Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism

ISSN: 1531-3220 (Print) 1531-3239 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

Revisiting tourism studies curriculum to highlight

accessible and inclusive tourism

Sotiroula Liasidou, Jorge Umbelino & Éricka Amorim

To cite this article: Sotiroula Liasidou, Jorge Umbelino & Éricka Amorim (2019) Revisiting tourism
studies curriculum to highlight accessible and inclusive tourism, Journal of Teaching in Travel &
Tourism, 19:2, 112-125, DOI: 10.1080/15313220.2018.1522289

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2018.1522289

Published online: 01 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 125

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttt20
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM
2019, VOL. 19, NO. 2, 112–125
https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2018.1522289

Revisiting tourism studies curriculum to highlight accessible

and inclusive tourism
Sotiroula Liasidoua, Jorge Umbelinob and Éricka Amorimc
a
Faculty of Management and Economics, Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Cyprus
University of Technology, Lemesos, Cyprus; bSenior Researcher at the Centre for Geographical Studies,
IGOT-ULisboa, Escola Superior de Hotelaria e Turismo do Estoril (ESHTE), Lisbon, Portugal; cResearcher at
the Centre for Geographical Studies, Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Lisbon, Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A notable development in the past few years is that the concept of Received 12 October 2017
accessible and inclusive tourism (AIT) has gained momentum. This Accepted 7 September 2018
paper has two aims: first, to identify the extent to which tourism KEYWORDS
studies curricula can cultivate ethical behaviour in light of inter- Special needs; accessible
national legal mandates and conventions promoting the rights of and inclusive tourism;
people with disabilities (PwDs); and second, to point up AIT as a tourism education; tourism
broader concept that matters to other population groups, namely curriculum
seniors, pregnant women and families with baby carriages, people
who follow special diets or have different morphologies to be
integrated into the much larger category of people with special
needs (PwSNs). This study was conducted with 254 self-adminis-
tered questionnaires to tourism and hospitality students and
recent alumni. The results of the study suggest that disability in
tourism studies is a rather neglected topic of discussion.

1. Introduction
This paper explores the extent to which tourism studies curricula include and discuss the
vital issue of disability rights in terms of national, super-national and supranational laws
and regulations. The review of the existing literature indicates the lack of an adequate
and specific definition of disability and tourism. There is also a lack of data concerning
the accurate measurement of interaction and influence between disability and tourism.
Admittedly, accessible and inclusive tourism (AIT) is not only about people with dis-
abilities (PwDs), but also includes the larger market of people with special needs
(PwSNs).
The above suggests AIT could be an additional and highly important parameter of
future discussion in terms of the social perspective of problems concerning PwSNs in
tourism studies. Students who enrol in tourism programs should be equipped with the
necessary knowledge of the peculiarities and special services provided to PwDs, along
with a discussion about the social policy of inclusion. More specifically, disability in
tourism studies should primarily concern two perspectives, the social and the economic.

CONTACT Sotiroula Liasidou sotiroula.liasidou@cut.ac.cy Faculty of Management and Economics, Department

of Hotel and Tourism Management, Cyprus University of Technology, Lemesos, Cyprus
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 113

Tourism educators should prioritize the social aspects of AIT and develop curricula with
the inclusion of specialized modules.
The first objective of this paper is to identify whether tourism studies curricula can
promote ethical behaviour based on international legal mandates and conventions that
promote the rights of PwDs. Then to emphasise AIT as a broader concept that matters to
other population groups, including seniors, pregnant women and families with baby
carriages, people who follow special diets or have different morphologies that can be
integrated into the much larger category of PwSNs. The following section provides a
state-of-the-art discussion about this topic, followed by a description of the methods
used to fulfil the aim of the study and, finally, an analysis of the research results.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Accessible and inclusive tourism
It is a common belief that all tourists have specific needs related to their personal,
cultural, social and economic conditions and, of course, to their choices and preferences.
Some tourists also have special needs, meaning that their travelling experiences must be
supported by special technical facilities or simply special service delivery by humans
(Buhalis & Michopoulou, 2011; Dickson, Misener, & Darcy, 2017; Naniopoulos, Tsalis, &
Nalmpantis, 2016). In a more technical approach, Souca (2010, p. 1154) defines AIT as
“access requirements including mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive dimensions of
access, to function independently and with equity and dignity through the delivery of
universally designed products and environments”. As suggested by Cole and Morgan
(2010), AIT is a set of facilities and practices that increases the number of persons able to
benefit from a tourism experience.
In general, when people think of PwDs, they usually picture someone in a wheelchair
(Buhalis & Darcy, 2011; Domínguez Vila, Darcy, & Alén González, 2015; Liasidou &
Mavrou, 2017). It is true that PwDs (but not only wheelchair users) are the ones who
demand the greatest amount of attention in terms of their supporting requests (Darcy,
2010; Domínguez Vila et al., 2015). However, PwDs are not alone in the category of
PwSNs; seniors, for example, may not be formally inside the group of PwDs, but they
tend naturally to have special needs because aging generally implies lower quality of
health (McCabe & Diekmann, 2015).
The inclusion of seniors in AIT is, in fact, a major reason to recognise the importance
of this concept and market. The increase in life expectancy has considerably affected the
number of elder people in the tourism industry and led to the inauguration of niche
products (Eusébio, Carneiro, Kastenholz, & Alvelos, 2017). According to Eurostat (2016),
in 2016 there were 506.8 million people living in the EU-28 and almost 94 million were
65 years of age and over; 57.5 % of the elderly were women. Also in 2016, one in every
five trips for leisure was made by people aged 65 and over (Eurostat, 2016).
In addition to PwDs and seniors, the AIT concept should include people with allergies
and/or people who need to follow special diets, as well as those who have extreme
morphologies (i.e. those who are extremely overweight or have gigantism or dwarfism).
Some special needs are permanent and for life, but in other cases they are only
temporary – a broken leg, for example, or recovery from a serious operation (McCabe
114 S. LIASIDOU ET AL.

