encountered in different countries and regions in and outside Europe.  

Outside Europe, investigating the relative importance of barriers, it was found that in the United 

States, mobility-restricted individuals ranked the barriers encountered at the hotel bar, in eating/ and 

drinking establishments and at bus/ coach stations as the top three sectors where most barriers are 
experienced3 (Figure 192). 

1 Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (no date). Decálogo de Buenas Prácticas en Accesibilidad 
Turística - Destinos y Recursos Culturales y Naturales. Available at: 
http://www.planaccesibilidadturistica.es/UserFiles/publicaciones/ficheros/Decalogo_de_Buenas_Practica_2.pdf  
2 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  
3 Takeda, K., & Card, J.A. (2002). U.S. Tour Operators and Travel Agencies: Barriers Encountered When 
Providing Package Tours to People Who Have Difficulty Walking. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 12, 
47-61. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

375 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 192 – Frequency of barriers encountered in different sectors (United States I) 

Tourism Sectors 

Hotel Bar  

Eating/ Drinking Establishments  

Bus/ Coach station  

Accommodation (Hotels & Motels) 

Ship/ Port 

Train/ Train Station  

80.8% 

80.6% 

80% 

75.8% 

69.2% 

69.2% 

Concurring with another study from the US, the food and beverage sector is highlighted as the 
sector which entails the most barriers for people with access needs (Figure 193)1. Here, food and 

beverage establishments do not only represent the most problematic sector overall but also when 

comparing physical access barriers and attitudinal barriers.  

Figure 193 – Frequency of barriers encountered in different sectors (United States II) 

Physical access barriers 

Attitudinal barriers  

Eat/ Drink 

83% 

Eat/ Drink 

66% 

Accommodation  

81% 

Accommodation  

65% 

Attractions  

78% 

Attractions  

56% 

Transportation  

67% 

Transportation  

55% 

1 Card, J. A., Cole, S. T., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006) A Comparison of the Accessibility and Attitudinal Barriers 
Model: Travel Providers and Travelers with Physical Disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 
161-175. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

376 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Yet, in contrast to the American studies discussed above, research conducted in China revealed that 

people with access needs encounter most barriers in the attraction sector. This result is also 
consistent when comparing physical access barriers and attitudinal barriers (Figure 194)1. 

Figure 194 – Frequency of barriers encountered in different sectors (China) 

Physical access barriers 

Attitudinal barriers  

Transportation  

3.07 

Transportation  

2.44 

Accommodation  

2.80 

Accommodation  

2.21 

Eat/ Drink 

Attractions 

2.89 

3.41 

Eat/ Drink 

Attractions 

2.27 

2.65 

Note:   The numbers in the table refer to the means of physical and attitudinal barrier levels, based 

on a 1 to 5 measurement scale, where 1 means few and 5 means many. 

Summarising the discussion above, it can be stated that sectors where most barriers are 

encountered vary according to different geographical contexts. In order to provide a comprehensive 

analysis for the European situation, the following hypothesis is established to offer insights into 

different levels of frequency of barriers experienced in different tourism sectors: 

H34: People with access needs encounter different levels of frequency of barriers across key 

tourism sectors (accommodation, food and beverage, attractions and transportation). 

 After finalising the statistical testing, H34 is supported. People with access needs encounter 

different levels of frequency of barriers across key tourism sectors. Barriers experienced in the 

transport (at the destination) stage are encountered more often compared to other sectors, 

particularly for individuals with mobility, sensory, behavioural and hidden limitations (Figure 195). 

This is supported by an Italian study reporting that the main barriers can be found in transport-
related sectors2. Particularly the distances between service offerings including access to 

transportation heavily reduce the possibilities for all citizens and the autonomy of people with special 

1 Bi, Y., Card, J.A., & Cole, S.T. (2007). Accessibility and Attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese Travellers 
with Physical Disabilities, International Journal of Tourism Research, 9:205-216. 
2 Tournour-Viron, P. (2010). Is Italy an accessible destination? The opinion of foreign tour operators, 
suggestions to increase the flows according to the data from TTG Italy Observatory. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano 
per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

377 

 
 
 
                                                      
access needs1. This means that a failure to ensure accessible transport and access paths at the 

destination leads to the exclusion of people with access needs. It is thus not only necessary that 

hotels and attractions are accessible as attention also needs to be paid to the links between these 

service offerings regardless of the distance between different establishments. As transport is a major 
facilitator of social participation2, barriers inherent in this sector have to be addressed in the short-

term.  

Yet in contrast, for people with communication impairments, transit is the stage where they face the 

most barriers. This might be attributable to the lack of alternative means of communication tools and 

devices (e.g. in airports, rail or coach stations) and/ or the information provided by organisations in 

the transit stage being perceived as too complex.  

Figure 195 – H34 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Frequency of barriers by type of access 
need 

Type of access need  Hypothesis 

Sector with most barriers 

Barriers 

supported 

experienced 

Mobility 

Senses 

Yes 

Yes 

Transport at destination 

12.6% 

Transport at destination 

12.1% 

Communication 

Yes 

Transit 

13.4% 

Behaviour 

Yes 

Transport at destination 

13.3% 

Hidden limitations 

Yes 

Transport at destination 

12.0% 

While transport (at the destination) is the sector where most barriers are experienced by people with 

access needs, accommodation establishments are found to represent the sector with the least 

barriers. This opposes findings from other studies. For example, looking at the European context, in 

1 Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento della Gioventù (no date). Turisti Senza Ostacoli – Indagine 
Sull’Evoluzione Della Domanda E Dell’Offerta del Turismo Accessibile. Available at: 
http://www.unisa.it/uploads/2405/turisti_senza_ostacoli.pdf  
2 Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2003). Barrier-free Tourism for People with 
Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Regions, United Nations, New York. Available at: 
http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/pub_2316/pub_2316_tor.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

378 

 
 
 
                                                      
all sectors, accommodation appears as the main concern due to different European interpretations 
of what counts as an ‘accessible’ hotel1. 

In addition to the different perceptions held by people with different access needs, opinions with 

regard to the sector that entails most barriers also vary with regard to the destination context (Figure 

196).   

1 Kreiter, J.N. (2010). A holiday for all from the perspective of a tourist with disabilities. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano 
per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

379 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 196 – H34 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Frequency of barriers by destination 

Destination 

Hypothesis 

Sector with most barriers 

Barriers 

supported 

experienced 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No* 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No* 

Yes 

No* 

Food and beverage 

12.5% 

Information 

18.9% 

Attractions/Activities 

8.4% 

Transport at destination 

15.4% 

Transport at destination; 

10.9% 

Accommodation 

Attractions/Activities 

14.9% 

Accommodation 

16.0% 

Attractions/Activities 

11.5% 

Transit; 

10.9% 

Transport at destination 

Attractions/Activities 

13.2% 

Transport at destination 

8.1% 

Transport at destination 

12.4% 

Food and beverage 

10.3% 

The Netherlands 

Yes 

Accommodation 

United Kingdom 

No* 

Accommodation 

9.2% 

9.4% 

Note: 

* The frequencies of barriers encountered across sectors are not significantly different. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

380 

 
 
 
Summarising the table above, transport at the destination is the sector where most barriers are 

encountered for destinations such as France, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain. This is 

partially supported by a study conducted in Spain where it was highlighted that transport represents 
the second most important sector where respondents felt that they were treated badly or very badly1.  

In contrast, destination countries such as Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United 

Kingdom need to work further in reducing obstacles in the accommodation sector. This coincides 

with research from the UK, indicating that the lack of accessible accommodation (mean score of 

3.99) ranks highest followed by no accessible transportation at the destination (mean score of 3.94), 

no accessible transport to get to the destination (mean score of 3.93) and inaccurate information on 
accessibility (mean score of 3.91) 2. Thus, it is the accommodation sector that is perceived as 

containing the most obstacles in a holiday environment. 

Visitors to Belgium and Sweden experience most barriers in the food and beverage sector, whereas 

tourists holidaying in Poland, Italy, Croatia and Greece encounter most obstacles and difficulties with 

the attractions sector. The latter can be explained by the fact that these destination countries rely 

heavily on nature-based attractions and activities such as beach tourism, where people with access 

needs most frequently encountered barriers (see section 5.2.2.6 – barriers encountered with 

attractions/ activities).  

Having identified and discussed the frequency of barriers encountered in different tourism sectors, 

the final cross-sector analysis deals with one specific access element that was reported as a barrier 

throughout almost all sectors.  

5.2.2.7.3  3rd cross-sector hypothesis: Inaccessible toilets as most important barrier across 

all sectors 

The desk research covering studies from European and non-European countries has identified the 

lack of accessible toilets as a key barrier throughout all sectors.  

For the transit stage, numerous studies have highlighted that the lack of accessible toilets 

represents a major barrier at airports as well as for low-cost and standard airlines which causes 

1 Huesca González, A.Mª., & Ortega Alonso, E. (2005). Hábitos y actitudes hacia el Turismo de las Personas 
con Discapacidad Física. Available at: http://www.snr.gob.ar/uploads/TA-Otros-27-HabActhaciaelTURISMO-
2da_edic-PREDIF.pdf  
2 Buj, C. (2010). Paving the way to accessible tourism. International Centre for Responsible Tourism, Leeds 
Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK. Available at: http://turismo-
sostenible.net/Paving%20the%20way%20to%20accessible%20tourism-Carlos%20Buj.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

381 

 
 
 
                                                      
many difficulties and obstacles for people with access needs1 2 3. Similar results were obtained from 

an assessment of the effectiveness of the ‘Access to Air Travel for Disabled People – Code of 

Practice’ in the UK, which has highlighted that in-flight services such as toilets and assistance in 
reaching toilets were not always provided by airlines4. Equally, motorway service stations create 
concern with regard to accessible bathrooms5. 

In the accommodation sector, inaccessible toilets and bathrooms were emphasised by articles and 
reports conducting research in the United States6 7, Australia8 and Israel9. Within Europe, a 

qualitative research study from Austria also confirms the importance of an accessible bathroom and 
toilet as the most significant aspect in the accommodation sector10.  

In Germany, research has shown that many people refrain from visiting restaurants due to the lack 
of accessible toilets in the food & beverage sector11.  

The attractions sector portrays a similar situation with regard to the failure to provide accessible 

toilet facilities. For example, outside Europe, a study investigating the accessibility of various 

museums in Rio de Janeiro, noted poorly adapted bathrooms (if adapted at all) among the principal 

1 Darcy, S., & Ravinder, R. (2012). Air Travel for People with a Disability. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 207-221). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
2 Darcy, S. (2007). Improving Airline Practices by Understanding the Experiences of People with Disabilities. 
Travel and Tourism Research Association - TTRA. Charlottetown, Canada, TTRA, 17.- 20. October 2007. 
3 Chang, Y.C. & Chen, C.F. (2012). Meeting the needs of disabled air passengers: Factors that facilitate help 
from airlines and airports, Tourism Management, 33:529-536. 
4 Sentinella, J. (2006) Access to Air Travel for Disabled People: 2005. Monitoring study. Department for 
Transport, Mobility and Inclusion Unit. Available at: 
http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/2_access_air_travel_trl_monitoring_en.pdf  
5 Masala, D. (2010). Tourism for all and people with intellectual disabilities from a families point of view. IN IsITT 
– Istituto Italiano per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
6 Turco, D.M., Stumbo, N.J., & Garncarz, J. (1998). Tourism Constraints for People with Disabilities. Parks and 
Recreations, 33, 78-84. 
7 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with Disabilities. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. Ambrose 
(Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 65-78). 
Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
8 Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised Participation: Physical Disability, High Support Needs and Tourism. Journal of 
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72. 
9 Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of hotel experiences of people with disabilities: An 
exploratory study, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5):571-591. 
10 Hitsch, W. (2005). Probleme, Risiken und Chancen des barrierefreien Tourismus. Institut für 
Unternehmensführung, Tourismus und Dienstleistungswirtschaft, Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaft der Leopold-
Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Available at: http://www.ibft.at/ibft/doc/Diplomarbeit%20-
%20Barrierefreies%20Reisen.pdf  
11 BMWi (Ed.) (2010). Wirtschaftsfaktor Alter. Faktenblatt 4. Available at: 
http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/Publikationen/wirtschaftsfaktor-alter-faktenblatt-4-
barrierefreiheit,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

382 

 
 
 
                                                      
barriers encountered in this part of the attraction sector1. In contrast, examples can be found for 

Europe where progress has been made in terms of the accessibility of museums. For example in 
Genoa/ Italy, many museums offer accessible toilets2. Understandably, the National Disability 

Authority of Ireland argues that accommodating accessible toilets in historic buildings is more 
challenging compared to ‘standard’ buildings3.  

Also with regard to nature-based activities in Spain4 and sport facilities5 in general, the lack of 

accessible toilets represents a major obstacle preventing people with access needs engaging and 

enjoy this part of the tourism offer at destinations. Particularly with regard to beach holidays, reports 
call for more accessible toilets at beaches to be made available6. This is important as bathrooms 

with accessible toilets are mentioned as the first element that needs to be in place in order to 
remove existing architectural barriers in Italy7.  

The examination of the importance of accessible toilets and bathrooms across different sectors has 
emphasised that ‘accessible toilets are a “must”’ (p.314)8. In order to test this assumption 

empirically, the hypothesis is: 

H35: The lack of accessible toilets is the most important barrier encountered by people with access 

1 Cohen, R., Rose de Siqueira Duarte, C., de Barros Horizonte Brasileiro, A., & Rogrigues de Melo, N. (2012). 
Tourism in Brazilian Cities: Accessibility Condition for Museums declared as Historic Patrimony in Rio de 
Janeiro, Brazil. Available at: 
http://www.transed2012.in/Common/Uploads/Theme_C_Session_1_Regency_III/346-
paper_transedAbstract00155.pdf  
2 Coop. Sociale La Cruna (2008). Genova per tutti noi – a guide for tourism without barriers. Ambient 
Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility impaired users (ASK-
IT), Genova, Italy. Available at: http://www.lacruna.com/amministra/media/9.pdf  
3 National Disability Authority (NDA) (2012). Access - Improving the Accessibility of Historic Buildings and 
Places. Government of Ireland. Available at: 
http://www.nda.ie/website/nda/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/911AA8C52EA2A0D98025798700303E93/$File/Access_Impr
oving_accessibility_Historic_Buildings_and_Places.pdf  
4 Hernández Galán, J. (2012). Accessible Tourism in Spain: Arona and Madrid. IN D. Buhalis, S. Darcy & I. 
Ambrose (Eds.) Best Practice in Accessible Tourism: Inclusion, Disability, Ageing Population and Tourism, (pp. 
310-321). Bristol, Channel View Publications. 
5 Kreiter, J.N. (2010). A holiday for all from the perspective of a tourist with disabilities. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano 
per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  
6 Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio (no date). Decálogo de Buenas Prácticas en Accesibilidad 
Turística - Destinos y Recursos Culturales y Naturales. Available at: 
http://www.planaccesibilidadturistica.es/UserFiles/publicaciones/ficheros/Decalogo_de_Buenas_Practica_2.pdf  
7 Faccin, M. (2012). Analisi dell'evoluzione del concetto di accessibilità nel turismo. Università Ca’Foscari 
Venezia, Venice, Italy. Available at: http://dspace.unive.it/bitstream/handle/10579/2036/834819-
1163227.pdf?sequence=2  
8 Kreiter, J.N. (2010). A holiday for all from the perspective of a tourist with disabilities. IN IsITT – Istituto Italiano 
per il Turismo per Tutti (ed.) Viaggiare senza limiti: il turismo per tutti in Europa. Available at: 
http://www.turismabile.it/file/lib/files/viaggiare_senza_limiti_web.pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

383 

 
 
 
                                                      
needs across all sectors. 

