Abstract
Purpose
This paper reviews the literature on disability inclusion (DI) in supply and demand chains of hospitality and tourism (H&T) organisations. The purpose of this study is to assess disability support and interventions within H&T organisations. Through the assessment, we identified gaps to recommend H&T scholars’ and practitioners’ knowledge of DI from new perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach
An integrative review was conducted to examine the published evidence on DI in H&T organisations. This study used high-ranking H&T journals from the Scopus and Web of Science databases between 2001 and 2023. In total, 101 empirical papers met the criteria for the review analysis.
Findings
DI focuses heavily on customer disabilities, with scant research on DI in H&T employment. The review emphasises the critical need for empirical research into the varied disability employment ecosystem within H&T organisations, focusing on social integration for inclusive workplaces.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the H&T literature, which previously overlooked the disability context in diversity. The research offers strategies for creating inclusive environments in the H&T industry for disabled consumers and producers.
Keywords
Citation
Jamin, A., Gbadamosi, G. and Stoyanova-Bozhkova, S. (2024), "The ecosystem of disability inclusion in hospitality and tourism organisations: an integrative review and research agenda", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 36 No. 13, pp. 38-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2023-0581
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Aziean Jamin, Gbolahan Gbadamosi and Svetla Stoyanova-Bozhkova.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Disability inclusion (DI) ensures equitable engagement of people with disabilities, increasing the hospitality and tourism (H&T) sectors’ interest concerning their travel experiences, employment prospects and well-being (Cloquet et al., 2018; Kalargyrou et al., 2023). Many H&T leaders value successful DI, as it involves socially conscious organisations that actively encourage participation by marginalised communities, ultimately lowering barriers for underrepresented groups to participate meaningfully as producers or consumers (Singh et al., 2023; Russen and Dawson, 2024). The approach is reflected in the social development of sustainability (Vallance et al., 2011), promoting human welfare, social and cultural justice and empowering potential (Boström, 2012). Social sustainability is vital in DI by harnessing social and moral benefits and fostering acceptance, support and empowerment (Gould et al., 2022).
The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 16% of the global population has mobility/physical, vision, psychological, hearing, cognitive/learning and invisible disabilities (WHO, 2023). Because of chronic health conditions and an ageing population, the prevalence of disabilities is also increasing (Benjamin et al., 2021). Although disability has long-term effects on daily activities, a universally applicable definition of disability is limited. Generally, disability is divided into visible and invisible. Visible disabilities include physical and mental impairments such as movement, vision, hearing and communication (Loi and Kong, 2017), while invisible disabilities are hidden physical conditions such as cancer and mental health (Kalargyrou et al., 2023).
People with disabilities often seem invisible stakeholders in H&T organisations, rarely being tourists and employees. Tourists with disabilities (TWDs) experience several obstacles, such as accessibility constraints, limited knowledge and information, physical or psychological impediments and personnel attitudes that hinder their ability to travel (Fennell and Garrod, 2022; De Pascale et al., 2023). Likewise, despite beneficial government legislation and financial benefits to hiring employees with disabilities (EWDs), the employment rate remains low. The biases and stigmas fostering negative attitudes regarding disability employment among employers and co-workers are the leading causes of the low employment rate of EWDs (Hui et al., 2021). Customers’ feedback and service assessments also hinder EWDs in H&T employment (Kalargyrou et al., 2020b). DI implementations in H&T organisations are also limited (Russen and Dawson, 2024). Inclusive environments frequently use intervention tactics targeting specific groups such as service providers and TWDs or employers and EWDs. However, they failed to include multiple stakeholders or address the relationships between actors within the ecosystem. Scholars must understand how a multi-actor system influences the organisational ecosystem among DI (Nyanjom et al., 2018). As H&T organisations deal with disability from different perspectives, understanding diverse stakeholders who encourage inclusion is crucial.
Despite addressing disability issues, literature reviews in H&T primarily focus on diversity-related topics, while DI receives little attention (Madera et al., 2023). Tlili et al. (2021) explored technologies to support TWDs and identified technological empowerment needs. Doan et al. (2021) investigated disability employment in H&T organisations, suggesting adopting an emancipatory technique in qualitative studies. Singh et al. (2023) conducted a bibliometric review of disability research in tourism, focusing on visualising trends and patterns but providing limited exploration of gaps and future research goals. This study pioneers the discussion of strategies for DI in H&T organisations. Studies examining DI investigations from various organisational ecosystems and disability participation in H&T organisations were reviewed. Several categories (national context, stakeholder category and type of disability) and research themes were assessed to highlight requirement to effective DI. Then, we propose a research strategy for future studies aspiring theoretical advances for DI in H&T organisations. The research questions are:
What Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide (CABS) publications on DI in the H&T research were published between 2001 and 2023, covering national contexts, disability categories, H&T sectors, types of disability and methodologies used?
To what extent have the trends, patterns or gaps been identified across different studies exploring the perspective of DI of people with disabilities in H&T organisations?
How do various interventions addressing DI issues compare effectiveness and outcomes based on the existing literature?
2. Research methodology and procedures
A systematic literature review is used in theory-based, domain-based, method-based, meta-analytical and meta-systematic reviews (Paul et al., 2021). Elsbach and van Knippenberg (2020) proposed an integrative review (IR) as an alternative. IR synthesises literature and creates new perspectives on a topic or phenomenon (Post et al., 2020). It presents ideas founded in knowledge and identifies progress and significant gaps in the literature (Elsbach and van Knippenberg, 2020). The SPAR-4-SLR protocol was used to generate well-justified rationales following IR principles (Lim et al., 2022). It comprises three stages (assembling, arranging and assessing) and six sub-stages (identification, acquisition, organisation, purification, evaluation and reporting). Table 1 and Figure 1 detailed the IR process based on the SPAR-4-SLR.
