INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH

Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012)

Published online 10 September 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1913

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities? A Pilot Study on Accessible Leisure Tourism Experiences in Portugal
Elisabete Figueiredo1,*, Celeste Eusbio2 and Elisabeth Kastenholz2 1 Department of Social, Legal and Political Sciences. GOVCOPP Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitrio de Santiago Aveiro, Portugal 2 Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering. GOVCOPP Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies University of Aveiro, Campus Universitrio de Santiago Aveiro, Portugal ABSTRACT Literature dealing with tourism and disability mostly stresses the frequent exclusion of impaired persons and emphasizes the benets associated with tourism activities, neglecting the diversity of impairments. This paper takes a different approach, by analyzing the diverse forms of being disabled, meaning different abilities to participate in tourism and diverse capabilities of experiencing leisure activities. An exploratory survey directed to 200 persons with disabilities was undertaken in Portugal. Market segmentation was based on the commonly dened types of impairment: intellectual, motor, hearing and visual. Evidence suggests statistical differences among segments regarding travel behavior, motivations, interests and needs, motivated by diverse types of disabilities. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords: accessible tourism experiences; tourists with disabilities; market segmentation; travel behavior; motivations to travel; travel needs.

INTRODUCTION
ourism is considered not only as a basic human right and should be accessible to all, as recognized by many governments and supra-national organizations, but also as a tool to promote social inclusion (CESE, 2004; Richards et al., 2010). Although persons with a disability hold the same tourism desires and needs as other social groups (Blitchfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Burns et al., 2009; Yau et al., 2004), they are often excluded from leisure activities mainly due to several barriers and constraints (physical, social and attitudinal) (Burns et al., 2009; Shaw and Coles, 2004; Yau et al., 2004). However, people with disabilities increasingly engage in leisure activities (Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011), acquiring and consuming tourism products and experiences. The tourism industry should therefore design and promote products and experiences accessible to this market (Bizjak et al., 2011; Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006), on the basis of a better understanding of the travel behaviors, expectations, constraints and needs of tourists with disabilities. Despite the large number of persons with disabilities around the world and the new business opportunities acknowledged for the tourism industry (Bi et al., 2007; Daniels et al., 2005; Darcy et al., 2010), disability is still a relatively neglected subject within tourism research (Bizjak et al., 2011; Richards et al., 2010). In fact, literature dealing with tourism and disability(ies), although stressing the frequent exclusion of persons with disabilities and emphasizing the
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: Elisabete Figueiredo, Department of Social, Legal and Political Sciences. GOVCOPP Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies. University of Aveiro, Campus Universitrio de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal. E-mail: elisa@ua.pt

532 potential benets related to tourism activities (Haukeland, 1990; McCabe et al., 2010; Yau et al., 2004), seems to neglect the diversity of disabilities. However, as Burns et al. (2009) recently pointed out, persons with disabilities are a quite diverse group from the point of view of experiences, views and needs and nature of the disability. This paper aims to contribute to lling the existent gap in literature regarding this subject, by analyzing several forms of being disabled. Specically, the paper aims to answer the following questions: (i) How do different types of disabilities and levels of functioning affect the ways in which individuals participate in and experience tourism activities?; (ii) What are the constraints to participate in tourism experiences posed by the diverse types of disabilities?; (iii) Do the desires, motivations and behaviors toward tourism vary in accordance with the type of disability and level of functioning?; (iv) What are the differences between desires and behaviors regarding tourism experiences?; and (v) Do these differences vary in accordance with the diverse levels of functioning? The paper rst examines the concept of accessible tourism, particularly the type of barriers persons with a disability have to face and overcome to experience leisure activities. A major argument is that people with diverse disabilities and different levels of functioning develop different behaviors toward leisure participation as well as perceive the tourism experience and the eventually related constraints in a diverse manner. Empirical evidence, based on an exploratory survey directed to 200 persons with disabilities, older than 14 years, in Portugal, shows how diverse this market is and suggests statistical differences among segments regarding travel behavior, motivations, interests and needs, mainly related to diverse levels of physical mobility and body functioning. These results should help design leisure activities, better adapted to each segment, thereby contributing to the promotion of the social inclusion of persons with disabilities and to truly benecial and unique leisure experiences. ACCESSIBLE TOURISM In a context of increasing concern about equal opportunities for all, ght against discrimination, promotion of the fundamental rights of
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz individuals with special needs and their inclusion in all social life domains, including leisure and tourism, the tourism industry needs to adapt its offerings, making them accessible to all (CESE, 2004; Ozturk et al., 2008; Packer et al. 2007; UNESCAP, 2003; UN, 2006). Leisure and tourism are nowadays an intrinsic and important part of modern lifestyle, contributing substantially to quality of life (McCabe et al., 2010; Neal, et al., 2007; Smith and Hughes, 1999). World Tourism Organization (UNTWO) (1999, article 7) stresses in The Global Code of Ethics for Tourism the right to rest, to enjoy leisure and the opportunity to travel and enjoy periodic holidays as a basic right of any individual. However, not everybody has, in fact, the same access to such activities, this being particularly challenging to persons with disabilities, since they have to face physical and other (mostly attitudinal) barriers (Daniels et al., 2005; Darcy, 2010; Smith, 1987) that are not easy to overcome in everyday life and even more challenging in an unknown environment, such as a tourism destination. Darcy (2010) stresses that for people with disabilities, participating in tourism means more than having physical access to a destination and its facilities, although the physical accessibility should be considered the basic requirement (Israeli, 2002). Smith (1987) distinguishes three main types of barriers to tourism participation felt by this group: (1) environmental, including attitudes of the social environment, architectural and ecological factors; (2) interactive, related to skill challenge incongruities and communication barriers; and (3) intrinsic, associated with the individuals physical, psychological or cognitive condition. Other authors (Burns et al., 2009; Crawford et al., 1991; Daniels et al., 2005) refer to these three categories, designating them as structural (typically physical, material), interpersonal (symbolic and attitudinal) and intrapersonal (psychological and dened by the individual impairment). Of these, intrinsic or intrapersonal barriers are suggested as the greatest obstacle for participating in tourism (Murray and Sproats, 1988; Smith, 1987; Yau et al., 2004), and social and cultural barriers as the most
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities? prohibitive, with a combination of barriers frequently acting together (Daniels et al., 2005). Traveling is frequently perceived by persons with disabilities as a high-risk activity that many understand as being inaccessible to them, requiring . . . an orchestrated cooperation of physical, mental, and social capabilities, which are often adversely affected or compromised by a disability (Yau et al., 2004: 946). This partially explains why many people with disabilities tend to travel less than those without disabilities. The aforementioned authors in-depth study, analyzing the process through which persons with motor and visual impairments pass to become travel-active, reveals that incompetence in leisure activity may, over time, lead to feelings of generalized helplessness resulting in reduced future participation (Yau et al., 2004: 948). However, for those with disabilities who learn to overcome travel-related barriers, the authors conclude that tourism represents a metaphor of recovery . . .[of] their [regained] control over destiny (Yau et al., 2004: 958). That is, prior travel experience, which may or not be enhanced by the family and the travel industry, would induce a virtual circle of self-condence and corresponding interest in future travel. However, many persons with disabilities do overcome all barriers, and most do, as a matter of fact, desire the same experiences as all other tourists (Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Przeclawski, 1995; Yau et al., 2004), requiring similar products and services from the tourism industry. These individuals additionally wish to live these tourism experiences together with those without disabilities and not in an exclusive, segregate format. Several studies show that people with disabilities frequently experience the benets associated with participation in recreational and tourist activities in a more intense manner than individuals without disabilities (Shaw and Coles, 2004; Smith and Hughes, 1999), probably due to the exceptional nature of the experience and the challenge it means to this group (Yau et al., 2004). Benets reported range from increased levels of happiness, improved health conditions, increased self-esteem and higher levels of satisfaction in several dimensions of life to an overall enhanced satisfaction with life (Neal et al., 2007; CESE, 2006).
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