 The hypothesis testing procedure has revealed that H35 is partially supported. Accessible toilets 

and bathroom facilities are perceived as more important compared to 28 out of 36 aspects of a 

destination (Figure 197).  

Figure 197 – H35 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Importance of barriers by type of 
access need 

Type of access 

Hypothesis 

Most important aspect 

Importance 

need 

supported 

score 

Mobility 

Senses 

Communication 

Behaviour 

Hidden limitations 

Partially 

(28/36) 

Partially 

(27/36) 

Partially 

(28/36) 

Partially 

(28/36) 

Partially 

(28/36) 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

4.39 

4.36 

4.40 

4.36 

4.40 

In particular, accessible toilets and bathroom facilities are perceived as the most important aspect in 

Sweden (Figure 198), while they are relatively less important in Ireland, Germany and the 

Netherlands. With an average importance score ranging from 4.0 for the Netherlands to 4.6 for 

Poland (Annex O), it is suggested that all sectors must strengthen their efforts to improve the 

availability of toilets and bathrooms as an indispensable element for people with access needs when 

being on holiday.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

384 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 198 – H35 Barriers: Cross-sector comparison: Importance of barriers by destination 

Destination 

Hypothesis 

Most important aspect 

Importance 

supported 

score 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

France 

Partially 

(11/36) 

Partially 

(20/36) 

Partially 

(15/36) 

Partially 

(15/36) 

Germany 

Partially (8/36) 

Greece 

Partially 

(16/36) 

Ireland 

Partially (7/36) 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Partially 

(20/36) 

Partially 

(10/36) 

Partially 

(34/36) 

Partially 

(19/36) 

Partially 

(21/36) 

Sweden 

Yes (36/36) 

Nature 

Nature 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

Nature 

General value for money of the 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

Nature 

General value for money of the 

destination 

Food and drink available at 

destination 

General value for money of the 

destination 

Accessible toilet and bathroom 

facilities 

The Netherlands 

Partially (9/36)  How tourists are treated 

United Kingdom 

Partially 

(20/36) 

General value for money of the 

destination 

4.40 

4.35 

4.46 

4.40 

4.47 

4.70 

4.57 

4.58 

4.52 

4.60 

4.27 

4.46 

4.48 

4.15 

4.36 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

385 

 
 
 
As can be seen from the table above, respondents also stressed the general value for money. It can 

be argued that this is not different compared to the population without explicit access needs as 

during times of economic downturn and recessions, individuals pay closer attention to what they get 

for their money spent. Recent news stories highlight that tourism to Ireland has significantly 

improved by giving value for money, which also leads to tourists being more willing to recommend 
the destination to friends and family members1.   

1 TheJournal.ie (2013) Ireland getting better in offering value for money, say tourists. Available at: 
http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-value-for-money-tourism-878516-Apr2013/  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

386 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
6  Task 4 - Estimate of the current and future economic 

contribution of accessible tourism 

6.1  Task - 4a Stakeholder consultation 

6.1.1  Methodology 

The consultation of stakeholders is a qualitative approach and an additional tool to complement the 

survey’s quantitative approaches. The main aims are: 

•  Gathering information regarding the current impact of the demand for accessible tourism 

•  Surveying means and tools of relevant service providers in product development and 

marketing  

•  Contributing to the definition of success factors and recommendations 

•  Refining the definition of the three possible future scenarios to be used in the surveys. 

•  Last but not least, the stakeholder consultation plays an important role in reaching and 

informing key influencers in tourism about the project itself and Accessible Tourism in 

general. 

6.1.1.1  Focus groups 

Two focus groups have been conducted. The first one in Luxembourg was a preliminary one in order 

to test the questions and the procedure. This first focus group was organised within the European 

Grundtvig workshop: "EMPOWER - MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING THE CITIZENS" on May 12th 

2013. The members of the focus group represent 10 countries (Figure 199). Their common interest 

was accessibility and Design for All although from different perspectives: some as public servants in 

local administrations, some as disability NGOs members, some as tourism professionals, some as 

design professionals (industrial design, ergonomists, architects, engineers) and tourism agencies 

employees.   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

387 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 199 - Pre-focus group participants 

Name 

First Name 

Country 

Sector 

Mr 

Boussemaere 

Wim 

Belgium 

Disk Jockey (blind) 

Mr  Masson 

James 

Belgium 

Travel Agency Employee 

Mrs  Mihaleva 

Radostina 

Bulgaria 

Personal interest in accessibility 

Ms 

Vinšová 

Jana 

Czech Republic  Designer 

Ms 

Abidini 

Loreta 

Greece 

Local administration 

Mrs  Gkolfinopoulou  Maria 

Greece 

Local administration 

Mrs  Grigoropoulou 

Despoina 

Greece 

Local administration 

Mrs  Kanellopoulou 

Despina 

Greece 

Marketing expert 

Mrs  Paliotheodorou  Georgia 

Greece 

Local administration 

Mr 

Lucchini 

Lorenzo 

Mrs  Orlandi 

Daniela 

Italy 

Italy 

Ms 

Steffan 

Isabella Tiziana 

Italy 

Architect 

Architect 

Architect 

Mr   Sagramola 

Silvio 

Luxembourg 

NGO 

Mr 

Breuer 

Yannick 

Luxembourg 

NGO 

Mr 

Zandstra 

Christiaan 

Netherlands 

Cultural Heritage student 

Mr 

Dankovic 

Vidan 

Mr 

Počuč 

Miodrag 

Ms  Rudić Počuč 

Bojana 

Mrs  Marković 

Ivana 

Ms 

Bonet Pedrol 

Imma 

Serbia 

Serbia 

Serbia 

Serbia 

Spain 

(wheelchair user) 

Accessibility expert 

Traffic Engineer (hearing impaired) 

NGO 

Sign language interpreter 

NGO 

Mr 

Yontar 

Ahmet Alper 

Turkey 

Engineer 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

388 

 
 
 
 
 
The IVth International Congress of Tourism for All in Avila (27 June 2013) provided an excellent 

opportunity to conduct a focus group with experts from many fields in Tourism for All. Many experts 

from different countries and different branches gathered in one place. 

The focus group duration was approximately two hours, and yielded an in-depth discussion amongst 

the participants on a wide range of aspects of accessible tourism.  

Figure 200 presents the list of participants. The discussion guide is available in Annex P.  

To investigate certain aspects at a deeper level the participants agreed to comment further on the 

three future scenarios by e-mail (see below).  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

389 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 200 - Focus group participants 

Name 

Institution 

Type 

Tatiana Aleman 

Predif, Spain 

Tour Operator 

Veroniek Maat 

Accessible Travel Netherlands 

Tour Operator 

Ana Garcia 

Accessible Portugal 

Tour Operator 

Blanka Cros 

Catalunya Turisme Cultural i de 

Destination Manager 

Lleure, Spain 

Tour Operator 

Diego Gonzales 

Catalunya Turisme Cultural i de 

Consultant 

Lleure, Spain 

Carolina Vicens 

Mallorca for All, Spain 

Tour Operator 

Imma Bonet 

Design for All Foundation 

Stakeholder Organisation 

Rüdiger Leidner 

Nationale Koordinationsstelle 

Stakeholder Organisation 

Tourismus für Alle e.V. (NatKo), 

Germany 

Magnus Berglund 

Scandic Hotels, Sweden 

Hotel Manager 

Ivor Ambrose 

European Network for Accessible 

Stakeholder Organisation 

Tourism 

Danny Silva 

eCALYPSO.eu 

Tour Operator 

Annagrazia Laura 

Consorzio Sociale COIN Società 

Stakeholder Organisation 

Cooperativa Sociale, Italy (President of 

ENAT) 

Silvio Sagramola 

European Disability Forum 

Stakeholder Organisation 

Pete Kercher 

EIDD - Design for All Europe 

Stakeholder Organisation 

Clara Mineiro (face to 

Cultural Heritage Portugal 

Service supplier 

face communication 

only) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

390 

 
 
 
 
 
6.1.1.2 

In-depth-interviews (IDIs) 

The stakeholder consultation included not just the focus groups, but in-depth interviews (IDIs) 

additionally. Indeed, these two approaches are complementary. IDIs were preferred for stakeholders 

for whom confidentiality is important (e.g. economic operators) or for experts who could not join the 

focus group.  

11 IDIs were conducted with stakeholders in 10 countries: 

•  Austria 

•  Belgium 

•  Bulgaria 

•  Czech Republic 

•  Denmark 

•  Germany 

•  Italy 

•  Romania 

•  Spain 

•  Sweden 

The stakeholders come from the following branches: 

•  Advocacy group (6 x) 

•  Information organisation (2 x) 

•  Marketing organisation (1 x) 

•  Public body (1 x) 

•  Service provider (1 x) 

The interviews were carried out by telephone with a semi-structured questionnaire. Each interview 

lasted around 20 minutes. The interviews were conducted by highly trained and experienced 

interviewers. 

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a fairly open framework which allow for focused, 

conversational, two-way communication. Unlike the traditional questionnaire framework, where 

detailed questions are formulated ahead, semi structured interviewing starts with more general 

questions or topics. Relevant topics are initially identified and the possible relationship between 

these topics becomes the basis for more specific questions which do not need to be prepared in 

advance. The majority of questions were created during the interview, allowing both the interviewer 

and the person being interviewed the flexibility to probe for details or discuss issues. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

391 

 
 
 
 
6.1.2  Results 

The following findings result from both the focus groups and the in-depth-interviews. They are 

grouped by the most important branches of interest. 

6.1.2.1  Associations with accessible tourism  

Most stakeholders have a formal definition that they use for “accessible tourism”. This definition 

tends to put accessible tourism in a positive context. Definitions of accessible tourism put forward by 

focus group participants and interview partners include the following aspects: 

•  Making tourism possible for everybody 

•  Equal opportunities – including financial opportunities – for everybody 

•  Respect for diversity – including gender questions 

•  Reliable Information  

•  Adapting services offered to each guest 

However, some stakeholders express a concern that the term “accessibility” is (too) strongly 

connected with “disabilities”. 

Some stakeholders (in particular the tourism providers) do not know the meaning of “accessible 

tourism” and need additional explanations. Likewise, the term “Tourism for All” had a lower level of 

comprehension among some stakeholders, especially tourism operators. One of the focus group 

participants with limited understanding of the two terms suggested that alternatively terminology 

would be more appropriate and understandable: “If you want to convince someone, better use other 

words”. 

Despite these slight concerns regarding comprehension, the term “accessible tourism” is widely 

accepted among professionals, as they recognise its potential in terms of driving a specific tourism 

market: “’Accessible tourism’ can be a brand, though it has not yet found its meaning”. 

6.1.2.2  Product development and marketing  

In general, the stakeholders clearly favour a mainstream approach of accessible tourism instead of a 

special interest approach for disabled guests.  

“Interesting attractions should be first of all interesting and then accessible”. 

A summary of opinion is that all services should be available for all guests, so that no special offers 

for disabled people are needed. However, the view is also expressed that  the lack of information at 

present about accessible services at the destination requires that some specialised agents provide 

this information in order to build relations between clients and providers (especially when disabled 

people travel in group). 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

392 

 
 
 
The stakeholders do not perceive that elderly people have any special requirement as a target 

group, but acknowledge that elderly people are more likely than younger tourists to request 

improved access. 

Business-to-business relationships must be established and fostered in order to provide guests with 

consistency along the service chain. In addition, co-operation helps providers to learn from each 

other and strive for continuous improvement in the delivery of client satisfaction, while keeping up 

with the offers of rival companies. 

“We should have also in mind that there will not always be people available to deliver assistance 

services. Therefore, environments where elderly people can be as autonomous as possible is a 

must”. 

Due to the importance of considering the whole service chain, accessible tourisms needs both 

political and public support. Some elements of the service chain, such as public transport and public 

infrastructure, will not be improved by private enterprises, but rather by public authorities. With this in 

mind, legislation and its enforcement are required. 

6.1.2.3  Motivations 

Enjoying holidays is the main need for consumers of tourism services, and the stakeholders agree 

on the social necessity to care for all members of the society.  

However, profitability is an important driver and motivational factor for tourism service providers 

(destination manager, tour operators, hotel manager). Even the stakeholders with a social 

background (advocacy groups) tend to bring the financial argument forward. 

6.1.2.4  Success factors and recommendations 

The stakeholders identified the following success factors to support accessible tourism:  

•  Political and public support 

•  Enhancing public-private-cooperation 

•  Direct financial support 

•  Harmonisation of standards and legislation 

•  Encouraging service providers to invest in accessible tourism 

•  Identifying and disseminating success cases 

•  Training of staff and decision makers. “Hotels or services providers who show a willingness to 

learn or treat a guest as well as possible are more likely to have a returning guest, regardless of 

the ability of the guest.” Employment of disabled people in tourism. “Employ people with 

disabilities and you create customers”. 

•  Communication with the guests: 

•  Detailed and reliable information is important 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

393 

 
 
 
•  Demands are very individual. “Once, we had 140 guests in wheelchairs, but just 10 rooms 

for disabled guests. Many travellers with disabilities don’t need rooms for disabled guests”. 

•  Learning from guests and from team members: trained staff are aware of the guests’ 

demands and often are able to find good solutions themselves 

•  Product development: 

•  Develop accessible tourism step by step, beginning with an inventory of the current offer in 

order to better understand any shortfalls in the offer. “We collected all accessible offers and 

grouped them”. 

•  Think about the diversity and flexibility of your guests. “Through experience, people with 

access needs are more open to diversity and challenge than the organisations that 

passionately defend them.” 

6.1.2.5  Economic meaning and potential impact  

The stakeholders agreed that accessible tourism is profitable, whether taking the definition of 

‘special interest tourism’ for disabled guests (example of a winter sport resort) or understood as 

‘mainstream tourism’ (example of Scandic Hotels). Even under the present conditions, accessible 

tourism may bring a return on investment within the first year. At present, tourism service providers 

in general do not fully realise that many disabled or elderly guests have a lot of money.  

However, some stakeholders stress the social facet of accessible tourism and insist on including 

social tourism for travellers with little money in order to fully embrace the concept of “Tourism for 

All”.   

Looking to the future, the stakeholders expect that this market will grow and there is a growing 

acceptance of accessible tourism due to the demographic change that will push the market. 