2.1 Assembling
It identified research questions and literature review domains to investigate DI discussions in H&T journals published by April 2023. The inclusion criteria are the keyword disability in conjunction with a set of industry-related keywords: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (disab*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (hospitality OR tourism OR travel OR food*)). Relevant publications from 2001 to 2023 were collected from two major databases (Scopus and Web of Science) with enhanced data quality (Mariani and Baggio, 2022) and reputable peer-reviewed journals (Mehraliyev et al., 2022). This chronology illustrates the evolution of DI in H&T organisations, emphasising the historical foundation and the current state of the research (Singh et al., 2023). In total, 6,098 peer-reviewed articles were collected during the assembling stage (1,229 Scopus and 4,868 Web of Science).
2.2. Arranging
It organised codes and purified article types within the business and management subject area to retrieve journal articles. We chose publications based on the CABS 2021. All journals ranking 1, 2, 3 and 4 with publications related to DI in H&T were the basis for review. Only English articles were considered, and duplicate records were removed, resulting in 150 publications and 5,948 articles being removed. The abstracts were assessed to determine appropriate DI topics, followed by exclusion procedures. We excluded secondary and review documents, disability research on sport, education, obesity and ageing traits. Ageing individuals may encounter limitations naturally, which often lead to disabilities. While older adults transitioning into disability may slowly adapt, individuals with sudden loss of function may have fewer resources to cope. These exclusions yielded 49 unrelated articles.
2.3 Assessment
It detailed readings reviewed the abstracts, literature, methodology, findings and summary. Data extraction was performed independently to finalise their suitability. We followed the guidelines by Petticrew and Roberts (2006) to categorise articles, including high- or moderate-quality papers in the analysis. The selection was limited to articles that obtained consensus among all three authors, with any disagreement being discussed. Finally, 101 empirical publications were examined for the review analysis.
3. Findings
3.1 Disability inclusion publications in hospitality and tourism fields
DI research has reached multiple networks in higher-ranking H&T journals in the CABS 2021 (Table 2). “Tourism Management” was the most prolific outlet for DI research in H&T organisations, with 15 publications. Publications have increased since 2010. More active discoveries were revealed between 2017 and 2023, indicating DI relevance in research. Publications in the CABS 2021 four-star and three-star ranking journals have dominated the literature. Arguably, publishing DI topics in H&T journals is an emerging study area and is expected to evolve with more publications.
Table 3 shows the distribution of studies across the review’s categorisation. National contexts reveal that most studies were conducted in the Global North countries. Eleven publications used multiple countries’ environments dominated by European nations. DI research in H&T focused on TWDs, whereas EWD investigations remain sparse. The emphasis is on the general TWDs’ experience (38 publications), with 21 papers in accommodation sectors, while 19 articles examined disability employment context. Disability types mainly explored multiple disabilities (38 publications). Twenty-seven papers examined non-disabled opinions, websites and promotional material without specifying disability kinds. The research methodology includes 48 quantitative approach papers, 43 qualitative approach papers and 10 mixed-method approach papers.
3.2 Disability inclusion themes in hospitality and tourism research
We used thematic analysis to understand and represent textual data (Nowell et al., 2017), generating three major research themes approved by the expert panels. These include DI enablers, TWD experiences and EWD employment (Table 4). We present our findings by outlining the research themes and a discussion.
3.2.1 Disability inclusion enablers
3.2.1.1 Disability discrimination acts.
The literature reveals that anti-discrimination acts and their compliance are essential (Darcy and Taylor, 2009). The United Nations disability efforts, such as the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and Disability Acts at the national level, signify their inclusive right. While previous studies concentrated on Global North countries, they still struggle to meet disability support requirements. These ineffective policies hinder TWD accommodations (Freeman and Selmi, 2010).
3.2.1.2 Inclusive marketing.
The marketing, imagery and representation of TWDs in promotional materials are vital for inclusion. The literature shows that marketing materials are invisible or unclear among TWDs and their families (Cloquet et al., 2018), creating an unwelcoming tourism environment (Benjamin et al., 2021). While accessibility marketing has been mainly discussed in TWDs, significant gaps exist in addressing the marketing representation of disability employment in H&T organisations.
3.2.1.3 Stakeholders’ collaboration.
Previous studies examined stakeholders’ collaboration to foster DI in H&T organisations. Nyanjom et al. (2018) assessed multiple key stakeholders supporting DI in the H&T industry, suggesting an innovative developmental strategy for stakeholder involvement. Walters et al. (2021) evaluated the positive outcomes of power relationships among stakeholders in H&T organisations by investigating the importance of events for marginalised groups, revealing that psychological empowerment benefited TWDs and stakeholders.
3.2.2 Travel experience of tourists with disabilities
3.2.2.1 Service provisions for tourists with disabilities.
DI within H&T organisations has centred on the TWDs’ experiences. Although disability travel is considered new in some countries, there is a significant willingness to serve TWDs (Ozturk et al., 2008). Numerous trials and errors with TWDs in the H&T business still exist (Patterson et al., 2012). Prominent barriers to supporting TWDs are attitudes among personnel in H&T organisations (Sy and Chang, 2019). Negative attitudes to serve vary by gender, formal educational attainment and organisational category (Adam, 2019). To understand how attitudinal barriers affect TWDs, researchers should use existing models to systematically study the TWDs’ experience (Card et al., 2006). Service providers are encouraged to prioritise duty and justice over conventional business practices because serving TWDs necessitates specialised adaptations (Fennell and Garrod, 2022).
3.2.2.2 Physical accessibilities.
Multiple studies investigated the importance of physical accessibility in H&T facilities (Darcy and Pegg, 2011; Morris and Kazi, 2014). Significant physical factors affecting TWDs were the accessibility of public areas, recreation and hotel room facilities (Lyu, 2017). Israeli (2002) developed a model assessing the relative significance of accessibility factors in tourist sites to enhance physical accessibility. Darcy (2010) suggested the preferred format for providing accessible accommodation information (combining textual descriptions, floorplans and digital photography).