& Diekmann, 2015). It was estimated that, in 2015, there were 1 billion travellers with
various types of special needs (UNWTO, 2015).
For a prolonged period of tourism history, PwDs were entirely excluded from travel-
ling because of limited opportunities (Cloquet, Palomino, Shaw, Stephen, & Taylor, 2017;
Darcy & Dickson, 2009; Dickson et al., 2017; UNWTO, 2016). This lacuna in the literature
suggests that PwDs have the curiosity and the urge to travel (Cloquet et al., 2017;
Packer, McKercher, & Mathew, 2007), but they need to have access to essential informa-
tion, so that they feel safer while travelling. Lack of information may create the risk of
terrible disappointments or, even worse, of being badly injured. Because PwDs cannot
sufficiently and calmly control any unexpected situation, they become more demanding
in requiring better tourism services (Cloquet et al., 2017; Elevator programme news-
paper, 2017).
The supply of products and services in tourism must focus on inclusiveness so all
guests have access to all facilities without barriers. Tourism suppliers should thus
develop special buildings facilities and custom-made equipment with technical support
to satisfy the needs of their customers within the market of PwDs (Domínguez Vila et al.,
2015). According to UNWTO (2013, p. 5):

The number of accessibility problems is legion, and visitors may be affected in every part of
the route, either in terms of access to information, local transport, accommodation, visits
and/or participation in cultural or sporting events, whether as spectators or participants.

Even more important is the service delivery by the staff of tourism establishments,
where a good attitude and the appropriate skills are absolutely vital. Staff training is
the cornerstone to providing the necessary service to PwDs with empathy and without
discrimination (Cloquet et al., 2017). Every guest is special and different, and that is why
tourism companies should provide PwDs with the opportunity to express their needs
and, in many instances, indicate the way they wish to be served (Dickson et al., 2017;
Domínguez Vila et al., 2015).
Historically, the disabled were condemned to live apart from society. They were
treated as “a medical problem” and expected to accept their condition and manage
their own handicaps in isolation, without having the ambition of doing the same things
as “abled” people (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), 2007).
However, in 2006 the United Nations (UN) developed and approved a Convention on the
Rights of PwDs, which states:

Persons with disabilities include those 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 (UN CRPWD, 2006:
article 1).

There is no doubt that the tourism industry’s services and products compose a part of
the new vision of disability, as the 2006 UN Convention includes article 30, which is
entitled “Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport”.
Tourism can enable participation and eventually diminish social exclusion by includ-
ing relatively neglected and disadvantaged social groups (Avellino, 2012; McCabe,
Minnaert, & Diekmann, 2011; Minnaert, Maitland, & Miller, 2006, 2011). According to
the World Health Organisation (WHO):
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 115

Disability is thus not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the
interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or
she lives. Overcoming the difficulties faced by people with disabilities requires interventions
to remove environmental and social barriers (World Health Organisation, 2016).

Additionally, when PwDs face prejudice during the travel process and are treated as
“different”, it is unethical and a form of discrimination (Daruwalla & Darcy, 2005;
Shakespeare & Watson, 2002).
This new commitment to the rights of PwDs indicates awareness that “the neglect of
various regulations for such facilities is regarded as discrimination” (Ozturk, Yaylin, &
Yesiltas, 2008, p. 383). The European Commission has shown its concern for the problem
(European Commission, 2004, p. 5), saying that “poor infrastructure discourages PwDs to
travel, and this has implications on discrimination”. Additionally, the initiative of
“Universal Design” should be mentioned, which
is the design and composition of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood
and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability or
disability (Universal Design, 2016).

This implies a friendly way of living without any barriers and with universal physical
access (UNWTO, 2016).
The stance of the United Nation World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) on disabil-
ities is that no human should be excluded from tourism. In 2013, the General
Assembly adopted a series of recommendations and produced a Manual on
Accessible Tourism for All, the ONCE Foundation and the European Network for
Accessible Tourism (ENAT) (UNWTO, 2013). The move toward the ideal of “Tourism
for All” indicates the belief in non-discrimination and the commitment of the UNWTO
to ensuring universal accessibility. The next section considers tourism curricula in
relation to disability.