533 From the tourism industrys point of view, the market potential seems to be large, since about 10% of the world population possesses some type of disability (WHO, 2008). Within the European Union, 52 million persons experience some kind of disability; and in Portugal, around 600 000 persons (6.1 of the total population) present disabilities (Casas, 2005). Furthermore, as a consequence of the modern societys aging process, a continuous growth in these numbers is to be expected. Aged individuals frequently encounter similar constraints and obstacles and have needs that are also similar to people with disabilities, if they do not actually develop these impairments over time (EC, 2007). Moreover, as stressed by Shaw and Coles (2004) and by Yau et al. (2004), persons with disabilities tend to travel with family or friends, meaning that the number of persons involved in tourism dealing with people with disabilities is actually larger than the number of disabled persons itself. As noted by Bizjak et al. (2011: 843), the group of people with disabilities is still growing and they have more money to spend that is often thought. Despite these ndings, as Darcy et al. (2010: 515) state, this market has continued to be underserved by the global tourism industry. As persons with disability do indeed value tourism experiences, they make an effort to overcome all kinds of barriers (Daniels et al., 2005), particularly that of their typically lower income (MT, 2007; Neumann, 2004; Schleien et al., 1988; TQ, 2002), saving money to be able to travel. They additionally tend to spend a higher amount per day on holiday, compared with tourists with no impairment (Buhalis et al., 2006; Neumann, 2004) and are relatively more loyal to the destinations visited (Buhalis et al., 2006; Neumann, 2004; Van Horn, 2002). However, as Phretmair (2006: 296) refers, even if the tourism industry recognizes this market potential, they will not establish full accessibility by themselves, meaning that a body of legislation, measures and policies is necessary. DIVERSITY OF DISABILITIES AND LEISURE EXPERIENCES Generally speaking, physical or intellectual disability represents losses in terms of functionality and capability to perform certain tasks
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

534 and to enroll in certain activities (WHO, 2004), consequently constituting a limitation or a restriction that frequently leads to exclusion from certain activities and contexts, such as tourism activities. However, not all people with disabilities face the same constraints and difculties, these being dependent on the nature and on the level of the disability. Therefore, to dene persons with a disability as a single segment is a simplication (Blischfeldt et al., 2011) since they are a diverse and heterogeneous category (Burns et al., 2009) regarding their effective capability of actively participating in social life and their socio-economic prole. As again Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen (2011: 81) suggest, the term disability is an umbrella term, which covers a wide variety of impairments, activity limitations and participatory restrictions. The diversity of situations of being disabled was recognized by the WHO (2004), which denes four main types of disability: intellectual, motor or physical, hearing and visual. Each of these types includes various forms and degrees of disability and dependency and consequently diverse capabilities to function. The WHO typology is primarily based on a medical perspective, considering disability as an individual health condition requiring medical intervention. In the same sense, this perspective demands individual action as the central requirement to adapt to and to overcome that health condition. To a certain extent, it can be argued that this vision presents persons with disabilities as minor or depreciated in comparison with those without disabilities, therefore contributing to their removal from society (Santos, 2006). Without intending to deny the relevance of medical interventions to enhance the quality of life of persons with disabilities, a broader, social and integrated intervention is clearly needed when addressing disability (MTSS, 2006), namely to include the diversity of conditions and situations within this category. This social perspective focuses on the differences rather than on the inabilities, stressing the need to foster social accountability in creating a society for all, an inclusive environment in all the domains of social life, taking into account individual resources, interests, needs and capabilities. This would represent what Barnes and Mercer (2005) describe as a conceptual shift towards a new social model regarding disability.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz Although people with disabilities are a rather heterogeneous group, most of the literature focuses on the difculties and constraints tourists with disabilities face and experience (Bi et al, 2007; Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Burns et al., 2009; Daniels et al., 2005; Israeli, 2002; Shaw and Coles, 2004) in a rather homogeneous way, as if every person with a disability possessed the same constraints and has to overcome the same barriers. However, there is a strong connection between the specicity/ diversity of the disability (together with the level of physical dependency and functioning) and the existence of specic needs in terms of recreational and leisure activities. A recent study undertaken in Portugal on the impacts of nancial costs of disability (Portugal et al., 2010), although not related with tourism and leisure activities, clearly shows the heterogeneity of people with disabilities as function of two main dimensions structures and functions of the body and activities and participation. In the rst dimension, indicators of body alterations (mental, visual, hearing and motor) were considered. In the second dimension, aspects such as learning and knowledge application, communication, mobility, domestic life, self-care, professional and nancial life, and interpersonal relationships and social participation were taken into account. The 10 proles identied in the aforementioned study highlight the diversity of disabilities, including internal differences within each type of impairment, simultaneously emphasizing diverse capabilities to function in the various domains of personal and social life, diverse levels of dependency and various abilities to perform activities in several contexts (Portugal et al., 2010). All these internal differences not only between types of disabilities but also (perhaps more important) between levels of functioning, abilities and performances emphasize the existence of different constraints as well as of diverse needs, related with all the spheres of social life, including leisure and recreation. Consequently, besides addressing common barriers, it is also necessary to tackle the specic barriers and constraints experienced by particular types of persons with disabilities. As Burns et al. (2009: 407) note, people with specic impairments may encounter specic barriers that should be taken into consideration when
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities? designing and promoting accessible leisure activities. As Richards et al. (2010: 1101) point out, tourism as it is commonly understood and practiced is a form of commoditized pleasures and these whether tastes, touches, smells, sounds, spectacles or sensations are sensual and embodied. We experience and enjoy the world through our sense organs (. . .). Thus, the tourist experience should be seen as a series of corporeal, embodied encounters which embrace all the senses and (. . .) there are genuine problems and challenges which can attach to having bodies/psyches that are different from mainstream norms. These challenges and problems derive mainly from the circumstance that tourism activities are normally designed to mainstream bodies and persons, thus neglecting these different bodies and minds of tourists with disabilities and their particular needs. Despite global needs in removing physical barriers, effort must also be put into removing emotional and sensorial barriers. For instance, for a visually impaired person, together with the removal of difculties related to the absence of vision (e.g. Braille signs and information, use of sound instead of visual signs; physical accessibility), leisure activities should emphasize the use of other senses, related to the abilities to hear, smell, taste and touch, as well as adequate devices for experiencing those activities. For the hearing impaired, experiences and devices stressing the vision might also be important. For tourists with mental disability, the sense of freedom and being at ease without the norms imposed by society can be a powerful issue when experiencing leisure and recreational activities. For persons with a motor disability, apart from the removal of material obstacles, activities should include physical devices that allow them to perform exercises and experience leisure activities that they normally would not be able to. It is to be expected that persons with different types of disabilities and body levels of functioning would also reveal diverse attitudes, desires, motivations and travel behaviors. However, few studies have dealt with this diversity up to now, focusing as previously
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

535 discussed on the barriers and constraints persons with disabilities have to face, in general, when experiencing tourism and leisure activities. As a result, researchers (e.g. Blischfeldt et al., 2011; Daniels et al. 2005; Shaw and Coles) increasingly point out the need to explore, in a way that goes beyond the study of accessibility issues, the tourism experiences of persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, as Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen (2011: 83) state, not much research emphasize travel motivations, experiences, vacation decision-making, etc. of disabled tourists. As previously noted, this paper aims to contribute to lling this gap, by analyzing the diverse needs, desires, motivations and behaviors toward tourism activities held by tourists with different disabilities. HOW DIVERSE ARE TOURISTS WITH DISABILITIES? A PILOT STUDY ON ACCESSIBLE LEISURE TOURISM EXPERIENCES IN PORTUGAL Methodology Aiming at answering the research questions presented earlier, we analyzed the diversity of tourists with disabilities in further detail, with an exploratory survey directed at the Portuguese population with disabilities, older than 14 years. In Portugal, as previously mentioned, about 6% of the total population possesses some level of disability (INE, 2002). Considering the general difculties in assessing this specic category of the population and despite the risk of bias, the survey was designed as a combination of a snowball sampling technique with a convenience approach. For this purpose, a database of contacts of associations working with individuals with disabilities was used, as well as personal contacts that have been established during a research project undertaken for one of these associations in the municipality of Lous, which aims at becoming the rst accessible tourism destination in Portugal. The data were collected between March and April 2010 and resulted in 200 valid responses. The survey was developed in two stages: a pilot study was carried out to test the questionnaire content and layout adequacy and the nal revised questionnaire was administered
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