3.2.2.3 Information accessibilities.
Information availability issues for TWDs remained unresolved (Park et al., 2022). Information accessibility and designs should accommodate inclusive engagement (Williams and Rattray, 2005). An inclusive H&T environment necessitates accessible built conditions and online information accessibility (Buhalis and Michopouloub, 2011). However, online content targeting TWDs is too generic and limited (Casais and Castro, 2020). Eichhorn et al. (2008) demonstrate how varied needs and perceptions of the quality of information sources result in diverse search outcomes. The available information mainly targets physical disabilities (Ali et al., 2023), while tourists with visual impairments typically struggle with online visual content (Shi, 2006).
3.2.2.4 Barriers to travel.
The literature shows that women with disabilities are doubly disadvantaged because of gender and disability-related exclusion (De Pascale et al., 2023). Major travel barriers among TWDs were accessibility and intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects (Wan, 2013; Kong and Loi, 2017). Lee et al. (2012) discovered that the intrinsic and environmental factors positively and significantly influenced TWDs’ travel decisions. Studies on accessibility expectations also found that TWDs prioritise their treatment over physical accommodations (Chikuta et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2020). Unpleasant interactions with services create helplessness among TWDs, erecting intrapersonal barriers to participation (Kong and Loi, 2017). Emphasising H&T offerings accessible to TWDs, fostering stakeholder engagement and nurturing positive relationships can lead to higher travel satisfaction (Loi and Kong, 2017; Cole et al., 2019).
3.2.2.5 Motivations and experience.
TWDs travel for self-care, overcoming self-doubt and redefining themselves (Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011). Travelling minimises loneliness and expands their social interaction possibilities and experiences (Pagan, 2020). Although TWDs travel for multiple intrinsic and extrinsic reasons (Small et al., 2012), Moura et al. (2018) suggested that accessible tourism can be a new stress-coping resource for TWDs. It rebalances their personal and social resources. Yau et al. (2004) agreed that personal courage, family support and the tourist industry’s precise information can create active tourism among TWDs. Comprehensive information and disability awareness training would enhance service providers’ preparedness (Agovino et al., 2017), while continuous social interactions between employees and TWDs reduce disability travelling concerns (Casais and Castro, 2020).
3.2.2.6 Caregivers’ experience.
The psychological well-being and experiences of carers of TWDs have attracted attention. The burden on carers prompted more studies (Lehto et al., 2018). Other than caring for children or family members with disabilities, carers typically travel with TWDs for various reasons such as the intellectual and physical development of the children/TWDs, relaxation, socialisation and strengthening the family relationship (Kim and Lehto, 2013; Nyman et al., 2018). However, carers encounter emotional challenges while planning trips, leading to stress and feelings of escape during vacations (Sedgley et al., 2017). Kang et al. (2020) found a significant correlation between caregivers’ satisfaction and the quality of the service environment provided to their cared individuals. Travelling for families with multiple family members with disabilities and without disabilities also presents unique challenges requiring careful planning and consideration. Suitable transportation, accommodations and activities are necessary for a smooth trip (Kang et al., 2020). Communication and coordination among family members are crucial, whereas adaptability and readiness for unforeseen circumstances are essential (Nyman et al., 2018).
3.2.3 Employees with disabilities employments
3.2.3.1 Challenges of hiring employees with disabilities.
DI in disability employment is the least researched topic in H&T literature. Gröschl (2007) found that employers’ preferences for physical attractiveness and industry-specific qualities hinder EWDs hiring in H&T organisations, followed by limited legal pressure and awareness. Bengisu and Balta (2011) claimed that employers mostly agree that EWDs may perform any duty in the H&T business when their professional knowledge and skills match the requirements. While larger organisations are likelier to hire EWDs (Houtenville and Kalargyrou, 2012; Jasper and Waldhart, 2013), employers concur that increased efforts to accommodate the EWDs market through accessible workplaces, public perception shifts and enacting unified laws and regulations are necessary (Al Fardan and Morris, 2019).
3.2.3.2 Employers’ attitudes towards hiring.
Employers’ attitudes towards hiring EWDs dominate previous attitudinal investigations on disability employment. Though employers are generally worried about the costs and accommodations for hiring EWDs, those with experience are optimistic about EWD prospects (Chi and Qu, 2004b). Negative attitudes among employers stemmed from their concerns about the acceptability of other employees and customers (Kalargyrou et al., 2020a). Employers’ attitudes towards physical and sensory-challenged employees positively affected the likelihood of hiring EWDs compared to other disabilities (Chi and Qu, 2004a).
3.2.3.3 Human resource practices.
Human resource processes should allow EWDs to demonstrate competence during selection, training, fair performance reviews and rewards (Luu, 2021). Challenges for EWDs include limited quality training, restricted business performance standards and inadequate support in operational policies (Harris and Durocher, 2003). Luu (2021) revealed that disability-inclusive leadership mediated between disability-inclusive HRM practices, work-family conflict and work-family enrichment for EWDs. Kalargyrou and Volis (2014) proposed three initiatives to enhance human resource practices in H&T organisations: promoting awareness and integration techniques among stakeholders, alliances with vocational rehabilitation organisations and financial support from state health and human services ministries for DI strategies. Advanced human resource practices yield a positive social return, benefiting employees, the social cooperative and customers through increased satisfaction, improved reputation and heightened exposure to disability issues (Bellucci et al., 2023).
3.2.3.4 Employees’ treatments.
Ross (2004) confirmed that societal and personal ethical factors are essential in determining employees’ treatment. Organisational characteristics affect the managers’ attitudes towards EWDs (Kalargyrou et al., 2023). Hui et al. (2021) found challenges managers and employees face engaging with EWDs concerning work fairness and environment. EWDs encounter challenges in workforce integration, like dealing with their employers and co-workers (Paez and Arendt, 2014). Therefore, exploring employees’ competencies and personal ethical beliefs among employees is required to understand EWDs’ working expression (Ross, 2004).