As a further note, one stakeholder underlined that accessibility may primarily assist the decision to 

travel but without a diverse and qualified offer, no tourism business can thrive.  

6.1.2.6  Scenario Analysis  

The comments on the single scenarios (including the additional feedback received by e-mail) can be 

summarised as follows: 

Scenario 1:  “At the destination some buildings are made accessible, but not all of them. Some of 

the hotels, restaurants and museums have been adapted for access needs, but no other services – 

such as wheelchairs – are available.” 

•  The general view was that this scenario is more or less identical to the reality of many tourist 

destinations today. 

•  People with access needs will travel less or seek out trusted locations rather than new 

destinations.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

394 

 
 
 
•  Since information is not always available and/or not reliable, it becomes harder to decide whether 

or not to travel.  

•  Such a scenario would not change the spending habits of a traveller. Rather it will influence their 

choices. Such a location will most likely be dismissed as an option. 

•  Most services providers have a lack of training and hence no good offers.  

•  In conclusion, the customers’ needs are not sufficiently fulfilled. 

Scenario 2: “At the destination, most buildings are made accessible. Most of the hotels, restaurants 

and museums are adapted for access needs, and some services – like wheelchairs, visual and 

hearing aids – are available.” 

•  This scenario comes closer to the concept of Tourism for All. 

•  This scenario will enlarge the potential market to a certain extent, and would enlarge it further with 

additional investments in infrastructure. 

•  Factors that will have a particularly positive impact on increasing demand include: 

•  Accessibility of visiting cultural sites 

•  Accessibility of  hotels of 3 stars or less 

•  Provision of additional information about accessibility 

•  However, since a number of buildings and transport service are not accessible, this might 

constrain their tourism experience or travel pattern. The tourist with access needs would still be 

required to spend more money to assure quality.  

•  Depending on the level (hotels stars) of adapted facilities, this destination will attract different 

segments. For example, a destination where the most accessible buildings are relatively 

expensive hotels rather than cheaper hotels may be more attractive to older people with more 

disposable income, but it may still be an unattractive offer to tourists with more severe access 

needs and limited income resources. 

•  Since not all the service chain elements are better adapted or made more user-friendly, this might 

require additional costs which may not be planned in the organizational phase of the travel, but 

will be faced by the tourist while at the destination, thus compromising the overall satisfaction for 

the whole trip. 

•  A better training of tourism sector staff will improve the relationship with the customer, and lead to 

a more satisfactory experience for the customer. 

•  The fidelity of tourists will increase, and the positive image of the destination will be enhanced too. 

This means that the destination will become more attractive and the tourism offer there will 

become more competitive.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

395 

 
 
 
Scenario 3: “At the destination, almost all buildings are made accessible. Almost all of the hotels, 

restaurants and museums are adapted for access needs, and many services – like wheelchairs, 

visual or hearing aids, medical services, dedicated personal assistants etc. – are available.” 

•  Obviously such a destination offers comfort and trust to the tourist. The likely impact is to have a 

high average of return guests/visitors, thus ensuring sustainability, provided that the destination 

has an attractive and constantly renewed offer.  

•  Tourists with access needs will not be treated differently from any other tourist. We are not talking 

about tourist with special needs, or disabled tourist, or accessible tourism, because the 

accessibility is already everywhere. Therefore, the offer of Scenario 3 closes matches the concept 

of Tourism for All. 

•  Persons with disabilities will certainly travel more frequently and thus would spend more money. 

•  If all accommodation, transport systems within and to/from the destinations and the tourist sites 

would really be accessible, tourists with access needs would have to spend less to guarantee a 

good experience.  

•  Accessibility should be available on all service levels when it comes to travel costs (hostels, 3 star 

hotels, 4 star hotels etc.) 

•  The likely impact is to have a high average of return guests 

•  There are 80 million people who are disabled or with reduced mobility in the EC.  All of them 

would be a potential tourist to this destination, and so this tourist destination will increase its 

competitiveness and income. 

•  Accessibility then, will be always part of the design, management and in any of the tourist 

resources /services /offer. They will use the same commercialisation channels (they will be for 

both customers with special needs or not), so the demand will increase significantly.  

The comments made by the stakeholders were very useful for the team to refine the scenarios and 

to formulate and support the hypotheses formulated for this study. 

6.1.2.7  Conclusion 

Focus groups and in-depth-interviews with experienced stakeholders show that: 

•  Accessible tourism is considered a business opportunity but there is a lack of coordination, 

particularly between the public and private sector. 

•  Accessibility is mainly understood as a feature for disabled guests and almost never understood 

as a plus in comfort and service and, therefore, not used in marketing and advertising. 

•  Product development and marketing is mainly targeted only to disabled people. 

•  For the tourism business, political and financial support, awareness raising and activation of 

service providers are important drivers  

•  For the guest, reliable information on accessible offers and services is a key factor for success 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

396 

 
 
 
6.2 

  Current economic contribution 

6.2.1  Methodology 

6.2.1.1  Direct economic contribution estimation 

The rationale of estimating the economic contribution of accessible tourism can be described as 

below: 

Direct economic contribution =  

daily spending × length of stay × people with access needs × travel propensity × travel frequency  

From the formula above, it is apparent that the key indicator to be considered is the spending by 

travellers. Briefly speaking, the economic contribution is the tourism demand in monetary terms.  

The first two parameters, daily spending and length of stay, dictate a traveller’s spending per trip. 

Although secondary data on tourist expenditure may be available regarding generic tourism, figures 

for the accessible tourism are not available. For the current project, the daily spending and length of 

stay figures were gathered from an online survey conducted in the 12 representative countries. 

Specifically, this information can be extracted from: 

Q18. We will now ask you about your travel budget. 

Thinking of your most recent trip, how much money did you spend per person on the following 

items?  

Please write down your destination and the number of nights you spent at your destination. 

Please give an amount for each category in [CURRENCY]. If you are unsure about the answer, 

please give your best estimate. 

In the estimation of economic contribution, the other three parameters, i.e., people with access 

needs, travel propensity and travel frequency, are the backbone of demand estimation. The sources 

and methods for demand estimation have been explained in Section 3.2. 

6.2.1.2  Total economic contribution estimation – indirect and induced effects 

Apart from the direct economic contribution generated by directly serving the accessible tourism 

market, there are secondary effects incurred.  

As with any economic contribution estimation, two types of secondary effects are identified, namely 

the indirect effect and the induced effect. Indirect effect means the changes in income and 

employment within the destination in backward-linked industries supplying goods and services to 

tourism businesses. For example, the increased revenue of local farms resulting from supplying 

fruits and vegetables to hotels are an indirect effect of tourist spending. Induced effect means the 

increased sales within a destination from household spending of the income earned from tourism 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

397 

 
 
 
and its supporting sectors. Such income is spent by tourism employees on other consumer goods 

and services or housing. This generates additional income and employment throughout the 

destination’s economy. 

Therefore, via the indirect and induced effects that help to circulate the revenue of tourism 

businesses, one euro received by the accessible tourism operators can benefit the whole economy 

by more than one euro.  

The rationale of total economic contribution estimation is as follows: 

Total of direct and indirect contribution = direct economic contribution × indirect multiplier  

Total of direct, indirect and induced contribution = direct economic contribution × induced multiplier  

The multipliers are derived from the input-output tables, which are collected from Eurostat1. The idea 

of an input-output table is to track the inputs used in the producing different categories of products. 

For example, a restaurant uses such inputs as food & beverage, utilities (water, electricity, gas etc.), 

transport (or logistics), and so on. Hence, via the supply chain linkage the revenue earned by the 

restaurant is channelled to other industries providing supplies to the restaurant, and is magnified 

across all industries in the economy.  

The derivation of multipliers follows standard procedures, which involve matrix operation. A more 

detailed explanation of the methodology is provided by the Eurostat Manual of Supply, Use and 
Input-Output Figures2 (pp.497-506) and the Input-Output Methodology Guide by the Scottish 
Government3 (pp.22-26). A brief technical description is provided in Annex Q.  

Specifically, in this task three major contributions were investigated, namely the contribution in terms 

of output, gross value added and employment. Basically, output consists of those goods or services 

that are produced within an establishment that become available for use outside that establishment, 
plus any goods and services produced for own final use4. Gross value added (GVA) is the value of 

output less the value of intermediate consumption; it is a measure of the contribution to GDP made 
by an individual producer, industry or sector5. As a component of GDP, gross value added of the 

total economy usually accounts for more than 90% of GDP. The difference between GVA and GDP 

1 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/esa95_supply_use_input_tables/data/workbooks 
2 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-07-013/EN/KS-RA-07-013-EN.PDF 
3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/919/0116738.pdf 
4 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-07-013/EN/KS-RA-07-013-EN.PDF, p.569. 
5 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-07-013/EN/KS-RA-07-013-EN.PDF, p.558. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

398 

 
 
 
                                                      
is the taxes and subsidies on products1. Conceptually, both GVA and GDP measure the same value 

added (or net output) in an economy over a certain period. In the following sections, the contribution 

in terms of GVA will be presented alongside the output contribution and employment contribution, 

whilst the contribution in terms of GDP were presented in the text as a supplement to the GVA 

figures. Output, gross value added (GVA) and GDP are all measured in monetary terms, while 

employment is measured in terms of persons. 

For the three terms of contribution, both the indirect and the induced effects were estimated. Hence 

the total set of contribution figures includes six indicators. 

6.2.1.3  Effect of travel companions 

As discussed in Section 3.2.2.2, there is an urge to quantify the ‘multiplication’ effects generated by 

travel companions.  

The data is available from the survey questionnaire, specifically 

Q18. We will now ask you about your travel budget. 

Thinking of your most recent trip, how much money did you spend per person on the following 

items?  

Please write down your destination and the number of nights you spent at your destination. 

Please give an amount for each category in [CURRENCY].If you are unsure about the answer, 

please give your best estimate. 

The respondents were asked to fill in ‘the number of people who travelled with you (excluding 

yourself)’. This directly indicates the number of companions. 

To calculate the average number of companions at country level, the answers to the question right 

above were taken simple average for a specific group (with disabilities, or elderly) of a specific 

country.  

To calculate the number of companions at the EU level, the numbers at the country level were taken 

weighted average, with the weights being the corresponding current tourism demand. Equivalently, 

this means the calculation is the ratio between the total number of people (including the people with 

1 The sum of GVA at basic prices over all industries plus taxes on products minus subsidies on products 
gives gross domestic product (GDP). 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Value_added 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

399 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
access needs and their companions) within the EU27 countries who go out to travel, and the total 

number of trips (i.e., tourism demand) they conduct.  

6.2.2  Results 

The following sections report the results of economic contribution estimation at the EU regional level, 

together with some key comparisons among individual member states. With regard to the full results 

about each EU country, a detailed summary is provided in Annex T. 

6.2.2.1  Direct economic contribution 

The daily spending figures and the average length of stay figures, as derived from Q18 of the survey 

questionnaire, are presented in Figure 201 to Figure 203.  

At the EU level, the average day trips spending amounts to about €80.  

For overnight trips, as spending on accommodation has to be considered, the daily spending tends 

to be above €100. Another dimension that needs attention is the length of stay. From Figure 201, it 

is apparent that the overnight trips to intra-EU destinations (about 10 days) take longer than those 

within the home country (about 7 days). Hence the spending per overnight trip within the home 

country stands at about €700, whereas the figure for intra-EU overnight trip is about €1,100.  

Comparing both groups of people with access needs, it is not surprising to see that the elderly 

population has more spending power than the people with disabilities.  

At the country level, among the people with disabilities (Figure 202), those from Cyprus, Germany, 

Ireland and Italy are among the biggest spenders. Their average day trip spending can be as high as 

€90, whereas the spending per overnight trip is about €800 (domestic) or €1,200 (intra-EU). These 

almost double the figures of the lowest spending, seen in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.  

Among the elderly population (Figure 203), the highest spending groups are those from France and 

the United Kingdom, especially when it comes to overnight trips. The average length of stay of the 

elderly population from these two countries is about 2 weeks. With the spending more than €100 per 

day, a whole overnight trip can cost as much as €800 at home or €1,500 at intra-EU destinations. In 

comparison, the elderly population from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania spent less than a quarter of 

the spending by their French and UK counterparts on overnight trips.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

400 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 201 - Travel behaviour of people with access needs: EU-wide averages of per person spending, 2012 

Group 

Travel Type 

Daily Spending - Domestic (€) 

Average Days - Domestic 

Daily Spending - Intra-EU (€) 

Average Days - Intra-EU 

People with Disabilities 

The Elderly Population 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

Day Trips 

Overnight Trips 

74.8 

- 

74.2 

- 

101.4 

6.8 

102.3 

10.1 

82.3 

- 

76.8 

- 

109.5 

6.8 

113.8 

10.4 

Note: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 53 responses have been discarded for the estimation, due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

401 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 202- Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the EU27 countries: country-specific averages of per person spending, 2012 

Source Market 

Austria  Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark  Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Travel Type 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Daily Spending 

(€) 

72.5 

72.5 

40.3 

91.9 

40.8 

84.7 

57.7 

84.7 

74.0 

84.0 

83.9 

40.3 

91.9 

84.0 

Source Market  Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg  Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland  Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain  Sweden 

Travel Type 

Day trips  Day trips  Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

Day 

trips 

trips 

United 

Kingdom 

Day trips 

Daily 

Spending (€) 

57.7 

57.7 

72.5 

56.9 

73.1 

40.8 

83.9 

40.3 

40.8 

56.9 

83.9 

84.7 

75.8 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

402 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source Market  Austria 

Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark  Estonia  Finland 

France 

Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Travel Type 

Daily 

Spending (€) 

Average Days 

- Domestic 

Average Days 

- Intra-EU 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnig

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnig

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

ht Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

ht Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

114.8 

114.8 

49.3 

117.6 

54.1 

109.0 

77.2 

109.0 

99.5 

123.6 

116.1 

49.3 

117.6 

123.6 

6.1 

6.1 

6.6 

7.1 

6.8 

5.6 

4.2 

5.6 

8.7 

6.7 

6.7 

6.6 

7.1 

6.7 

9.5 

9.5 

12.9 

10.1 

14.0 

10.3 

9.3 

10.3 

9.2 

9.6 

9.8 

12.9 

10.1 

9.6 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

403 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Latvia 

Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta 

Netherlands  Poland 

Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

United 

Kingdom 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnigh

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

t Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

77.2 

77.2 

114.8 

73.5 

95.5 

54.1 

116.1 

49.3 

54.1 

73.5 

116.1 

109.0 

103.3 

4.2 

4.2 

6.1 

5.0 

6.5 

6.8 

6.7 

6.6 

6.8 

5.0 

6.7 

5.6 

5.7 

Source 

Market 

Travel Type 

Daily 

Spending (€) 

Average 

Days - 

Domestic 

Average 

Days - Intra-

9.3 

9.3 

9.5 

8.9 

10.8 

14.0 

9.8 

12.9 

14.0 

8.9 

9.8 

10.3 

10.2 

EU 

Note: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 53 responses have been discarded for the estimation, due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

