Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a critical analysis of the disability models developed to date and of how they function in practice. Furthermore, it aims to answer the following question: which model of disability (MD) will provide the most suitable foundation for any course of action undertaken in the process of planning accessible tourism development in the future?

In the first stage of the study a critical analysis of the MDs described in the literature as well as in selected reports and expert opinions relating to people with disability (PwD) was performer. These findings then became the basis for the second stage of the study which focuses on identifying attitudes within society towards the types of tourism on offer connected to the analysed MDs. The applied research methods include an analysis of a survey (2013, 2014) carried out face-to-face and on the SurveyMonkey web site. The study group consisted of 619 people (from Poland, Russia, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Canada, Tunisia and Great Britain).

The great diversity of disabilities makes finding a universal solution in the creation of accessible tourism supply a complex task. This supports the need for a flexible “mix of various models” aimed at finding optimal solutions and the personalisation of tourism. In this context the greatest potential in the development of accessible tourism are models which are a synthesis of many determiners of disability such as the biopsychosocial or the geographical model of disability. The dynamics of accessible tourism development is likely to be increasingly influenced by the economic model, reflecting current trends for the personalisation of tourism supply.

The survey was carried out mainly within the European Community, the exception being respondents from Irkutsk in eastern (Asian) Russia. In order to gain a global view of the development of accessible tourism, research should be performed in countries representing all continents or tourist regions. Additionally, reflecting the definition of accessible tourism its beneficiaries – PwD – should participate in decision-making processes. Tourism service providers who are directly engaged in tourism supply also have a role to play. Their opinions and attitudes towards the development of accessible tourism determine its very nature in reality.

The survey on attitudes in society regarding the organisation of tourist trips for PwD confirmed conclusions from the analysis of the practical implications of various disability models in the creation of tourism supply that a single universal, optimal solution does not exist. All of the described MD can be applied in the development of a diverse tourism supply. The proposed model “diversification of supply […]” is the theoretical basis for the conscious development of accessible tourism in practice which in accordance with changes observed in the tourism market is undergoing increasing diversification and personalisation.

In each of the tourism supply for PwD types the economic model of disability based on the identification of PwD needs and surrounding society is important. The number of PwD and the scope of necessary services, social support (PwD often travel accompanied by one to three people) is determined by income in all the sectors identified in the structure of tourism supply. From the economic point of view, awareness of different types of disability and the diverse models describing it are significant aids in the segmentation of tourism supply and placement of products accessible to PwD on the tourism market.

The paper presents a new, critical perspective on the selected MD, the key to which is the search for optimal solutions in the development of accessible tourism. The analysis performed indicated the need for a synthesis of paradigms at the core of the conceptualisation of particular models, including those often regarded as being contrary (medical and social). The results of studies would give tourism providers important data on an increasingly competitive tourism market, and also affect changes in how PwD, the elderly, are viewed, from the category of “relatively poor” to “attractive, using a wide range of services”.

Looks at the 2000 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference held at the University of Cardiff in Wales on 6/7 September 2000. Spotlights the 76 or so presentations within and shows that these are in many, differing, areas across management research from: retail finance; precarious jobs and decisions; methodological lessons from feminism; call centre experience and disability discrimination. These and all points east and west are covered and laid out in a simple, abstract style, including, where applicable, references, endnotes and bibliography in an easy‐to‐follow manner. Summarizes each paper and also gives conclusions where needed, in a comfortable modern format.

This chapter explores some of the complexities involved when undertaking research at an international level in the area of “inclusive” education and “special needs” education. The complexities encountered by researchers working in these fields, mirror many of the challenges that comparativists in education studies find themselves addressing. Drawing from earlier investigations and from reports by international organizations, this chapter highlights some of the dilemmas and challenges that researchers face when considering inclusion and special needs education in different countries. Differing interpretations of “inclusion” are discussed and then contrasted with thinking around “special needs” practices. The chapter moves forward to analyze how the adoption of differing theoretical frameworks can influence the way that “disability” is conceptualized and therefore how inclusive and special needs education are interpreted and then put into practice. The chapter argues that cross-cultural work opens up opportunities for further development and learning in this field. We further argue that such cross-cultural work can become a mechanism to instigate fundamental change in education.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.