2.2 Tourism curriculum and disability

Disability theory and tourism can be aligned with “Disability Studies in Education” – that
is, in accordance with AERA (AERA (American Educational Research Association), 2016),
an intra-disciplinary approach to understanding the phenomenon of disability. More
specifically, AERA (American Educational Research Association) (2016) supports research
from various perspectives and encourages intra-disciplinary research to promote social
justice, equitable and inclusive educational opportunities and full and meaningful access
to all benefits of society for people labelled as “disabled”. The topic of disability is not
included in other known studies discussing tourism curricula, so this study will be
probably the first to raise this issue and provide initial insight. The main problem, as
observed in scholarly research, is that tourism studies have been seen primarily as
vocational and have neglected the social perspective connected to the industry (Hsu,
Xiao, & Chen, 2017; Oktadiana & Chon, 2016; Ring, Dickinger, & Wober, 2009; Stuart-
Hoyle, 2003).
In tourism studies, curriculum development varies, and a “curriculum is defined as a
whole educational experience packaged as a degree program” (Tribe, 2002, p. 340). As
noted by Busby and Fiedel (2001, p. 502):
116 S. LIASIDOU ET AL.

The content of tourism courses is a constant subject for debate. One particular pressure
stems from the recent growth in interest in the subject by academics from a range of
disciplines and backgrounds.

The historical development of tourism curricula reveals an evolution in the field, with the
main change being the adjustment of taught content to the changing needs of the
industry (Busby & Fiedel, 2001; Chang & Chen, 2012; Fidgeon, 2010; Ring et al., 2009).
Having discussed the importance of the PwD market and the special requirements
needed to enable travelling, it is necessary to examine whether PwDs have been
included in tourism curricula. The discussion of “disability and tourism” could be
added to the curriculum of the social sciences, which include the humanities, anthro-
pology, psychology and sociology (Aitchison, 2003; Aitchison, 2009; Minnaert, Maitland,
& Miller, 2009). Tribe (2002, p. 2) argued:

The curriculum aims of the philosophic practitioner are to promote a balance between a
tourism education that satisfies the demands of business and one that satisfies the
demands of a more widely drawn tourism society and world.

The results of the attempt by Sheldon, Fesenmaier, Woeber, Cooper, and Antonioli
(2008) to predict the future of tourism studies and to guide educators through 2030
are clear. Their study concluded that tourism curriculum should be based on four basic
skill categories: a) destination stewardship skills, b) political and ethical skills, c)
enhanced human resource skills and d) dynamic business skills. Additionally, a review
of other studies on tourism curricula (Aitchison, 2003; Fidgeon, 2010; Ring et al., 2009)
reveals a concentration on the managerial perspective, with a recent emphasis on
sustainable tourism.
Internships in industry establishments are an important part of tourism education and
a vital method of learning that better equips students for work in the field (Deale,
O’Halloran, Jacques, & Garger, 2010). Interaction with the real tourism business environ-
ment builds knowledge about the actual needs of customers, something that tourism
industry professionals request when it comes to work experience (Harkison, Poulston, &
Jung-Hee, 2011). Internships frame the future careers of students by bringing them in
contact with the actual practices of the tourism industry, including the interaction of
employees and guests throughout the delivery of various services (Robinson, Ruhanen,
& Breakey, 2016).
Additionally, there is an obvious gap “in disability research within leisure studies and
leisure research within disability studies” (Aitchison, 2003, p. 957). Shakespeare and
Watson (2002) raised the issues to frame their approach to researching disability from
the perspective of the social sciences.
Any discussion of disability is in line with the concept of social entrepreneurship in
tourism education (Jones, Warner, & Kiser, 2010; Sheldon, Dredge, & Daniele, 2016).
Disability and tourism should be discussed in tourism studies as a concept imbedded
within the wider context of social entrepreneurship, which is the practice of doing
business with sensitivity to social characteristics (Arranz, Ubierna, Arroyabe, Perez, &
de Arroyabe, 2017; Buzinde, Shockley, Andereck, Dee, & Frank, 2016).
Tregakis (2002) calls upon social model theory in relation to disability and society.
Social model theory refers to the social barriers imposed on disabled people (Hughes,
2010) and posits that these are “caused by the way society is organised, rather than by a
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 117

person’s impairment or difference” (Scope, 2016). The social model differentiates

between the medical model of disability and the various physical impediments: the
imposition of barriers is caused by the lack of acceptance and inclusion in society
(Freund, 2001; Ring et al., 2009; UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(UNDESA), 2007). Tourism is an integral part of modern society and a social right to all
people without discrimination (Kastenholz, Eusébio, & Figueiredo, 2015; McCabe et al.,
2011; Minnaert et al., 2006).
The European Commission (2014) has issued a policy statement called the “European
Disability Strategy 2010–2020.” The overall aim of the strategy is to empower PwDs so
that they can fully enjoy their rights and participate in society and in the economy on an
equal basis with others. In general, tourism academics support the idea that the future
of tourism education should adjust to the needs of the industry (Dredge, 2016), and
disability is becoming an important concern in the tourism industry (Minnaert, 2012).

