Understanding Barriers, Tourism Participation and Disabled Tourists in
India
Dr Sutheeshna Babu. S (PhD)
Nodal Officer, National Institute of Watersports, Goa
(E-mail: babpillai@gmail.com)
One of the manifesting dimensions of contemporary demographics is a consistent
increase in the number of persons with varying degrees of disability and the first ever
World Disability Report (2011) puts their numbers in the world at more than one billion. Of
this, nearly 200 million people experience considerable difficulties in functioning. While
disability subjects the affected persons of different forms of exclusions, what turns out to
be more critical are lack of access to education, income and employment opportunities,
mobility and participation in overall development. Incidentally, this burgeoning segment
and their families/ dependants happen to represent a major chunk of underprivileged and
neglected part of the society.
Many concrete initiatives have been in place since early 1980’s especially under the
aegis of the United Nations with the focus of placing disability as important human rights
and development issues- two integral means towards equalization of opportunities.
Indeed, Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities being held in 2006 under the
aegis of the U.N held importance of equality in citizenship and revolved that the right of
disabled to travel and participate in leisure activities should be equal their non-disabled
counterpart. Exclusion of such people from participating in leisure and tourism activities
amounts to social inequality.
There were also attempts to establish the potential development opportunities that
could emanate from facilitation and empowerment of the disabled sections. Besides the
production and distribution of disability-specific goods and services; provisions for
recreation and tourism needs of these groups have also been often highlighted as avenues
with great potential. Notwithstanding these, existing materials would suggest that
noticeable improvements in the overall conditions of the disability-affected persons are
still to emerge.
Hence, the main purpose of this paper is to further advance the argument that, like
their able counterparts, disabled persons have equal rights of participation in socioeconomic and political functioning including in tourism and recreation opportunities.
However, there exist many but surmountable barriers of different forms and nature that
these groups are subject to negotiate with, often inhibiting their participation in
meaningful ways. The barriers can be observed at every stage of travel process and are
1
hardly understood especially in the developing societies. Given this, the specific objective
of this paper would be to examine the intricate travel barriers of the domestic tourists at
every stage viz. planning, travel, stay and the attraction sites in India. The outcome is
expected to provide better insight on the problems of disabled tourists and to elicit some
useful mechanisms to address the barriers in focused manner.
Understanding Disability in Travel
Some of the literatures appeared in the recent past seem to project an image of
travel barriers as being largely a social construct, especially when it comes to disabled
tourists. It recognizes that disability is a product of social relations, wherein, the disabling
environment and hostile social attitudes create disability rather than underlying physical
impairment (Oliver 1996; Barnes, Mercer and Shakespeare 1999). Perhaps it is more
qualifying to understand and explain travel barriers as being embedded in the social,
political and economic settings in which the disabled individual is subjected to live and
work. The social approach posits that the normal activities and roles of the disabled are
informed by the dominant medical model and this socially constructed environment
creates disabilities on top of the persons’ environment (Small and Dacry 2010).
Often, social barriers are manifested in explicit and discriminated manner,
eventually fastening their exclusion from social arena however the worst being treatment
of disability as social taboo. Many scholars lament that, over the years, even though the
society and institutions largely changed its attitude towards women and many other
marginal social groups; the disabled are continuingly ignored and subject them to material
hardship and injustice (Gleeson 1999). In fact, Small and Dacry (2010) have been candid in
their view that ‘it is the disabling social practices that transform the individuals’
impairment (embodiment) in to a disability. According to them, understanding disability
would need one to focus on disabling environment barriers, hostile social attitudes and
material relations of power.
Perhaps, social approach to disability studies arose as reaction against the ‘medical
model’ that emphasizes on medical and paramedical parameters to explain disability.
Perhaps, the earlier model, to a large extend, speak from the standpoint of disabled people
(Patterson & Hughes 2000) it echoes the voice of social activists and the affected
themselves and therefore considered as rather more credible. But, over emphasis on social
approach has some inherent limitations. Because, when viewed broadly, it can be
understood that tourism experiences for disabled tourists more than physical access issues
and needlessly encompass a wider spectrum of limiting factors and environments.