3.2.3.5 Customers' evaluation.
Previous studies examined how customers evaluated EWDs in H&T organisations, yielding varied outcomes. Kalargyrou et al. (2018) found no significant differences in the perceived service quality offered by EWDs in food service establishments, indicating that people with family members or close friends with disabilities were less stereotypical. Kuo and Kalargyrou (2014) discovered that customers demonstrated a moderately positive purchase intention for a restaurant employing EWDs. Madera et al. (2020) showed that customers evaluate EWDs lower than employees without disabilities in hotel sectors. The negative evaluation and stereotyping are influenced by customer characteristics such as ethnicity, religiosity and relationship to people with disabilities (Kalargyrou et al., 2020b).
We incorporated summaries from the reviewed articles in the supplementary material.
4. Conclusions and practical implications
Our IR advances the knowledge of DI through a rigorous and transparent process by assembling, arranging and assessing literature published in H&T academic journals. Using the CABS 2021 guidelines, 150 papers were generated, with 101 meeting the selection criteria. The data search process followed the SPAR-4-SLR protocol and specific inclusion criteria, prioritising high-ranking journal publications to guarantee credibility and high-quality data. Drawing on the articles reviewed in H&T organisations, we present practical implications and recommendations for H&T stakeholders to enhance the strategies to include people with disabilities in H&T sectors.
4.1 Embracing the representation of tourists with disabilities in travel marketing
The guidelines established by the Disability Discrimination Acts ensure that all H&T establishments are accessible to TWDs (Darcy and Taylor, 2009). However, TWDs are overlooked or underrepresented in travel marketing campaigns, promotional materials and imagery (Benjamin et al., 2021). Promoting diversity and inclusivity in travel marketing is a moral necessity and an intelligent economic approach (Cloquet et al., 2018). Service providers can reach a broader market by promoting accessibility and acceptance by incorporating TWDs in marketing tactics. Various TWDs’ portrayals break down barriers and give positive inclusivity messages. Advocating for marginalised groups, eradicating negative perceptions and forming new alliances foster a greater understanding of these communities (Walters et al., 2021). When represented, TWDs will feel accepted and inspired to explore new destinations and activities (Benjamin et al., 2021).
4.2 Empowering families with disabled children
Despite substantial studies on service provision and TWDs’ experiences in the H&T literature, families and guardians of children with disabilities report low satisfaction. Families with disabled children face obstacles in H&T activities, prompting more assistance, accessibility and inclusive services (Nyman et al., 2018). These families encounter positive emotions, such as exuberance, pride and awe, alongside negative emotions, such as distress, frustration and humiliation (Lehto et al., 2018). Spontaneity is often a desirable aspect of holidays, but it can significantly distress families with autism spectrum children (Sedgley et al., 2017). Addressing their needs and supporting inclusive H&T can create an environment where impaired children can engage and reach their potential (Nyman et al., 2018). Travelling can be a rewarding experience for families with disabled children through thoughtful planning and support (Sedgley et al., 2017). Tailoring tour packages to accommodate diverse needs, including sensory-friendly tours and activities, can create an inclusive environment (Lehto et al., 2018). A convenient location for rental and well-equipped assistive devices is critical for a high-quality service environment for this group (Kang et al., 2020). Because socialising was preferred for families with disabled children travelling (Kang et al., 2020), H&T operators should train their personnel on disability awareness and sensitivity.
4.3 Social integration in disability employment
Although policies and anti-discrimination rights solidly set objectives to minimise exclusion, the reality shows a societal limitation in handling disability engagement in employment. Accessibility and human resource practices are not the sole means of promoting DI. Organisational practice must focus on social interaction within a disability environment. Social value creation is critical, emphasising understanding how EWDs co-create value in an environment shared with others and how the organisations can facilitate inclusive experiences (Cerdan Chiscano and Darcy, 2021). Stereotypes that hamper the growth of interactions can be addressed when EWDs engage with co-workers (Hui et al., 2021). These experiences may increase an individual’s self-efficacy for engaging with EWDs, linked with better attitudes regarding disability (Kalargyrou et al., 2023). Promoting social transformation can increase participation, benefiting EWDs and employees, while neglecting societal expectations of disability may increase injustice.
5. Theoretical implications and future research directions
Our analysis found DI research in H&T concentrated on inclusive environments for TWDs covering multi-actor systems. Although some agendas might be addressed in the future, positive engagements from H&T players to accommodate TWDs are more important than accessibility. Conversely, the global recognition of employment issues in H&T organisations, such as talent shortages, has underscored the importance of empowering EWDs in the workforce, with benefits such as lower absenteeism and greater loyalty (Kalargyrou, 2014). Advances in medical, technology and legal frameworks have increased employment opportunities for EWDs (Kalargyrou et al., 2020a). EWDs should have equal employment opportunities and growth based on performance and organisational contributions (Luu, 2021).
The review reveals that disability employment has challenges, including limited accessibility, accommodation and social barriers, contributing to lower employment rates of EWDs and low satisfaction among internal stakeholders. Achieving success in disability employment necessitates internal and external organisational factors, including leadership, co-workers and customers (Mohsin et al., 2023). Stakeholders’ engagement and participation with policies and practises about DI would help the organisation enhance its financial performance (Lim et al., 2023) and foster greater job satisfaction (Mohsin et al., 2023). Adopting a holistic approach to strengthen the inclusive organisational ecosystem is imperative. Considering this, we offer recommendations for future research, providing valuable insights into the H&T organisations.
