See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305846523

Impacts of festivals and events on residents’

well-being

Article in Annals of Tourism Research · November 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2016.07.008

CITATIONS READS

6 1,000

5 authors, including:

Medet Yolal Dogan Gursoy

Anadolu University Washington State University
41 PUBLICATIONS 168 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 6,103 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Muzaffer Uysal Hyelin Kim

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Unive… University of Nevada, Las Vegas
183 PUBLICATIONS 9,379 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

article View project

A Handbook of Managing and Marketing Tourism Experiences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sıla Karacaoğlu on 06 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism Review International, Vol. 19, pp. 19-30 1544-2721/15 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/154427215X14327569678759
Copyright © 2015 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-4421
www.cognizanteonununication.com

EXAMINING THE PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY-IMPAIRED

TRAVELERS: AN ANALYSIS OF SERVICE EXPECTATIONS,
EVALUATIONS, AND TRAVEL BARRIERS

SILA KARACAOGLU,* MEDET YOLAL,t AND DOGAN GURSOYt

*School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey

tCarson College of Business, School of Hospitality Business Management,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

This study examines tourism experiences of mobility-impaired individuals, their evaluations and
expectations from tourism service providers, and their satisfaction with the services provided. Data
were collected from a sample of respondents in Eskisehir, Turkey. The findings suggest that health
is not the main barrier to travel; instead, income is found to be one of the most important factors
affecting the travel patterns of the mobility impaired. Additionally, while the respondents are found to
have a generally favorable evaluation of hotel attributes, transportation services are found to present
a significant barrier to travel. Implications and recommendations for strategic tourism management
are provided.

Key words: Disabled tourists; Expectations; Mobility impairment; Hotels; Turkey

Introduction that 11% of the population in Europe has a physi-

The number of individuals with physical dis-
abilities represents a meaningful proportion of the
global population. According to the World Health
Organization (WHO, 2013), there are more than
1 billion individuals worldwide with a documented
physical disability. In the US, for example, it has
been estimated that 12.1% of the population has
some form of physical disability (Kalargyrou &
Volis, 2014). Similarly, EUROSTAT statistics indicate
cal disability of some form. And these percent-
ages are expected to increase significantly in the
following decades; indeed, it has been estimated
that the number of individuals with a physical
disability will double in number throughout both
Europe and the US by the year 2030 (Burnett &
Baker, 2001; Guerra, 2003). It has been suggested
that much of the increase is due to an aging global
population. In particular, the United Nations Dis-
ability Statistics Compendium notes that there is a