404 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 203 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the EU27 countries: country-specific averages of per person spending, 2012 

Source Market 

Austria 

Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark  Estonia  Finland  France 

Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Travel Type 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips  Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Daily Spending 

(€) 

60.6 

60.6 

47.1 

67.3 

47.2 

56.5 

42.1 

56.5 

90.9 

74.3 

65.5 

47.1 

67.3 

74.3 

Source Market  Latvia 

Lithuania  Luxembourg 

Malta  Netherlands  Poland  Portugal  Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia  Spain  Sweden 

Travel Type 

Day 

trips 

Day trips  Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day trips 

Day trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

Day 

trips 

United 

Kingdom 

Day trips 

Daily 

Spending (€) 

42.1 

42.1 

60.6 

62.9 

52.1 

47.2 

65.5 

47.1 

47.2 

62.9 

65.5 

56.5 

137.6 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

405 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Austria  Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus 

Czech 

Republic 

Denmark  Estonia 

Finland  France 

Germany  Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Overnigh

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

t Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

97.1 

97.1 

57.1 

96.3 

62.6 

93.6 

51.4 

93.6 

110.2 

112.7 

111.1 

57.1 

96.3 

112.7 

7.0 

7.0 

7.2 

5.8 

6.3 

4.4 

3.6 

4.4 

7.4 

8.8 

6.2 

7.2 

5.8 

8.8 

Source 

Market 

Travel Type 

Daily 

Spending (€) 

Average 

Days - 

Domestic 

Average 

Days - Intra-

10.1 

10.1 

16.0 

9.3 

8.3 

7.4 

6.8 

7.4 

13.7 

10.8 

5.8 

16.0 

9.3 

10.8 

EU 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

406 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Market 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembo

urg 

Malta 

Netherla

nds 

Poland 

Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain 

Sweden 

United 

Kingdom 

Travel Type 

Daily 

Spending (€) 

Average Days 

- Domestic 

Average Days 

- Intra-EU 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Overnight 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

Trips 

51.4 

51.4 

97.1 

84.3 

70.4 

62.6 

111.1 

57.1 

62.6 

84.3 

111.1 

93.6 

174.8 

3.6 

3.6 

7.0 

7.6 

5.6 

6.3 

6.2 

7.2 

6.3 

7.6 

6.2 

4.4 

4.3 

6.8 

6.8 

10.1 

9.8 

10.6 

8.3 

5.8 

16.0 

8.3 

9.8 

5.8 

7.4 

13.9 

Note: 1) Of the 2,111 responses received, 53 responses have been discarded for the estimation, due to irrational travel patterns answered.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

407 

 
 
 
 
 
With the spending figures, it is feasible to establish the current direct economic contribution of 

accessible tourism. 

Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the estimation process of direct economic 

contribution of accessible tourism at the EU level. 

The direct economic contribution is usually measured by gross turnover and net turnover. The gross 

turnover directly captures the final demand for goods and services by travellers and is equivalent to 

the direct economic contribution in terms of output. The net turnover is basically the gross turnover 
deducted by valued added tax (VAT)1. An EU-wide average VAT rate of 12.1% was applied for 
calculation purpose. The VAT was calculated according to the rates announced at Eurostat2 and the 
tourism revenue at each member state3. Only the VAT rates related to accessible tourism were 

considered, namely those for transport, hotel accommodation, restaurant, sightseeing and medical 

care.   

1 In business, both the VAT and the trade discounts (if applicable) need to be deducted from the gross turnover 
to yield the net turnover.  
2 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf 
3 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-10-031/EN/KS-RA-10-031-EN.PDF; 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-TC-13-006/EN/KS-TC-13-006-EN.PDF 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

408 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 204 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 
EU27 countries in 2012 

Group 

Day trips 

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

Demand for EU's tourism ('000 trips) 

169,902 

225,623 

Spending per trip (€) 

Gross turnover (€ million) 

Net turnover (€ million) 

Overnight trips 

74.7 

12,698 

11,162 

Demand for EU's tourism ('000 trips) 

169,656 

Spending per trip (€) 

798 

Gross turnover (€ million) 

135,362 

Net turnover (€ million) 

118,983 

Notes:  

81.6 

18,420 

16,191 

217,586 

852 

185,457 

163,016 

1) The demand for EU’s tourism figures are from Figure 33, which have already taken into 

consideration the population of people with access needs, travel propensity and travel frequency. 

2) The spending per trip figures are averages for both domestic trips and intra-EU trips, derived from 

Figure 201.  

3) The gross turnover is equivalent to the output, which measures the final tourism demand in 

monetary terms. 

4) The EU-wide weighted averaged VAT rate is 12.1%, by own calculation.  

From Figure 204 the direct economic contribution, in terms of gross turnover (output), of EU’s 

accessible tourism by people with access needs within EU is €351,936 million in 2012.   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

409 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
From the input-output tables available from Eurostat, an EU-wide gross value added (GVA) rate1 for 

accessible tourism related products is calculated as 42.6%. Hence the direct economic contribution, 

in terms of gross value added (GVA), is €149,947 million in 2012. After considering taxes and 

subsidies on products on top of GVA, the equivalent contribution in terms of GDP is €164,066 

million. 

Also from the input-output tables, an EU-wide employment input ratio2 for accessible tourism related 

industries is calculated as 0.012 (thousand persons per million €). Hence the direct economic 

contribution, in terms of employment, is 4,249 thousand persons. 

Figure 205 summarises the direct economic contribution in terms of gross turnover (output), GVA 

and employment. 

Figure 205 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism in 2012 

Contribution 

People with access 

People with 

needs 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Gross turnover (€ million) 

351,936 

148,060 

203,876 

Gross value added (€ 

million) 

Employment ('000 

persons) 

149,947 

62,329 

87,618 

4,249 

1,579 

2,670 

A further breakdown of the economic contribution is shown in Figure 206 to Figure 208.  

1 It is calculated as the ratio between ‘value added at basic prices’ and ‘output at basic prices’.  
2 It is calculated as the ratio between ‘Labour inputs (1.000 persons)’ and ‘output at basic prices’. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

410 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 206 - Breakdown of Gross Turnover Contributed by People with Access Needs in EU27 Countries 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

411 

Domestic Trips, 62.0%Domestic Trips, 68.1%Intra-EU Trips, 38.0%Intra-EU Trips, 31.9%0%20%40%60%80%100%People with DisabilitiesThe Elderly Population 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 207 - Breakdown of Direct Gross Value Added Contributed by People with Access Needs in EU27 Countries 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

412 

Domestic Trips, 63.0%Domestic Trips, 68.9%Intra-EU Trips, 37.0%Intra-EU Trips, 31.1%0%20%40%60%80%100%People with DisabilitiesThe Elderly Population 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 208 - Breakdown of Direct Employment Contributed by People with Access Needs in EU27 Countries 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

413 

Domestic Trips, 48.5%Domestic Trips, 56.0%Intra-EU Trips, 51.5%Intra-EU Trips, 44.0%0%20%40%60%80%100%People with DisabilitiesThe Elderly Population 
 
 
 
 
6.2.2.2  Total economic contribution 

On top of the direct economic contribution, total economic contribution that contains both the indirect 

and induced effects of accessible tourism was estimated. 

The key parameters needed for this estimation are the multipliers, which were calculated from the 

input-output tables. For each tourism expenditure category, a specific multiplier is derived. The 

results are attached in Annex R. 

Overall, at the EU level, the indirect multipliers stand at 1.79 (gross turnover/output), 1.84 (gross 

value added) and 1.65 (employment). The induced multipliers are 2.23 (gross turnover/output), 2.38 

(gross value added) and 2.05 (employment). 

Figure 209 shows how each multiplier effect builds up to form the total economic contribution. Based 

on the GVA figures, the equivalent total economic contribution in terms of GDP is €394,259 million, 

of which €164,066 million is direction contribution, €140,540 million is indirect effect, and €89,653 

million is induced effect. 

Figure 209 - Breakdown of total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people 
with access needs in the EU27 countries 

Contribution 

Direct contribution 

Indirect effect 

Induced effect 

[1] 

[2] 

[3] 

Total 

economic 

contribution 

[4]=[1]+[2]+[

3] 

Output (€ million) 

351,936 

277,900 

156,457 

786,294 

Gross value added (€ 

million) 

Employment ('000 

persons) 

149,947 

126,622 

79,632 

356,201 

4,249 

2,778 

1,683 

8,711 

To visualise these results, Figure 210 to Figure 212 are presented, with further breakdown by the 

two groups of people with access needs. 

Figure 213 to Figure 215 provide breakdowns according to source markets. It can be discerned from 

the charts that, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom are consistently among the 

top 5 source markets that hold most shares of economic contribution, whichever terms of economic 

contribution.   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

414 

 
 
 
Figure 210 - Total output contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the EU27 
countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 000 €) 

Figure 211 - Total gross value added contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from 
the EU27 countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 000 €) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

415 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 212 - Total employment contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 
EU27 countries in 2012 (unit: ‘000 persons) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

416 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 213 - Breakdown of Total Output Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by Source 
Market 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

417 

1.2%0.9%0.1%0.1%1.8%1.4%0.1%2.1%France, 21.9%Germany, 22.1%1.6%0.4%0.6%Italy, 5.9%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.0%4.0%2.0%1.6%0.3%0.3%0.2%Spain, 6.9%2.6%United Kingdom, 21.7%AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 214 - Breakdown of Total Gross Value Added Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism 
by Source Market 

Figure 215 - Breakdown of Total Employment Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by 
Source Market 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

418 

1.2%0.8%0.1%0.1%1.6%1.4%0.1%2.0%France, 22.7%Germany, 22.5%1.9%0.4%0.5%Italy, 5.7%0.1%0.2%0.1%0.0%3.9%1.8%1.7%0.3%0.2%0.2%Spain, 6.5%2.2%United Kingdom, 21.9%AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom1.4%1.0%0.1%0.1%2.6%1.3%0.1%1.8%France, 17.0%Germany, 27.2%1.6%0.8%0.5%Italy, 4.8%0.2%0.4%0.1%0.1%4.3%3.2%2.5%1.0%0.5%0.3%Spain, 5.7%2.0%United Kingdom, 19.6%AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.2.3  Effect of travel companions 

Figure 218 and Figure 219 provide an overview of the number of companions with each country’s 

people with access needs. Generally speaking, across the EU27 countries the people with 

disabilities travel with more companions (on average 2.2 persons) than the elderly population do (on 

average 1.6 persons). Overall at the EU level, the weighted average number of companions the 

people with access needs (both those with disabilities and the elderly) travel with is 1.9. This result is 
consistent with the previous studies. For example, Neumann and Reuber (2004)1 showed that the 

respondents with dependence needs were on average accompanied by 1.56 persons. Buhalis, 
Eichhorn and Miller (2005)2 suggested a ‘multiplier’ of 2 with regard to travel companions.  

When travel companions are taken into consideration, there will be additional demand generated by 

this group of people.  

Figure 216 provides a contrast between two sets of estimation at the EU level for people with access 

needs (both those with disabilities and the elderly population). It should be noted that the numbers 

for ‘with companions’ consider the contribution by both the people with access needs themselves 

and the travel companions. When taxes and subsidies on products are considered on top of GVA, 

the direct economic contribution in terms of GDP generated by both the people with access needs 

and the companions is €459,946 million, and the total contribution in terms of GDP is €1,109,740 

million. 

1 Neumann, P., & Reuber, P. (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All. Study commissioned by 
the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA), Berlin, Germany. 
2 Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market and stakeholder 
analysis. OSSATE project Guildford: University of Surrey. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

419 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 216 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism: without/with travel 

companions 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

Gross 

turnover 

Gross 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

351,936 

149,947 

4,249 

786,294 

356,201 

8,711 

991,263 

421,660 

11,615 

2,218,773 

1,004,187 

24,158 

Without 

companions 

With 

companions 

Note: 1) The ‘with companions’ figures consider the contribution by both the people with access 

needs themselves and the travel companions. 2) Caution should be exercised when referring to the 

economic contribution with travel companions being taken into account. Since some travel 

companions themselves were also the individuals with special access needs, the total economic 

contribution therefore tended to be over-estimated to some extent, due to double-counting this group 

of companions’ share of contribution.     

As a robust check of the estimation of direct economic contribution (with the effect of travel 

companions accounted for), the OSSATE research by Buhalis et al. (2005)1 is used for comparison, 

of which the results are displayed in Figure 217.  

As explained in Section 3.2.2.2, the general demand figure (127.5 million) by the OSSATE research 

is highly comparable to that of the current study (138.6 million, see Figure 18).  

The travel propensity figure used by the OSSATE research was 70%, whereas the current study 

finds the figure at below 60% (see Figure 33). As explained in Section 3.2.3.1, cross validation has 

been carried out to ensure the figures used in the current study are in line with the existing statistics 

1 Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market and stakeholder 
analysis. OSSATE project Guildford: University of Surrey. 
http://www.ossate.org/doc_resources/OSSATE_Market&Stakeholder%20Analysis_Public_Version_Fina..pdf  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

420 

 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                      
reported on Eurostat, particularly the figures regarding the elderly population segment1. This 

treatment reflects the conservative and prudent approach taken throughout the economic estimation 

of the current report.  

Regarding the multiplier effect of travel companions, both the OSSATE research and the current 

study use very similar estimates (roughly 2).  

One indicator that has considerable difference is the average expenditure per person per holiday. 

The OSSATE research has a lower figure (€620 in 2003) whereas the current study finds out that 

the figure stands at €800 in 2012 (see Figure 204). This can be largely explained by the inflation of 
consumer prices2 and the increase of real income3.  

Overall, the OSSATE research estimated that the potential tourism revenues when the companion 

number is 2 are 166 billion euros. The current study estimated it to be 991 billion euros (see Figure 

216, gross turnover with companions). The striking difference comes from the fact that the OSSATE 

research assumed that every people with access needs only travel once (over an unspecified 

period), whereas the survey of the current study has shown that people tend to travel several times 

(roughly 6.7 day trips and 6.2 overnight trips to both EU and international destinations) over a 12-
month period. Other studies such as Dwyer and Darcy (2011)4, Neumann and Reuber (2004)1, Van 

1 See Section 3.2.3.1, the travel propensity figures of the elderly population in the EU have been adjusted 
according to The ‘Participation in tourism for personal purposes by age group in 2012 (tour_dem_toage)’ series 
from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/tourism/introduction 

2 According to the harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICPs) reported on Eurostat (series 

name: HICP (2005 = 100) - annual data (average index and rate of change (prc_hicp_aind)), the 

general consumer prices increase by roughly 24% from 2003 to 2012. HICPs provide the official 

measure of consumer price inflation in the euro area for the purposes of monetary policy and the 

assessment of inflation convergence as required under the Maastricht criteria for accession to the 

euro.  