536 by email and mail to selected respondents and to the associations working with persons with disabilities (particularly in the cases of mental and visual impairment, assistance to ll in the questionnaire was provided by the technicians working at the associations contacted). The questionnaire included seven key themes related with the research questions presented in the Introduction: the main motivations to engage in leisure activities, the individuals attitudes regarding tourism, the relevance of the destinations features, the respondents travel behavior (both in general and on-site); the needs and desires related to tourism experiences, the socio-demographic prole of the respondents and the type and level of disabilities. Market segmentation was based on the frequently dened types of disabilities suggested by WHO (2004), namely motor (N = 118), visual (N = 21) [the two most frequent disabilities among Portuguese population respectively 1.6% and 1.5% (INE, 2002)], intellectual (N = 29) and hearing impairment (N = 21). Due to the difculties mentioned earlier, particularly related to the application of the survey to persons with a mental or visual disability and to the subsequent sample procedures adopted, the sample cannot be considered representative of the entire Portuguese population with a disability. Therefore, results may only be considered relevant for exploratory purposes. To measure motivations for participating in leisure activities, we used the Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS) (Pelletier et al., 1989), through a 7-point Likert-type scale. Attitudes toward tourism were assessed through 15 statements suggested by Gonzalez and Alonso (2004) in a similar study. Respondents could indicate their level of agreement on the proposed statements by using a 5-point Likert-type scale, which ranges from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A Likert-type scale was also used to access the importance attributed to specic features of the destination, ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Scale items were dened on the basis of literature review (e.g. Neumann, 2004; MT, 2007). Regarding travel behavior, respondents were asked to identify information sources used, travel frequency, type of destinations more frequently visited, type of accommodation used and expenditure level.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz The questionnaire also included items related to respondents desires in terms of destination preferences, preferred period of the year for going on a holidays, composition of the travel group and accommodation. Responses were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analyses techniques, namely frequencies and central tendency analysis, principal component analysis of destination features sought and statistical tests (KruskalWallis and chi-square) for identifying differences between groups. KruskalWallis tests were used when the requirements of analysis of variance tests were not met. Results heterogeneity of the market of Portuguese tourists with disabilities Prole of the segments. To analyze the heterogeneity of this market, we considered four groups: persons with a motor disability (62.4% of the total sample), individuals with a mental impairment (15.3%), persons with a visual disability (11.1%) and persons with a hearing impairment (11.1%). As shown in Table 1, the respondents reveal strong constraints regarding mobility: more than 56% need help to move, about 60% have a reduced mobility level and about 50% possess a disability level of more than 75%. The four segments identied are diverse in terms of mobility constraints and level of functioning, as shown by the chi-square tests results. Respondents with visual and motor impairments reveal a more pronounced need for help to move than the other groups and, as might be expected, tourists with a motor impairment globally show a lower mobility level. These results clearly reveal the heterogeneity of this market regarding mobility level, implying different needs, desires and travel behavior when comparing the identied segments. Table 1 also summarizes the main socioeconomic characteristics of the sample, showing its balance in terms of gender. Most of the respondents are single (75.7%), younger than 39 years (70%) and with low levels of literacy (59.8% possess basic education or lower secondary education) and income (about 40% has a net monthly income below 240). Only 37% are employed. The results of the chi-square tests reveal some heterogeneity in terms of age, marital status, education level
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities?

Table 1. Prole of the segments Total Prole N % Hearing (N = 21 11.1%) Need of help to move Yes No Mobility level Reduced Somewhat reduced Disability level Less than 75% Equal or higher than 75% Gender Male Female Age Youth (younger than 39 years) Other Economic status Employed Retired Other Marital status Single Other Education level First level and lower secondary education Upper secondary and superior Net monthly income Lower than 240 Equal or higher than 240 98 76 98 64 53 55 97 79 131 54 49 59 71 140 45 107 72 53 80 56.32 43.68 60.49 39.51 49.07 50.93 55.11 44.89 70.81 29.19 27.37 32.96 39.66 75.68 24.32 59.78 40.22 39.85 60.15 1.02 23.68 0.00 17.19 18.87 3.64 7.22 16.46 7.63 18.52 20.41 1.69 11.27 4.29 28.89 8.41 12.50 5.66 13.75 Type of disabilitya Visual (N = 21 11.1%) 11.22 7.89 8.16 14.06 9.43 16.36 9.28 12.66 13.74 3.70 16.33 1.69 15.49 10.71 13.33 9.35 15.28 7.55 11.25 Motor (N = 118, 62.4%) 84.69 42.11 88.78 42.19 67.92 78.18 67.01 54.43 61.07 68.52 59.18 83.05 52.11 67.14 51.11 60.75 69.44 64.15 65.00 Mental (N = 29, 15.3%) 3.06 26.32 3.06 26.56 3.77 1.82 16.49 16.46 17.56 9.26 4.08 13.56 21.13 17.86 6.67 21.50 2.78 22.64 10.00 5.821 49.880 47.389 7395 4.854 9.829

537

Chi-square test Value p-Value

0.000 0.000 0.060 0.183 0.020

27.084 24.478 13.309

0.000 0.000 0.004

0.121

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. a Percentage in row.

and socio-economic prole. Respondents with visual and mental impairments tend to be younger, the latter also revealing a higher tendency to be single. Regarding the socioeconomic prole, chi-square results show that people with motor and mental disabilities face more severe economic constraints, since, within these segments, there are a higher number of respondents with lower levels of income or who are unemployed. Motivations for participating in tourism activities The results presented in Table 2 clearly reveal that the respondents are strongly motivated to
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

participate in tourism activities and to try to overcome all kinds of barriers they might encounter. A more detailed analysis of the travel motivations shows that the most relevant aspects are related to the pleasure and satisfaction obtained from the experience, specically highlighting the items for the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences; because I experience a lot of pleasure and satisfaction in learning new things; and because, in my opinion, it is a good way to develop social, physical or intellectual abilities that will be useful for me later. Despite the general homogeneity between the segments, the results of KruskalWallis tests show some
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

538

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz

Table 2. Travel motivations of the segments of tourist with disabilities Total Type of disability Motor Mental KruskalWallis test Value p-Value

N Mean Hearing Visual Travel motivation** For the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences Because in my opinion, it is a good way to develop social physical or intellectual abilities that will be useful to me later Because I experience a lot of pleasure and satisfaction in learning new things Because I absolutely must have my leisure time to be in a good mood For the pleasure of knowing more about subjects that appeal me Because its one of the ways that I have chosen to make improvements on a personal level For the sense of freedom that I experience while doing the activity For the pleasure I feel when I outdo myself in interesting activities Because it allows me to deepen my understanding of subjects that interest me For the satisfaction I feel when I try to overcome interesting challenges Because doing leisure activities is one of the ways that allows me to develop other aspects of myself Because it is very important for me to ll my free time Because it allows me to explore many interesting domains Because in life you absolutely need leisure activities to be happy Because my leisure activities give me a real high Because its the way Ive chosen to acquire abilities in other areas that are important to me For the pleasure of surpassing myself while doing activities that are challenging for me For the simple of pleasure of feeling deeply relaxed For the satisfaction I get while trying to master complex activities Because I absolutely must feel busy Because sometimes it allows me to be appreciated by others To show others that I am a dynamic person 179 6.08 180 5.99 182 5.98 174 5.88 178 5.63 174 5.59 172 5.52 172 5.49 178 5.48 176 5.48 169 5.41 179 5.35 175 5.35 172 5.28 172 5.27 172 5.26 173 5.17 171 5.07 173 4.68 172 4.27 173 4.07 168 3.63

