Darcy, S. (2010, 2-4 June). Plenary Address - Accessible tourism: A question of trust, strategic knowledge management and a commitment to sustainability. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED) - Sustainable Transport and Travel for All, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. Drawing on the last 15 years of research, policy and industry engagement, a way forward for accessible tourism is presented. The solution is based on the development of strategic knowledge management to provide a reliable foundation for trust on which to make informed choices for accessible destination experiences. First, demand research is examined to understand what consumers with disabilities seek when planning their trips and the experiences they desire when travelling. Second, the plenary connects the demand requirements of consumers with disabilities to that of the supply-side approaches of the industry and suggests that government coordination roles at national and regional levels have very important roles to play in developing a triple bottom line approach to accessible tourism. Lastly, an argument is presented that suggests that only by understanding accessible tourism as part of social and environmental sustainability can a sound foundation be put in place to develop the economic potential of this group.

1. Accessible Tourism: A question of trust, strategic knowledge management
and a commitment to sustainability.
Darcy, Simon
University of Technology, Sydney: Australia
Simon.Darcy@uts.edu.au
SUMMARY
Drawing on the last 15 years of research, policy and industry engagement, a way
forward for accessible tourism is presented. The solution is based on the
development of strategic knowledge management to provide a reliable foundation for
trust on which to make informed choices for accessible destination experiences.
First, demand research is examined to understand what consumers with disabilities
seek when planning their trips and the experiences they desire when travelling.
Second, the plenary connects the demand requirements of consumers with
disabilities to that of the supply-side approaches of the industry and suggests that
government coordination roles at national and regional levels have very important
roles to play in developing a triple bottom line approach to accessible tourism. Lastly,
an argument is presented that suggests that only by understanding accessible
tourism as part of social and environmental sustainability can a sound foundation be
put in place to develop the economic potential of this group.
Keywords: accessible tourism; strategic knowledge management; triple
bottom line sustainability; trust;
INTRODUCTION
Good morning and may I say how excited I am to be in Hong Kong giving a plenary
address for TRANSED 2010 on accessible tourism.
Personally this trip is everything that accessible tourism should be about: the
trepidation of planning for a trip; the expectation of the experiences that are to
unfold; the excitement as the door on the plane closes, the anticipation of the
unknown; the wonder of the new countries, cultures and attractions; new friendships
formed; the old friendships renewed; and after returning home - the reflection on
memories that one will hold for life.
As a first-time visitor to Hong Kong, I have not been disappointed. For many years, I
had dreamt of coming up to Hong Kong for the world-renowned Hong Kong 7s rugby
union and experience in the international festival of nations that compete in this
competition. I had family and friends who attended, I had watched it on TV but for a
variety of reasons, I was never able to travel to the festival. However, with the
invitation from a friend, Joseph Kwan, with the help of my new friends from the
organizing committee, with the assistance of my wife Fiona and attendant Jan this
time the trip came together.
Twenty minutes is a very short time in which to present a plenary that examines the
title of the presentation. However, the reason that I am here is that I believe that it is
important to position accessible tourism within mainstream business discourses as

2. that is where disability, access and accessible tourism must be addressed. If it is not
addressed within mainstream business discourses then disability, access and
accessible tourism will always be regarded as an add-on, “special needs” and all the
other devaluing terms that place us in a second rate position to the rest of the
population. To draw on a number of disability advocacy phrases, we are sick of living
a “disability apartheid” where our lives and our experiences are regarded as not as
important as the nondisabled. We not only want to be included as the slogan,
“nothing about us without us”, signifies but we want to be regarded as valued
members of society and citizens in every sense. Not just as a market segment, not
tolerated just because of human rights agendas but understood that we are all part
of an interdependent social fabric that is richer for our existence. There is no doubt
that in many areas of our lives we are in a much better position than we were 50, 40,
30, 20 or even 10 years ago. Yet, disability is a dynamic construct that continually
evolves to include new dimensions of access that were not considered previously or
did not have as high a profile. I draw your attention to learning disabilities and mental
health as areas that are dominating the accessibility agenda of higher education that
were not even discussed a decade ago.
DEFINITION
Of course, any field of study requires a definition. It is interesting that while
accessible tourism has been developing as an area of academic study and industry
practice, there has been relatively little discussion defining the field. Most study has
focused on the experiences of people with disabilities while travelling without an
articulation of the defining elements of the field. My own Ph.D.(Darcy, 2004) took
such an approach where it drew its definitional inspiration from the theoretical areas
of disability studies (see Gleeson, 1999; Oliver, 1996), leisure constraints (see
Daniels, Drogin Rodgers, & Wiggins, 2005; Jackson & Scott, 1999), tourism systems
(see Leiper, 2003; Leiper, Stear, Hing, & Firth, 2008) and human rights approaches
(see Darcy & Taylor, 2009; United Nations, 2006). However, while these theoretical
areas influenced the approach to and types of research undertaken on disability and
tourism they did not contribute towards conceptualising accessible tourism in its own
right. Through a series of research projects, the following definition is presented as a
more fully developed understanding of the field.
Accessible tourism is a form of tourism that involves collaborative strategically
planned processes between stakeholders that enables people with access
requirements, including mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive dimensions of
access, to function independently and with equity and dignity through the
delivery of universally designed tourism products, services and environments.
This definition adopts a whole of life approach where people through their
lifespan benefit from accessible tourism provision. These include people with
permanent and temporary disabilities, seniors, obese, families with young
children and those working in safer and more socially sustainably designed
environments (adapted from Darcy & Dickson, 2009, p. 34).
The major components of this definition include: recognizing stakeholder
contributions; that disability involves a series of dimensions including mobility, vision,
hearing and cognitive dimensions to access; that anyone’s participation should be
based on the underlying principles of independence/equity/dignity; that any member