3 According to the real GDP per capita reported on Eurostat (series name: GDP per capita - annual 

Data (nama_aux_gph)), the real GDP per capita of EU27 countries was €21,700 in 2003, and 

€23,200 in 2012, an increase of 6.9%. According to the economic theory and consumer demand, 

higher income of consumers leads to increased demand for consumption, such as demand for 

accessible tourism. It should be noted that, if there were no economic recession in 2012-2013, the 

average holiday expenditure estimated by the present study could have been even higher. 

4 Dwyer, L., & Darcy, S. (2011). Economic contribution of tourists with disabilities: An Australian approach and 
methodology. Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues, 213-239. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

421 

 
 
 
                                                      
Horn (2012)2  also confirmed that multiple trips were taken by people with access needs. Therefore 

the estimation of the present study is believed to be more realistic and accurate.  

Figure 217 - Potential travel market and tourism revenues of Accessible Tourism 

General 

70% that 

Multiplier 

Accompanying 

TOTAL 

Average 

Potential 

demand for 

have the 

effect for 

friends and 

potential 

expenditure 

tourism 

accessibility 

economical 

friends & 

family 

travel 

per person per 

revenues 

and physical 

family 

ability to 

members 

travel 

market 

holiday 

127.5 

million 

89.3 million 

0.5 

44.7 million 

134 

€ 620 

83 billion 

million 

2 

178.6 million 

267.9 

million 

euro 

166 

billion 

euro 

Source: Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G. (2005). Accessibility market and stakeholder 

analysis. OSSATE project Guildford: University of Surrey. 

Note: The average holiday expenditure in the EU was 620 euro in 2003 (see OSSATE report) 

1 Neumann, P., & Reuber, P. (2004). Economic Impulses of Accessible Tourism for All. Study commissioned by 
the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA), Berlin, Germany. 
2 Van Horn, L. (2012). The United States: Travellers with disabilities. Best practice in accessible tourism: 
Inclusion, disability, ageing population and tourism, 65-78. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

422 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                   
Figure 218 - Average number of companions travelled with people with disabilities from the EU27 countries 

Source Market 

Austria  Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus  Czech Republic  Denmark  Estonia  Finland  France  Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Number of Companions  2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.0 

1.8 

2.3 

2.2 

2.3 

2.1 

2.3 

2.1 

2.5 

2.0 

2.3 

Source Market 

Latvia  Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta  Netherlands  Poland  Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain  Sweden  United Kingdom 

Number of Companions  2.2 

2.2 

2.5 

2.3 

2.1 

1.8 

2.1 

2.5 

1.8 

2.3 

2.1 

2.3 

2.4 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

423 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 219 - Average number of companions travelled with the elderly population from the EU27 countries 

Source Market 

Austria  Belgium  Bulgaria  Cyprus  Czech Republic  Denmark  Estonia  Finland  France  Germany  Greece  Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Number of Companions  1.7 

1.7 

1.1 

1.9 

1.7 

1.5 

1.7 

1.5 

1.7 

1.1 

1.9 

1.1 

1.9 

1.1 

Source Market 

Latvia  Lithuania  Luxembourg  Malta  Netherlands  Poland  Portugal  Romania  Slovakia  Slovenia  Spain  Sweden  United Kingdom 

Number of Companions  1.7 

1.7 

1.7 

1.7 

1.7 

1.7 

1.9 

1.1 

1.7 

1.7 

1.9 

1.5 

2.0 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

424 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.3  Results – International inbound markets 

6.2.3.1 Direct economic contribution 

The starting point of estimating the economic contribution, as explained in Section 6.2.1.1, is 

tourists’ daily spending behaviour. This information is supposed to be derived from Q18 of the 

survey questionnaire. However, a close examination of the answers to Q18, which reports the 

destination and spending structure of the respondents’ most recent trip, suggests that only 34 
respondents across the four countries surveyed have visited the EU during their last trip1. This 

means that, to derive the average level of international tourists’ daily spending in the EU, only 34 

responses can be used. This renders the sample base rather small. A preliminary estimation 

showed that the average spending figures were biased due to some reported extreme values.     

To pursue a robust solution, the spending structure statistics yielded from the main survey 

conducted in 12 EU representative countries were used as proxies for the international markets. The 

calculation involves only deriving the average daily spending in the EU by the respondents in the 12 

representative countries, excluding their average transport spending between the destination and 

the origin. The implicit assumption is that the level of spending within the EU by the international 

tourists is much comparable to that of their EU counterparts. This is plausible, as the international 

tourists and the EU tourists are both subject to the same prices of goods and services when 

travelling across the EU. Their levels of average daily spending should thus be similar. The only part 

of spending that sees considerable difference between the international tourists and the EU tourists 

is the transport to/from destinations, which has been removed from the calculation (in line with 

tourism statistics of most countries and international organisations such as UNWTO), as this 

spending is not expected to benefit the EU tourism.  

As to the length of stay, which also determines the total spending per trip, the statistics are derived 

from the Q18 of the survey.  

The estimation results of the tourists’ daily spending, length of stay and the average spending per 

trip are presented in Figure 220 and Figure 221.  

1 After 9 responses being discarded due to irrational answers, of the 414 respondents, 96 reported that they 
had visited the EU over the last 12 months. However, to derive the spending behaviour of the tourists, the 
answers to their last trip’s spending are needed, which are reported in Q18. Here, only 34 respondents 
reported their spending in the EU, the rest reported spending in either domestic destinations or other 
international destinations. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

425 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 220 - Travel behaviour of people with disabilities in the 11 key international inbound 

markets: averages of per person spending, 2012 

Source Market 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Travel Type 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Daily Spending (€) [1] 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

Average Days [2] 

11.6 

17.8 

11.6 

11.8 

11.6 

11.6 

Spending per trip (€) 
[3]=[1]*[2] 

984.9 

1510.9 

984.9 

999.7 

984.9 

984.9 

Source Market 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa  Switzerland 

USA 

Travel Type 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Overnight 
Trips 

Daily Spending (€) [1] 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

84.9 

Average Days [2] 

10.2 

8.8 

11.6 

10.2 

11.7 

Spending per trip (€) 
[3]=[1]*[2] 

868.4 

749.8 

984.9 

868.4 

990.3 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

426 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 221 - Travel behaviour of the elderly population in the 11 key international inbound 

markets: averages of per person spending, 2012 

Source market 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Travel type 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Daily spending (€) [1] 

83.0 

83.0 

83.0 

83.0 

83.0 

83.0 

Average days [2] 

11.6 

17.8 

11.6 

11.8 

11.6 

11.6 

Spending per trip (€) 
[3]=[1]*[2] 

963.1 

1477.4 

963.1 

977.6 

963.1 

963.1 

Source market 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa 

Switzerland 

USA 

Travel type 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Overnight 
trips 

Daily spending (€) [1] 

83.0 

83.0 

Average days [2] 

10.2 

8.8 

83.0 

11.6 

83.0 

10.2 

83.0 

11.7 

Spending per trip (€) 
[3]=[1]*[2] 

849.2 

733.2 

963.1 

849.2 

968.4 

From the figures above, it emerged that of the 11 key international markets, travellers with access 

needs from Brazil contributed the most to the EU economy in terms of average spending per trip. 

This is generally associated with the longer stay (up to around 18 days per trip). On the contrary, the 

relatively short stay by the people with access needs from Russia leads to a lower spending per trip. 

By and large, across all the key international inbound markets, it can be expected that tourists spend 

approximately €1,000 per trip within the EU, which is considerably higher than the figures (about 

€700-800) found when analysing the tourists from EU countries (see Figure 201 in Section 6.2.2.1).  

With the spending figures, the direct economic contribution to the EU was estimated. Figure 222 

shows the direct economic contribution by people with access needs from all the 11 international 

markets. The results for each individual international market are presented in Annex T.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

427 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 222 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the key 

international inbound markets in 2012 

Group 

Overnight trips 

Demand for EU's tourism ('000 trips) 

Spending per trip (€) 

Gross turnover (€ million) 

Net turnover (€ million) 

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

7,186 

968 

6,957 

6,115 

10,390 

918 

9,539 

8,385 

In 2012, the gross turnover generated from accessible tourism that serves the 11 key international 

inbound markets was estimated to be €16,496 million, with roughly 58% associated with the elderly 

tourists and the rest 42% representing travellers with disabilities. The distribution structure here 

(58% and 42%) coincides with that of the gross turnover generated by the people with access needs 

within the EU countries (see Error! Reference source not found. and Figure 205).  

In addition to the gross turnover and the net turnover, the economic contributions in terms of gross 

value added (GVA) and the associated employment are also calculated. Figure 223 summarises the 

three types of direct economic contributions. With the taxes and subsidies on products added to the 

GVA, the equivalent direct contribution in terms of GDP amounts to €7,781 million.  

Figure 223 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism associated with people 

with access needs from the key international inbound markets in 2012 

Contribution 

People with access 
needs 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

Gross turnover (€ million) 

16,496 

Gross value added (€ million) 

6,897 

Employment ('000 persons) 

268 

6,957 

2,889 

106 

9,539 

4,008 

162 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

428 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.3.2 Total economic contribution 

Considering the multiplier effects, accessible tourism is expected to benefit not only the businesses 

that directly serve the tourists, but also those who work in the supply chain or associated sectors. 

Accessible tourism can impact on every sector of the economy. Figure 224 illustrates the build-up of 

secondary effects (i.e., indirect and induced effects) which form the total economic contributions.  

Figure 224 - Breakdown of total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people 

with access needs from all the 11 key international inbound markets 

Contribution 

Direct 
contribution 
[1] 

Indirect 
effect [2] 

Induced 
effect [3] 

Total economic 
contribution 
[4]=[1]+[2]+[3] 

Gross turnover (€ million) 

16,496 

11,887 

5,999 

34,382 

Gross value added (€ 
million) 

6,897 

5,267 

2,968 

15,133 

Employment ('000 persons) 

268 

171 

98 

538 

Taking the taxes and subsidies on products into account, the equivalent total contribution in terms of 

GDP is €16,901 million, of which €7,781 million is direct contribution, €5,762 million is indirect effect 

and €3,358 million is induced effect.  

It should be noted that, at the aggregate level of all the 11 international markets, the magnitude of 

the multiplier effect (as shown in Figure 224) is slightly lower than that at the aggregate level of all 

the EU27 countries (as shown in Figure 209). This is basically due to the fact that the multiplier 

effect associated with the transport to/from destination is omitted in the international market 

estimation. 

The results are visualised in Figure 225 – Figure 227, with a breakdown between people with 

disabilities and the elderly population.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

429 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 225 - Total output contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 11 key 

international inbound markets in 2012 (unit: '000 000 €) 

Figure 226 - Total gross value added contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from 

the 11 key international inbound markets in 2012 (unit: '000 000 €) 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

430 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 227 - Total employment contribution of EU’s accessible tourism by people from the 11 

key international inbound markets in 2012 (unit: '000 persons) 

In addition, the distributions of total economic contributions according to the source markets are 

provided in Figure 228 – Figure 230.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

431 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 228 - Breakdown of Total Output Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by Source 

Market 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

432 

Australia6.8%Brazil7.1%Canada5.9%China4.0%India0.8%Japan9.4%Norway8.2%Russia8.6%South Africa0.3%Switzerland18.5%USA30.4% 
 
 
 
 
Figure 229 - Breakdown of Total Gross Value Added Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism 

by Source Market 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

433 

Australia6.8%Brazil7.1%Canada5.9%China4.0%India0.8%Japan9.4%Norway8.2%Russia8.6%South Africa0.3%Switzerland18.5%USA30.4% 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 230 - Breakdown of Total Employment Contribution of EU's Accessible Tourism by 

Source Market 

As with the pattern found in tourism demand figures (see Figure 52), the top source markets that 

generate most economic contributions are the more developed countries, such as the USA, 

Switzerland, Japan and Norway.  

6.2.3.3  Effects of travel companions 

Travelling with companions is common among people with access needs, as shown by the results in 

Section 6.2.2.3. This is also the case when it comes to those coming from the international inbound 

markets, given that travelling to the EU usually means embarking on a long haul trip. 

According to the respondents’ answers to Q18 of the survey questionnaire, the average numbers of 

companions travelling with people with access needs are presented in Figure 231 and Figure 232.    

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

434 

Australia6.8%Brazil7.0%Canada5.9%China4.0%India0.8%Japan9.6%Norway8.2%Russia8.6%South Africa0.3%Switzerland18.4%USA30.3% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 231 - Average number of companions travelled with people with disabilities from the 

11 key international inbound markets 

Source Market  Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Number of 
Companions 

2.6 

2.7 

2.6 

3.0 

2.6 

2.6 

Source Market 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa 

Switzerland 

USA 

Number of 
Companions 

2.2 

1.0 

2.6 

2.2 

3.0 

Figure 232 - Average number of companions travelled with the elderly population from the 11 

key international inbound markets 

Source Market  Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

China 

India 

Japan 

Number of 
Companions 

1.6 

2.4 

1.6 

3.0 

1.6 

1.6 

Source Market 

Norway 

Russia 

South Africa 

Switzerland 

USA 

Number of 
Companions 

1.6 

2.3 

1.6 

1.6 

1.0 

Overall, the average number of companions who travelled with people with access needs for the 11 

international markets stands at 1.9, which is the same as the average number of their EU 

counterparts (see Section 6.2.2.3). Hence, in terms of the companion effect, there is no notable 

difference between the EU source markets and the international markets.   

Among the group of people with disabilities, the average number across all the 11 international 

markets is 2.5 and among the group of the elderly population it is 1.6. This is in line with the findings 

from the main survey in the EU countries, e.g. that the people with disabilities tend to travel with 

more companions than the elderly population.   

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

435 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
After considering the additional demand brought by travel companions, the economic contributions 

are further magnified as shown in Figure 232. Moreover, the equivalent direct contribution in terms 

of GDP generated by both the people with access needs and their companions is €23,052 million, 

and the total contribution amounts to €50,139 million. 

Figure 233 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism: without/with travel 

companions 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) (€ 
million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employm
ent ('000 
persons) 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) (€ 
million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employm
ent ('000 
persons) 

16,496 

6,897 

268 

34,382 

15,133 

538 

49,029 

20,480 

789 

102,170 

44,945 

1,589 

Without 
companions 

With 
companions 

Note: 1) The ‘with companions’ figures consider the contribution by both the people with access needs 
themselves and the travel companions. 2) Caution should be exercised when referring to the economic 
contribution with travel companions being taken into account. Since some travel companions themselves were 
also the individuals with special access needs, the total economic contribution therefore tended to be over-
estimated to some extent, due to double-counting this group of companions’ share of contribution.     

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

436 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
6.3  Task 4b - Scenarios and impact assessment 

6.3.1  Methodology 

The estimation of direct economic contribution under different scenarios is largely based on the 

baseline contribution estimation.  

With improvements of accessibility, it is expected that the people with access needs who have 

travelled before are willing to travel more often and, furthermore they are willing to increase their 

budget to explore new destinations. In addition, those who have not travelled are believed to be 

more willing to travel, because a wide range of destinations will be more accessible if the 

improvements under each scenario would be made.  