(N = 21) (N = 21) (N = 118) (N = 29) 6.22 5.78 6.17 5.71 5.72 5.67 5.88 5.59 5.56 5.39 5.13 5.33 5.65 5.78 5.12 5.13 4.69 5.65 4.41 3.31 3.56 3.00 Mean 5.70 6.16 5.74 5.60 5.74 5.74 6.11 5.53 5.63 5.72 5.47 5.63 5.35 5.35 5.37 5.45 5.47 5.35 5.00 4.53 4.50 4.53 4.00 6.08 6.00 5.86 5.65 5.67 5.64 5.58 5.47 5.45 5.35 5.19 5.36 5.10 5.31 5.36 5.33 5.09 4.82 4.19 3.91 3.42 5.96 5.93 6.03 6.14 5.46 4.85 4.78 5.00 5.34 5.70 5.72 6.00 5.11 5.62 5.07 4.78 4.67 4.67 4.39 5.04 4.74 4.64 5.814 3.106 3.109 3.251 0.455 5.665 5.066 3.833 0.546 0.064 0.458 3.692 2.223 4.621 0.112 1.638 3.300 3.318 1.002 6.421 4.862 7.695 0.121 0.376 0.375 0.355 0.929 0.129 0.167 0.280 0.909 0.996 0.928 0.297 0.527 0.202 0.990 0.651 0.348 0.345 0.801 0.093 0.182 0.053 (Continues)

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities?

Table 2. (Continued) Total Type of disability Motor Mental

539

KruskalWallis test Value p-Value

N Mean Hearing Visual Travel motivation** Because I dont like to appear as someone who does nothing To avoid doing other tasks I dont really know; I have the impression that there isnt any activity that I could do very well Cant come to see why I do leisure activities, and frankly I dont really care I dont really know; I dont think that leisure activities suit me Honestly, I dont know; I have the impression that Im wasting my time when I do leisure activities 172 3.58 172 2.41 171 2.25 170 1.83 169 1.78 173 1.62

(N = 21) (N = 21) (N = 118) (N = 29) 2.83 2.44 2.18 2.13 1.11 1.47 4.84 2.47 2.00 2.05 1.67 2.32 3.46 2.21 2.15 1.76 1.66 1.62 3.68 3.19 2.85 1.76 2.81 1.25 9.048 5.431 2.095 0.991 15.726 4.523 0.029 0.143 0.553 0.803 0.001 0.210

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. **7-type Likert scale, where 1 = does not correspond at all . . .7 = corresponds exactly.

diversity within this market. Therefore, for the respondents with a mental disability, aspects as to show others that I am a dynamic person and I dont really know; I dont think that leisure activities suit me are more relevant, whereas for the visually impaired, the item I dont like to appear as someone who does nothing assumes more importance.

Attitudes toward tourism The aforementioned strong motivation to travel indicates, on the part of this market, positive attitudes toward tourism that should be taken into account by the tourism industry. As shown in Table 3, a majority of respondents indicate that traveling is a very important aspect in their life and that they like to travel to forget their problems. However, despite the strong desire to travel, these individuals generally face relevant economic constraints. The low levels of income mentioned earlier are a powerful obstacle to travel, with the majority stating that if they had higher income, they would travel more. Moreover, this market possesses the general perception that destinations are not prepared to satisfy the needs of persons with disabilities, in terms of physical accessibilities and accessible activities, well translated in the number of respondents who select the item if the destination
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

I visit offers entertainment/recreational activities that I can participate in, I will do so. Results of KruskalWallis tests (Table 3) show statistical signicant differences among the four segments concerning some of their attitudes toward tourism. Respondents with mental and motor disabilities indicate they have a lot of spare time to travel. For both groups of respondents, social attitudes toward disability are extremely important, their average level of agreement with the item I dont travel because people look at me differently being signicantly higher when compared with the other two segments. Results also reveal that for those with a motor disability, the transportation difculties are more important than for other groups. Both ndings are in accordance with what was discussed in previous sections. Visual and motor disabilities are frequently the categories facing major mobility constraints and possessing lower levels of functioning, therefore requiring more help to move and the removal of material obstacles and barriers as well as the adaptation of physical structures and spaces. Relevance of destination features As suggested by Yau et al., (2004), people with disabilities have more aspects to consider and more challenges to face before and during a
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

540

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz

Table 3. Attitudes toward tourism of the segments of tourists with disabilities Total Type of disability Motor Mental KruskalWallis test Value p-Value

N Mean Hearing Visual Attitudes toward leisure tourism** If I had higher income I would travel more Traveling is a very important aspect in my life If the destination I visit offers entertainment/recreational activities that I can participate in, I will do so I like to travel to forget my problems During a vacation trip there is always the possibility that something goes wrong I dont travel, because people look at me differently Due to my disability, any travel supposes an extraordinary expense When I travel, I feel more dependant I have lots of spare time to travel Traveling means to deal with transport difculties My disability represents an obstacle for traveling I have no company to travel with Traveling causes me insecurity feelings I dont travel to avoid the problems that I will nd I dont travel because there are no offers adapted to my special needs 183 4.45 176 4.15 180 3.99 182 3.76 181 3.10 179 2.97 181 2.87 177 2.75 182 2.70 181 2.51 181 2.48 183 2.26 177 1.99 181 1.83 177 1.63

(N = 21) (N = 21) (N = 118) (N = 29) 4.35 4.00 3.70 3.52 2.95 2.10 2.14 1.47 2.00 2.35 2.05 2.25 1.95 2.20 2.05 Mean 4.84 4.40 4.32 3.89 3.65 3.35 3.05 2.89 2.74 2.30 2.00 2.45 2.25 1.84 1.70 1.53 4.16 4.14 3.84 3.15 3.35 3.07 2.96 2.90 2.75 2.64 2.17 1.93 1.75 1.67 4.46 4.11 3.67 3.68 2.85 2.00 2.59 2.81 2.68 2.04 2.11 2.64 2.42 2.00 1.22 2.602 0.765 2.273 2.565 1.790 22.115 7.162 19.512 8.619 10.345 6.418 1.980 2.800 1.078 3.955 0.457 0.858 0.518 0.464 0.617 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.035 0.016 0.093 0.577 0.424 0.782 0.266

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. **5-type Likert scale, where 1 = completely disagree . . .5 = completely agree.

trip than those without. Therefore, destination attributes are of paramount relevance to this market, the accessibility of spaces and activities being fundamental conditions (Israeli, 2002). Table 4 shows the analyzed destination attributes, security being the most valued feature. To compare the relevance of destination features for the four groups considered, we undertook a principal component analysis with varimax rotation. From this analysis, three components were identied: physical accessibility; information, safety and recreation; and welcoming atmosphere (Table 5). All these dimensions are relevant for the respondents. However, the mean values of the
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

items in each component suggest that physical accessibility (4.37) and information, safety and recreation (4.36) are the most important. Bartletts test of sphericity (2488.394 with p = 0.000) suggests the presence of correlations among the variables. The KaiserMeyerOlkin statistic of 0.934 revealing a good factor solution indicates the data suitability to perform this analysis. Additionally, almost all factor loadings are above 0.60, demonstrating a good correlation between the items and the factor. The results reported in Table 5 show that all factors have reliability values, accessed via Cronbachs alpha, above the recommended value (0.70) (Hair et al., 1998).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities?