Colella and Bruyère (2011) identified three areas of disability employment: accommodation, selection and workplace integration. However, the co-creation of social integrations related to disability employment among organisational stakeholders is limited. Some research revealed positive attitudes among leaders towards hiring EWDs, although occasional interactions between managerial-level individuals and EWDs restrict this conclusion (Houtenville and Kalargyrou, 2015). Employers and managers may be concerned with the economic value of disability employment, customer feedback and service quality, while co-workers may be more worried about the impact of working with EWDs (Hui et al., 2021). Disability-related behavioural research that assesses attitudes and interactions of disability employment to increase collaboration between co-workers and EWDs is critical. It should focus on individuals representing the internal ecosystem of the organisation and individuals working directly with EWDs. Hui et al. (2021) highlighted the advantages and difficulties of disability employment experienced by work groups and individuals dealing with EWDs. Understanding the elements of positive work behaviour is vital to guaranteeing the long-term viability of disability employment. Further investigations into the disability employment model by Stone and Colella (1996) must consider EWDs’ traits, observers’ characteristics, legal requirements, organisational norms and policies to understand the treatments towards EWDs.
Moreover, DI research usually treats disabled individuals as a homogenous group. Many disability employment studies used an undifferentiated disability approach, but disability does not constitute a unified group and should not be regarded as such (Darcy, 2010). Prior research neglects invisible disabilities such as cancer and mental illness, which elicit distinct reactions from co-workers and unique disability management. They might face obstacles that prevent full engagement, inability to cope, lack of confidence and therapy effects (Hunter-Jones, 2004). Managers and the organisation must work together to help employees with invisible impairments (Kalargyrou et al., 2023). Further investigations are needed to embrace social responsibility and contribute to enabling invisible EWDs’ working conditions.
Finally, H&T organisations frequently prioritise DI strategies among EWDs for lower-level positions, particularly in the back office (Kalargyrou et al., 2020a). As more EWDs have advanced degrees and work experience, comprehending their contributions and job satisfaction to meet their self-actualisation requirements is essential (Baldwin et al., 2014). Future research should focus on understanding the experiences and needs of EWDs in higher-status positions and examining the potential positive effects of having such positions within H&T organisations.
6. Limitations
The literature review examined past publications on DI in H&T organisations from the perspectives of customers and employees with disabilities. The review debated existing literature surrounding DI across different ecosystems. However, the relationship between DI and other issues, which need to be considered, is not explained. For instance, a review could be done on how DI affects the tourists’ satisfaction or how DI practices affect organisational performance or corporate social responsibility goals. Despite these limitations, the current study has carefully reviewed DI in H&T research from a collaborative ecosystem’s perspective.
Figures
General search criteria
| Database | Scopus and Web of Science |
|---|---|
| Time frame | 2001–2023 |
| Keywords | Disability in combination with a set of keywords related to the industry (hospitality, tourism, travel and food service) |
| Inclusion criteria | Empirical manuscripts, English language Publications from H&T journals ranked 1–4 in the Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide (CABS) 2021 |
| Exclusion criteria | Book chapters and conference proceedings Secondary and review articles Disability inclusion (sport, education, obesity and ageing traits) |
Source: Created by author
Journal publications (n = 101)
| No. | Journal | No. of studies | Ranking |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tourism Management | 15 | 4* |
| 2 | International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management | 13 | 3* |
| 3 | Annals of Tourism Research | 9 | 4* |
| 4 | Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research | 7 | 1* |
| 5 | Current Issues in Tourism | 6 | 2* |
| 6 | Journal of Travel Research | 6 | 4* |
| 7 | Journal of Sustainable Tourism | 6 | 3* |
| 8 | International Journal of Hospitality Management | 5 | 3* |
| 9 | Cornell Hospitality Quarterly | 4 | 2* |
| 10 | International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration | 4 | 1* |
| 11 | Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism | 4 | 1* |
| 12 | Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management | 3 | 2* |
| 13 | Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure, and Events | 3 | 1* |
| 14 | Journal of Destination Marketing and Management | 2 | 1* |
| 15 | Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing | 2 | 2* |
| 16 | Tourism Planning and Development | 2 | 2* |
| 17 | World Leisure Journal | 2 | 1* |
| 18 | Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes | 2 | 1* |
| 19 | Event Management | 1 | 2* |
| 20 | Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology | 1 | 2* |
| 21 | Leisure Studies | 1 | 2* |
| 22 | Tourism Geographies | 1 | 2* |
| 23 | Tourism Recreation Research | 1 | 2* |
| 24 | Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research | 1 | 1* |
Source: Created by author
Publication category (n = 101)
| No. | Categorisation | No. of studies |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | National context | |
| USA | 29 | |
| Australia | 12 | |
| UK | 6 | |
| South Korea | 5 | |
| Spain | 5 | |
| Hong Kong | 4 | |
| New Zealand | 4 | |
| China | 4 | |
| Israel | 3 | |
| Turkey | 3 | |
| United Arab Emirates | 2 | |
| Italy | 2 | |
| Canada | 1 | |
| Poland | 1 | |
| Denmark | 1 | |
| Sweden | 1 | |
| Cyprus | 1 | |
| Ghana | 1 | |
| Taiwan | 1 | |
| Philippines | 1 | |
| Brazil | 1 | |
| Netherland | 1 | |
| Germany | 1 | |
| Multiple countries | 11 | |
| 2 | Disability category | |
| Tourists with disabilities (TWDs) | 77 | |
| Employees with disabilities (EWDs) | 24 | |
| 3 | Sectors | |
| General travel experiences | 38 | |
| Accommodation | 21 | |
| Disability employment | 19 | |
| Foodservice | 7 | |
| Tourist attractions | 4 | |
| Air travel | 4 | |
| Hospitality website | 4 | |
| Event | 2 | |
| Tour operators/travel agents | 1 | |
| Casino | 1 | |
| 4 | Type of disabilities | |
| Multiple disabilities | 38 | |
| Physical | 20 | |
| Visual | 10 | |
| Intellectual | 2 | |
| Hearing | 2 | |
| Cancer | 1 | |
| Epilepsy | 1 | |
| Not stated | 27 | |
| 5 | Research methodology | |
| Quantitative | 48 | |
| Qualitative | 43 | |
| Mixed methods | 10 |
Source: Created by author
Research themes (n = 101)
Source: Created by author
Supplementary material
The supplementary material of this article can be found online.