Hence, the estimation makes use of the additional budget that the existing travellers (those who 

have travelled this last year) will make, and the contribution generated by the new travellers (those 

who have not travelled but are willing to travel under different scenarios). 

Direct economic contribution (scenario) =  

Direct economic contribution (baseline) + additional budget by existing travellers + contribution by 

new travellers 

The baseline direct economic contribution can be found in Figure 205. The additional budget by 

existing travellers can be extracted from the questionnaire: 

Q26. Thinking about the last 12 months, there are some destinations in the European Union (EU) 

that you may have wanted to visit, but you couldn't because of accessibility problems. For example, 

you did not go because no services have been made accessible and basic things like wheelchairs 

are not available. 

If Scenarios A, B or C were true for any EU destinations you were interested in visiting, would you 

consider including some of these EU destinations in your travel plans for the next 12 months? 

Q27. You said that you would visit some of these EU destinations and increase your travel budget 

for the next 12 months if options A, B or C were true. How much extra budget would you be ready to 

spend for your trip(s) to such destinations? Please give your best estimate as a percentage of your 

current travel budget per year. 

The contribution generated by the new travellers can be estimated following the exact rationale 

described in Section 6.2.1.1, which relies on the spending behaviour of travellers and the tourism 

demand. Specifically this will make use of the travel spending figures found in Figure 201 to Figure 

203 and the scenario tourism demand Figure 48 and Figure 49, and the country level scenario 

tourism demand found in Annex T.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

437 

 
 
 
 
The estimation of total economic contribution of accessible tourism under different scenarios follows 

the exact rationale described in Section 6.2.1.2, which is 

Total of direct and indirect economic contribution (scenario) = direct economic contribution 

(scenario) × indirect multiplier  

Total of direct, indirect and induced economic contribution (scenario) = direct economic contribution 

(scenario) × induced multiplier  

Apparently, as long as the direct economic contribution (scenario) is available, the scenario 

contribution can be derived accordingly. 

It should be noted that the direct and total economic contributions estimated based on the rationale 

above only reflect the potential benefits that the EU’s economy can receive from Accessible 

Tourism, whereas the costs (i.e., investments) to be made to improve accessibility have not been 

considered. Since details about the scale of investments under each scenario are not available yet, 

the cost aspect of Accessible Tourism is omitted in the current report. Hence, the economic 

contribution figures are gross values, rather than net values. Nevertheless, the figures would still 

give a clear sense of the size of Accessible Tourism under each scenario of improvements.     

6.3.2  Results 

The following sections report the results of economic impact assessment under different scenarios 

at the EU regional level. With regard to the results about each EU member state, a detailed 

summary is provided in Annex T. 

6.3.2.1  Direct economic contribution under different scenarios 

Under different scenarios of improvement, people who have travelled are likely to spare additional 

budget to explore new destinations.  

According to answers to Q27 of the questionnaire, among all the people with access needs who 

have travelled during last 12 months, the percentage of budget they are willing to expend are 

presented in Figure 234. It should be noted that the numbers are weighted averages among all 

existing travellers according to their travel spending over the last 12 months.  

Figure 235 further shows how the direct economic contribution under different scenarios is 

established following the rationale described in Section 6.3.1. The numbers are at the EU level. 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

438 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 234 - Percentage of extra budget under different scenarios by all existing travellers with access needs from the EU27 countries   

Scenario  

Scenario A 

Scenario B 

Scenario C 

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

2.21% 

3.53% 

9.51% 

0.14% 

0.37% 

3.76% 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

439 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 235 - Estimation of direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios 

Scenario 

Scenario A 

Group 

People with 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Scenario B 

People with 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Scenario C 

People with 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Baseline direct economic 

contribution (gross turnover, 

148,060 

203,876 

148,060 

203,876 

148,060 

203,876 

€ million) [1] 

Additional budget by existing 

travellers (€ million) [2] 

Contribution by new 

travellers (€ million) [3] 

Direct economic contribution 

3,270 

275 

5,231 

762 

14,082 

7,660 

25,338 

35,126 

38,586 

42,554 

47,319 

58,969 

(scenario, (€ million) 

176,668 

239,277 

191,878 

247,192 

209,461 

270,505 

[4]=[1]+[2]+[3] 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

440 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 236 - Breakdown of direct economic contribution under different scenarios between existing travellers and new travellers 

Scenario 

Scenario A 

Group 

People with 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Scenario B 

People with 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Scenario C 

People with 

disabilities 

The elderly 

population 

Direct economic contribution 

(scenario, € million)  

    of which, generated by  

176,668 

239,277 

191,878 

247,192 

209,461 

270,505 

      Existing travellers 

85.7% 

      New travellers 

14.3% 

85.3% 

14.7% 

79.9% 

20.1% 

82.8% 

17.2% 

77.4% 

22.6% 

78.2% 

21.8% 

Note: 1) This table is inferred from Figure 235.

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

441 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 235 can be used to further infer the structure of contribution between existing travellers 

and new travellers. As shown in Figure 236, the existing travellers would still be the major 

driving forces of accessible tourism under different scenarios of improvements. 

In addition to the direct economic contribution in terms of gross turnover (output) (as in Figure 

235), the other types of direct economic contribution, namely in terms of gross value added 

and employment, are also calculated. The results are presented in Figure 237, and the 

comparison against baseline has also been provided. Considering the taxes and subsidies on 

products on top of GVA, the equivalent direct contributions in terms of GDP under baseline 

and Scenario A, B and C are €164,066 million, €193,565 million, €204,141 million, and 

€223,183 million, respectively. All the numbers include contribution by both the people with 

disabilities and the elderly population. 

. 

Figure 237 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different 
scenarios by people with access needs in the EU27 countries 

Scenario 

Gross turnover (output) (€ 

Gross value added (€ 

Employment ('000 

million) 

million) 

persons) 

Baseline 

351,936 

increase against 

baseline 

149,947 

increase against 

baseline 

4,249 

increase against 

baseline 

Scenario A  415,946  18.2% 

176,943  18.0% 

5,068 

19.3% 

Scenario B  439,070  24.8% 

186,696  24.5% 

5,352 

26.0% 

Scenario C  479,966  36.4% 

204,073  36.1% 

5,888 

38.6% 

6.3.2.2  Total economic contribution under different scenarios 

Since the estimation of total economic contribution under different scenarios relies on the 

same set of multipliers in Section 6.2.2.2 and Annex R, Figure 238 only presents the total 

economic contribution numbers at the EU level. Considering the taxes and subsidies on 

products on top of GVA, the equivalent total economic contributions in terms of GDP are 

€394,259 million, €465,340 million, €490,922 million and €536,540 million for baseline, 

Scenario A, B and C. The numbers include the contribution by both the people with disabilities 

and the elderly population. Figure 239 to Figure 241 visualise the indirect and induced effects 

under different scenarios. 

442 

 
 
 
 
Figure 238 - Total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different 
scenarios by people with access needs in the EU27 countries 

Scenario 

Total output 

Total gross value added 

Total employment 

Contribution (€ million) 

contribution (€ million) 

contribution ('000 persons) 

increase 

increase 

Baseline 

786,294 

against 

356,201 

against 

8,711 

baseline 

baseline 

increase 

against 

baseline 

Scenario A  929,801 

18.3% 

420,240 

18.0% 

10,426 

19.7% 

Scenario B  981,603 

24.8% 

443,380 

24.5% 

11,032 

26.6% 

Scenario C  1,073,179  36.5% 

484,476 

36.0% 

12,145 

39.4% 

Figure 239 - Total output contribution under different scenarios by people with access 
needs (unit: '000 000 €) 

443 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 240 - Total gross value added contribution under different scenarios by people 
with access needs (unit: '000 000 €) 

Figure 241 - Total employment contribution under different scenarios by people with 
access needs (unit: '000 persons) 

444 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.3.2.3  Effect of travel companions 

The multiplication effect of travel companions under different scenarios are summarised in 

Figure 242. As opposed to the GVA figures, the equivalent direct economic contributions 

in terms of GDP generated by both the people with access needs and their companions 

are €542,847 million, €574,220 million, and €627,671 million under Scenario A, B and C, 

respectively. The equivalent total contributions in terms of GDP generated by the people 

with access needs and their companions are €1,310,204 million, €1,386,289 million, 

€1,514,711 million under Scenario A, B and C. 

Figure 242 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different 
scenarios: without/with travel companions 

Scenario A 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

415,946 

176,943 

5,068 

929,801 

420,240 

10,426 

1,171,720 

497,738 

13,864 

2,623,906 

1,185,096  28,923 

Without 

companions 

With 

companions 

445 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Scenario B 

Without 

companions 

With 

companions 

Scenario C 

Without 

companions 

With 

companions 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

439,070 

186,696 

5,352 

981,603 

443,380 

11,032 

1,240,483 

526,734 

14,692 

2,778,083  1,254,009 

30,704 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

Gross 

Gross 

turnover 

value 

(output) (€ 

added (€ 

million) 

million) 

Employment 

('000 

persons) 

479,966 

204,073 

5,888 

1,073,179 

484,476 

12,145 

1,355,671 

575,656 

16,156 

3,036,245 

1,369,889  33,784 

446 

 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
6.3.3 Results – International inbound markets 

6.3.3.1 Direct economic contribution under different scenarios 

As with the tourism demand under different scenarios, the economic contribution is expected 

to increase when more tourists are attracted to the EU destinations due to improved 

accessibility. Under different scenarios, the increase of economic contribution against the 

baseline situation comes from the additional budget that the travellers would be willing to 

spare (i.e., Option 1 in Q26 of the questionnaire, which states that the respondent is willing to 

visit some EU destinations and willing to increase travel budget) and the shift of tourism 

spending from other destinations to the EU destinations (i.e., Option 2 in Q26, which states 

that the respondent is willing to visit some EU destinations but not willing to increase travel 

budget).  

Figure 243 shows the percentages of additional budget that the travellers would be willing to 

commit under each scenario. The numbers are applied to the baseline economic contribution 

figures.  

Figure 243 - Percentage of extra budget under different scenarios by all travellers with 
access needs from the 11 key international inbound markets   

Scenario  

People with disabilities 

The elderly population 

Scenario A 

Scenario B 

Scenario C 

5.24% 

13.93% 

32.20% 

3.77% 

7.19% 

47.73% 

Note: 1) The travellers here are those who have travelled to any destination in the last 12 months, 
irrespective of whether they have been to the EU or not.  2) The numbers are the average across all the 
11 key international markets. 

The estimation process of the economic contribution under each scenario is presented in 

Figure 244, which takes into consideration the additional budget and the shift of budget 

between destinations. 

Based on Figure 244, Figure 245 further explores the distribution of economic contribution 

between existing travellers and new travellers. A general observation is that under each 

scenario, the majority of the economic contribution is associated with existing travellers, i.e., 

those who have visited the EU destinations over the last 12 months, although the dominant 

role of existing travellers is not as strong for the elderly population as it is for people with 

disabilities.  

447 

 
 
 
 
 
It can also be discerned that with the improvements in accessibility going further (from 

scenario A to scenario C), the role of new travellers becomes more and more important. The 

share of economic contribution generated by new travellers increases progressively, from 

14.2% to 19.5% for people with disabilities, and from 17.1% to 34.6% for the elderly 

population. 

448 

 
 
Figure 244 - Estimation of direct economic contribution (gross turnover) of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios 

Scenario 

Group 

Scenario A 

Scenario B 

Scenario C 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

Baseline direct economic 
contribution (gross turnover, € 
million) [1] 

Additional contribution by existing 
travellers (€ million) [2] 

Contribution by new travellers (€ 
million) [3] 

Direct economic contribution 
(scenario, € million) [4]=[1]+[2]+[3] 

6,957 

9,539 

6,957 

9,539 

6,957 

9,539 

645 

735 

1,263 

2,115 

1,856 

1,811 

1,021 

4,105 

2,372 

1,719 

2,254 

5,968 

8,865 

12,390 

10,624 

14,665 

11,583 

17,226 

Notes: 1) Existing travellers are those who have visited the EU in the last 12 months;  
           2) Under different scenarios, the additional contribution by existing travellers comes from either the additional budget they would be willing to commit or the shift of 

spending from other destinations to EU destinations; 

           3) New travellers are those who have not been to the EU in the last 12 months but would be willing to travel to the EU under different scenarios; they may have been to 

domestic destinations or other international destinations, or simply have not travelled at all in the last 12 months; 

           4) Under different scenarios, the contribution by new travellers comes from either the additional budget they would be willing to commit or the shift of spending from 

other destinations to EU destinations. 

449 

 
 
 
 
Figure 245 - Breakdown of direct economic contribution under different scenarios between existing travellers and new travellers 

Scenario 

Group 

Scenario A 

Scenario B 

Scenario C 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

People with 
disabilities 

The elderly 
population 

Direct economic contribution (scenario)  

8,865 

12,390 

10,624 

14,665 

11,583 

17,226 

    of which, generated by  

    Existing travellers 

    New travellers 

85.8% 

14.2% 

82.9% 

17.1% 

83.0% 

17.0% 

72.0% 

28.0% 

80.5% 

19.5% 

65.4% 

34.6% 

450 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Following the same estimation process presented in Figure 244, the economic contribution in terms 

of gross value added (GVA) and employment is also made available. The results, which are the sum 

of contributions by both people with disabilities and the elderly population, are shown in Figure 246. 

Based on the GVA figures, the equivalent direct economic contributions in terms of GDP under 

baseline, scenario A, B and C are €7,781 million, €10,028 million, €11,929 million, and €13,600 

million.  

Figure 246 - Direct economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different 
scenarios by people with access needs from the 11 key international inbound markets 

Scenario 

Gross turnover (output) (€ 
million) 

Gross value added (€ 
million) 

Employment ('000 
persons) 

Baseline 

16,496 

increase against 
baseline 

6,897 

increase against 
baseline 

268 

increase against 
baseline 

Scenario A 

21,255 

28.9% 

8,888 

28.9% 

345 

28.9% 

Scenario B 

25,289 

53.3% 

10,574 

53.3% 

411 

53.3% 

Scenario C 

28,809 

74.6% 

12,048 

74.7% 

469 

75.0% 

Compared with Figure 237, which shows the increase of economic contribution against the baseline 

situation for the EU source markets, Figure 246 indicates a very optimistic picture. However, it 

should be noted that all the figures regarding the respondents’ behaviour under different scenarios 

are only an expression of willingness, rather than the reality. Given that the scenarios are 

hypothetical at the time of the survey, caution has to be taken to interpret the survey results. 

Besides, unlike the EU countries which are more homogenous because they are a unified market 

and are subject to a more unanimous economic climate, the international markets are way much 

more diverse. There are developed economies, such as Australia, Japan and the USA, and 

emerging economies, such as Brazil, China and India. Each international source market may thus 

face unique factors that influence its outbound tourism demand.  

Even though it can be expected that with improved accessibility the tourism demand by the key 

international inbound markets would see substantial growth, such growth (as shown in Figure 246) 

would inevitably be subject to various uncertainties.  