3. of the public may require accessible tourism provisions over the lifespan; and that
the provision of accessible tourism is safer and more socially sustainable.
Yet, the major breakthrough in this definition is that accessible tourism needs to be
part of strategically planned processes and that it will not occur through ad hoc, one
off inclusions as accessible destination experiences require planned development
and specific targeting of tourists requiring access provisions. Quite simply, while
areas may attract tourists who have access requirements, until destination managers
specifically developed a strategic approach to accessible tourism experiences then
they cannot truly regard themselves as having an interest in the accessible tourism
market.
I will now go on to explain how an understanding of demand, supply, regulation and
the coordination sectors need to be set within a broad triple bottom line approach to
destination management. These understandings then build on the definitional
elements of accessible tourism just outlined to frame a strategic knowledge
management approach to accessible tourism that is the only way to build trust
amongst the group.
DEMAND
I do not have to tell you that there are approximately 650 million people living with
disabilities and that by 2050 this number will increase to approximately 1.2 billion
(World Health Organization, 2007). These figures are important to get authorities to
understand the sheer size of the group that we are discussing. An increasing
proportion of this group are gaining the ability to travel through their socio-economic
status where it has been estimated in the US and in Australia that the accessible
tourism market is worth $13 billion and $4.8 billion respectively (Dwyer & Darcy,
2008; HarrisInteractive Market Research, 2005; Van Horn, 2007). Approximately
11% of domestic tourism and 7% of inbound tourism is directly attributable to
accessible tourism.
Yet, the demand-based research on accessible tourism is conclusive – people with
disabilities travel less than the general population not because of their impairment
but due to the structural constraints they face (Daniels, et al., 2005; Darcy, 1998;
Turco, Stumbo, & Garncarz, 1998). These constraints are a product of the disabling
environments, practices and attitudes that they are subjected to. While many people
with disabilities enjoy tourism experiences, there is a major dissatisfaction and latent
demand due to the barriers and constraints faced by the group. Some dimensions of
access are far more marginalised with people with mental health and those who are
blind or vision impaired the most marginalised (Darcy, 2003, 2009). Some of the
major constraints faced include:
• Lack of detailed information in the planning phase;
• A wholesale and retail travel agent sector that do not service the group;
• Web 2.0 environments that are not accessible;
• Transport systems that disadvantage people with mobility disabilities;
• Inaccessibility of destination environments;
• Accommodation/lodging sector that do not offer an equality of experience.