Address correspondence to Dogan Gursoy, Ph.D., Professor, Carson College of Business, School of Hospitality Business Management,
Washington State University, 340G Todd Hall, PO Box 644736, Pullman, WA 99164, USA. E-mail: dgursoy@wsu.edu
19
20 KARACAOGLU, YOLAL, AND GURSOY
strong and positive relationship between aging and
an increase in the number of physically disabled
(Buhalis & Michopoulou, 2011).
Given the current size of the physically dis-
abled as a percentage of the worldwide population
combined with a likely increase in their numbers
over the next several decades, it is apparent that
they may represent an important market segment
for the tourism industry. Unfortunately, earlier
research by Israeli (2002) indicated that many
tourism sites were not well suited to serve dis-
abled individuals. Other research supported this
lack of adequate accessibility in the areas of trans-
portation facilities, travel agencies, and hotels
(McKercher, Packer, Yau & Lam, 2003; Vignuda,
2001; Wcstcott, 2004).
More recently, Michopoulou and Buhalis (2013)
identified specific barriers including (but not neces-
sarily limited to): steps, stairs, and heavy doors for
mobility-impaired individuals; inadequate lighting,
poor color contrast, lack of tactile guide paths for
visually impaired individuals; and a lack of induc-
tion loops and alternative fire alarm signals for
individuals with hearing disabilities. With regard to
lodging accommodations, Hua, Ibrahim, and Chiu
(2013) found that the number of hotels provid-
ing compatible disabled individual-friendly rooms
with wide entrances, low-level switches, hand dry-
ers, towels racks and beds, chair lifts, and other
furniture remains relatively low. To further com-
plicate issues, Buhalis and Michopoulou (2011)
found that many tourism destinations and suppliers
regard efforts to improve accessibility beyond those
required by regulation as an additional and even
unnecessary burden.
Such resistance would seem to be inconsistent
with the commonly recognized importance of
corporate social responsibility (Martinez, Perez,
& Rodriguez del Bosque, 2013). Additionally, given
the extent of research focusing on accessibility
issues related to the physically disabled (e.g., Burnett
& Baker, 2001; Burns, Paterson & Watson, 2009;
Chi & Qu, 2004; Darcy & Buhalis, 2011; Klenosky
& Gitelson, 1998; Lee, Agarwal & Kim, 2012;
Muloin, 1992; Ozturk, Yayli, & Yesiltas, 2008; Poria,
Reichel, & Brandt, 2011; Ray & Ryder, 2003; Shi,
Cole, & Chancellor, 2012; Small, Darcy, & Packer,
2012; Smith, 1987), it is somewhat surprising that
the issue of accessibility remains a challenge for
some service providers. In this regard, Eichhorn,
Miller, and Tribe (2013) note that the industry has
more work to do if they are to gain a reputation for
being sensitive to the needs and wants of the physi-
cally disabled including such areas as greater acces-
sibility to adequate and appropriate information,
better physical access to buildings and their ame-
nities, and more sensitive and supportive attitudes
from service providers in both the pretravel stage
and during the actual travel. To this end, Richards,
Pritchard, and Morgan (2010) underline the need
for further research to examine the travel and tour-
ism experiences of physically disabled individuals.
The purpose of the current study, therefore, is
to contribute to the stream of research in this area
by examining one sector of the physically dis-
abled: mobility-impaired individuals. In this study,
the term mobility impaired refers to any person,
regardless of age, who is subject to a physiologi-
cal defect or deficiency regardless of its cause,
nature, or extent that renders the person unable to
move about without the aid of crutches, a wheel-
chair, or any other form of support, or that limits
the person's functional ability to ambulate, climb,
descend, sit, or rise or to perform any related func-
tion. The mobility-impaired segment was selected
as the unit of analysis because they constitute the
majority among all physically disabled groups in
Turkey (TUBITAK, 2006). The intended outcome
of this research is to enhance our understanding of
the travel patterns of mobility-impaired individu-
als and thereby provide useful insights for tourism
management and public policy. However, there is
still a growing need to recognize disability issues in
terms of planning, policy making, and marketing.
Literature Review
A disability was defined by WHO in 1980 as
including "any restriction or lack (resulting from
an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in
the manner or within the range considered normal
for a human being." More recently, WHO (2013)
noted that "disability" is an umbrella term that cov-
ers: 1) impairments (a problem with a bodily func-
tion or structure), 2) activity limitations (related
to differences in executing a task or action), and
3) participating restrictions (a problem encountered
in involvement with life situations). In the current
 PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY-IMPAIRED TRAVELERS
study, we focus on one segment of the disabled
population: the mobility impaired. Miller (1995)
described a mobility impairment as a progressive (or
nonprogressive) physical limitation that hinder the
proper functioning of one or more parts of the body,
including the central nervous system, spinal cord,
peripheral nervous system, or peripheral structures.
Studies on mobility-impaired individuals and
their travel behavior suggest that when the services
and amenities provided by tourism suppliers (such
as travel agencies, hotels, food and beverage out-
lets, and other recreation-related facilities and ser-
vices) are inadequate, it can significantly inhibit a
mobility-impaired individual's participation in tour-
ism activities (Buhalis & Michopoulou, 2011; Chang
& Chen, 2011; Eichhom, Miller, Michopoulou, &
Buhalis, 2008; Germ & Schleien, 1997; Ozturk et
al., 2008; Shaw & Coles, 2004; Vignuda, 2001;
Westcott, 2004; Yau, McKercher, & Packer, 2004;
Yayli & Ozturk, 2006). While many businesses
meet their base legislative requirements, as exem-
plified by public policy provisions such as adequate
accessibility to parking and restroom facilities,
some research has shown that many do not consider
the issue further (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010).
Additionally, it has been reported that some service
providers may be hesitant to address the needs of
the mobility impaired for fear that it would result
in extra costs, extra problems, and/or extra work
(Guerra, 2003). Finally, Huh and Singh (2007)
found that tourism and hospitality marketers and
practitioners do not typically consider this group as
a significant market segment (Huh & Singh, 2007).
Consequently, mobility-impaired individuals may
encounter a variety of social and business operation-
related problems when participating in tourism
activities.
Efforts to better understand the travel and
tourism-related barriers affecting the mobility-
impaired segment have resulted in a number of
classification schemes. Smith (1987), for example,
categorizes the barriers under three headings: environ-
mental, interactive, and intrinsic barriers. Murray
and Sproats (1990) classify them as: economic,
physical, and attitudinal. More recently, McKercher
et al. (2003) classified barriers into two major cate-
gories: internal and exogenous.
With regard to internal barriers, McKercher
and colleagues (2003) further distinguish between
21
intrinsic and economic barriers. They describe
intrinsic barriers as those that include such things as
a lack of knowledge, ineffective social skills, health-
related barriers, and physical- or psychological-
related barriers. Economic barriers include afford-
ability, income disparities, and need for travel
companions/special facilities. For example, Bi, Card,
and Cole (2007) have shown that mobility-impaired
individuals tend to have much lower incomes than
individuals without such disabilities and, as a result,
their leisure activity choices and life experiences are
more constrained. Relatively high unemployment
levels among the mobility-impaired seem to further
complicate this issue (TUBITAK, 2006). Finally,
some mobility-impaired individuals might require
a companion to assist them in their travels, further
complicating the affordability issue. McKercher et
al. (2003) note that these barriers represent the initial
obstacles that must be overcome by the individual to
become "tourist active" (p. 467)
Exogenous bathers are also classified under two
subheadings: environmental and economic. Envi-
ronmental barriers include issues such as: (1) archi-
tectural issues (e.g., lack of ramp entries in step
areas, narrow doorway entrances, inaccessible rest-
rooms, lack of suitable lodging accommodations),
(2) ecological (e.g., uneven pathways and trails with
exposed roots and other exterior obstacles), (3) trans-
portation systems (e.g., relative inaccessibility of
suitable car, bus, taxicab, and air transportation),
(4) rules/regulations (e.g., prohibiting the use of cer-
tain equipment), and (5) safety (e.g., emergency plans
for unintended events such as power failures).
Interactive barriers include such things as skills
challenges and incongruities, communication chal-
lenges, lack of encouragement to participate, atti-
tudes of travel and hospitality industry workers,
and the availability and accuracy of information.
For example, Vignuda (2001) notes that special
arrangements are often required for those with
mobility impairments. As such, it should not sur-
prising to learn that 41% of mobility-impaired indi-
viduals in one study reported using travel agencies
and 40% reported using brochures and travel litera-