References
Adam, I. (2019), “Accommodators or non-accommodators? A typology of hotel frontline employees’ attitude towards guests with disabilities”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 82, pp. 22-31.
Agovino, M., Casaccia, M., Garofalo, A. and Marchesano, K. (2017), “Tourism and disability in Italy. Limits and opportunities”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, pp. 58-67.
Al Fardan, A. and Morris, S. (2019), “The employment of people with special needs within hotels in Dubai”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 327-336.
Ali, F., Cain, L., Legendre, T.S. and Wu, L. (2023), “The intersection of technology, accessible tourism and tourists with intellectual disabilities: proposing a novel conceptual framework”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. NP76-NP90.
Baldwin, S., Costley, D. and Warren, A. (2014), “Employment activities and experiences of adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s disorder”, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 2440-2449.
Bellucci, M., Biggeri, M., Nitti, C. and Terenzi, L. (2023), “Accounting for disability and work inclusion in tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 98, pp. 1-18.
Bengisu, M. and Balta, S. (2011), “Employment of the workforce with disabilities in the hospitality industry”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Benjamin, S., Bottone, E. and Lee, M. (2021), “Beyond accessibility: exploring the representation of people with disabilities in tourism promotional materials”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 29 Nos 2/3, pp. 295-313.
Bizjak, B., Knežević, M. and Cvetrežnik, S. (2011), “Attitude change towards guests with disabilities: reflections from tourism students”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 842-857.
Blichfeldt, B.S. and Nicolaisen, J. (2011), “Disabled travel: not easy, but doable”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 79-102.
Boström, M. (2012), “A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue”, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Boxall, K., Nyanjom, J. and Slaven, J. (2018), “Disability, hospitality and the new sharing economy”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 539-556.
Buhalis, D. and Michopouloub, E. (2011), “Information-enabled tourism destination marketing: addressing the accessibility market”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 145-168.
Burnett, J.J. and Baker, H.B. (2001), “Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the mobility-disabled consumer”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 4-11.
Card, J.A., Cole, S.T. and Humphrey, A.H. (2006), “A comparison of the accessibility and attitudinal barriers model: travel providers and travelers with physical disabilities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 161-175.
Casais, B. and Castro, C. (2020), “Online communication of accessibility conditions in touristic spots: the design–communication gap in Porto destination”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 196-209.
Cerdan Chiscano, M. and Darcy, S. (2021), “C2C co-creation of inclusive tourism experiences for customers with disability in a shared heritage context experience”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 24 No. 21, pp. 3072-3089.
Chang, Y.C. and Chen, C.-F. (2011), “Identifying mobility service needs for disabled air passengers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1214-1217.
Chi, C.G.-Q. and Qu, H. (2004a), “Integrating persons with disabilities into the work force: a study on employment of people with disabilities in foodservice industry”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 59-83. vol
Chi, C.G.Q. and Qu, H. (2004b), “A study of differential employers’ attitude towards hiring people with physical, mental, and sensory disabilities in restaurant industry”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-31.
Chikuta, O., Du Plessis, E. and Saayman, M. (2019), “Accessibility expectations of tourists with disabilities in national parks”, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 75-92.
Cloquet, I., Palomino, M., Shaw, G., Stephen, G. and Taylor, T. (2018), “Disability, social inclusion and the marketing of tourist attractions”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 221-237.
Cole, S., Zhang, Y., Wang, W. and Hu, C.M. (2019), “The influence of accessibility and motivation on leisure travel participation of people with disabilities”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 119-130.
Colella, A.J. and Bruyère, S.M. (2011), “Disability and employment: new directions for industrial and organizational psychology”, APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Building and Developing the Organization, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, Vol. 1, pp. 473-503.
Daniels, M.J., Rodgers, E.B.D. and Wiggins, B.P. (2005), “‘Travel tales’: an interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 919-930.
Darcy, S. (2010), “Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 816-826.
Darcy, S. (2012), “(Dis)embodied air travel experiences: disability, discrimination and the affect of a discontinuous air travel chain”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 91-101.
Darcy, S. and Taylor, T. (2009), “Disability citizenship: an Australian human rights analysis of the cultural industries”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 419-441.
Darcy, S. and Pegg, S. (2011), “Towards strategic intent: perceptions of disability service provision amongst hotel accommodation managers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 468-476.
Daruwalla, P. and Darcy, S. (2005), “Personal and societal attitudes to disability”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 549-570.
De Pascale, A., Meleddu, M., Abbate, T. and Pellicano, M. (2023), “Is there a gender gap in the propensity to travel of people with disabilities?”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 517-539.
Devile, E. and Kastenholz, E. (2018), “Accessible tourism experiences: the voice of people with visual disabilities”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 265-285.
Dias de Faria, M., Ferreira da Silva, J. and Brantes Ferreira, J. (2012), “The visually impaired and consumption in restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 721-734.
Doan, T., Kim, P.B., Mooney, S. and Vo, H.Y.T. (2021), “The emancipatory approach in hospitality research on employees with disabilities: an auto-ethnographic research note”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 46-61.
Eichhorn, V., Miller, G., Michopoulou, E. and Buhalis, D. (2008), “Enabling access to tourism through information schemes?”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 189-210.
Elsbach, K.D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2020), “Creating high‐impact literature reviews: an argument for ‘integrative reviews’”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 1277-1289.
Fennell, D.A. and Garrod, B. (2022), “Seeking a deeper level of responsibility for inclusive (eco) tourism duty and the pinnacle of practice”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1403-1422.
Freeman, I. and Selmi, N. (2010), “French versus Canadian tourism: response to the disabled”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 471-485.
Gillovic, B., McIntosh, A., Cockburn-Wootten, C. and Darcy, S. (2021), “Experiences of tourists with intellectual disabilities: a phenomenological approach”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 48, pp. 155-162.
Gould, R., Mullin, C., Parker Harris, S. and Jones, R. (2022), “Building, sustaining and growing: disability inclusion in business”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 418-434.