Table 4. Relevance of destination features for Portuguese tourists with disabilities Factors and items** Factor 1: physical accessibility Accessibility of the public toilets Existence of adapted or suitable transportation Accessible courses Accessibility of tourism attractions Specic parking Existence of adapted or suitable accommodation Availability of equipment for people with disabilities Accessibility of stores and other destination services Factor 2: information safety and recreation Tourism information Appropriate signage of accessibility Adapted recreational activities Security Specialized monitoring during the implementation of recreational activities Factor 3: welcoming atmosphere Medical support Attitudes toward the presence of assistance dogs Local community attitudes toward disability Value for money of the touristic services Support daily life activities

541

Mean Factor loadingEigenvalue Variance explained (%)Reliability a* 4.37 4.39 4.40 4.55 4.55 4.34 4.34 4.01 4.39 4.36 4.31 4.46 4.22 4.66 4.15 4.20 4.53 3.77 4.01 4.37 4.30 0.834 0.731 0.708 0.682 0.486 1.083 0.785 0.647 0.638 0.606 0.566 17.625 0.799 10.150 0.884 0.871 0.863 0.857 0.795 0.765 0.759 0.746 1.636 17.891 0.876 35.980 0.966

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. *Cronbachs alpha test. **5-type Likert scale, where 1 = not important . . .5 = very important.

Table 5. Differences among segments concerning relevance of destination features Total N Destination features Factor 1 physical accessibility 150 Factor 2 information safety and 150 recreation Factor 3 welcoming atmosphere 150 Mean Hearing (N = 21) 0.040 0.934 0.008 0.070 0.001 0.651 Type of disability Visual Motor Mental KruskalWallis test Value p-Value

(N = 21) (N = 118) (N = 29) Mean (factor score) 0.042 0.253 0.240 0.232 0.024 0.359 0.282 0.155 0.036 14.121 3.885 9.536 0.003 0.274 0.023

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

542 Although all destination features are very important for the respondents, not surprisingly, persons with a motor disability present higher mean scores for factor 1 physical accessibility whereas for hearing impaired, factor 3 welcoming atmosphere is the most relevant (Table 5), this aspect being more prominent in this study in comparison with other researches in this domain. Travel behavior Recreational activities. Results (Table 6) reveal that more than 50% of the respondents would like to perform all recreational activities listed, with the exception of shing and participating in agricultural activities. However, when comparing recreational tourism activities carried out by the respondents with those activities that they would like to engage in, in the future, it is clear that some activities actually undertaken are the least desired. The results show that going to the beach (80.4%); participating in picnics in nature (77.8%); visiting historical center, museums and monuments (71.9%); attending theater plays (67.7%); visiting exhibitions (65.6%); and visiting entertainment facilities (58.2%) are the most frequent activities undertaken by this group. However, health and wellness treatments (72%) and cross country rides (69.7%) are the most desired recreational tourism activities. Despite these general ndings regarding recreational activities carried out and desired, the results of chi-square tests clearly show statistically signicant differences by type of disability (Table 6). Individuals with a motor disability were signicantly more likely to go to the beach and to enjoy health and wellness treatments than the other groups. Thematic meals, participation in gastronomy festivals, crafts workshops and visiting historical centers tend to be more carried out by those with hearing and visual impairments. Conversely, these activities tend to be less undertaken by people with a mental disability. Concerning the activities they would like to carry out in the future, results of chi-square demonstrate that persons with a motor disability are more prone to engage in picnics in parks/nature; visit historical centers, museums and monuments; attend theater plays; visit exhibitions; and visit entertainment facilities.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz In contrast, persons with a hearing impairment tend to have lower preferences for all the mentioned activities. These results show clearly that persons with disabilities constitute a heterogeneous market both in terms of recreational activities desired and currently performed. Previous travel behavior. Despite the strong desire of tourists with disabilities to participate in leisure tourism experiences, they face, as previously discussed, signicant challenges that severely limit their travel behavior. The generally relevant physical, material and attitudinal barriers that persons with disabilities have to overcome make international trips only a dream for most of the respondents. In fact, consistent with the studies of Haukeland (1990) and Shaw and Coles (2004), only a small percentage (18%) in this study take international holidays, and the majority (60%) take exclusively domestic holidays. The constraints these tourists have to face also inuence the type of destination chosen as well as the type of products acquired during the visit. The beach is the most common tourism destination, whereas hot springs are less visited sites, despite the relative abundance of thermal spas in Portugal and the indicated interest in health and wellness treatments. Chi-square tests results show no signicant statistical differences between the categories (Table 7). The aforementioned perceived constraints lead to an increased relevance of highly credible information sources, with recommendations by family and friends and previous experiences playing a particularly important role (Table 7). Results of chi-square tests reveal that respondents with a hearing impairment tend to use more than the other groups the Internet for preparing their trips, whereas respondents with a mental disability tend to use this information source less than other groups. As far as the travel group is concerned, a majority of respondents travel with their family (77%). A considerable number of respondents also travel with friends (43.7%), and only 9.2% have traveled alone. The results of the chi-square test reveal a signicant statistical difference regarding the composition of the travel group. The persons with a hearing impairment
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities?

543

Table 6. Differences between segments concerning recreational tourism activities (carried out and desired) Total N Type of disabilitya Chisquaretest

% Hearing Visual Motor Mental

(N = 21 (N = 21 (N = 118, (N = 29, Value p-Value 11.1%) 11.1%) 62.4%) 15.3%) Recreational tourism activities carried outb Hiking on trails/trekking 62 32.80 14.50 Paintball 14 7.41 28.60 Cross country rides/tours 27 14.29 3.70 River tours 93 49.21 15.10 Horse riding tours 56 29.63 7.10 Going to the beach 152 80.42 11.80 Adventure activities 51 26.98 9.80 Fishing 37 19.58 8.10 Participating in agricultural activities 43 22.75 7.00 Picnics in parks/nature 147 77.78 11.60 Thematic meals 76 40.21 15.80 Participating in gastronomy festivals 60 31.75 16.70 Cuisine workshops 32 16.93 9.40 Crafts workshops 66 34.92 18.20 Attend ethnographic events 62 32.80 14.50 Visit historical centers, museums and 136 71.96 13.20 monuments Attend theater plays 128 67.72 7.80 Visit exhibitions 124 65.61 12.10 Visit entertainment facilities 110 58.20 10.00 Health and wellness treatments 36 19.05 8.30 Recreation tourism activities that people with disabilities would like to Hiking on trails/trekking 109 62.30 11.00 Paintball 108 61.70 11.40 Cross country rides/tours 122 69.70 10.70 River tours 108 61.70 9.30 Horse riding tours 108 61.70 12.30 Going to the beach 105 60.00 7.60 Adventure activities 94 53.70 10.60 Fishing 66 37.70 6.10 Participating in agricultural activities 65 37.10 7.70 Picnics in parks/nature 117 66.90 5.10 Thematic meals 102 58.30 4.90 Participating in gastronomy festivals 106 60.60 8.50 Cuisine workshops 105 60.30 10.50 Crafts workshops 98 56.30 9.20 Attend ethnographic events 94 53.70 9.60 Visit historical centers, museums and monuments 120 68.60 5.80 Attend theater plays 117 66.90 5.10 Visit exhibitions 113 64.60 6.20 Visit entertainment facilities 115 65.70 6.10 Health and wellness treatments 126 72.00 9.50
Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. a Percentage in row. b Dummy variables, only the values to yes category are presented. c The assumptions of chi-square test were not observed. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

14.50 7.10 18.50 10.80 8.90 12.50 9.80 8.10 16.30 12.20 15.80 15.00 9.40 16.70 14.50 12.50

56.50 57.10 74.10 58.10 60.70 63.80 66.70 64.90 53.50 63.30 61.80 63.30 75.00 54.50 56.50 62.50

14.50 7.10 3.70 16.10 23.20 11.80 13.70 18.90 23.30 12.90 6.60 5.00 6.30 10.60 14.50 11.80