ture when planning a trip (Ray & Ryder, 2003).
Overall, it would appear that the bathers that
mobility-impaired individuals face in both travel
and travel planning center largely on the notion of
accessibility. Here, accessibility can be defined as
22 KARACAOGLU, YOLAL, AND GURSOY
how easy it is to approach, enter, and use buildings,
outdoor areas, and other facilities, independently,
without the need for special arrangements (Westcott,
2004). However, we would expand this definition
to include availability to relevant information about
accessibility as well. Indeed, Eichhom et al. (2008)
have maintained that the most important barrier that
the mobility-impaired segment faces during travel
planning is the lack of relevant information.
Empirical research provides some support for this
position. In particular, Darcy (2010) notes that studies
in Australia and overseas have shown that mobility
impaired individuals have reported serious concerns
with information on accessible accommodations.
Specifically, he reports that available information
tends to be poorly documented, not detailed enough,
and not room specific. Therefore, making informa-
tion on accessibility more relevant and available to
mobility-impaired individuals will allow them to
better judge for themselves whether or not a facil-
ity or a destination is appropriate (Westcott, 2004).
In this regard, advances in information technology
(social media and the Internet) have helped improve
the quality of information provided (Buhalis,
Eichhorn, Michopoulou, & Miller, 2005).
In summary, the evidence suggests that the tour-
ism market for mobility-impaired travelers is likely
to grow, primarily due an aging of the population
in the developed and developing nations (Darcy,
2010). Hence, addressing their accessibility needs
is warranted. The purpose of this study is to con-
tribute to this stream of research.
Method
A structured survey instrument was utilized for
data collection. The instrument was developed fol-
lowing the procedures recommended by Churchill
(1979) and DeVellis (1991). First, items were
identified from the relevant literature. Because the
items were created in English, they needed to be
translated into the local language of the study par-
ticipants (i.e., Turkish). To ensure proper transla-
tion, a back translation procedure was employed
(Brislin, 1970; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). A
group of tourism experts was then asked to assess
the content validity of these items. Specifically,
they were asked to provide comments on content
and understandability of those items and to edit
and improve those items, as appropriate, in order
to enhance their clarity and readability. They were
also requested to identify any scale items that con-
tained redundant content. After completing these
steps, the survey instrument was finalized.
The first part of the questionnaire included eight
items that measured mobility-impaired individu-
als' expectations from the hotels (Card, Cole, &
Humphrey 2006; Darcy & Daruwalla, 1999; Guerra,
2003; Klenosky & Gitelson, 1998; Ozturk & Yayli,
2006; Shaw & Coles, 2004; Vignuda, 2001). The
second part included questions related to demo-
graphic characteristics of the respondents (e.g., gen-
der, education level, age, employment, and income),
holiday frequencies within 5 years, and the reasons
why these people do not go on holiday. Reasons for
not traveling were identified from the literature as:
(1) economic reasons (Cavinato & Cuckovich, 1992;
Darcy, 1998; Murray & Sproats, 1990; Smith, 1987);
(2) environmental and architectural barriers (Guerra,
2003; McKercher at. al., 2003; Ray & Ryder, 2003;
Shaw & Coles, 2004); (3) lack of knowledge (Chang
& Chen, 2011; Eichhom et al., 2008); (4) health-
related barriers (Buhalis & Darcy, 2011; Buhalis
& Michopoulou, 2011; Ozturk et al., 2008); and
(4) psychological barriers (McKercher et al., 2003;
Ozturk & Yayli, 2006). Two additional items were
used to measure the overall satisfaction with the lat-
est hotel visit. The last section included 18 items
to assess how respondents perceived the quality of
the services and facilities offered at a hotel (Artar &
Karabacakoglu, 2003; Ozturk & Yayli, 2006; Ozturk
et al., 2008).
Data were collected utilizing a self-administered
questionnaire from mobility-impaired individuals
living in Eskisehir, Turkey. The questionnaires were
distributed through house visits, at rehabilitation
centers throughout the area, and at the Association
of Disabled People's facility in Eskisehir. A total of
400 survey questionnaires were distributed, with a
response of 264 surveys. Of these 264 responses,
17 involved incomplete questionnaires and were
subsequently eliminated from further analysis. As
a result, 247 usable questionnaires were retained
in the analysis, resulting an effective response rate
of 62%.
Frequency analysis was used to summarize demo-
graphic characteristics of the respondents, their travel
behavior, and their expectations from the hotels.
 PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY-IMPAIRED TRAVELERS
Correspondence analysis was utilized in order to
s imultaneously analyze the respondents' holiday
behavior and demographic profiles. Cluster analy-
sis was then used to identify groups of individu-
als whose satisfaction levels showed similar levels
and patterns utilizing the items that were used to
measure overall satisfaction. A series of one-way
ANOVA tests was then employed to determine sig-
nificant differences among three satisfaction levels
of mobility-impaired individuals from their latest
holiday experience and their evaluation of the hotel
facilities. To identify significant differences among
satisfaction levels, Tukey HSD post hoc compari-
sons were performed. Given a set of three means,
one for each satisfaction level, the Tukey HSD
procedure tested all possible two-way compari-
sons: (a) high satisfaction and moderate satisfac-
tion, (b) high satisfaction and low satisfaction, and
(c) moderate satisfaction and low satisfaction.
Findings
The demographic profile of the respondents is pre-
sented in Table 1. As presented in Table 1, the first
group consisted of 114 participants who had not trav-
eled for holiday purposes in the last 5 years. Of this
group, 63.9% were males and a majority were single
(72.4 %). Almost half were unemployed (49.1%) and
had relatively low income with a majority reporting
a monthly income of US$400 or less (60.5%). Most
respondents cited financial reasons for not traveling
(88.5%), followed by their perception that hotels
were not suitable for mobility-impaired individuals
(43.6%). Forty-six participants could not travel due
to health reasons while another 33 participants noted
that the transportation vehicles were not convenient
for mobility-impaired individuals. Finally, 29 partic-
ipants expressed the lack of motivation as a primary
reason for not traveling.
The second group was composed of participants
who went on holidays in the last 5 years. Of this
group, 51.9 % were males and 48.1% were married.
The majority had at least a high school education
(55.6%). The employment level was high relative to
the previous "had not traveled" group (55.6%). This
latter group also had a relatively higher income level
compared to the nontraveling group (36.1% had a
monthly income of US$400-600). Approximately
25% (24.8%) of participants in this group indicated
23
having traveled twice during the last 5 years and
26.6 % reported taking regular travels every year.
In order to examine the relationships between the
demographic characteristics and their frequency
of travel, a multiple correspondence analysis was
used. The multivariate nature of correspondence
analysis can reveal relationships that would not
be detected in a series of pairwise comparisons of
variables. Correspondence analysis helps to dem-
onstrate not only the existing relationships, but the
correlation of variables and the relative compari-
son of the variables. One of the unique abilities of
the correspondence analysis is the representation
of rows and columns from the contingency table
in a joint display (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2009). The joint graphical display can be used to
detect structural relationships among the variable
categories (Gursoy & Umbreit, 2004). As shown in
Figure 1, the variables formed a two-dimensional
space. Two principle axes accounted for 62% of the
inertia in the data. The first principal axis separated
mobility-impaired individuals according to their
holiday experience. The respondents who traveled
several times for holiday purposes (two, three, or
four times) within the last 5 years were found to
be employed and having a household income of
US$600-$1,000. This group also had higher edu-
cational levels. The second dimension was defined
primarily by employment. This is expected since it
was difficult for the unemployed people with lower
income to travel. The figure also indicates that
respondents who had not gone on a holiday in the
last 5 years were between the ages of 31 to 35 and
had only a primary school education. This group
was also unemployed or not able to work due to
the level of their disabilities. Finally, the household
income for this group was found to be low rela-
tively the other group (less than US$400).
Expectations
Table 2 presents the mean scores and standard
deviations regarding respondents' expectations. The
results indicated that mean scores for all the items
were all relatively high (the lowest for employee
training M = 4.39, SD = 0.625), suggesting rela-
tively little variation. The highest reported mean
was "hotels should offer incentives for mobility
impaired individuals" (M = 4.77, SD = 0.516).
24 KARACAOGLU, YOLAL, AND GURSOY