Similarly, it fails to approach ‘ability’ and ‘disability’ as dynamic process (Evans, 2004;
Fitzgerald, 2005). Disability is a subject to change as disabled people build competencies
and reconstruct their connections with both their environment and other people (Blichfeldt
and Nicolaisen 2011).
2
Similarly, Shakespheer and Watson (2001) argue that disability is more than a social
construct or medical/physical condition but it is a complex subject. Disability and
embodiment are not dichotomous but are different places and times on a continuum.
There is close connect between disability and impairment and that it coalesce in to a rather
single stage, say disabled with disease, eventually preventing the individual from full
participation. Hence, disability studies could create more adequate social theory of
disability that creates space for embodiment within the social paradigm.
But before dwelling on the concept of barriers, it is necessary to understand the
disability because each type has its specific sets of limitations and requirements, for which,
defining persons with disabilities could be staring point. From travel and tourism angle,
UNWTO (2005) defines disabled tourists ‘all persons who, owing to the environment being
encountered, suffer a limitation in their relational ability and have special needs during
travel, in accommodations, and other tourism services, particularly individuals with
physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities or other medical conditions requiring special
care, such as elderly persons and others in need of temporary assistance’. This definition
acknowledges the complexities and intricacies of disability as it exists and provide the
scope to even cover pregnant women, the diseased and senior citizens under its ambit
because all of them would need some form of assistance, even if temporary. Needlessly,
‘assistance’ could come in any form- information gathering, booking facilities and
provisions, mobility, stay, seeing places and like.
Perhaps a difficulty of this definition is its loose framework, having potential to
jeopardize its coordination and to operationalise it in effective manner. A vast and diverse
canvass of disability coverage could also result poor implementation of available enabling
schemes as it could fall in the domain of different implementing agencies and may even
have conflicting interest and cross-purposes. Having stated, it is not to suggest deriving
separate definition for each disability category but to alert on the need for focused
enabling schemes within the given definition framework.
Defining level of assistance/support needed for disabled travelers should naturally
depend on ‘degree of severity’ of disability. It has also been observed that social
participation of the affected individual has direct bearing on the support level needed for
mobility. According to Small and Darcy (2010), support need can be described as
independent (no support needs), low, medium and high; wherein, the later would require
24-hour support. Given this, nature and type of access enablers could also differ and fall in
a continuum of self-enabled to those with the support of helpers/caretakers. Scholars
mentioned above attempted to classify major enablers as per below:
 Adaptive or assistive technology that maximizes their abilities- viz. wheelchair,
walking frames etc.
3
 Environmental or structural enablers- viz. access and mobility codes for building
about ramps, lifts, accessible toilets, pathways etc.
 Attitudes/behavior of others- emphasizes specifically the need for challenging
disabling attitudes in general towards people with disabilities.
Hence, although the disability is a restriction and inability to perform an activity in a
manner considered ‘normal’, the disability only qualifies as a handicap in so far as it ‘limits
or prevents the fulfillment of one or several roles regarded as normal’ (Barbotte et. Al
2001). In other words, if a disabled person can be engaged in gainful employment due to
provision of enabling work environment but if the same person cannot in a position to
participate in leisure activities himself; he is indeed largely disabled in terms of his desire
for leisure participation. This has been confirmed in the study of Blichfeldt et. al. (2011)
and stated ‘accessibility as an issue of importance in relation to vacation’. This in itself
qualifies to state that disability is relational and more of a social construct, creating
‘otherness’ in the same social milieu. As such, the leisure environment emerges largely as
non-enabling and prohibitive in nature and that amount to infringement of citizens’ right to
equal access.