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

451 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.3.3.2 Total economic contribution under different scenarios 

Under different scenarios, the economic contribution of accessible tourism will also be amplified, 

according to the same multiplier effects summarised in Annex R. The total economic contribution, in 

terms of output, gross value added and employment, is presented in Figure 247. The total economic 

contributions of GDP, which include taxes and subsidies on products on top of GVA, are €16,901 

million, €21,779 million, €25,910 million, and €29,530 million under baseline, scenario A, B and C. 

The magnitude of the increase between scenarios follows that of the direct economic contribution 

(see Figure 246). For the results of each individual source market, the country profiles in Annex T 

provide a summary. 

Figure 247 - Total economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different 
scenarios by people with access needs from all the 11 key international inbound markets 

Scenario 

Total output Contribution 
(€ million) 

Total gross value added 
contribution (€ million) 

Total employment 
contribution ('000 
persons) 

Baseline 

34,382 

increase against 
baseline 

15,133 

increase against 
baseline 

538 

increase against 
baseline 

Scenario A 

44,302 

28.9% 

19,500 

28.9% 

693 

28.9% 

Scenario B 

52,709 

53.3% 

23,199 

53.3% 

824 

53.3% 

Scenario C 

60,049 

74.7% 

26,433 

74.7% 

940 

74.9% 

Figure 248– Figure 250 visualise the build-up of indirect and induced effects, on top of the direct 

contribution. 

452 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 248 - Total output contribution under different scenarios by people with access needs 
(unit: '000 000 €) 

453 

16,49621,25525,28928,80911,88715,31718,22320,7605,9997,7309,19710,480010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000BaselineScenario AScenario BScenario CDirect ContributionIndirect ContributionInduced Contribution 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 249 - Total gross value added contribution under different scenarios by people with 
access needs (unit: '000 000 €) 

454 

6,8978,88810,57412,0485,2676,7878,0759,1992,9683,8254,5515,18605,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000BaselineScenario AScenario BScenario CDirect ContributionIndirect ContributionInduced Contribution 
 
 
 
 
Figure 250 - Total employment contribution under different scenarios by people with access 
needs (unit: '000 persons) 

6.3.3.3 Effect of travel companions 

Based on Figure 231 and Figure 232, the multiplication effects of travel companions are calculated. 

Results presented in Figure 251 are the sum of contributions by all 11 international inbound markets. 

As opposed to the GVA figures, the equivalent direct economic contributions in terms of GDP 

generated by both the people with access needs and their companions are €29,664 million, €35,323 

million, and €40,037 million under scenario A, B and C, respectively. The equivalent total 

contributions in terms of GDP  generated by the people with access needs and their companions are 

€64,516 million, €76,827 million, €87,050 million under scenario A, B and C. 

455 

267.9345.3410.7468.8171.4220.9262.8299.698.2126.6150.6171.60.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.01,000.0BaselineScenario AScenario BScenario CDirect ContributionIndirect ContributionInduced Contribution 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 251 - Economic contribution of EU’s accessible tourism under different scenarios: 
without/with travel companions 

Scenario A 

Without 
companions 

With 
companions 

Scenario B 

Without 
companions 

With 
companions 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) 
(€ million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employment 
('000 
persons) 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) 
(€ million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employment 
('000 
persons) 

21,255 

8,888 

345 

44,302 

19,500 

693 

63,080 

26,351 

1,016 

131,452 

57,828 

2,045 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) 
(€ million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employment 
('000 
persons) 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) 
(€ million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employment 
('000 
persons) 

25,289 

10,574 

411 

52,709 

23,199 

824 

75,123 

31,381 

1,210 

156,548 

68,867 

2,435 

456 

 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
Scenario C 

Without 
companions 

With 
companions 

Direct economic contribution 

Total economic contribution 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) 
(€ million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employment 
('000 
persons) 

Gross 
turnover 
(output) 
(€ million) 

Gross 
value 
added (€ 
million) 

Employment 
('000 
persons) 

28,809 

12,048 

469 

60,049 

26,433 

940 

85,082 

35,549 

1,373 

177,310 

78,010 

2,761 

6.4  Summary of hypothesis results 

A number of hypotheses were formulated in relation to the demand for accessible tourism. Based on 

the findings discussed above, this section provides a review of the hypotheses.   

 H1: France, Germany, Italy and the UK are the major European source markets for the EU’s 

Accessible Tourism. 

According to the estimated accessible tourism demand by each of the EU states in 2012 (see Figure 

252, the top 10 source markets are listed below, with France, Germany, Italy and the UK ranked at 

the top, third, seventh and second, respectively. Therefore, H1 is mostly supported.    

457 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 252 - Top 10 source markets for accessible tourism demand in EU 

Rank 

Source market 

No. of trips (‘000) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

France 

161128 

United Kingdom 

156027 

Germany 

121428 

Spain 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

Italy 

Poland 

54828 

39540 

32262 

30787 

30210 

Czech Republic 

29246 

10 

Finland 

22405 

Note: The number of trips includes both day trips and overnight trips.  

 H2: The BRICS countries and the USA are the most important international inbound markets for 

the EU’s Accessible Tourism. 

Based on Figure 52, Figure 228, Figure 229 and Figure 230, the USA is the country that 

contributes the most tourism demand (up to 29.2%) and the most economic contribution (up to 

30.4%). Hence, it is confirmed that the USA is the most important international inbound market for 

the EU’s accessible tourism. 

The next most important market is Switzerland, holding 20.2% of the demand and 18.5% of the 

economic impact. 

The BRICS countries as a whole and Switzerland come very close. In terms of demand, the 

BRICS countries take up 20.1% of the share in total, with Russia being the best performer 

(10.9%). In terms of economic contribution, the BRICS countries have a share of 20.8% in total, 

with Russia contributing the most again (8.6%).  

Therefore, H2 is generally supported. 

458 

 
 
 H3: Mobility facilities are the primary area of access needs, and sufficient attention should be paid 

to these facilities.1 

According to the distribution of impairment types among all individuals with disabilities in EU27 

(see Figure 24) and the estimated accessible tourism demand by different types of impairments 

(see Figure 38), mobility impairments account for the highest proportion (about 36% within EU27 

overall) apart from hidden impairments. Therefore mobility facilities are the primary area of access 

needs, and it is necessary to pay particular attention to these facilities. Hence H3 is supported.  

 H4: The seniors have higher spending power than the people with disabilities, because they have 

higher wealth level and are more willing to spend on leisure activities. 

According to Figure 201, the EU-wide average daily spending of the elderly travellers is slightly 

higher than of people with disabilities as far as both day trips and overnight trips are concerned. 

Nevertheless, this pattern does not always hold at the individual country level (see Figure 202 and 

Figure 203). Overall, within EU27 the elderly population spent more on travel than individuals with 

disabilities and thus contributed more to the EU economy (see Error! Reference source not 

found.).  Beyond the EU area, the elderly population from the key international inbound markets 

spend roughly the same as the people with disabilities, when they travel to the EU (see Figure 

219 and Figure 220). This general observation basically holds at the individual country level. Both 

groups spend approximately €1,000 per trip within the EU. 

Therefore, H4 is generally supported for the EU population with access needs, but not for the 

international inbound markets. 

 H5: The seniors are more frequent travellers than the people with disabilities. 

As shown in Figure 28, the elderly population in EU27 travelled slightly more frequently than the 

people with disabilities for day trips (6.9 versus 6.7 trips per year), but the opposite trend is found 

with regard to overnight trips. Across EU27, on average the elderly population travelled 1.2 times 

less than people with disabilities. Therefore, H5 is partially supported.    

 H7: Female senior customers will dominate the senior travel market, given the higher proportion 

of population. 

1Please note hidden impairments are a major type of disability but the related access needs are more varied 
and therefore less widely used and needed by smaller proportions of people. 

459 

 
 
 
    
 
   
 
                                                      
As Figure 8, Figure 26 and Figure 27 show, the female senior population always outnumbers the 

male counterpart, and therefore account for a higher share of the senior travel market (58% with 

EU27 overall, 55% within 11 key inbound markets). Therefore H7 is supported.   

 H8: Key parameters such as travel propensity, travel frequency, and expenditure level should be 

notably different across clusters. 

According to Figure 29 to Figure 32, Figure 202 and Figure 203, across EU 27 countries the 

propensity, travel frequency, and average expenditure figures vary significantly for both groups of 

the people with access needs and as far as both day trips and overnight trips are concerned. 

Using overnight trips of the people with disabilities as an example, the travel propensity varied 

from 7.8% in Bulgaria to 85.7% in the Netherlands. The travel frequency varied from 3.9 trips in 

Malta and Slovenia to 8.1 trips in Ireland and Cyprus. With regard to average spending per night, 

it varied between 49.3 Euros (in Bulgaria/Hungary/Romania) and 123.6 Euros (in Germany/Italy). 

So H8 is supported.  

 H9: The senior travel market will become even more important by 2020, given that the steep 

growth of the elderly population will continue. 

•  Within the EU27 area, based on the predicted growth both market segments of accessible tourism 

demand (see Figure 34), the senior travellers segment will grow much faster (about 2% annually) 
than the segment of the people with disabilities (only 0.12% per year)1. By 2020 the demand of 

the senior travel market is predicted to reach 518,647 thousand trips, accounting for 60% of total 

accessible tourism demand in EU27, 66% higher than the demand of the segment of individuals 

with disabilities (343,222 thousand trips).  As to the key inbound markets, Figure 53 shows that 

the senior travellers segment will significantly outperform the segment of the people with 

disabilities, in the sense that the annual growth rate of demand by the senior travellers is 

predicted to be 2.9%, versus 0.55% by the people with disabilities.  

Thus H9 is supported. 

 H10: China and India will be much more important than other inbound markets for Accessible 

Tourism. 

From Figure 52, Figure 228, Figure 229 and Figure 230, it emerged that the USA is the most 

important inbound market due to its high share of tourism demand (29.2%) and economic 

1 These are baseline forecasts assuming the travel propensity and frequency of the people with access needs 
remain unchanged.    

460 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
contribution (30.4%) among all the inbound markets. In contrast, the shares of China and India 

are much lower. In terms of demand, China only accounted for 3.8% and India 0.7% in 2012. In 

terms of economic contribution, China accounted for 4.0% and India 0.8%. The reason for China 

and India falling behind is related to the extremely low departures per 100 people. Compared to a 

figure of 6.87 for the USA, it is only 0.38 for China and 0.16 for India. 

Therefore, H10 is rejected. 

 H41: The improvement of accessibility will help attract people with access needs to explore new 

destinations. 

Figure 41, Figure 42, Figure 54 and Figure 55 show clear evidence that by improving accessibility 

of those destinations which are currently less accessible in Europe, people with access needs 

were keen to expand their travel to these new destinations. In particular, current non-travellers 

showed higher interest in travelling in future if accessibility could be improved. A higher level of 

accessibility improvements corresponds to a higher level of willingness to travel to the new 

destinations. Therefore, H41 is supported.  

 H42: Extensive improvements of accessibility can generate significant economic contributions 

with respect to output and employment. As Figure 237 to Figure 241 and Figure 246 to Figure 250  

clearly show, extensive improvements of accessibility (i.e., Scenario C) can improve the overall 

economic contributions by up to 36.5% and 39.4% (EU27 travellers), and up to 74.7% and 74.9% 

(international travellers) with regard to economic output and employment, respectively, as far as 

direct, indirect and induced effects are concerned all together. Therefore H42 is supported.  

6.5  Limitations of demand forecasting and economic impact assessment 

This project aimed to provide a broad picture of the scale of accessible tourism and its economic 

contribution in the European Union. Although rigorous methodologies and scientific procedures have 

been followed to achieve the objectives, the precision of the estimated results were inevitably 

affected by some limitations of the research design, which could not be avoided.  

On the one hand, this project has three limitations that to some extent may lead to over-estimated 

results. First, using cluster representative countries’ profiling parameters to infer the behaviour of 

other countries could only provide the best possible approximation rather than actual figures. 

Second, although the overall sample size of the main survey in the EU representative countries is 

large, the country specific sample sizes are relatively small for estimating the demand and economic 

contribution at the country level. The small sample also represented a challenge for the international 

461 

 
 
 
 
 
market survey as outliers (i.e. extreme values) were identified. Hence approximation is unavoidable 

in order to achieve meaningful results, even though this means the estimation would be less 

accurate. Third, an online survey is an effective way for primary data collection. Nevertheless, its 

limitation is also unavoidable, particularly in relation to the representativeness of the sample. Online 

survey tends to capture a higher proportion of active internet users. Particularly among the people 

with disabilities and the elderly population, these respondents may represent relatively well-

educated population whose income level is likely to be above average. Their travel and spending 

behaviour also tends to be above average.  

On the other hand, some underlying issues may render the results relatively conservative. First, the 

online survey was conducted in mid-2013 to capture the tourists’ most recent behaviour in mid-2012 

to mid-2013, during which the debt crisis in the Eurozone still haunted the EU area. Due to reduced 

personal income, the tourists might have acted conservatively when travelling. Once the economy 

recovers and people’s income bounces back to pre-crisis level, the behavioural profiling parameters, 

such as travel propensity, travel frequency and expenditure per trip, could be improved against the 

current figures captured by the survey. Second, in forecasting the future tourism demand (in terms of 

trips), it is assumed that the behavioural profiling parameters will remain unchanged over the next 

decade. The reason for this assumption is that there are no relevant historical data available to infer 

the parameters’ evolution, given that the current online survey is a one-off. Such restriction may 

overlook the intrinsic trend of people travel behaviour over time.  

All in all, caution has to be taken when interpreting the estimation results, as exaggeration factors 

and conservative factors co-exist.  

462 

 
 
 
 
7  Task 5 - Recommendations and success factors 

The study results show that the accessible tourism demand by people with special access needs 

from the EU generated a total economic contribution of 786 billion Euros in terms of total output and 

356 billion Euros in terms of gross value added or 394 billion Euros in terms of GDP within the EU. 
This scale is equivalent to about 3% of total GDP of EU27 in 20121. In addition, the people with 

special access needs from the 11 key international inbound markets generated a total economic 

contribution of 34 billion Euros in terms of total output and 15 billion Euros in terms of gross value 

added or 17 billion Euros in terms of GDP to the EU. 

Demand for accessible tourism will also continue to grow in future, with the forecast of future growth 

suggesting that by 2020 the demand by people within the EU will grow to about 862 million trips per 

year whilst the demand by the key international inbound markets will reach 21 million trips per year, 

and possibly more if accessibility improves in the tourism sector. The forecast based on the most 

optimistic scenario tested in this study, based on extensive improvements in accessibility (Scenario 

C), shows that up to 39.4% of additional economic contribution associated with the demand by 

people within the EU could be achieved, which suggests that up to 1,073 billion Euros of total output 

could be generated, along with up to 12.1 million employed persons within the whole EU economy - 

taking all direct, indirect and induced effects into account. Moreover, under Scenario C, up to 74.9% 

of additional economic contribution associated with the demand by people from the key international 

inbound markets would be reached, which the whole EU economy will in total benefit from 60 billion 

Euros of economic output and 940 thousand employed persons. Besides, it was estimated that each 

individual with special access needs in the EU and beyond travelled with 1.9 companions on 

average. With the additional contribution from travel companions taken into consideration, the 

overall economic contribution related to accessible tourism demand could be further amplified by a 

similar scale. Another interesting trend is the growth of the population with access needs in inbound 

markets, which can have a positive impact on the EU tourism sector (see Tasks 1b and 4b). 