Table 1
Demographic Profile of Respondents
Holiday Nongoers Holiday Goers
(N.., 114) (N ---- 133)
N Percentage N Percentage

Gender
Males 74 63.9 69 51.9
Females 40 35.1 64 48.1
Age
25 years old and below 34 29.8 23 17.3
26-30 years old 27 23.7 29 21.8
31-35 years old 20 17.5 20 15.0
36-40 years old 16 14,0 18 13.5
41 years old and above 17 14.9 43 32.4
Marital status
Married 28 24.6 64 48.1
Single 86 72.4 69 51.9
Education
Elementary 49 43.0 37 27.8
High school 62 54.4 74 55.6
College 3 2.6 22 16.5
Employment
Employed 25 21.9 74 55.6
Unemployed 56 49.1 24 18.0
Student 7 6.1 8 6.0
Not qualified for work 16 14.0 11 8.3
Retired 10 8.8 16 12.0
Income (US$)
Less than $400 69 60.5 19 14.3
$401-600 33 28.9 48 36.1
$601-800 6 5.3 31 23.3
5801-1,000 5 4.4 24 18.0
More than $1,000 1 0.9 11 8.3
Frequency of holidays taken (in the last 5 years)
Once 26 19.5
Twice 33 24.8
Three times 28 21.1
Four times 16 12.0
Every year 30 22.6
Reasons for not going on holidays
Economic reasons 101 88.5
Health related reasons 46 40.4
Inappropriate transportation 33 28.9
Family related reasons 18 15.8
Lack of motivation 29 25.4
Inappropriate hotels for disabled people 50 43.9