4. Lastly, even when travel planning information is available there is a significant lack of
TRUST by travellers with disabilities about the accuracy of the information (Darcy,
2009). People with access requirements are not catered for by the mainstream travel
planning sector and research carried out in Hong Kong conclusively showed that
there were significant issues with travel agents’ approaches to servicing people with
disabilities (McKercher, Packer, Yau, & Lam, 2003). This work was supported by
work in other parts of the world where people with disabilities have been told by
travel agents that they are better off organising their own trips. What other group
would be told that their business is not wanted? This example leads on to the supply
side industry approaches to disability and accessible tourism.
SUPPLY
The tourism industry, albeit with a small group of dedicated providers, have largely
ignored the inclusion of people with disabilities and accessible tourism products and
services within mainstream development and planning unless they have been
required to be compliant through human rights and building code provisions. One
excellent indicator is the level of marketing and promotion that the industry does to
people with disabilities as a homogeneous group or targeted marketing based on
dimensions of access provision. Across the sector, it is almost nonexistent. One
continual bugbear of the supply sector is the evidence of return on investment (ROI)
for access provisions (Healey, 2008). While this in itself does not recognize the
human rights imperative of international agreements and national signatories, there
is no doubt that an evidence based approach to showing a business case for
accessible tourism is required. For too long there has been a mantra about the
economic potential of disability and accessible tourism as a market segment but with
a little evidence of this from the supply perspective. Some recent research and
government case studies had started to provide this evidence-based business case
(Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010; Darcy, Cameron, Pegg, & Packer, 2008;
Employers Forum on Disability, 2007; Lipp, 2005; Robinson & Dechant, 2005; UK
Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2010; UK Department for Work & Pensions
(DWP), 2007).
Where the industry does provide access to product and services, it does so without a
consideration of the equality of experience where provision is through the backdoor,
and a lower level of service provision or provided in the worst locations rather than
across all levels of service provision. I will come back to the equality of experience
later. Lastly, where people with disabilities are employees within the tourism sector
they face discrimination in hiring practices and in their inclusion within where they
are employed in the sector (G. A. Ross, 1994; G. F. Ross, 2004).
REGULATION
My research has always recognized that tourism industry works within mainstream
human rights, building codes and standards of service practice. As such, most
strategically planned accessible environments have been brought about through a
combination of international human rights agreements, national signatories, a
regulation sector that provides mechanisms to redress inequity when it occurs and a
vigilant disability advocacy sector to lobby on the behalf of people with disabilities. If
any one of these considerations is absent then the paper on which the human rights

5. provisions are provided is all but useless. I could give examples in the Australian
situation where allocating the Federal court as a cost jurisdiction has all but
"crippled", and I use that word deliberately, the spirit and intent of the Disability
Discrimination Act (DDA). This is simply because the complaint case provisions
under the Australian DDA have no common law precedent where Federal court
actions do. Without precedent, the same circumstances could arise in an
establishment next door the following day for the same type of discrimination
because complaint cases have no fault standing and are not publicised. Yet, this
quibbles in comparison to other parts of the world where the human rights provisions
are not implemented at all, the building codes have far less stringent inclusions on
access and mobility and there are virtually no means of redress for people when they
are discriminated against.
For those here from other parts of the world where these provisions do not exist,
then I implore you to advocate developing such provision as a foundation for
developing accessibility generally and as a precursor to accessible tourism provision.
Those of us from nations where these rights are evident need to support our brothers
and sisters with disabilities from other nations to ensure provision for all.
COORDINATION
So how do we move forward to better match the requirements of accessible tourism
travellers, satisfy the return on investment required by the supply sector and start to
develop truly sustainable accessible tourism development. The first point of call is for
a responsibility for providing accessible tourism to be “owned” by government
coordinating roles. By this I mean, the tourism industry is notorious for its
fragmentation and governments across the Asia-Pacific and the Globe, including the
recent developments in the US, now recognize this and provide significant amounts
of money to promote to inbound tourism markets. In the same way, the
fragmentation of the industry does nothing to serve the accessible tourism market.
Local, regional and national tourism authorities must work in collaboration to take
responsibility for accessible tourism within a triple bottom line framework.
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUSTAINABILITY
In coming back to a quality of experience, this concept is inextricably connected to
triple bottom line sustainability (Dwyer, 2005). Disability access provision generally
and accessible tourism, have significant contributions to make to the economic,
environmental and social metrics of the triple bottom line (Darcy, et al., 2010). Most
tourism marketing authorities recognize triple bottom line approaches in their master
plan processes. Tourism destinations must address these three legs of the
sustainability stool if the industry is going to contribute and not destroy the elements
that make it attractive to tourists in the first place.
Many tourism businesses now seek to transform themselves into more efficient and
effective operations. Issues relating to governance, long-term sustainability and
effective destination management are known critical factors for business success,
yet they are addressed in a piecemeal fashion by the majority of operators. Most
businesses change their service and product offerings only to achieve basic revenue
driven targets, be they related to the concepts of total quality management,