3. Research methods: sampling and data collection

The primary data of the study included both quantitative and qualitative methods of
inquiry to make the research more valid. Non-probability samples were used, because
the study targets a population that has knowledge related to the predetermined aim of
the research (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). In particular, the quantitative methods involved
the distribution of self-administered online questionnaires (powered by Google Forms).
A pilot survey was conducted among 12 students from Portugal (n = 6) and Cyprus
(n = 6), which verified the readability and efficiency of the questionnaire content.
The questionnaire was then sent to people who were in their final year of study or
had completed their degree within the last 3 years in Portugal and Cyprus at the
authors’ universities by using the convenience method. In total, 500 emails including
the link to the questionnaire (approximately 350 from Portugal and 150 from Cyprus)
were sent from January to May 2017. Considering the size of both universities, along
with the total number of students and recent alumni, the number of sent emails is
considered representative, and the final sample of 254 is statistically valid for a margin of
error of 5% and a confidence level of 95% (Hamburg & Lubov, 1974). Table 1 shows the
demographic characteristics of the sample.
Questionnaires are a common method of collecting primary information and fulfil the
aims of this particular study. To determine the language of the questionnaire, a pilot
study was executed in English. During the pilot study, both for the questionnaires and
the interviews, the participants proved to be sufficiently competent in the English

Table 1. Questionnaire – Demographics of the sample.

Responses Number
Program of study Tourism (and related) 179
Hotel Management (and related) 75
Gender Male 74
Female 180
Status of education of the participant Current Students (final year) 176
Alumni 78
Age 18–25 188
26–41+ 66
118 S. LIASIDOU ET AL.

language, and we decided to distribute the questionnaire in English instead of Greek or

Portuguese, meaning the same questionnaire used in both countries. This was appro-
priate because English is used during lectures in these students’ courses, and there is an
option for students to enrol in English language modules.
The questionnaire was designed to address the issue under investigation by con-
sidering curriculum design in terms of the content taught, the learning outcomes and
the further expectation of learning on disability and tourism. Likert scale questions
seemed to be the most appropriate method to assess the degree of agreement or
disagreement for a number of statements (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). We included questions about special modules, dedicated
lectures and class discussions, practical training content and written and oral examina-
tions. The learning objectives were about the various types of disability, the needs of
PwDs, social inclusion, travelling constraints, hotel catering/services, destination facilities
and activities, ethical tourism, models of disability (social and medical), discrimination
and the importance considering special needs for tourism.
Furthermore, to identify whether the respondents had an understanding of the con-
cepts of “tourism for all”, “universal design” and “social inclusion”, the last part of the
questionnaire dealt with learning and practical training for the future connected to AIT. The
questions were an amalgam of various parameters associated with acquiring more knowl-
edge on ethical tourism, on AIT, on the special requirements of the various types of
disability and on forms of discrimination against disabled people. This part of the ques-
tionnaire also included statements that aimed to understand whether the participants
were interested in gaining more knowledge about destinations with accessible facilities
and “universal design”, as well as in enrolling in training programs about this topic.
The analysis of the questionnaire involved descriptive statistics measuring the popu-
larity of each response. This type of measurement meets the aim of research as an initial
step in understanding tourism and disability in tourism education. Mean scores were
compared, and there was a convergence without any statistical difference among the
responses of the sample groups (Table 1).
For qualitative data, after the completion of all questionnaires by the participants, a
random sample of 30 respondents was chosen after completing the questionnaire for an
interview. The students (both current and graduate) were notified via email and an
interview was arranged. The interviews were either face to face (18) or by telephone (12)
for 10 min. The objective of the quick interviews was to identify whether students and
alumni had a clear understanding of what they were answering in the questionnaire
(Silverman, 2016). The interviews were conducted in English using a semi-structured
technique. All interviews were transcribed and uploaded into NVIVO, with the develop-
ment of codes for the purpose of the analysis. All results of both the interviews and the
questionnaires are presented in the following section.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. The questionnaire: learning about disability
In this section, the general attributes that represent the Likert scale responses are
analysed. The analysis was divided into three parts: (1) the exact content of curriculum
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 119

Table 2. “What I was taught” (n = 254).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5 N.A Av. %5 + 4
[I received adequate knowledge on the issue of disability] 11 101 52 64 23 3 3.1 44%
[During my practical training. I had to serve people with 38 60 38 39 33 46 3.1 39%
disabilities]
[In written examinations. I had questions on accessible and 10 63 55 62 54 10 2.6 29%
inclusive tourism]
[I had specialised units/modules on accessible and inclusive 9 65 47 101 29 3 2.7 29%
tourism]
[I had specialized lectures on accessible and inclusive tourism] 12 63 62 91 22 4 3.5 30%
[I had enough class discussions about disabled friendly products 20 63 55 87 25 4 2.9 33%
and services in tourism]
[I had studies about the strategy of World Tourism Organisation 25 62 50 63 47 7 2.8 34%
(WTO) on accessible tourism]
[I had discussions on the topic of accessible and inclusive tourism 18 61 54 62 42 17 2.8 31%
in marketing modules]
5 = Strongly agree. 4 = Agree.3 = Neither agree or disagree.2 = Disagree. 1 = Strongly disagree. N.A. = Not applied.
Av = Average of the valid answers (except N.A.)