Gröschl, S. (2007), “An exploration of HR policies and practices affecting the integration of persons with disabilities in the hotel industry in major Canadian tourism destinations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 666-686.
Harris, K.J. and Durocher, J. (2003), “Training issues: a pilot study of the Florida Randolph-Sheppard program for vision-impaired foodservice managers”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Houtenville, A. and Kalargyrou, V. (2012), “People with disabilities: employers’ perspectives on recruitment practices, strategies, and challenges in leisure and hospitality”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 40-52.
Houtenville, A. and Kalargyrou, V. (2015), “Employers’ perspectives about employing people with disabilities: a comparative study across industries”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 168-179.
Hui, R.T.Y., Tsui, B. and Tavitiyaman, P. (2021), “Disability employment in the hotel industry: evidence from the employees’ perspective”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 127-145.
Hunter-Jones, P. (2004), “Young people, holiday-taking and cancer—an exploratory analysis”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 249-258.
Israeli, A.A. (2002), “A preliminary investigation of the importance of site accessibility factors for disabled tourists”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 101-104.
Jasper, C.R. and Waldhart, P. (2013), “Employer attitudes on hiring employees with disabilities in the leisure and hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Joo, N. and Cho, K. (2012), “Study on the utilization of restaurant services by the disabled and their demand for better access in Korea”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 338-353.
Kalargyrou, V. (2014), “Gaining a competitive advantage with disability inclusion initiatives”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 120-145.
Kalargyrou, V. and Volis, A.A. (2014), “Disability inclusion initiatives in the hospitality industry: an exploratory study of industry leaders”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 430-454.
Kalargyrou, V., Barber, N.A. and Kuo, P.J. (2018), “The impact of disability on guests’ perceptions of service quality delivery in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 3632-3655.
Kalargyrou, V., Kalargiros, E. and Kutz, D. (2020a), “Social entrepreneurship and disability inclusion in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 308-334.
Kalargyrou, V., Trivellas, P. and Sigala, M. (2020b), “Guests’ stereotyping and quality evaluations of service delivered by employees with disabilities: does service failure matter?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 735-752.
Kalargyrou, V., Sundar, V. and Jahani, S. (2023), “Managers’ attitudes toward employees with depression and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hospitality industry: assessing the mediating role of personality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 602-629.
Kang, S., Kim, H., Cole, S. and Piatt, J.A. (2020), “Examining the event service quality for travelers with mobility impairments by Korean caregivers’ perspective”, Event Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 297-310.
Kim, S. and Lehto, X.Y. (2013), “Travel by families with children possessing disabilities: motives and activities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 37, pp. 13-24.
Kong, W.H. and Loi, K.I. (2017), “The barriers to holiday-taking for visually impaired tourists and their families”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 32, pp. 99-107.
Kuo, P.J. and Kalargyrou, V. (2014), “Consumers’ perspectives on service staff with disabilities in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164-182.
Lam, K.L., Chan, C.S. and Peters, M. (2020), “Understanding technological contributions to accessible tourism from the perspective of destination design for visually impaired visitors in Hong Kong”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 17, p. 100434.
Lane, M. (2007), “The visitor journey: the new road to success”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 248-254.
Lee, B.K., Agarwal, S. and Kim, H.J. (2012), “Influences of travel constraints on the people with disabilities’ intention to travel: an application of Seligman’s helplessness theory”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 569-579.
Lehto, X., Luo, W., Miao, L. and Ghiselli, R.F. (2018), “Shared tourism experience of individuals with disabilities and their caregivers”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 8, pp. 185-193.
Lim, W.M., Kumar, S. and Ali, F. (2022), “Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 42 No. 7-8, pp. 481-513.
Lim, J., Vaughan, Y. and Jang, J. (2023), “Do employees’ perceptions of diversity management enhance firm’s financial performance: the moderating role of board members’ diversity level”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 3990-4009.
Loi, K.I. and Kong, W.H. (2017), “Tourism for all: challenges and issues faced by people with vision impairment”, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 181-197.
Lovelock, B.A. (2010), “Planes, trains and wheelchairs in the bush: attitudes of people with mobility-disabilities to enhanced motorised access in remote natural settings”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 357-366.
Luu, T.T. (2021), “A tale of two countries: how do employees with disabilities respond to disability inclusive HR practices in tourism and hospitality industry?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 299-329.
Lyu, S.O. (2017), “Which accessible travel products are people with disabilities willing to pay more? A choice experiment”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 404-412.
McIntosh, A.J. (2020), “The hidden side of travel: epilepsy and tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 81, p. 102856.
McKercher, B., Packer, T., Yau, M.K. and Lam, P. (2003), “Travel agents as facilitators or inhibitors of travel: perceptions of people with disabilities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 465-474.
Madera, J.M., Taylor, D.C. and Barber, N.A. (2020), “Customer service evaluations of employees with disabilities: the roles of perceived competence and service failure”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Madera, J.M., Yang, W., Wu, L., Ma, E. and Xu, S. (. (2023), “Diversity and inclusion in hospitality and tourism: bridging the gap between employee and customer perspectives”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 3972-3989, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2023-0450.
Mariani, M. and Baggio, R. (2022), “Big data and analytics in hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 231-278.
Mehraliyev, F., Chan, I.C.C. and Kirilenko, A.P. (2022), “Sentiment analysis in hospitality and tourism: a thematic and methodological review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-77.
Miller, G.A. and Kirk, E. (2002), “The disability discrimination act: time for the stick?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 82-88.
Mills, J.E., Han, J.H. and Clay, M.J. (2008), “Accessibility of hospitality and tourism websites: a challenge for visually impaired persons”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 28-41.
Mohsin, A., Brochado, A. and Rodrigues, H. (2023), “Mind the gap: a critical reflection on hotel employee turnover”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 2481-2495.
Morris, S. and Kazi, S. (2014), “Emerging trends regarding accessible accommodation in Dubai luxury hotels”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 317-327.