Leisure participation is equally or more important to the disabled than the nondisabled persons for various physiological and mental reasons. For them, the travel ‘push’
factor is more than just recreation, get away from mundane, just escape or rejuvenation;
rather, vacation travel serves them higher purposes of Maslow’s need theory like gaining
confidence, self-esteem and avenues to feel oneself ‘real get away from home’ etc.
Indeed, any opportunity to escape from everyday regimented life would mean a lot to
them because it is much hugely routinised, mundane and therefore, monotonous.
Perspectives on Travel Barriers
While the research on disabled tourists is somewhat in an early stage, existing ones
can be seen concentrated on the barriers, constraints and accessibility issues. It has also
been observed that there is a tendency among the researchers to treat accessibility issues
as identical to the people across disability spectrum. Perhaps the subject matter is more
complex and it should go beyond mere investigation of accessibility and related issues.
Because, each one has specific sets of obstacles and constraints not necessarily identical
while at the same time, the benefits sought from and importance attached to leisure travel
could vary considerably. However, since the scope of this study has been restricted to the
inquiry on travel barriers and participation of the disabled in Indian context, following
section aims concentrate on various dimensions of travel barriers.
In tourism context, barriers are defined as those impediments encountered by
people while attempting to participate in a tourism experience (McGuire 1984). The
preamble of the U.N Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities- 2006 set a clear
4
direction to understand travel barriers, where it states: ‘Recognizing that disability is an
evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with
impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective
participation in society on an equal basis with others. Further, the Article- 30.5 of the
Declaration provides for: ‘… enabling persons with disabilities to participate on an equal
basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting activities, States Parties shall take
appropriate measures:

To encourage and promote the participation, to the fullest extent possible, in
mainstream sporting activities at all levels;

To ensure an opportunity to organize, develop and participate in disability-specific
sporting and recreational activities and, to this end, encourage the provision, on an
equal basis with others, of appropriate instruction, training and resources;

To ensure that persons with disabilities have access to sporting, recreational and
tourism venues;

To ensure that they have equal access with other children to participation in play,
recreation and leisure and sporting activities, including those activities in the school
system;

To ensure that they have access to services from those involved in the organization
of recreational, tourism, leisure and sporting activities.
The barriers of disabled persons can be understood in different ways. According to
Smith (1987), one of the pioneers on this subject; there can be three main types of barriers
viz. environmental (including attitudinal, architectural, and ecological factors), interactive
(barriers relates to skill challenge incongruities and communication barriers) and intrinsic
barriers (those associated with each participant’s own physical, psychological, or cognitive
functioning level). Of those, intrinsic barriers are reported as the greatest obstacle
(McGuire 1984; Murray and Sproats 1990; Smith 1987) though not less important is
economic constraints. Indeed, the later could be a formidable barrier if some estimates are
considered, because the holiday expenses for people with disabilities can cost between 30
and 200 per cent more than for the general tourists (Flavigny and Pascal 1995).
The studies also suggest that there is a strong case for creating conducive
environment to ensure increased participation of the tourists with disability in leisure
activities. Besides the human rights and its economic dimensions, favourable measures
were thought to having the potential to create positive impacts amongst this sensitive
segment, who live generally in a sense of generalized helplessness. Absence of effective
measures is not only discriminatory but it would also result furthering their alienation and
reduced participation. Whereas the study of experienced tourists would testify that first
tourism experience is a major factor that determines whether an individual with a disability
will continue to travel or not (Murray and Sproats 1990).
5
Later on, there were attempts to examine social and behavioural dimension to
understanding travel barriers. Accordingly, intrapersonal constraints have been linked to a
person’s psychological state, physical functioning or cognitive abilities (Crawford & Godbey,
1987; Smith, 1987). It covers themes such as stress, anxiety, lack of knowledge, health
related problems and social effectiveness. These are also taken as antecedent constraints
in that some intra-personal factors such as personality and socialization may predispose
individuals to participate in or avoid certain leisure activities. Next are interpersonal
constraints ‘arising out of social interaction or relationships among people within social
contexts’ (Scott, 1991). It occur during interactions with an individual’s social space viz.
network, service providers or strangers, or because one lacks a partner with whom to
engage in some leisure activity (Crawford & Godbey, 1987).