during studies, “What I was taught”; (2) the actual learning outcomes during studies,
“What I have learnt”; and (3) future expectations: “What I am interested in for the future”.
As illustrated in Table 2, 44% of the participants selected “strongly agree” and “agree” for
the statement [I received adequate knowledge on the issue of disability]. In the case of
“specialized units/modules” and “specialised lectures on AIT”, the majority responded
“Disagree”, with only 29% and 30%, respectively, agreeing on the statements. This
suggests that students (both current students and alumni) did not receive enough knowl-
edge during their studies to make them well equipped concerning AIT. A major concern
was the understanding of the special requirements of PwDs that occur during practical
training in hotels. This was another social issue in terms of the readiness of the hotel/
tourism destinations to receive PwDs, as well as the preparation of students during their
studies (Harkison et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2016). In the overall sample, only 39% of the
respondents confirmed the statement [During my practical training, I had to serve PwDs].
The three last items of this section – [I had discussions on the topic of AIT in
marketing modules], [In written examinations I had questions on AIT] and [I had studies
about the strategy of the World Tourism Organization (WTO) on accessible tourism] –
the answers are in line with those already noted, with only 31%, 29% and 34%,
respectively, agreeing.
The responses to the second section of this questionnaire were again revealing. A
large majority of the students and graduates responded “strongly agree” or “agree” on
the statements [I became familiar with the fact that there are various types of disability],
[I became familiar with the fact that PwDs have different needs], [I became familiar with
social inclusion], [I became familiar with physical constraints in travelling], [I became
familiar with the fact that destinations and hotels cater to PwDs] and [I understand that
AIT is part of ethical tourism]. However, in other statements about more exclusive terms
for disability, for instance [social and medical models of disability], only 27% and 18% of
the respondents mentioned they “strongly agree” or “agree”. In terms of whether the
respondents were familiar with the types of discrimination against disabled guests,
again, only 33% responded “strongly agree” or “agree” (Table 3).
120 S. LIASIDOU ET AL.

Table 3. ‘What I have learned (n = 254).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5 N.A Av. %5 + 4
[I became familiar with social inclusion] 40 128 47 23 10 6 3.7 66%
[I became familiar with the fact that there are various types of 49 124 39 26 12 4 3.7 68%
disability]
[I became familiar with the fact that people with disabilities have 71 122 32 18 7 4 3.9 76%
different needs]
[I became familiar with physical constraints in travelling] 33 121 52 33 10 5 3.5 61%
[I became familiar with the fact that destinations and hotels cater 26 117 58 38 10 5 3.4 56%
for people with disabilities]
[I understand that accessible and inclusive tourism is part of ethical 68 118 35 20 10 3 3.9 73%
tourism]
[I became familiar with the concept of “tourism for all”] 69 116 36 21 9 3 3.9 73%
[I became familiar with the fact that the majority of destinations 57 108 41 25 16 7 3.7 65%
have gaps in providing a holistic access to people with special
requirements]
[I became aware that people with disabilities is an important 56 103 48 27 16 4 3.2 63%
segment for tourism]
[I became familiar with the special requirements of guests with 37 87 52 51 20 7 3.3 49%
disabilities]
[I learned about the “social model of disability”] 11 58 68 64 46 7 2.7 27%
[I learned about the “medical model of disability”] 7 38 76 65 59 9 2.5 18%
[I became familiar with “Universal design”] 26 56 76 52 33 11 3.0 32%
[I was confused with the issue of disability in relation to tourism] 14 56 76 59 36 13 2.8 28%
[I acquired adequate knowledge on the forms of discrimination of 15 68 74 48 41 8 2.9 33%
disabled guests]
[I became familiar with the special activities for disabled guests in 33 63 73 49 29 7 3.1 38%
the hotel]
5 = Strongly agree. 4 = Agree.3 = Neither agree or disagree.2 = Disagree. 1 = Strongly disagree. N.A. = Not applied.
Av = Average of the valid answers (except N.A.)

The answers to the next question indicate that a majority of the respondents (63%)
recognize the significance of PwDs on the tourism market. Additionally, the students
and graduates have shown familiarity (73%) with the issue of “tourism for all” as a
concept that provides access to all people in tourism activity. “Tourism for all” is
intensely promoted by UNWTO as an important pillar for tourism development.
However, only 32% of the students reported being familiar with “universal design”.
The next responses were also revealing, because only 49% and 38%, respectively,
were familiar with the special requirements of guests with disabilities and with special
activities for disabled guests in the hotel. In terms of acknowledging that destinations
have gaps in providing holistic access to people with special requirements, this was
positively answered by 65% and, to a final question, surprisingly, 28% indicated confu-
sion about the issue of disability and tourism.
The last part of the questionnaire (Table 4) provided clear insight into the need for
students and alumni to receive more knowledge about AIT, with more than 73%
indicating “strongly agree” and “agree” when answering questions that started with
“learning more” or “enrolling in” with reference to their interests. In particular, the
respondents requested more knowledge on ethical tourism, law and regulations, special
requirements for PwDs, discrimination, accessible cities, “universal design” and social
and medical models of disability. Additionally, the respondents clearly indicated strong
agreement that they would be interested in enrolling in specialised modules and/or on
educational units and specialised training about AIT social discourse. Additionally, an
important aspect is their agreement (85%) with learning best practices in servicing
disabled people in the main components of the tourism industry.
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 121