Evaluations Cluster Analysis

Mean scores and standard deviations for mobility
impaired individuals' evaluations of the hotel facili-
ties are summarized in Table 3. As the tables suggests,
the level of variation among the means is somewhat
higher than those for expectations, with the highest
reported mean being "overall attitude of the employ-
ees" (M = 3.48, SD = 0.884) and the lowest mean
being "sauna/bath" (M = 2.46, SD = 0.981).
Cluster analysis was used to group the partici-
pants on the basis of their overall satisfaction with
their latest hotel experiences. K-means technique
was employed to determine the appropriate number
of groups. Cluster analysis is a group of multivari-
ate techniques used to group objects based on the
characteristics they possess. The resulting clus-
ters should exhibit high internal (within-cluster)
 •
PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY-IMPAIRED TRAVELERS 25

I age
♦ education
O employment
s.; geode!
Holiday
student A Income
O
more than 1001 manta(
• A
college

evir year

four times
<= 25.00 801-1000 41
AA
601 -800
the times
female 0
CV
ingle ip employed
0
26.00 - 30.001 NO cc11001 twice
• 0 not sr itableofoi wor 1.31 .00 - 35.00
1 male36.0-4
imp
O less than 400 one . ou0
+01
A aginemployed married
'never prima school

41.00+
I

retired

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 05 1.0 1.5 2.0

Dimension 1
Figure 1. Correspondence analysis of respondents' demographics and their travel behavior.

homogeneity and high external (between-cluster) mobility-impaired individuals in their evaluation of

heterogeneity (Hair et al., 2009). The cluster analy-
sis yielded three distinct groups, which were labeled
as: "High Satisfaction" (63.2%), "Moderate Satis-
faction" (30.8%), and "Low Satisfaction" (6.0%). F
test results suggested that these groups were homog-
enous and distinct from each other (F = 246,328,p =
0.000). As presented in Table 4, a series of ANOVA
tests was conducted to determine if there were any
significant differences across satisfaction levels of
hotel facilities (several dimensions at the p < 0.05
level; insignificant items are not included in the
table). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD
test presented in Table 4 suggested that the mean
scores for the higher satisfaction group (M = 3.21,
SD = 0.87) were significantly higher than both the
moderate satisfaction (M = 2.73, SD = 0.78) and
the low satisfaction groups (M = 2.71, SD = 1.18).
No significant differences were found between the
 KARACAOGLU, YOLAL, AND GURSOY
26

Table 2
Mean and Standard Deviation for Disabled People's Expectations From the Hotels (N = 133)

Items Mean SD

The hotels should offer financial incentives (discounts, installments 4.77 0.516
etc.) for mobility impaired individuals in order to promote holiday.
The number of rooms for mobility impaired individuals should be 4.72 0.512
increased.
Public spaces in the hotels should be designed according to mobility 4.68 0.527
impaired individuals' needs.
The rooms for mobility impaired individuals should be standardized. 4.60 0.534
Hotels should offer accurate information regarding their services for 4.50 0.585
mobility impaired individuals.
Hotels should be sensitive on serving to mobility impaired 4.49 0.559
individuals.
The employees should be wiUing to help mobility impaired 4.48 0.622
individuals.
The employees should be trained on the specific needs of mobility 4.39 0.625
impaired individuals.

mean scores for the high satisfaction and the moder- [F(2, 130) = 3.316, p = 0.03], "location of the
ate satisfaction groups. room" [F(2, 130) = 5.329, p = 0.006], and "physi-
Findings also indicated significant differences cal equipment of the room" [F(2, 130) =- 4.432,
across satisfaction levels (p < 0.05). Post hoc com- p = 0.014]. Subsequent post hoc comparisons sug-
parisons showed that those who were highly satis- gested that the "reception" dimension's mean score
fied with their previous hotel experience tended to for the moderate satisfaction group (M = 3.00,
have significantly higher perceptions of hotel facil- SD = 0.74) was lower than both the high satisfac-
ities compared to the moderately satisfied and the tion (M = 3.41, SD = 0.88) and the low satisfac-
low satisfaction groups. Results further indicated tion (M = 3.12, SD = 1.24) groups (p = 0.039). The
significant differences across satisfaction levels mean score for the "location of the room" dimen-
in perceptions of the hotel facilities "reception" sion for the low satisfaction group (M = 2.50,
SD = 1.41) was also lower than both the high satis-
Table 3 faction (M = 3.22, SD = 0.88) and the moderate sat-
Mean and Standard Deviation for Mobility-Impaired isfaction (M = 2.75, SD - 0.79) groups (p = 0.006).
Individuals' Evaluations of the Hotel Facilities Similarly, the mean score for the "physical equip-
Items Mean SD ment in the room" was also found to be lower for
the low satisfaction group (M = 2.62, SD = 1.30)
Overall attitude of the employees 3.48 0.884
Lobby 3.35 0.799 compared to the high satisfaction group (M = 3.20,
Lifts 3.30 0,861 SD = 0.82) (p = 0.014).
Reception 3.27 0.880 Findings also indicated significant differences
Main entrance of the hotel 3.24 0.862
Parking lot 3.20 0.876
across satisfaction levels with regard to percep-
In-room toilet 3.10 0.971 tions of hotels' "bathroom" [F(2, 130) = 10.042,
Physical equipment in the room 3.04 0.833 p = 0.00] and "toilets" [F(2, 130) = 9.230,p = 0.00]
Location of the room 3.03 0.924
2.99 0.811
at the p < 0.05 level. Post hoc comparisons showed
Restaurants
Pedestrian walks 2.97 0.874 that the mean score for the "bathroom" dimensions
Bathroom 2.84 0.883 in the high satisfaction group (M = 3.10, SD = 0.83)
Stairs 2.79 0.894 was significantly higher than both the moderate
Beach and sunbathing places 2.66 0.951
Bars and discos 2.65 0.862 satisfaction group (M = 2.44, SD = 0.74) and the low
Swimming pool 2.62 0.892 satisfaction group (M = 2.37, SD = 1.18) (p = 0.000).
Toilets in the public area 2.48 1.041 Similarly, the mean score for the "in room toilet"
Sauna/bath 2.46 0.981
dimension for the high satisfaction group (M = 3.36,
 PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY-IMPAIRED TRAVELERS 27