2.496 0.476
c c

3.216 0.359 4.719 0.194

c c c c

0.535 0.911

11.38 9.78 c) 9.875 2.496 8.164

0.010 0.021 0.020 0.476 0.043

14.80 65.60 11.70 12.9 0.005 13.70 62.10 12.10 4.991 0.172 11.80 67.30 10.90 4.771 0.189 c 2.80 86.10 2.80 b perform in the future 11.00 60.60 17.40 1.584 0.663 10.90 62.90 14.90 6.273 0.099 12.30 60.70 18.10 1.928 0.587 12.00 68.50 10.20 7.106 0.069 11.70 67.90 16.00 1.955 0.582 7.60 68.60 16.20 7.546 0.056 12.80 62.80 12.80 1.421 0.701 13.60 60.60 19.70 5.182 0.159 16.90 62.90 14.90 4.867 0.182 11.10 70.10 13.70 15.549 0.010 8.80 70.60 15.70 12.483 0.060 12.30 63.20 16.00 2.778 0.427 16.20 56.20 17.10 9.598 0.022 14.30 57.10 19.40 7.421 0.060 12.80 60.60 17.00 2.093 0.554 10.00 70.80 13.30 15.179 0.020 8.50 70.90 15.40 17.732 0.000 8.80 69.00 15.90 11.007 0.012 10.40 71.30 12.20 13.862 0.003 11.90 65.10 13.50 2.801 0.423

544

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz

Table 7. Differences between segments concerning previous travel behavior Total Travel behavior N % Type of disabilitya Hearing Visual Motor Mental Chi-squaretest Value p-Value

(N = 21 (N = 21 (N = 118 (N = 29 11.1%) Type of destination Beach Countryside Mountain City Hot spring Type of travel Domestic International Information sourcesb Travel agency Press/radio/TV Internet Organizations catalogs Personal experience Family and friend recommendations Period of travel High season (June, July and August) Low season Accommodation Hotel Private arrangements Other Transportation Car Other Travel groupb Alone With family With friends Package tour Length of stay and expenditures Average length of travel (number of nights) Expenditure () Expenditure per person and per day Expenditure per person
b

11.1%) 11.76 13.95 9.68 13.41 0.00 9.91 17.14 15.15 10.00 14.29 42.86 7.69 11.43 11.81 9.68 10.61 10.00 13.21 10.17 12.68 6.25 11.90 15.79 12.50

62.4%) 58.82 59.30 54.84 59.76 85.71 63.06 62.86 54.55 75.00 60.71 28.57 61.54 66.67 61.42 64.52 71.21 57.14 58.49 66.95 54.93 93.75 65.70 61.84 55.00

15.3%) 16.91 16.28 25.81 15.85 0.00 15.32 5.71 9.09 10.00 7.14 14.29 17.31 16.19 18.11 9.68 6.06 25.71 13.21 12.71 19.72 0.00 11.90 6.58 15.00
c

136 86 31 82 7 111 35 33 20 56 7 52 105 127 62 66 70 53 118 71 16 134 76 40 N

79.07 50.00 18.02 47.67 4.07 60.00 18.92 20.12 12.20 34.15 4.27 31.71 64.02 67.20 32.80 34.92 37.04 28.04 62.43 37.57 9.20 77.01 43.68 22.99

12.50 10.47 9.68 10.98 14.29 11.71 14.29 21.21 5.00 17.86 14.29 13.46 5.71 8.66 16.13 12.12 7.14 15.09 10.17 12.68 0.00 10.40 15.79 17.50

1.639
c c

0.651 0.813 0.867

0.950 0.728
c c c

8.498
c

0.037 0.549 0.070 0.235

2.114 7.068 4.257

12.143 2.945
c c

0.059 0.400

10.732
c

0.013

Total Type of disability KruskalWallistest Mean Hearing Visual Motor Mental (N = 21) (N = 21) (N = 118) (N = 29) Value p-Value Mean 165 12.90 12.76 12.17 13.49 10.92 1.008 0.799 56 45.69 35.00 59 307.17 184.65 39.97 421.46 49.86 303.00 29.88 305.00 0.736 0.132 0.865 0.988

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. a Percentage in row. b Dummy variables, only the values to yes category are presented. c The assumptions of chi-square test were not observed. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities? tend to travel more with friends when compared with other groups, whereas the respondents with a mental disability tend to travel less with friends (Table 7). Regarding the means of transportation and accommodation used by respondents, private accommodation is the most frequent lodging format used by this market and the car the most frequent means of transportation. The results of the chi-square further show that those with a motor impairment tend to stay more often in hotels, whereas those with mental disability tend stay in private accommodation. Length of stay and expenditure patterns of this market are two important variables for analyzing its relevance for the tourism industry. The average expenditure per person and per day of the persons surveyed in this study is quite low, which is related to the aforementioned low levels of income that characterize this group. However, the average length of stay is high. Consequently, the total expenditures undertaken per person during a trip are rather signicant (about 307). The results of the KruskalWallis test reveal no signicant statistical difference between the groups analyzed concerning their length of stay and expenditure patterns (Table 7) Desired trips. Literature suggests that the strong constraints that persons with disabilities have to face to enjoy a tourism experience inuence their travel behavior, previous behavior being an important indicator of these constraints (Yau et al., 2004). However, travel desires expressed by this market are crucial for the tourism industry when designing appealing leisure activities and products. The empirical evidence (Table 8) although not revealing statistically signicant differences between groups clearly points out that desired trips are different from those actually undertaken. In fact, respondents desire to travel more with friends rather than with family; to use more hotels for overnight stays instead of private accommodation; and to visit more thermal spas, cities and mountain destinations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Although relatively scarce, literature dealing with tourism and disability simultaneously
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

545 stresses the frequent exclusion of persons with disabilities and emphasizes the benets associated with tourism, demonstrating the potential of accessible leisure and recreational activities for enhancing the quality of life of this social category (Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; CESE, 2004; Daniels et al., 2005; Shaw and Coles, 2004; Smith and Hughes, 1999; Yau et al., 2004). The literature review clearly demonstrates that the barriers and constraints this population has to face in everyday life become more challenging in a tourism context (Daniels et al., 2005; Darcy, 2010; Haukeland, 1990), even though persons with disabilities show similar desires and needs to individuals without disabilities and reveal even more intense experiences and benets from participation in leisure and tourism activities (Shaw and Coles, 2004; Smith and Hughes, 1999; Yau et al., 2004). However, previous research in this eld has neglected the diversity of disabilities and the specic constraints faced by people with different types of disability (both in terms of structures and functions of the body and in terms of ability to perform various activities). Recently, Burns et al. (2009) demonstrated that people with disabilities are a quite heterogeneous group from the point of view of socioeconomic characteristics as well as in terms of experiences, views, needs and nature of the disability. Although exploratory in nature, the data collected concerning the Portuguese tourists with disabilities conrm the heterogeneity of this group and the general features of this market presented by other studies. Four groups were considered in this study accordingly with the type of disability: motor, mental, visual and hearing. The four segments identied present some important differences regarding mobility constraints and levels of functioning, 56% of the respondents needing help to move and 60% having a reduced mobility. Not surprisingly, persons with motor and visual impairments are among the respondents with more severe need for help to move, and from these, individuals with a motor disability reveal lowest mobility levels. The majority of the respondents are single (75.7%) and younger than 39 years (70%), with low literacy levels (almost 60% with basic or lower secondary education) and income
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

546
Table 8. Differences between segments concerning trips desired Total Trips desired N %

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz

Type of disabilitya Hearing Visual (N = 21 11.1%) Motor Mental Chi-squaretest

(N = 21 (N = 118 (N = 29 Value p-Value 11.1%) 6.10 6.30 11.40 2.70 13.50 12.70 10.00 9.70 16.70 12.50 0.00 8.80 10.50 7.90 15.00 62.4%) 61.20 75.00 63.60 73.00 67.60 57.00 66.40 64.10 33.30 62.50 91.70 60.00 62.90 52.6 62.50 15.3%) 18.40 18.80 13.60 16.20 10.80 17.70 13.60 14.60 50.00 13.80 8.30 16.30 13.30 23.70 20.00 1.382
c c c

Dream destination Beach 49 Countryside 16 Mountain 44 City 37 Hot springs/thermal spas 37 Period of travel High season (June, July and August) 79 Low season 110 Accommodation Hotel 103 Private arrangements 6 Other 80 Travel groupb Alone 24 With family 80 With friends 105 Package tour for all people 38 Package tour for people with disabilities 40

33.80 11.00 30.30 25.50 25.50 41.80 58.20 54.50 3.20 42.30 14.20 47.30 62.10 22.50 23.70

14.30 0.00 11.40 8.10 8.10 12.70 10.00 11.70 0.00 11.30 0.00 15.00 13.30 15.80 2.50

0.710 0.816

0.938

1.736

0.629

1.950 1.271
c c

0.583 0.736

Values in bold are statistically signicant differences. a Percentage in row. b Dummy variables, only the values to yes category are presented. c The assumptions of chi-square test were not observed.