Table 4. “What I am interested in learning for the future” (n = 254).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5 N.A Av. %5 + 4
[In learning more about best practices in servicing disabled guests] 117 99 22 12 4 0 4.2 85%
[In enrolling in training about accessible and inclusive tourism] 99 96 33 21 5 0 4.0 77%
[In getting more knowledge on accessible and inclusive tourism] 102 125 20 6 1 0 4.3 89%
[In getting more knowledge on ethical tourism] 93 123 29 8 1 0 4.2 85%
[In getting more knowledge on the special requirements of the 98 117 25 13 1 0 4.2 85%
various types of disability]
[In learning about accessible countries/cities] 103 114 23 13 1 0 4.2 85%
[In learning more about the issue of discrimination of disabled 103 112 26 12 1 0 4.2 85%
tourists]
[In learning about the “Universal Design”] 94 100 41 16 3 0 4.0 76%
[In enrolling in a specialised module on accessible and inclusive 93 100 38 19 4 0 4.0 76%
tourism]
[In enrolling in a specialised unit on accessible and inclusive 88 97 45 20 4 0 4.0 73%
tourism]
5 = Strongly agree. 4 = Agree.3 = Neither agree or disagree.2 = Disagree. 1 = Strongly disagree. N.A. = Not applied.
Av = Average of the valid answers (except N.A.)

4.2. The interviews: proposing an enriched curriculum

The interview results further supported the results of the questionnaires. The students not
only confirmed their understanding of the questionnaire statements, but also emphatically
argued that there is a lack of adequate content in defining the whole concept of disability
in tourism and hospitality education. Concerning social inclusion, both students and
alumni showed competence in understanding the connection of disability and tourism.
However, they were eloquent in mentioning the lack of specialised modules designed for
disability and tourism. This gives an insight into the way that tourism curricula can be re-
adjusted and specific content added on this particular topic. Respondents mentioned four
main parameters: social inclusion, facilities, activities and service in relation to the tourism
industry. Inclusion, as they mentioned, is the right to participate in tourism, but special
facilities, activities and services are needed: otherwise, tourism cannot be possible for all
with meaning of social exclusion. The respondents thus suggested that these four pillars
of “tourism for all” be included in tourism curricula as specialised modules.
In general, the results of the study suggested that both current students and alumni
were not sufficiently prepared on the subject of AIT during their studies. However, they
are willing to gain more knowledge through seminars and training sessions about this
important topic and learn how to serve this “special” tourism market adequately.
Tourism curricula should be revisited with the provision of new insight into “tourism
for all” as an academic concept that will eventually be put into practice in working
experience. This study adds to the existing literature by pointing out neglected concepts
that have not been studied in sufficient detail but that should become an important part
of tourism education (Aitchison, 2003). Similarly, Shakespeare and Watson (2002) argued
that better content concerning disability is needed in social sciences curricula.
The results of the present study reveal that students are not well prepared with the
essential academic and practical knowledge on the topic of disability. It is obvious that a
comprehensive approach to disability studies is lacking. True, “tourism for all” has gained
momentum; even so, there is evident confusion in the whole subject area of tourism and
disability. During the years of study, the peculiarities of this particular market of people
122 S. LIASIDOU ET AL.

need to be emphasized, along with the regulatory framework. Additionally, gaps in

tourism education on this topic should be seen as a major problem. If the issue of
disability and tourism is not discussed, then students will be limited and constrained in
their ability to provide accessible services and facilities. Admittedly, destinations have
gaps in providing holistic access to people with special requirements, but there is also a
gap in tourism education and curricula concerning disability and accessibility.

5. Conclusion
This study shed light on the way both current students and alumni of hospitality and
tourism programs understand the notion of disability in relation to tourism. The results of
the study demonstrate that, in tourism studies, disability is not sufficiently discussed. This
is primarily because tourism studies are still seen more as vocational courses and neglect
the social perspective connected to the industry (Dredge, 2016; Ring et al., 2009; Stuart-
Hoyle, 2003). It is imperative that disability and social inclusion be discussed in detail in
tourism education within the context of social tourism (Avellino, 2012) and social entre-
preneurship (Arranz et al., 2017; Buzinde et al., 2016). Disability theory and tourism, as
mentioned above, can be incorporated as part of “Disability Studies in Education” (AERA
(American Educational Research Association), 2016). More specifically, in tourism educa-
tion, disability should be based on the different human needs and the meaning of social
inclusion without prejudice. Moreover, the educational content must include information
about the special facilities and special service delivery required to serve this important
market cohort. During their studies, future tourism and hotel professionals should become
well equipped and familiar with the special needs of PwDs. An important consideration is
that disability and tourism are connected to the concept of “ethical tourism” as a new
form of tourism development following an ethical code of conduct.
“Tourism for all” should be incorporated into university curricula as a form of ethical
tourism that provides access to tourism activities to all people. The rich discourse on
disability theory is relevant to the tourism industry because of the increased demand from
PwDs and other PwSNs going on holidays. Another important aspect of discussion is
“universal design” as an obligation to provide standardized facilities to serve this market,
along with a detailed discourse on the “social and medical models of disability” as a way
to emphasize the discrimination that PwDs have to confront in many aspects of their lives.
In most cases, PwSNs can overcome barriers related to their physical impairments, but are
unable to overcome social stereotypes in the way they are treated by society.
In the sense that enriching the educational context of tourism with more specialised
modules on disability can prepare students as future professionals, this study has manage-
rial implications. The market of PwDs entails a positive economic impact due to the increase
of PwSNs over the years. Students can become well trained and have confidence in
providing services to this special market, which will have implications, not just for financial
benefit, but also in terms of breaking the social barriers of prejudice and making the life of
PwDs more comfortable. Additionally, law enforcement necessitates stricter adherence of
facilities allowing physical access in tourism and hotel establishments. Tertiary education
can be the basis to ensure that students and future professionals in the fields of hospitality
and tourism are equipped with the academic and professional skills needed to serve PwSNs
adequately.
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 123

