[Josh Grisdale]

I can only go from intuition, but to me:

Accessible Tourism – focus on disability, accessibility, possibly products distinctly for people with disaabilities.

Inclusive Tourism – bigger group that includes accessible tourism as a subset. Also includes other groups (LGBTQ etc). Focus more on products anyone can participate in (ie a tour for everyone/anyone vs a tour for people with disabilities).

So, accessible tourism (to me) is a subset of inclusive tourism focused on disability (as opposed to other differences).

What does everyone think?

[Ohayo Travel]

My feeling:

Accessible tourism links with the concrete cases of easiness of use of services and facilities for people with accessibility needs.

Inclusive tourism has a more weight on the idea of social justice and is used in the context of “sustainable and inclusive”.

[schroth-sensei]

From having a construction design and Exceptional Student Education background (not to mention being a person living with a disability), and more recently working with Josh here, I’ve used these terms often. From my personal view, “Accessible” has seemingly been used more with disability-related websites in conjunction with tourism/travel then inclusion and tourism/travel (not that they aren’t inclusive).

Accessible in the US is often tied to the right to access public facilities, and because of ADA requirements (The Americans with Disabilities Act, a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability), it is often used in everything to describe disability-related access when constructing new or modifying old buildings to the max incline of sidewalk ramps, walkways, restaurant seating, assistive education tools, and much more. So, anytime I’m referring to tourism when related to someone living with a disability, I will more often then not use “accessible.”

Like Josh explained, I feel that Inclusive tourism also is a broader scope of people (some of which may not being living with a disability) and it may include a much broader number of things. So, I hesitate to use the term in an article that is referring to access for those living with disabilities. (Side not: if a particular place I may be writing about does state that they are inclusive of these broader communities, I try to add that into the article because it is always nice to see places that have open minds and open hearts!)

[pieterghijsels]

To add my two cents, I’d say that inclusion is, indeed, a much wider concept and that accessibility is a vital part of inclusion. But in the end, the real issue is nothing ‘special’, but a matter of good customer service.

Inclusion is our contemporary society’s response to diversity. The keyword is “belonging”. The idea is that we all belong here, in this society, and that authorities, businesses and the society as a whole can/should try actively to make this reality.

Accessibility is about making it possible to participate fully. It may have started as a matter of being able to enter a physical environment, now we use it in a much wider meaning, including access to information or to an experience or other function. In order to make accessibility adding to inclusion, you want accessibility as seamless and as structural as possible.

Sometimes, accessibility will have an exclusive aspect as well. Especially, when personal requirements can’t be fully met in a structural way and need a more tailored approach.

As a side note, I’ve noticed that people use inclusion for all three of these meanings, which can make the conversation quite difficult. ?