6. organisational change and restructuring (Kotter, 1998). Yet, Elkington (1997, p. 109)
argued that ‘if any business was to prosper over the long term, it must continuously
meet society’s needs for goods and services without destroying natural or social
capital’. Too few tourism operators have yet to give any real attention to the broader
concept of the triple bottom line (TBL), to business activities that are considered
socially and environmentally sustainable rather than their financial bottom line
(Dwyer, 2005). Many approaches to tourism development that do not include
accessible tourism dimensions cannot hope to meet social sustainability
requirements. By excluding the beneficiaries of universal design approaches to
sustainable tourism environments including people with disabilities, those that are
ageing and families with young children it has been estimated that they are excluding
31% of the population (Darcy & Dickson, 2009).
STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Knowledge management is recognized as a foundation to post industrial societies.
Others have already demonstrated the importance of information systems (Eichhorn,
Miller, Michopoulou, & Buhalis, 2008) to accessible tourism and the provision of
specific information to particular industry segments such as the transport and
accommodation sectors (Darcy, 2009). To this end, the starting point for developing
destination management approaches to accessible tourism is through a framework
for the strategic knowledge management of accessible tourism. Tourists with
disabilities are not naïve and they are not expecting perfectly accessible
environments. However, what they do expect is the provision of accurate, detailed
and readily accessible information that will allow them to make an informed decision
as to the accessibility of all aspects of the tourism system for their needs.
STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT’S CONTRIBUTION TOTRUST
As identified in the demand side research, in most cases people with disabilities do
not trust information provided by the mainstream tourism industry. With a strategic
knowledge management system in place, the expectation of consumers can be
managed, as there is no more serious a management issue that not meeting
customer expectation. Now, travellers with disabilities are regularly disappointed –
not by the destination that they are visiting – but by the information provided not
meeting their accessibility needs when experiencing the destination. This becomes a
major issue where a disgruntled customer becomes an issue for the manager of the
airline, accommodation or attraction but more importantly will communicate their
poor experiences through negative word-of-mouth. While this is a problem with all
customers, travellers with disabilities can attract more media attention than the
average customer and this can result in reputational or brand damage for the
company involved ("Air Canada ordered to pay deaf-blind passenger $10,000,"
2009; Butson, 2009). If people have a good experience, the research suggests that
they will tell two to three people but if they have a bad experience the research
suggests that they will tell significantly more people (Anderson, 1998; JJ Brown &
Reingen, 1987). Yet, this is a far more significant an issue for industry in the age of
Web 2.0. Social media provides an instantaneous means for people to communicate
their displeasure. However, for the accessible tourism market and for the tourism
industry providing good quality products and services it also provides an

7. instantaneous means for people to communicate their satisfaction (J Brown,
Broderick, & Lee, 2007).
A WAY FORWARD…
Strategic knowledge management of accessible tourism information provides a way
forward for the tourism industry and destination management systems to begin to
develop responses for accessible tourism. As a starting point, this requires no new
infrastructure as most businesses and tourism marketing authorities already have
Web-based approaches to destination management. What is required is a decision
to provide honest, detailed and accessible information about accessible destination
management experiences to the accessible tourism market. I can guarantee that if
systems are in place, the information that is needed to make access choices is
available and it is in a format that is accessible then there will be an increase in use
by people with access needs. There are some wonderful examples of approaches
from different parts of the world including South Africa, Spain, Canada, the US, the
UK, Hong Kong and Australia.
There has been a tremendous commitment across the Asia-Pacific to bring
awareness to these issues through a series of conferences that have occurred over
the last decade, Bali 2000, Taipei 2005, Japan 2009 and now TRANSED in Hong
Kong 2010. This is a wonderful commitment to raising awareness of accessible
transport and accessible tourism. I implore the governments of these countries to
“own” the coordination responsibilities to develop accessible tourism, as I believe
they have the opportunity to be at the forefront of international best practice.
I look forward to meeting everybody over the next few days and at some stage
inviting you down to Australia for TRANSED or another of accessible tourism
conference where we can showcase the best in the Asia Pacific.
REFERENCES
Air Canada ordered to pay deaf-blind passenger $10,000. (2009). Canwest News
Service. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=1220700
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. Journal of
Service Research, 1(1), 5-17. doi: 10.1177/109467059800100102
Brown, J., Broderick, A., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within
online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2-20.
Brown, J., & Reingen, P. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350-362.
Butson, T. (2009, 25 November). Jetstar sorry for Fearnley affront, Newcastle
Herald, p. 3. Retrieved from
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/jetstar-sorry-for-kurt-
fearnley-affront/1686691.aspx
Daniels, M. J., Drogin Rodgers, E. B., & Wiggins, B. P. (2005). "Travel Tales": an
interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as
experienced by persons with physical disabilities. Tourism Management,
26(6), 919-930.