Third category is structural or environmental, said to intervene between the
preferences and participation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Examples of structural
constraints include financial challenges, lack of time, ecological influences, transportation
difficulties and barriers due to regulations. The UNESCAP (2003) also attempted classifying
barriers in different facet of travel starting from underlying social and cultural constraints,
travel planning information, transportation barriers, accessible accommodation and
destination experience. Somewhat a similar typology was attempted by Sutheeshna Babu.
et. al. (2010) in Indian context and the framework can be seen at Fig.1.
Fig. 1: Summary of Major Travel Barriers of the Disabled
A sizable disabled segment
has insufficient disposable
income for holidaying
Family
Support
Lack of family support for
disabled restricts their
mobility and consequently
travel
Finance
Barriers
Access
Unequal Participation
6
Lack of access-specific
information and lack of
special communication
such as websites featuring
WAI of W3C
Communication
&
Information
Movements can be
cumbersome owing to
possibly vast areas, hilly
terrains of tour sits etc.
Participation and inclusiveness are two terms often used to depict progress in
development literature. Specific to disabled tourists, these primarily means having enabling
provisions for information gathering, hassle-free travel and stay, ease of access to
attractions and recreation. In reality, enabling provisions are absent or those available ones
are grossly inadequate and discouraging. This situation is a major cause for lack of
participation of these segments in travel and tourism, resulting tourism development
largely non-inclusive and many even qualifyingly argue such state of affairs to be highly
discriminatory when it comes to disable tourists.
While it is a general fact that the rate of participation of disabled tourists in travel
and tourism is not systematically enumerated including in the developed countries, one of
the ways of inferring their mobility/travel pattern is the car ownership. Because, it can be
assumed that when more and more households have access to the car, overall mobility of
household members, including the disabled would increase. As one would expect,
proportion of households owning a car is higher in the developed world, therefore, it
would not be inappropriate to postulate those countries to have higher travel propensity of
the disabled persons. With relatively higher income, citizens in these countries could also
afford to annual vacations. According to Eurostat database, 65% of people in the European
Union (27 countries) reported to have the capacity to afford annual holidays in 2007 (cited
in Hall, 2011). Personal vehicle ownership among those less that USD $25K annual income
was 92.2% in 2001, suggesting higher propensity for mobility. In other words enables to
infer that vehicle ownership would expand the persons’ mobility space and vice versa.
The poorer members of the society have significantly smaller activity space by
virtue of their low income status. Understandably, mobility is also proportionately less to
the poor than that of their richer counterparts, leading a situation of social exclusion
because of various factors such as lack of or reduced accessibility to facilities, goods and
services including leisure and tourism. Perhaps due to this, as Hall (Ibid) argued, if tourism
studies is to embrace social justice dimension as a significant domain to engage with, it
need to be understood not in terms of expanding the market but how tourism
opportunities are part of the overall life chances of individuals and how these are
constituted and reproduced.
Barriers in Indian Context
While the generic pattern of barriers among the disabled tourists may be same,
specific sets of barriers could differ across the societies. Before dwelling on that, it needs to
be clarified that many components of barriers are not insurmountable in nature; rather the
experiences would suggest that many of those can be addressed through necessary legal
and regulatory framework, creative interventions and with positive societal attitude. There
are many cases of successful interventions that stand to support this proposition and also
7
found giving momentum for more engagement of these segments even though such cases
are still largely confined to certain areas/pockets.
In Indian context, Babu et. al (2010) have documented the barriers in detail
covering all major facets of travel- booking, travel to and within India, at accommodation
and in attractions. The study used a weighted index to find out the relative importance of
specific sets of barriers at each stage of travel among the foreign and domestic disabled
tourists travelling in India. Specific to booking stage, the top ranked barrier was lack of
understanding about disability among booking staff and it was common to both the
domestic and foreign tourists. It was followed by inhospitable staff and the distance of
booking centers. Inaccessible booking centers/office and unreliable information also
figured prominently.