Moura, A.F.A., Kastenholz, E. and Pereira, A.M.S. (2018), “Accessible tourism and its benefits for coping with stress”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 241-264.
Nicolaisen, J., Blichfeldt, B.S. and Sonnenschein, F. (2012), “Medical and social models of disability: a tourism providers’ perspective”, World Leisure Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 201-214.
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E. and Moules, N.J. (2017), “Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 1609406917733847.
Nyanjom, J., Boxall, K. and Slaven, J. (2018), “Towards inclusive tourism? Stakeholder collaboration in the development of accessible tourism”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 675-697.
Nyman, E., Westin, K. and Carson, D. (2018), “Tourism destination choice sets for families with wheelchair-bound children”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-38.
Olya, H.G.T., Altinay Gazi, Z., Altinay Aksal, F. and Altinay, M. (2018), “Behavioral intentions of disabled tourists for the use of peer-to-peer accommodations: an application of FSQCA”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 436-454.
Ozturk, Y., Yayli, A. and 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, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 382-389.
Paez, P. and Arendt, S.W. (2014), “Managers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 172-190.
Pagan, R. (2012), “Time allocation in tourism for people with disabilities”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 1514-1537.
Pagan, R. (2020), “How important are holiday trips in preventing loneliness? Evidence for people without and with self-reported moderate and severe disabilities”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 1394-1406.
Park, K., Jeon, H. and Park, S.B. (2022), “Disability e-inclusion for accessible tourism websites”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 22, pp. 3571-3578.
Patterson, I., Darcy, S. and Mönninghoff, M. (2012), “Attitudes and experiences of tourism operators in Northern Australia towards people with disabilities”, World Leisure Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 215-229.
Paul, J., Lim, W.M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A.W. and Bresciani, S. (2021), “Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR)”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1-16.
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, Blackwell, Oxford.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Brandt, Y. (2010), “The flight experiences of people with disabilities: an exploratory study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 216-227.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Brandt, Y. (2011), “Dimensions of hotel experience of people with disabilities: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 571-591.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C. and Prescott, J.E. (2020), “Advancing theory with review articles”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 351-376.
Randle, M. and Dolnicar, S. (2019), “Enabling people with impairments to use airbnb”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 76, pp. 278-289.
Ray, N.M. and Ryder, M.E. (2003), “Ebilities” tourism: an exploratory discussion of the travel needs and motivations of the mobility-disabled”, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Ross, G. (2004), “Ethics, trust and expectations regarding the treatment of disabled staff within a tourism/hospitality industry context”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 523-544.
Russen, M. and Dawson, M. (2024), “Which should come first? Examining diversity, equity and inclusion”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Schitko, D. and Simpson, K. (2012), “Hospitality staff attitudes to guests with impaired mobility: the potential of education as an agent of attitudinal change”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 326-337.
Sedgley, D., Pritchard, A., Morgan, N. and Hanna, P. (2017), “Tourism and autism: journeys of mixed emotions”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 66, pp. 14-25.
Shaw, G. and Coles, T. (2004), “Disability, holiday making and the tourism industry in the UK: a preliminary survey”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 397-403.
Shi, Y. (2006), “The accessibility of Queensland visitor information centres’ websites”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 829-841.
Singh, R., Sibi, P.S., Yost, E. and Mann, D.S. (2023), “Tourism and disability: a bibliometric review”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 749-765.
Small, J., Darcy, S. and Packer, T. (2012), “The embodied tourist experiences of people with vision impairment: management implications beyond the visual gaze”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 941-950.
Stone, D.L. and Colella, A. (1996), “A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 352-401.
Sy, M. and Chang, S. (2019), “Filipino employees’ attitudes toward tourists with disabilities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 696-709.
Takeda, K. and Card, J.A. (2002), “U.S. tour operators and travel agencies: barriers encountered when providing package tours to people who have difficulty walking”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-61.
Tchetchik, A., Eichhorn, V. and Biran, A. (2018), “‘Not on my vacation’: service encounters between able-bodied and disabled consumers–the case of high-contact service”, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 204-220.
Tlili, A., Altinay, F., Altinay, Z. and Zhang, Y. (2021), “Envisioning the future of technology integration for accessible hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 4460-4482.
Tutuncu, O. (2017), “Investigating the accessibility factors affecting hotel satisfaction of people with physical disabilities”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 65, pp. 29-36.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C. and Dixon, J.E. (2011), “What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts”, Geoforum, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 342-348.
Var, T., Yeşiltaş, M., Yayli, A. and Öztürk, Y. (2011), “A study on the travel patterns of physically disabled people”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 599-618.
Walters, T., Stadler, R. and Jepson, A.S. (2021), “Positive power: events as temporary sites of power which ‘empower’ marginalised groups”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 2391-2409.
Wan, Y.K.P. (2013), “Barriers for people with disabilities in visiting casinos”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 660-682.
WHO (2023), “Disability and health”, available at: www.who.int/ (accessed 10 March 2023).
Williams, R. and Rattray, R. (2005), “UK and US hotel web content accessibility: mandates for action”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 78-87.
Yau, MK-S., McKercher, B. and Packer, T.L. (2004), “Traveling with a disability: more than an access issue”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 946-960.
Zajadacz, A. (2014), “Sources of tourist information used by deaf people. Case study: the Polish deaf community”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 434-454.
Zhang, Y. and Cole, S.T. (2016), “Dimensions of lodging guest satisfaction among guests with mobility challenges: a mixed-method analysis of web-based texts”, Tourism Management, Vol. 53, pp. 13-27.
Zhang, Y., Cole, S., Ricci, P. and Gao, J. (2019a), “Context-based leisure travel facilitation among people with mobility challenges: a self-determination theory approach”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 42-62.
Zhang, Y., Gao, J., Cole, S.T. and Ricci, P. (2019b), “Beyond accessibility: empowering mobility-impaired customers with motivation differentiation”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 3503-3525.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Bournemouth University, United Kingdom and the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.