8. Darcy, S. (1998). Anxiety to access: tourism patterns and experiences of New South
Wales people with a physical disability (pp. 76). Sydney: Tourism New South
Wales.
Darcy, S. (2003, 5-8 February). Disabling journeys: The tourism patterns of people
with impairments in Australia. Paper presented at the Riding the Wave of
Tourism and Hospitality Research, CAUTHE - Southern Cross University,
Lismore.
Darcy, S. (2004). Disabling Journeys: the Social Relations of Tourism for People with
Impairments in Australia - an analysis of government tourism authorities and
accommodation sector practices and discourses Faculty of Business
Retrieved from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/handle/2100/260
Darcy, S. (2009). Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and
accommodation information preferences. Tourism Management,
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.010(In press & published online), 1-11.
Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010). Accessible tourism and sustainability: a
discussion and case study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 515 - 537.
Darcy, S., Cameron, B., Pegg, S., & Packer, T. (2008). Technical Report 90042:
Developing Business Cases for Accessible Tourism STCRC technical report
Retrieved from http://www.crctourism.com.au/default.aspxg
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.
Darcy, S., & Taylor, T. (2009). Disability citizenship: An Australian human rights
analysis of the cultural industries. Leisure Studies, 28(4), 419-441.
Dwyer, L. (2005). Relevance of Triple Bottom Line Reporting to Achievement of
Sustainable Tourism: A Scoping Study. Tourism Review International, 9(1),
79-938.
Dwyer, L., & Darcy, S. (2008). Chapter 4 - Economic contribution of disability to
tourism in Australia. In S. Darcy, B. Cameron, L. Dwyer, T. Taylor, E. Wong &
A. Thomson (Eds.), Technical Report 90040: Visitor accessibility in urban
centres (pp. 15-21). Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research
Centre.
Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Enabling access to
tourism through information schemes. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1),
189-210. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2007.07.005
Employers Forum on Disability. (2007). Disability and the travel industry - Attracting
disabled travellers Retrieved 2 January, 2008, from http://www.realising-
potential.org/case-studies/industry/the-travel-industry.html#fn3
Gleeson, B. (1999). Geographies of Disability. London: Routledge.
HarrisInteractive Market Research. (2005, January). Research among adults with
disabilities - travel and hospitality, from
http://www.opendoorsnfp.org/page3.html
Healey, B. (2008, 29-31 October). The Australian Hotel Association Position: Current
status and future of tourist accommodation for people with disabilities. Paper
presented at the CREATING INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES - conference of the
Association of Consultants in Access, Australia, Hyatt Regency, Adelaide.
Jackson, E. L., & Scott, D. (1999). Constraints to leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L.
Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 299-
332). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Leiper, N. (2003). Tourism management (3rd ed.). Sydney: Hospitality Press.

9. Leiper, N., Stear, L., Hing, N., & Firth, T. (2008). Partial Industrialisation in Tourism:
A New Model. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(3), 207 - 235.
Lipp, E. (2005). Eric Lipp makes business case for inclusive travel Retrieved 22
September 2005, from
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-
1/11273014369730.xml&coll=1&thispage=2
McKercher, B., Packer, T., Yau, M., & Lam, P. (2003). Travel agents as facilitators or
inhibitors of travel: perceptions of people with disabilities. Tourism
Management, 24(4), 465-474.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke,
Houndmills: Macmillan.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (2005). Building a Business Case for Diversity. In C. P.
Harvey & M. J. Allard (Eds.), Understanding and Managing Diversity:
Readings, Cases And Exercises (International Edition) (pp. 228-240). New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ross, G. A. (1994). Attitudes Towards The Disabled In Destination Marketing
Organizations (Marketing Organizations). Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Ross, G. F. (2004). Ethics, trust and expectations regarding the treatment of
disabled staff within a tourism/hospitality industry context. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(5), 523-544.
Turco, D., Stumbo, N., & Garncarz, J. (1998). Tourism constraints for people with
disabilities. Parks and Recreation, 33(9), 78-83.
UK Department for Culture Media and Sport. (2010). Accessible tourism: Making it
work for your business Retrieved from
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DCMS_Accessible_Tourism_R
eport.pdf
UK Department for Work & Pensions (DWP). (2007). Tourism Case Studies
Retrieved 3 January, 2008, from
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/employers/dda/case_tourism.asp
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New
York http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm: United
Nations General Assembly A/61/611 - 6 December 2006.
Van Horn, L. (2007). Disability Travel In The United States: Recent Research And
Findings. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Mobility
and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED) -
"Benchmarking, Evaluation and Vision for the Future". , June 18-22, 2007, at
the Palais des congrès de Montréal.
World Health Organization. (2007). Global Age-friendly Cities Guide from
http://www.who.int/ageing/age_friendly_cities/en/index.html