Problems during the booking stage could be relatively easier to handle with
compared to those during travelling within the country and Table-1 would reveal the major
ones. Accordingly, it can be observed that irrespective of the nationality differences; major
problems remain largely same, wherein, travel within places visited emerged to be topranked followed by lack of proper information and inadequate signage on facilities. In other
words, intra-destination/local travel is the most difficult part while touring, enabling to
postulate that perhaps the tourist destinations are grossly inadequate and unprepared to
host disabled tourists.
Table- 1: Barriers of Travel for Disabled Tourists While Travelling in India
Barriers
Composite Rank
Travel within places visited
Lack of proper information
Inadequate signage on facilities
Non-availability of personal aids/ equipments at
station/ in vehicle
Lack of disability awareness among ground staff
Locating affordable & accessible room
Domestic
Foreign
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
7
6
Many studies including UNESCAP (2003) documented the problems at
accommodation units even though relative severity of those was not established. The
major barriers in the order of severity at this stage of travel in Indian context are furnished
at Table-2 below. It shows that the most important concern is that rooms meant for
disabled do not have necessary facilities for hassle-free stay. This appears to be important
because though many accommodation units have now at least some provisions making
8
their premises accessible; most places do not have rooms meant for disabled touristswhether toilets, bathrooms, tables, conduits etc. which are accessible,
Table- 2: Barriers of Disabled Tourists at Accommodation in India
Barriers
Composite Rank
Rooms meant for disabled do not have necessary
facilities
Lack of understanding of staff regarding special
needs
Rooms are not situated at appropriate location
Rooms meant for P.C in the hotel are priced higher
Lift is not available
Non-availability of personal aids/ equipments
Domestic
Foreign
1
1
2
3
4
5
10
7
2
6
4
5
At every stage of travel, it emerges that lack of understanding of staff regarding
special needs of the disabled tourists rated as a major barrier. Perhaps this is important
because unless the service provider is not clear about the problems of the tourists of each
disability type, redressal of their problems in satisfactory manner is needlessly a constraint.
But, at attractions, the perceptions and experiences of the domestic and foreign tourists
about the disability provisions appeared to be varying in terms of the relative weightage.
For domestic tourists, non-availability of toilets for disabled or unhygienic conditions of
available ones and non-availability of public utilities- telephone, toilet, water tap etc.- at
convenient places emerged most important ones (Table-3).
Table- 3: Barriers of Disabled Tourists at Attractions in India
Barriers
Composite Rank
Toilets for disabled not available/ available but
unhygienic
Non-availability of public utilities- telephone,
toilet, water tap etc.- at convenient places
Ramps are present but not all at required locations
Ramps not available/ level differences not
addressed by alternative ramps
Street crossings are not present
Lack of access stairs/ lifts
Tracks are slippery/ coarse
9
Domestic
Foreign
1
2
2
3
6
8
4
6
7
8
1
7
3
5
But, when it came to foreign tourists, absence of ramps and/or level differences of
alternate ramps ranked highest. It was followed by absence of toilets for disabled and the
unhygienic conditions of the available ones. Absence of access stairs/ lifts at attractions is
also reported as a major limitation.
Summary
The endeavour in this chapter was to develop a perspective on various barriers of
the disabled tourists in India that probably act as impediments for their vacation travel. The
discussion confirms that issues and concerns of the disabled tourists travelling at every
facet travel in India are largely similar to those reported elsewhere. Firstly, physical access
is a major problem and that restrict the movements even at popular tourist destinations.
Secondly, availability of information in accessible format is crucial not only during the
planning stage but are equally important at the travel stage. Thirdly, the service providers
are still largely not aware of the specific problems and facilitation provisions of these
segments of tourists, particularly among the directly connected sectors like travel and
tourism sector.