(around 40% has a net monthly income below 240). Additionally, only 37% of the tourists with disabilities surveyed are employed, corroborating the ndings of other studies (MT, 2007; Neumann, 2004; Shaw and Coles, 2004) and revealing both the general exclusion of this group from professional activities and the severe budget limitations. Respondents with motor and mental disabilities face more severe economic constraints that the other groups considered in this study. Regardless of their general fragile economic situations, the respondents seem to value tourism experiences, in line with the ndings of Daniels et al. (2005). The empirical evidence conrms the high interest and motivation of persons with disabilities in engaging in tourism and leisure activities, particularly if equipment and services are adapted to the specic needs posed by their different types of disabilities and levels of functioning. These results are in
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

accordance with previous studies focusing on the relevance of physical accessibility of tourism destinations for this market (Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2007; Burnett & Baker, 2001, Bi et al., 2007; Daniels et al., 2005, Israeli, 2002; Ozturk et al., 2008). Physical barriers and the absence of accessible and enabling environments (Yau et al., 2004) are the most important obstacles to be overcome, although especially relevant for persons with visual and motor disabilities due to their major mobility constraints. Together with these obstacles, internal and social barriers are still important for the majority of the respondents, similar to the results presented by Daniels et al. (2005), Darcy (2010) and Smith (1987). Particularly, respondents with motor and visual disabilities reveal their feelings of exclusion from activities that require physical capabilities, both due to the challenging and not accessible spaces and to the lack of devices adapted to help
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities? perform these activities, as shown in the previous section. The pleasure and satisfaction obtained from the leisure experiences are the most prominent motivations revealed by the respondents, corroborating previous ndings of Shaw and Coles (2004) and Yau et al. (2004), which stress the desire to take risks, to explore interesting new experiences and to expand knowledge as the most important travel motivations of this market. Despite the general homogeneity, some difference can be pointed out among the respondents. Persons with a mental disability tend to emphasize the relevance of showing to others that they are dynamic and able as well as to stress the inadequacy of leisure activities considering their type of impairment. Individuals with visual disabilities emphasize the opportunity tourism activities present to face different challenges and to be more independent. The strong motivation to engage in leisure and tourism activities presented by the respondents indicates positive attitudes regarding tourism. Travel is, for the majority of the sample, a very important aspect, representing an opportunity to escape everyday life and to forget problems. These ndings are in accordance with the study undertaken by Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen (2011) in Denmark. Despite the strong desire to travel, the low levels of income tend to represent a major obstacle for the majority of the respondents. Additionally, the positive attitudes toward leisure and tourism activities and the desire to travel are mitigated by the general perception that destinations are not prepared to accommodate the needs of the individuals with disabilities, mainly regarding physical accessibilities, indicating that physically accessible destinations and activities assume a paramount role for this market. Despite the common attitudes and perceptions regarding tourism, empirical evidence shows that these tend to vary accordingly with the type of disability and the level of functioning. As facing major mobility and attitudinal constraints and possessing lower levels of functioning, respondents with motor and mental impairments value social attitudes toward disability more than the other groups, emphasizing those attitudes as important constraints in their decisions to travel. Persons with a motor disability also tend to value
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

547 transportation accessibilities more than the other three segments. Regarding travel behavior, results show that although facing additional constraints, persons with disabilities do indeed reveal the same desire to engage in recreational activities as those without disabilities (Yau et al., 2004). However, there are some relevant differences between the activities actually carried out and the ones desired, strongly related to the fact that these activities need to be adapted to the specic needs of tourists with disabilities. It is worthwhile to emphasize that results also show some important differences among the four segments regarding the activities respondents desire to engage in, stressing the heterogeneity of this market and corroborating the few studies undertaken in this eld (e.g. Blitchfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Burns et al., 2009). Similar to the ndings of Haukeland (1990) and Shawn and Coles (2004), the Portuguese tourists with disabilities surveyed do not take international trips as much as they desire, due to the additional physical, material and attitudinal barriers they have to overcome. The perceived constraints lead to an increased relevance of highly credible information sources when choosing a destination, with recommendations by family and friends and previous experiences playing a paramount role, in line with the studies undertaken by Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen (2011), Burnett and Baker (2001) and Ray and Ryder (2003). Again, the heterogeneity of this market is demonstrated by the fact that respondents with a hearing impairment tend to use more than the other segments the Internet as a source of information, whereas individuals with a mental disability tend to use it less than the other groups. As demonstrated by other studies (e.g. Shaw and Coles, 2004; Yau et al., 2004), family and friends support is extremely important for this market to be able to fully enjoy a tourism experience. Results show that 77% of respondents travel with their family and 43.7% (particularly the persons with a hearing impairment) travel with friends. This tendency to travel with a group is especially relevant for tourism industry as it represents a major business opportunity, as also demonstrated by Darcy et al. (2010). From the empirical evidence produced in this study, it is possible to conclude that the
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

548 different types of disabilities and levels of functioning do affect involvement in tourism and leisure activities and experiences. The most important aspect determining the level of engagement in tourism and leisure activities is, in fact, the different physical and motor capabilities and the different levels of dependency to move posed by specic impairments. The results clearly show that, besides encountering specic physical and attitudinal barriers and constraints, persons with diverse and specic disabilities need differently adapted activities, services and equipment, in line with the ndings of Burns et al. (2009). The internal diversity of this market showed by this study also explains the different motivations, attitudes and desires regarding tourism and leisure, revealing that in addition to the general requirement to remove physical barriers and make spaces and activities more accessible to all, especial attention should be paid to particular constraints posed by specic types of disabilities and levels of functioning. However, both due to the scarcity of research in this eld and the limitations of the present study, additional evidence is needed on the specicities and diversity of this market as well as on the differences between desires and actual behaviors and its variance according with the diverse levels of functioning. Additionally, for a better understanding of the specicities of this market and its differences regarding tourists without disabilities, further research is needed. Many authors have shown the economic potential and business opportunities presented by this market (Bi et al., 2007; Daniels et al., 2005; Darcy et al., 2010). Considering the aforementioned large (and, due to the aging of society, increasing) number of people with disabilities around the world, in Europe and in Portugal, together with the fact also conrmed by the present research that these individuals typically travel in a group, there is indeed a business opportunity for the tourism industry, provided it is able to adapt to the specic (and diverse) circumstances and requirements presented by this population. Further research on tourism providers is therefore necessary to understand how open they are to developing accessible leisure and tourism products, as well as how aware they are of the diversities, specicities and needs of this market. There must also be
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz what Burns et al. (2009: 414) call program accessibility, which relates to the ways in which program and activities are designed to enable people with a variety of impairments to fully participate in fullling experiences of (. . .) recreation. Since this business opportunity is simultaneously a chance for promoting social inclusion, the social role of the tourism industry should be recognized and supported by public policies, particularly taking into account the generally high costs involved in investing in special equipment and devices (e.g. Kastenholz et al., 2010) and perhaps more relevant the fact that tourism (being by denition an activity limited in time and space) should not be held solely responsible for an effective social inclusion of the population with disabilities. As shown in this paper and corroborated by other studies (e.g. Bilchfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Burns et al., 2009; Darcy et al., 2010), disability is a heterogeneous condition and a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, therefore requiring diverse mechanisms to effectively promote, through the intervention of several social, political and economic agents, access to tourism and leisure activities to all, in spite of their specic conditions and (dis)abilities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank ARCIL (Associao para a Recuperao de Cidados Inadaptados da Lous) and the Municipality of Lous, who nanced the study and involved the author in the development of the rst accessible tourism destination in Portugal. The authors are also grateful to Joana Lima and Andreia Moura who were crucial in the data collection and analysis processes. The authors nally want to express their gratitude to all the institutions and individuals that helped implementing the survey and to each person with a disability willing to respond the questionnaire.