Table. 4
ANOVA and 1 ukcy HSD Post Hoc Results for Mobility-Impaired Individuals' Evaluation of Hotel Facilities Across Three
Satisfaction Cohorts
High Moderate Low
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
(N= 84) (N= 41) (N = 8) F Sig.

Reception 3.316 0.039

Mean 3.41 3.00 3.12
SD 0.88 0.74 1.24
Mean difference 0.12500 -0.29167 -0.41667*
Location of the room 5.329 0.006
Mean 3.22 2.75 2.50
SD 0.88 0.79 1.41
Mean difference -0.25610 -0.75619 -0.47009*
Physical equipment in the room 4.432 0.014
Mean 3.20 2.80 2.62
SD 0.82 0.68 1.30
Mean difference -0.17988 -0.57738 -0.39750*
Bathroom 10.042 0.000
Mean 3.10 2.44 2.37
SD 0.83 0.74 1.18
Mean difference -0.06402 -0.72024 -0.65621*
In-room toilet 9.230 0.000
Mean 3.36 2.61 3.00
SD 0.94 0.83 1.07
Mean difference 0.39024 -0.35714 -0.74739*
Restaurants 5.642 0.004
Mean 3.17 2.68 2.75
SD 0.78 0.72 1.04
Mean difference 0.06707 -0.41667 0.48374*
Toilets in the public area 3.835 0.024
Mean 2.65 2.12 2.63
SD 1.08 0.87 1.06
Mean difference 0.50305 -0.02976 A.53281*
Overall attitude of the employees 3.285 0.041
Mean 3.57 3.46 2.75
SD 0.82 0.89 1.16
Mean difference -0.71341 -0.82143* -0.10801

SD = 0.94) was significantly higher than both the
low satisfaction (M = 3.00, SD =1.07) and the mod-
erate satisfaction groups (M = 2.61, SD = 0.83)
(p = 0.000). Finally, the findings also indicated signif-
icant differences across satisfaction levels in the per-
ceptions of hotels' restaurants" [F(2, 130) = 5.642,
p = 0.004], "toilets in the public area" [F(2, 130) =
3.835,p = 0.024], and "overall attitude of employees"
[F(2, 130) = 53.285,p = 0.041] at thep < 0.05 level.
The mean score for the "restaurants" dimension for
the high satisfaction group (M = 3.17, SD = 0.78)
was significantly higher than both the moderate sat-
isfaction (M = 2.75, SD = 0.78) and the low satis-
faction (M = 2.68, SD = 0.72) groups (p = 0.004).
Although relatively low, the mean scores for the
"toilets in the public area" for the high satisfaction
group (M = 2.65, SD = 1.08) and the low satisfaction
(M = 2.63, SD = 1.06) were slightly higher than the
moderate satisfaction (M = 2.12, SD = 0.87) groups
(p = 0.024). The mean score for the "overall attitude
of employees" dimension for the high satisfaction
group (M = 3.57, SD = 0.82) was also found to be
significantly higher than both the moderate satisfac-
tion (M = 3.46, SD = 0.89) and the low satisfaction
(M = 2.75, SD =1.16) groups (p = 0.041).
Discussion and Conclusions
In modern societies, it is typically expected that
all people should have the opportunity to live and
participate in the social world around them (Murray
& Sproats, 1990; Nunkoo, Gursoy, & Ramkissoon,
 KARACAOGLU, YOLAL, AND GURSOY
28
2013). However, it has been reported that mobility-
impaired individuals often face difficulties when
seeking to participate in travel-related activities.
This study sought to examine the barriers to travel
that this group faces. In particular, the study exam-
ined the expectations and perceptions of individu-
als with mobility impairments regarding hotels. In
doing so, the results are intended to provide hotels
with better information concerning the needs and
desires of this group, which, hopefully, will trans-
late to improved customer service and an increase
in travel among this segment.
Overall, the findings reveal that income is the
most important determinant that affects the travel
patterns of mobility-impaired individuals, with
88.5% of respondents reporting financial and econo-
mic constraints as a barrier. This finding is con-
sistent with those of previous studies (Muloin,
1992; Ozturk & Yayli, 2006; Smith, 1987). In this
regard, the low income level can be explained by
the fact that almost half of the respondents in this
study reported being unemployed, a finding that
is also consistent with studies conducted in other
geographical regions (Kalargyrou & Volis, 2014).
Hence, efforts to improve employment among the
mobility-impaired segment of the population will
likely reduce this barrier.
Besides the lack of financial resources, the study
also found that travel was hampered by a general lack
of accessibility to relevant services and hotels. As
such, improving accessibility remains an important
obstacle to travel for mobility-impaired individu-
als. The implication, therefore, is intuitive: improv-
ing the accessibility of travel-related services and
related hotels can contribute to the development of
tourism, increase market diversification, and cre-
ate a competitive advantage for those destinations
that address these travel barriers. Individual hotels
can potentially create a more positive image of
their properties among mobility-impaired travelers
by providing the desired services and making rel-
evant information widely accessible. The resulting
increase in perceived image can then be expected to
increase the demand from this segment (Zhang &
Mao, 2012). To the extent that the improved image
and increased demand translate into enhanced rev-
enue and profits, the costs associated with provid-
ing the additional services and upgrades desired by
this segment can be more readily recovered.
Although the results of this study help extend
and further confirm the findings of prior studies, it
is important to consider them within their proper
perspective. First, the study was conducted in one
geographic region (i.e., Eskisehir, Thrkey). As such,
the findings should be viewed as contributing to the
external validity ofresults obtained from related stud-
ies and not generalizable, in and of, themselves. Sec-
ond, the unit of analysis was restricted to individuals
with mobility impairments. Because there are other
relevant physical disabilities (e.g., hearing, visual,
cognitive), additional research is still needed to fully
understand the needs of these other segments. Third,
the analysis focused on the expectations and percep-
tions of respondents regarding hotels. Future investi-
gations should extend this analysis to other areas of
hospitality and tourism. Finally, the fmdings suggest
that a meaningful share of the respondents reported
that they do not go on holiday because of their low
motivation to travel and participate in tourism activi-
ties. Although the underlying rationale is still rela-
tively unclear, it may be that the mobility-impaired
individual may simply fear potential barriers they
may encounter when traveling. As such, additional
research that examines the root psychological states
that inhibit travel among the mobility-impaired indi-
viduals is warranted.
References
Artar, Y., & Karabacakoglu, C. (2003). Tit' rkiye'de
!tiler turizminin gelistirilmesine yonelik olarak konak-
lama tesislerindeki altyapt olanaklanntn arasurtImast.
Unpublished Expertise thesis, Milli Produktivite Merkezi,
Ankara.
Bi, Y., Card, J. A., & Cole, S. T. (2007). Accessibility and
attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese travellers
with physical disabilities. International Journal of Tour-
ism Research, 9(3), 205-216.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural
research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3),
185-216.
Buhalis, D., & Darcy, S. (2011). Accessible tourism: Concepts
and issues. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.
Buhalis, D., Eichhorn, V., Michopoulou, E., & Miller, G.
(2005). OSSATE accessibility market and stakeholder
analysis. Surrey, UK: University of Surrey.
Buhalis, D., & Michopoulou, E. (2011). Information-enabled
tourism destination marketing: Addressing the accessibil-
ity market. Current Issues in Tburism, 14(2), 145-168.
Burnett, J., & Baker, H. B. (2001). Assessing the travel-
related behaviors of the mobility-disabled consumer.
Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 4-11.
 PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY-IMPAIRED TRAVELERS 29