To sum up, disabled tourists encounter disproportionately higher degrees of
problems compared to their able-bodied counterparts. It is further to acknowledge that the
impediments to their participation are not just confined to leisure and tourism but in can
be observed in almost every aspect of their socio-economic life. There are many enabling
provisions already in place but what is again observed is the lack of willingness on part of
the stakeholders and policy makers to enforce even the available provisions in any effective
manner and at least minimum level. Given this, talking about inclusive tourism and an
inclusive society could at best be wishful talks unless concrete actions are brought in with
commitment and implemented.
Reference
Babu, Sutheeshna, Dixit. S and Yadav. C.S, (2010), Problems and Prospects of Accessible Tourism in
India, Report, Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Barbotte. E, Guillemin. F and Lordigcap Goup, (20010), Prevalence of Impairments, Disabilities,
Handicaps and Quality of Life of the General Population: A review of recent literature, Bulletin of
World Health Organization, 79 (11), pp. 1047-55
Barnes, C., Mercer, G., and Shakespeare, T. 1999, Exploring disability: A sociological introduction.
Polity Press: Malden, Mass.
Blichfeldt. B.S and Nicolaisen. J, (2011), Disabled Travel: Not easy but doable, Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 14 (1), pp. 79-102
Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences,
9(2), 119–128.
Evans. J, (2004), Making a Difference? Education and ‘ability’ in physical education, European
Physical Education Weekly, 10 (1), 95-108
10
Fitzgerald. H, (2005), Still Feeling like a Spare Piece of Luggage: Embedded experience of (dis)ability
in physical education and school sport, Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy, 10 (1), 41-59
Flavigny, C., and Pascal, M. 1995, Tourism Among the Disabled: dissatisfied clients (published in
French). Espaces – Paris, 134, pp. 36-42 (Cited in UNESCAP 2000).
Gleeson. H, (1999), Geographies of Disability, Routledge, London
Hall, M.C, (2011), Equal Access for All? Regulative Mechanisms, Inequality and Tourism Mobility. In
S. Cole & N. Morgan, Tourism & Inequality: Problems and Prospects, CABI International, Oxford
McGuire, F. 1984 A Factor Analytic Study of Leisure Constraints in Advanced Adulthood, Leisure
Sciences, 6:313–326
Murray, M., and J. Sproats 1990 The Disabled Traveler: Tourism and Disability in Australia. Journal
of Tourism Studies 1:9–14.
Oliver, M. 1996, Understanding disability: from theory to practice, Macmillan: Houndmills,
Basingstoke.
Patterson. K and Hughes. B, (2000), Understanding Disability: From theory to practice, Basingstoke,
UK, MacMillan
Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: A qualitative study of
group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 321–336.
Shakesphere. T and Watson. N, (2001), The Social Model of Disability: An outdated ideology? In S.N.
Barnatt and B.M. Altman (Eds.), Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies, JAI Press,
Stansford CT, Vol. 2, pp. 9-28
Small. J and Darcy. S, (2010), Tourism, Disability and Mobility. In S. Cole and N. Morgan (Ed.),
Tourism, Inequality: Problems and prospects, CABI International, Oxford, pp. 1-20
Small. J and Darcy. S, (2010), Understanding Tourist Experience through Embodiment: The
contribution of critical tourism and disability studies. In D. Buhalis, S. Darcy and I. Ambrose (Eds.),
Accessible Tourism : Concepts & Issues, Channel View, Cleverdon, pp. 1-25
Smith, R. W. (1987). Leisure of disabled tourists: Barriers to participation, Annals of Tourism
Research, 14, 376–389.
UNSCAP (2003), Barrier-Free Tourism For People With Disabilities In The Asian And Pacific Region,
Report, UN, New York ST/ESCAP/2316
UNWTO (2005), Accessible Tourism For All, Resolution No. A/RES/492(XVI)/10), Sixteen session of
the General Assembly of the World Tourism Organization (Dakar, Senegal, 28 November – 2
December 2005).
11