REFERENCES
Barnes C, Mercer G. 2005. Disability, work and welfare: challenging the social exclusion of disabled people. Work, Employment & Society 19(3): 527545.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

How Diverse are Tourists with Disabilities?

Bi Y, Jaclyn A, Shu TC. 2007. Accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese travellers with physical disabilities. International Journal of Tourism Research 9: 205216. Bizjak B, Knezevic M, Cvetreznic S. 2011. Attitude change towards guests with disabilities. Reections from tourism students. Annals of Tourism Research 38(3): 842857. Blichfeldt BS, Nicolaisen J. 2011. Disabled travel: not easy but doable. Current Issues in Tourism 14(1): 79102. Buhalis D, Eichhorn, V, Michopoulou E, Miller G. 2006. Accessibility Market and Stakeholder Analysis 2005. OSSATE/ University of Surrey, Surrey. Burnett J, Baker H. 2001. Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Travel Research 40(4): 411. Burns N, Paterson K, Watson N. 2009. An inclusive outdoors? Disabled peoples experiences of countryside leisure services. Leisure Studies 28(4): 403417. Casas CLJ. 2005 (Coord.). Lazer sem Barreiras: guia de turismo adaptado para pessoas com decincia, CAMI project report. CESE. 2004. Para um turismo acessvel a todas as pessoas e socialmente sustentvel, parecer do Comit Econmico e Social Europeu. Jornal Ocial da Unio Europeia 32 (series C), Brussels. CESE. 2006. Parecer do Comit Econmico e Social Europeu sobre o Turismo Social na Europa: Declarao de Barcelona sobre o Turismo Social na Europa. CESE: Bruxelas. Crawford D, Jackson EL, Godbey G. 1991. A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 9(2): 119128. Daniels MJ, Rodgers EB, Wiggins BP. 2005. Travel Tales: an interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with disabilities. Tourism Management 26: 919930. Darcy S. 2010. Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tourism Management 31(6): 816826. Darcy S, Cameron B, Pegg, S. 2010. Accessible tourism and sustainability: a discussion and case study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(4): 515537. European Comission (EC). 2007. Situation of Disabled People in the European Union: the European Action Plan 20082009, EC: Brussels. Gonzalez AM, Alonso EO. 2004. Hbitos y actitudes hacia el turismo de las personas con discapfsica. Plataforma representativa estatal de de discapacitados sicos, PREDIF. Hair JF Jr., Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 5th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

549
Haukeland J. 1990. Non-travellers: the ip side of motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 17(2): 172184. Instituto Nacional de Estatstica INE. 2002. Censos 2001. INE: Lisbon Israeli A. 2002. A preliminary investigation of the importance of site accessibility factor for disabled tourists. Journal of Travel Research 41(1): 101104. Kastenholz E, Pinho P, Figueiredo E, Eusbio C. 2010. Estudo das Necessidades de Acesso ao Recreio, Lazer e Turismo das Pessoas com Incapacidade na Lous, 1st Report, University of Aveiro: Aveiro. Luo X, Bhattacharya CB. 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing 70: 118. McCabe S, Joldersma T, Chunxiao L. 2010. Understanding the benets of social tourism: linking participation to subjective well-being and quality of life. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(6): 647819. MT. 2007. A Prole of Travellers Looking for Accessible Travel Destinations An Overview of North American Travellers Based on the 2006 Travel Activities and Motivations Survey (TAMS). Ministry of Tourism of Ontario: Ontario. MTSS. 2006. Primeiro Plano de Aco para a Integrao das Pessoas com Decincias ou Incapacidade. Ministrio do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, MTSS: Lisbon. Murray M, Sproats J. 1988. The disabled traveler: tourism and disability in Australia. The Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1): 914. Neal J, Uysal M, Sirgy M. 2007. The effect of tourism service on travellers quality of life. Journal of Travel Research 46(2): 154163. Neumann P. 2004. Estmulos econmicos do turismo acessvel para todos. (translated) Ministrio Federal da Economia e do Trabalho Alemo (BMWA). Munich and Berlin. Ozturk Y, Yayli A, 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: 382389. Packer T, McKercher B, Yau M. 2007. Understanding the complex interplay between tourism, disability and environmental contexts. Disability and Recreation 29(4): 281292. Pelletier LG, Vallerand RJ, Brire NM, Blais MR. 1989. Construction et validation de lchelle de motivation vis--vis les loisirs (EML). Paper read at the Congrs Annuel de la SQRP, Ottawa, ON, 28 Octobre. Portugal S, Martins BS, Moura Ramos L, Hespanha P. 2010. Estudo de Avaliao do Impacto dos Custos Financeiros e Sociais da Decincia. CES: Coimbra.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

550
Przeclawski K. 1995. Tourism and its role to people with special needs. Progress in Tourism of People with Special Needs. Studio Wydawnicze AGAT: Poland; 245248. Phretmair F. 2006. People with disabilities: accessible tourism. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4061: 295297. Ray N, Ryder M 2003. Ebilities Tourism: an exploratory discussion of the travel needs and motivations of the mobility disabled. Tourism Management 24: 5772. Richards V, Pritchard A, Morgan N. 2010. (Re)envisioning tourism and visual impairment. Annals of Tourism Research 37(4): 10971116. Santos M. 2006. Servio Social e Decincia Mental: a perspectiva subjectiva da qualidade de vida. Instituto Superior Miguel Torga Escola Superior de Altos Estudos: Coimbra. Schleien S, Ray M, Humphrey F. 1988. Community Recreation and Persons with Disabilities: Overcoming Obstacles to Community Recreation Integration, Paul Brookes: Baltimore. Shaw G, Coles T. 2004. Disability, holiday making and the tourism industry in the UK: a preliminary survey. Tourism Management 25: 397403. Smith RW. 1987. Leisure of disable tourists: barriers to participation. Annals of Tourism Research 14(3): 376389.

E. Figueiredo, C. Eusbio and E. Kastenholz

Smith V, Hughes H. 1999. Disadvantaged families and the meaning of the holiday. International Journal of Tourism Research 1(3): 123133. TQ. 2002. Disability tourism. Tourism Queensland. http://www.tq.com.au/researc h (accessed November 2009). UN. 2006. United nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, UN. Available at http://www.un.org/disabilities. UNESCAP. 2003. Barrier Free Tourism for People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacic Region. United Nations: New York. UNWTO. 1999. Global code of ethics for tourism, WTO. Available at http://www.unwto.org/ethics/index. php. Van Horn L. 2002. Travellers with disabilities: market size and trends. Available at http:// ncpedp.org/access/isu-travel.htm. WHO. 2004. CIF Classicao Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade e Sade. Direco Geral da Sade: Lisbon. WHO. 2008. World Report on Disability and Rehabilitation. IFC, WHO: Geneve. Yau KSM, McKercher B, Packer TL. 2004. Traveling with a disability. More than an access issue. Annals of Tourism Research 31(4): 946960.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 14, 531550 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/jtr