Burns, N., Paterson, K., & Watson, N. (2009). An inclusive
outdoors? Disabled people's experiences of countryside
leisure services. Leisure Studies, 28(4), 403-417.
Cam, A. J., Cole, T. S., & Humphrey, A. H. (2006). A
comparison of the accessibility and attitudinal bath-
ers model: Travel providers and travelers with physical
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hua, P. K., Ibrahim, I., & Chiu, K. L. (2013). Sport tourism:
Physically-disabled sport tourists' orientation. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 257 269.
-

disabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
11(2), 161-175.
Cavinato, J. L., & Cuckovich, M. L. (1992). Transportation
and tourism for the disabled: An assessment Transporta-
tion Journal, 31(3), 46 53.-
Chang, Y. C., & Chen, C. F. (2011). Identifying mobility ser-
vice needs for disabled air passengers. Tourism Manage-
Huh, C., & Singh, A. J. (2007). Families travelling with a
disabled member: Analyzing the potential of an emerg-
ing niche market segment. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 7(3-4), 212-229.
Israeli, A. A. (2002). A preliminary investigation of the
importance of site accessibility factors for disabled tour-
ists. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 101 104.
-

ment, 32(5), 1214 1217.

- Kalargyrou, V., & Voila, A. A. (2014). Disability inclusion
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2004). Integrating persons with dis- initiatives in the hospitality industry: An exploratory
abilities into the work force: A study on employment of study of industry leaders. Journal of Human Resources
people with disabilities in foodservice industry. Interna- in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(4), 430 454.
-

tional Journal of Hospitality & 7burism Administration,
4(4), 59--83.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measure of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16(1), 64 73.-
Darcy, S. (1998). Anxiety to access: Tourism patterns and
experiences of disabled New South Wales people with a
physical disability tourism. Sydney: Tourism New South
Wales.
Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity: Disability, acces-
sible tourism and accommodation information prefer-
ences. Tourism Management, 31(6), 816 826. -
Klenoslcy, D. B., & Gitelson, R. E. (1998). Travel agents
destination recommendations. Annals of Tourism Research,
25(3), 661-674.
Lee, B. K., Agarwal, S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Influences of
travel constraints on the people with disabilities' inten-
tion to travel: An application of Seligman's helplessness
theory. Tourism Management, 33(3), 569-579.
Martinez, P., Perez, A., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2013).
Measuring corporate social responsibility in tourism:
Development and validation of an efficient measure-
ment scale in the hospitality industry. Journal of Pavel
& Tourism Marketing, 30(4), 365 385.
-