However, the study shows that travellers with access needs encounter problems and obstacles 

while preparing a trip or travelling and that, in general, destinations and service providers in 

tourism have insufficient awareness of the importance of accessible tourism (see Tasks 3b, 

2b and 4a). Many are not yet prepared for the demands of guests with access needs in terms of 

1 According to the latest statistics from Eurostat: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&init=1&pcode=tec00001&lang
uage=en  

463 

 
 
                                                      
infrastructure, services and attitudes. Nevertheless the results show that the majority of tourists with 

access needs managed to find destinations that, in general, were satisfactory for them in that 

respect. This illustrates two important aspects: 

•  Even when facing difficulties in finding information, tourists with access needs are often able to 

choose destinations adapted to their needs. 

•  A number of destinations already benefit from accessibility as a competitive tool, either following 

the implementation of a specific strategy or through word-of-mouth. 

In order to improve the accessible tourism offer and encourage demand, isolated and individual 

responses to support or develop accessible tourism do not address the issue adequately. Success 

depends on a professional and coherent approach tackling a range of factors and leading to a cost-

effective implementation of initiatives. The present study therefore makes the following 

recommendations:   

1. Commitment of the decision-makers 

Under three scenarios of increasing accessibility levels, it was estimated that demand would 

increase respectively by 24.2%, 33.2% and 43.6% (see Task 1). For the tourism industry to realise 

these benefits and taking into account the diversity of social, economic or political systems, the 

implementation of accessible tourism generally stands a greater chance of success when it is also of 

benefit to the general tourist and integrated in mainstream offers. It is also an important task for 

decision makers to encourage service providers to invest in accessible tourism and to demonstrate 

its economic and social benefits to the whole community. 

Service providers in tourism may also feel unsure about the strategy to follow because they are 

unaware of how to implement accessibility. Similarly guests encounter a variety of standards and 

labels across Europe and even within the same country (see Task 3b). The study suggests that the 

question of harmonising standards and legislation could be an important factor in improving 

accessibility, through better guidance for providers and clearer information for users. Existing 

legislation such as, for example, the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC have already shown the benefits of this 

type of approach. This harmonisation towards improved accessibility could also be an effective way 

to attract tourists with access needs from the growing inbound markets. 

Strong and on-going support from politicians, administrators and decision makers in business is 

another key factor. This includes support in education and training as well as direct financial 

464 

 
 
 
support (see Tasks 3a, 3b and 4a). Many service providers who are aware of the issues are looking 

for stronger financial support and funding especially for accessible offers. In many countries, tourism 
in general is crucially dependent on public money. Accessibility and Design for All1 should be 

considered for inclusion in the criteria for public funding and may also be considered a requirement 

in public procurements.  

2. Coordinating and continuity 

The study findings show that accessible tourism is considered a valuable business opportunity. Yet, 

in order to ensure future growth, it is anticipated that the industry needs to improve its coordination 

efforts, particularly through public-private partnerships and on local and regional level (see 

Task 4a). Accessible tourism requires long term commitment. Enhancement of services and 

infrastructure is an on-going task, which requires technical and financial resources as well as human 

resources and knowledge. To ensure the sustainability of the development process and a 

professional approach, it is useful to assign a dedicated work unit or coordinator within the 

management structure of tourism organisation with appropriate resources, particularly in terms of 

budget and time allocated to this role (see Task 3a). The coordinator’s role would mainly consists of 

setting up and maintaining network communication, following up strategies and actions defined 

within the process plan and storing and circulating knowledge accumulated during the process. The 

higher the position of the coordinator within the management structure, the greater the impact of 

internal and external communication is.  

3. Networking and participation 

Accessible tourism is a complex subject and there are many potential pitfalls for service providers 

and destinations. Analysis of good practice and success stories shows that knowledge transfer flows 

more easily when organisations are part of wider professional networks of experienced service 

providers and experts on accessibility (see Task 3a). European countries have access to the ENAT 

network, and national or regional networks exist in many countries.  Among the benefits are the 

exchange of knowledge, enhanced advertising opportunities and improved communication with 

client groups. In addition, these networks play an important role in putting accessible tourism issues 

on the political and administrative agenda. 

1Design for All is about ensuring that environments, products, services and interfaces work for people of all 
ages and abilities in different situations and under various circumstances. 

465 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Local networks among providers at a destination are a key factor for success as they enable closer 

collaboration to ensure accessibility along the entire tourism chain. In addition to including the entire 

chain, it is equally important to guarantee the accessible offer across all categories of services 

and prices offered at the destination. Indeed, the study shows that sizeable proportions of travellers 

feel they have to pay more or switch to more expensive services to benefit from an accessible offer 

(see Task 2b). 

4. Strategic planning 

Service providers, destinations and other decision-makers in tourism may often respond to demands 

of guests in an ad hoc fashion. This may be useful as a first step in responding to guests’ needs. 

However, strategic planning is crucial for sustainable success, particularly when the forecasted 

increase in demand is taken into account. So, the development of accessible tourism should 

proceed strategically, and step by step:  

1.  On a strategic and long-term level, it is important to be aware of the diversity of access 

needs and patterns of travel behaviour across different groups and countries, but 

also across individuals within groups, and to target them in the most appropriate way. 

For instance, the results of the study show that it is not enough to focus just on wheelchair 

users or older guests. Those travelling with children complain about a lack of services for 

children, while diet-related aspects, such as special menus for allergies and religious 

restrictions, would enhance many travellers’ experience (see Task 2b).  

2.  An inventory of the current offer in terms of infrastructure, services and possibilities 

for improvement might be a first step. It is important to involve guests and other 

stakeholders already at this stage of the process in order to incorporate the very best 

practice. 

3.  Having identified the strengths and weaknesses of the offer and the demands of potential 

guests, it can be advisable to improve the offer gradually. Often, just minor changes are 

enough to substantially enhance services and comfort for the guests (see Task 2b). 

Furthermore, accessibility should be an important feature of long-term planning and 

investments in modernisation of infrastructure. It is also crucial to develop tools to listen 

to the specific requirements of guests to establish accessibility priorities (see Task 3a). 

4.  The study shows that a well planned investment in infrastructures and service provision can 

make a good return on investment in the relatively short term as high proportions of tourists 

with access needs tend to return (see Tasks 3a and 2b). This can also be enhanced through 

improved marketing and advertising strategies taking into account accessibility features.   

466 

 
 
 
5. Knowledge management and qualification 

Though accessibility is often considered merely a matter of infrastructure, services are at least as 

important. As shown in the study (see Tasks 2b and 3a), good services can overcome many 

obstacles in infrastructure, while poor service may prevent guests from enjoying accessible offers. 

For instance, an accessible toilet (the main barrier identified in Task 3b) is useless if staff do not 

inform guests that it is available. It is therefore important that all members of the staff acquire a solid 

knowledge base on accessibility through good knowledge management. This can be 

supplemented by information about good practice examples and with the experience of external 

experts in order to learn from the experience of other successful providers (see Task 3a).  

Regular training of staff and management is also important to keep all service providers up-to-

date and to help them to understand the demands and wishes of all guests. Many service providers 

still feel uncertain about how to treat a disabled guest or the specific needs of families with children. 

This is why many guests experience attitudinal barriers and find the way they are treated an 

important aspect of their trip (see Tasks 3b and 2b). Special training involving guests of different 

groups is very helpful and can ensure an on-going exchange between guests and providers 

ultimately leading to better quality services.  

6. Optimisation of resources 

Optimisation of resources has two dimensions: using as many resources as possible to meet the 

demands of a strategic development of accessible tourism while prioritising tasks along the service 

chain. A better understanding of travel behaviour and patterns can help improve specific aspects of 

the service chain within different tourism sectors (see Tasks 2b and 3b).   

Most importantly, the study shows that overall, attitudinal barriers are encountered more often than 

physical access barriers across all sectors by individuals with different types of access needs. The 

awareness and level of training of service providers is thus an important factor across all 

sectors, as highlighted above. 

In the pre-travel/ information gathering stage, the lack or limited availability of information about 

accessible services represents the biggest barrier for people with access needs. Therefore, the 

communication of accessible features of infrastructure and services remains to be improved (see 

recommendation 7.Communication and marketing). 

Barriers encountered in the transport stage largely refer to airlines not ensuring an accessible 

environment. The infrastructure of airports and aircrafts (although significantly improved in recent 

years for people with mobility impairments) should therefore be better adapted to the needs of 

467 

 
 
 
 
travellers with access needs. In addition to transport from home to destination, moving around at the 

destination was seen as the sector where most barriers are encountered. This result shows the 

importance to improve, for example, the accessibility of public transport, pathways and parking 

for travellers with access needs. 

In the entertainment sector, people experience the most barriers with nature-based activities, 

indicating that destinations should develop their offer on experiencing nature in an accessible way.  

Usually all guests benefit from improvements in infrastructure and services. However, the results of 

the survey show that different sub-groups report different barriers (see Tasks 2b and 3b). While 

guests with limitations and seniors experience problems with the accessibility of toilets and private 

space, families face more problems in public services and leisure activities. In planning 

improvements, the different needs and expectations of guests have to be taken into account. 

Therefore, although improvement of toilets and ergonomics in general along with additional space 

are important factors, it is not possible to give general recommendations on how a service provider 

or a destination should invest: improvements targeting specific sub-groups are more likely to have 

an impact on the quality of the offer. 

Aside from tourism chain stages and target group needs, seasonality and price offers are also 

aspects to take into account (see Task 2b). For many service providers, it may be profitable to shift 

the focus from the high season to the high percentage of people in all groups that travel off season. 

Besides, the study shows that many potential guests do not travel due to financial reasons. This 

underlines the need for accessible offers in the lower budget sector. In addition, it supplies a strong 

argument for social tourism – not just for guests with access needs. 

7. Communication and marketing 

People with access needs demand specific information when preparing their trip (see Task 2b). 

However, information on accessibility on websites and especially in brochures and other printed 

materials is often insufficient, technical and not user-friendly. Once individuals have tried and tested 

websites, these sources are then subsequently considered sufficient and reliable (see task 3b). Yet, 

familiarity with the existing sources that have been proven to be reliable together with the tendency 

to go back to these specific sources does not necessarily indicate that sufficient progress has been 

made in this area. Most importantly, information on accessibility is not integrated in general 

marketing and communication materials (see Task 2a). This is an issue as the results of the study 

show that people with access needs show similar patterns in preparing their holiday trips to tourists 

in general and only a small proportion use special-interest resources (see Task 2b). This is a strong 

indicator to include sufficient accessibility information in mainstream tourism information. 

468 

 
 
 
However, detailed features may be difficult to fully integrate in all general materials and special-

interest media remain a useful resource to share more in-depth information. Regarding market 

segmentation, the study results advise against segmenting target groups based on different types of 

access needs. On the contrary, it suggests that as different access needs are present in any target 

group, accessibility should always be part of the offer. 

Besides, many guests rely on personal information and recommendations which should be an 

element of marketing strategies. Social media play an important role in word-of-mouth-

communication, especially among younger groups of guests, for instance the important group of 

families with children (see Task 2b).   

Further to the efforts to improve accessibility through the involvement of decision-makers, better 

coordination, networking, strategic planning, knowledge management and the optimisation of 

resources, the key final step is to promote these accessible tourism services and products among 

travellers. Communication and marketing are therefore of particular relevance to embracing the 

business opportunities created by the demand for Accessible Tourism. 

Roadmap to success 

The above-mentioned recommendations and success factors should be integrated part of a process 

to implement Tourism for All approaches. This process can only be completed step by step and 

according to the specific situation at hand. Service providers, destination managers and 

administrations have to decide when and how to start, which path to follow and what targets to be 

achieved. 

The development process usually takes place in four phases of transition1: 

1.  Awareness Phase 

2.  Starting Phase 

3.  Developing Phase 

4.  Consolidating Phase 

All four phases display certain characteristics and actions that are common to all developments and 

the recommendations are of different importance in the different phases. Nevertheless, the 

recommendations can be prioritised and grouped according to the seven success factors and four 

phases of transitions as per Figure 253.  

1 Neumann/Reuber 2004, Aragall/Neumann/Sagramola 2008, Neumann/ Pagenkopf/Schiefer/Lorenz 2008 

469 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
In order to respond in an appropriate and balanced way to all recommendations and success factors 

mentioned before, the participation of all stakeholders and available resources has to be considered 

in all phases according to the local or regional culture and conditions. 

.

470 

 
 
Figure 253 - Roadmap to success   

Awareness Phase 

Starting Phase 

Developing Phase 

Consolidating Phase 

1. Commitment 
of the decision-
makers 

Encourage service providers to 
invest in accessible tourism and 
demonstrate its economic and 
social benefits 

Strong and on-going support from 
politicians, administrators and decision 
makers in business – including education 
and training as well as direct financial 
support 

Harmonise standards and 
legislation to provide better 
guidance for providers and 
clearer information for users 
Integration in mainstream offers 

Assign dedicated work unit or coordinator 
within the management structure of 
tourism organisations with appropriate 
resources 

Improve the industry’s 
coordination efforts, particularly 
through public-private 
partnerships and on local and 
regional levels 

Encourage knowledge transfer, particularly 
through professional networks 

Raise awareness for the diversity 
of access needs and patterns of 
travel behaviour across different 
groups and countries, but also 
across individuals within groups, to 
target them in the most appropriate 
way 

Install an inventory of the current offer in 
terms of infrastructure, services and 
possibilities for improvement 

Staff with a solid knowledge base on 
accessibility through good knowledge 
management 
Using as many resources as possible for 
a strategic development of accessible 
tourism 
Prioritising tasks along the service chain 

Improve the offer gradually, 
include accessibility in long-
term planning and investments 
and develop feedback tools for 
customers to establish 
accessibility priorities 

Regular training of staff and 
management 

Include sufficient accessibility 
information in mainstream 
tourism information 
Take personal information and 
recommendations into account 
in marketing strategies (e.g. 
through social media) 

2. Coordinating 
and continuity 

3. Networking 
and 
participation 

4. Strategic 
planning 

5. Knowledge 
management 
and qualification 

6. Optimisation 
of resources 

7. 
Communication 
and marketing 

Guarantee the accessible offer 
across all categories of services 
and prices offered at the destination 

Improve marketing and advertising 
strategies by taking into account 
accessibility features 

Economic impact and travel patterns of Accessible Tourism in Europe – FINAL REPORT  

471