The authors acknowledge some limitations of this study. On the one hand, the actual
content of the curriculum (generally speaking) and the views and opinions of the
academics involved in the curriculum design have not been researched. On the other
hand, this study mainly focused on the education systems in Cyprus and Portugal, and
may not be applicable to other countries. These limitations can, however, be turned into
opportunities for more research on the topic. The same methodology can be applied to
future research that includes more tourism and hospitality students and faculty mem-
bers. Additionally, different methodologies can be employed, as mentioned above, with
interviews targeting academics who could recommend curricular content along with
various learning and teaching methods related to this topic. The present paper is
intended to be a stepping-stone for further discussion on the topic of tourism education
and disability.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
AERA (American Educational Research Association) (2016). Disability Studies in Education SIG, 143.
Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG143/DisabilityStudiesinEducationSIG143/tabid/12121/
Default.aspx.
Aitchison, C. (2003). From leisure and disability to disability leisure: Developing data, definitions
and discourses. Disability & Society, 18(7), 955–996.
Aitchison, C. (2009). Exclusive discourses: Leisure studies and disability. Leisure Studies, 28(4), 375–386.
Arranz, N., Ubierna, F., Arroyabe, M., Perez, C., & de Arroyabe, J.C. (2017). The effect of tourism
education on students’ entrepreneurial vocation. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 17(3), 312–330.
Avellino, M. (2012). Social Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.socialtourism.eu/attachments/arti
cle/103/Research%20-%20Final%20document.pdf
Buhalis, D., & Darcy, S. (2011). Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues. UK: Channel Views.
Buhalis, D., & Michopoulou, E. (2011). Information-enabled tourism destination marketing:
Addressing the accessibility market. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(2), 145–168.
Busby, G., & Fiedel, D. (2001). A contemporary review of tourism degrees in the United Kingdom.
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(4), 501–521.
Buzinde, C., Shockley, G., Andereck, K., Dee, E., & Frank, P. (2016). Theorizing social entrepreneur-
ship within tourism studies. In: P. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Tourism (pp. 21–34). Switzerland:
Springer International.
Chang, Y., & Chen, C. (2012). Meeting the needs of disable air passengers: Factors that facilitate
help from airlines and airports. Tourism Management, 33(3), 523–535.
Cloquet, I., Palomino, M., Shaw, G., Stephen, G., & Taylor, T. (2017). Disability, social inclusion and
the marketing of tourist attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Retrieved from https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09669582.2017.1339710?needAccess=true
Cole, S., & Morgan, N. (2010). Introduction: Tourism and inequalities. In: S. Cole & N. Morgan (Eds.),
Tourism and in-equality: Problems and prospects. Oxford: CABI.
Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accommodation informa-
tion preferences. Tourism Management, 31(6), 816–826.
Darcy, S., & Dickson, T. (2009). A whole of life approach to tourism: The case for accessible tourism
experiences. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16(1), 32–44.
124 S. LIASIDOU ET AL.