Darcy, S., & Buhalis, D. (2011). Introduction: from disabled McKercher, B., Packer, T., Yau, M., & Lam, P. (2003). Travel
tourists to accessible tourism. In D. Buhalis & S. Darcy agents: Facilitators or inhibitors of travel for people with
(Eds.) Accessible tourism: Concepts and issues. Bristol, disabilities. Tourism Management, 24(4), 465 474. -

UK: Channel View Publications. Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. (2013) Information provi-
Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010). Accessible tour- sion for challenging markets: The case of the accessibility
ism and sustainability: A discussion and case study. Jour- requiring market in the context of tourism. Information
nal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 515 537.
- and Management, 50(5), 229 239.-

Darcy, S., & Daruwalla, P. S. (1999). The trouble with travel: Miller, D. H. (1995). Magnetic resonance imaging and spec-
People with disabilities and tourism. Social Alternatives, troscopy in multiple sclerosis. Current Opinion in Neu-
18(1), 41 46.
- rology, 8(3), 210-215.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and Muloin, S. (1992). Wilderness access for persons with a
applications (Applied Social Research Method Series, disability. In G. Harper & B. Weiler (Eds.), Ecotourism
26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (pp. 20-25). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Tourism
Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E., & Buhalis, D. Research.
(2008). Enabling access to tourism through information Murray, M., & Sproats, J. (1990). The disabled traveller:
schemes. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 189 210.
- Tourism and disability in Australia. The Journal of Tour-
Eichhom, V., Miller, G., & Tribe, J. (2013). Tourism: A site ism Studies, /(1), 9 14.
-

of resistance strategies of individuals with a disabil- Nunkoo, R., Gursoy, D., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Devel-
ity. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 578 600.
- opments in hospitality marketing and management:
Germ, P., & Schleien, S. (1997). Inclusive community lei- Social network analysis and research themes. Journal of
sure services: Responsibilities of key players. Therapeu- Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22(3), 269 288. -

tic Recreation Journal, 31(1), 22 37.

- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric
Guerra, S, L. (2003). Tourism for all: Organizing trips for theory (3rd ed). New York: McGraw Hill.
physically disabled customers. Unpublished dissertation, Ozturk, Y., & Yayli, A. (2006). Bedensel engelliler seyahat
Bournemouth University, UK. pazannin yoneticiler actsmdan degerlendirilmesi benne
Gursoy, D., & Umbreit, W. T. (2004). Tourist information bir arastuma. Seyahat ve Otel Dergisi, 3,
search behavior. Cross-cultural comparison of European 5-14.
Union member states. International Journal of Hospital- Ozturk, Y., Yayli, A., & Yesiltas, M. (2008). Is the Turkish
Management, 23(1), 55 70. - tourism industry ready for disabled customers' Market?
 30 KARACAOGLU, YOLAL, AND GURSOY
The views of hotel and travel agency manager. Tourism
Management, 29(2), 382-389.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of
hotel experience of people with disabilities: An explor-
atory study. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 23(5), 571-591.
Ray, N., & Ryder, M. (2003). Ebilities tourism: An explor-
atory discussion of the travel needs and motivations of the
mobility-disabled. Tourism Management, 24(1), 57-77.
Richards, V., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2010). Envision-
ing tourism and visual impairment. Annals of Tourism
Research, 37(4), 1097-1116.
Shaw, G., & Coles, T. (2004). Disability, holiday making and
the tourism industry in the UK: A preliminary survey.
Tourism Management, 25(3), 397-403.
Shi, L., Cole, S., & Chancellor, H. C. (2012). Understanding
leisure travel motivations of travelers with acquired mobil-
ity impairments. Tourism Management, 33(1), 228-231.
Small, J., Darcy, S., & Packer, T. (2012). The embodied tour-
ist experiences of people with vision impairment: Man-
agement implications beyond the visual gaze. Tourism
Management, 33(4), 941-950.
Smith, R. (1987). Leisure of disabled tourists: bathers to
participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 376-389.
TUBITAK. (2006). Tiirlaye engelliler angtirmasi ileri analiz
raporu. Ankara: Sosyal ve Beseri Bilimler Arastuma
Grubu.
View publication stats
Vigtruda, J. L. (2001). Promotion ofbarrier-free tourism for
people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific region.
Paper presented at Seminar on Sustainable Development
of Ecotourism in Pacific Island Countries, Suva, Fiji.
Westcott, J. (2004). Improving information on accessible tour-
ism for disabled people. European Commission Report.
World Health Organization. (1980). International clas-
sification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps.
Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://whqlibdoc.
whoint/publications/1980/9241541261_eng.pdf
World Health Organization. (2013). Health topics: Disabili-
ties. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.
who.intltopies/disabilities/en/
Yau, M. K., McKercher, B., & Packer, T. L. (2004). Travel-
ing with a disability: More than an access issue. Annals
of Tourism Research, 31(4), 946-960.
Yayli, A., & Ozturk, Y. (2006). Konaldama isletmeleri
yoneticilerinin bedensel engelliler pazarma bakes acdan
iizerine bir arasurraa. Anatolia: Thrizm Arastirmalari
Dergisi, 17(1), 87-97.
Zhang, J. J., & Mao, Z. (2012). Image of all hotel scales on
travel blogs: Its impact on customer loyalty. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(2), 113-131.