Daruwalla, P., & Darcy, S. (2005). Public sympathy: Private antipathy: Personal and societal attitudes
towards people with disabilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 549–557.
Deale, C., O’Halloran, R., Jacques, P., & Garger, J. (2010). An examination of current hospitality and
tourism teaching methods. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 22(2), 20–29.
Dickson, T., Misener, L., & Darcy, S. (2017). Enhancing destination competitiveness through
disability sport event legacies: Developing an interdisciplinary typology. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29((3)), 924–946.
Domínguez Vila, T., Darcy, S., & Alén González, E. (2015). Competing for the disability tourism
market – A comparative exploration of the factors of accessible tourism competitiveness in
Spain and Australia. Tourism Management, 47(April2015), 261–272.
Dredge, D. (2016). Of things to come: Tourism and hospitality education in a post-industrial age.
Turističko poslovanje, 17, 19–23.
Elevator programme newspaper. (2017). Erasmus+ Project Elevator Newsletter. Retrieved April 3,
2018, from http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/2017-6-newsletter-3-_en_v2.pdf
European Commission (2004). Improving information on accessible tourism for disable people,
Italy. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/files/studies/
improving_information_on_accessibility/improving_accessibility_en.pdf
European Commission (2014). Report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by the European Union. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://
ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/discrimination_en
Eurostat (2016). Senior tourists make longer trips, preferably in their country of residence and
staying at non-rented accommodation, Retrieved April 3, 2018 from http://ec.europa.eu/euro
stat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Statistics_on_ageing_and_tourism&oldid=319026.
Eusébio, C., Carneiro, M., Kastenholz, E., & Alvelos, H. (2017). Social tourism programmes for the senior
market: A benefit segmentation analysis. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 15(1), 59–79.
Fidgeon, P. (2010). Tourism education and curriculum design: A time for consolidation and review.
Tourism Management, 31(6), 699–723.
Freund, P. (2001). Bodies, disability and spaces: The social model and disabling spatial organisa-
tions. Disability and Society, 16(5), 689–706.
Hamburg, M., & Lubov, A. (1974). Basic statistics: A modern approach. San Diego: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Harkison, T., Poulston, J., & Jung-Hee, G.K. (2011). Hospitality graduates and managers: The big
divide. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(3), 377–392.
Harkison, T., Poulston, J., & Kim, J. (2010). Hospitality graduates and managers: the big divide.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(3), 377–392.
Hsu, C., Xiao, H., & Chen, N. (2017). Hospitality and tourism education research from 2005 to 2014:
Is the past a prologue to the future? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 29(1), 141–160.
Hughes, R. (2010). The social model of disability. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants, 4(10), 508–511.
Jones, A.L., Warner, B., & Kiser, P.M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship. Planning for Higher Education,
38(4), 44–51.
Kastenholz, E., Eusébio, C., & Figueiredo, E. (2015). Contributions of tourism to social inclusion of
persons with disability. Disability & Society, 30(8), 1259–1281.
Liasidou, A., & Mavrou, K. (2017). Disability Rights in Higher Education Programs: The case of
medical schools and other health-related disciplines. Social Science and Medicine, 191, 143–150.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.009
McCabe, S., & Diekmann, A. (2015). The rights to tourism: Reflections on social tourism and human
rights. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(2), 194–204.
McCabe, S., Minnaert, L., & Diekmann, A. (2011). Social tourism in Europe: Theory and practice.
Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Minnaert, L. (2012). Social tourism as opportunity for unplanned learning and behavior change.
Journal of Travel ResSekaranearch, 51(5), 607–616.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2006). Social tourism and its ethical foundations tourism.
Culture and Communication, 7(1), 7–17.
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 125

Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2009). Tourism and social policy - The value of social tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 316–334.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2011). What is social tourism? Special issue on social tourism.
Current Issues in Tourism, 14(5), 403–415.
Naniopoulos, A., Tsalis, P., & Nalmpantis, D. (2016). An effort to develop accessible tourism in
Greece and Turkey: The MEDRA project approach. Journal of Tourism Futures, 2(1), 56–70.
Oktadiana, H., & Chon, K. (2016). Educational philosophy: Grounding the tourism curriculum.
Annals of Tourism Research, 57(January 2016), 236–239.
Ozturk, Y., Yaylin, O., & Yesiltas, M. (2008). Is the Turkish tourism industry ready for a disabled customer’s
market? The views of hotel and travel agency managers. Tourism Management, 29(2), 382–389.
Packer, T., McKercher, B., & Mathew, K.Y. (2007). Understanding the complex interplay between
tourism, disability and environmental contexts. Disabilities and Rehabilitation, 29(4), 281–292.
Ring, A., Dickinger, A., & Wober, K. (2009). Designing the ideal undergraduate program in tourism:
Expectations from industry and educators. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 106–121.
Robinson, R., Ruhanen, L., & Breakey, N. (2016). Tourism and hospitality internships: Influences on
student career aspirations. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(6), 513–527.
Scope (2016). The social model of disability. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://www.scope.org.uk/
about-us/our-brand/social-model-of-disability.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business. Italy: Wiley.
Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology?
Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 1–34.
Sheldon, P., Dredge, D., & Daniele, R. (2016). Moving tourism social entrepreneurship forward:
Agendas for research and education. In: P. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Tourism (pp. 317–332).
Switzerland: Springer International.
Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D., Woeber, K., Cooper, C., & Antonioli, M. (2008). Tourism education
futures, 2010–2030: Building the capacity to lead. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism,
7(3), 61–68.
Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Souca, M.L. (2010). Accessible tourism - the ignored opportunity. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from
http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.ro/volume/2010/n2/185.pdf.
Stuart-Hoyle, M. (2003). The purpose of undergraduate tourism programmes in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 2(1), 48–75.
Tregakis, C. (2002). Social model theory: The story so far. Disability and Society, 17(4), 457–470.
Tribe, J. (2002). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 338–357.
UN CRPWD. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 1, Purpose,
Retrieved 3 May 2018, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-
the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-1-purpose.html. https://www.un.org/develop
ment/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2007). Final report of the expert
group meeting on creating an inclusive society. Practical strategies to promote social integra-
tion, Paris. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2008/
Paris-report.pdf.
Universal Design. (2016). What is Universal Design? Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://universalde
sign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/.
UNWTO (2013). Recommendations on Accessible tourism, World Tourism Organization, Spain.
Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/accesibilityen_2013_
unwto.pdf.
UNWTO. (2015). UNWTO, ONCE Foundation and PREDIF join forces to promote: Accessible Tourism
at FITUR 2015. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2015-02-03/
unwto-once-foundation-and-predif-join-forces-promote-accessible-tourism-fit.
UNWTO. (2016). Tourism for all: Promoting Universal accessibility. Retrieved April 3, 2018, http://
www.accessibletourism.org/resources/wtd2016_declaration_english_0.pdf.
World Health Organisation (2016). Disabilities. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from http://www.who.int/
topics/disabilities/en/.