Barriers for people with disabilities in visiting casinos

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the barriers identified by people with disabilities in visiting casinos. Design/methodology/approach – Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 12 people with disabilities recruited from the investigator's clinical and community networks and personal referrals, and 18 casino supervisors and dealers who attended a casino diploma course offered by a university. The data were subjected to thematic content analysis. Findings – The results indicated that customers with disabilities faced physical, human and financial barriers during their visit to casinos. The six barriers that were commonly identified by all participants included: the physical barriers in game playing; insufficient facilities and accessibility; insufficient space; entrance blockage; poor staff service; and insufficient information and communication. There were two other barriers reported only by the participants with disabilities – social exclusion and financial barriers. Differences in comparison to the barriers that this market segment had encountered in other tourism contexts are also discussed. Research limitations/implications – The sample is limited to Macao participants and the sample size is small. Practical implications – This study offers recommendations for casino operators and government authorities with regard to specific physical, financial and interpersonal means to alleviate apparent difficulties faced by people with disabilities when visiting a casino. Originality/value – This study fills the research void in the literature regarding the barriers encountered by people with disabilities in visiting a casino. It also broadcasts the genuine voice of this market segment.

The ecosystem of disability inclusion in hospitality and tourism organisations: an integrative review and research agenda

“…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.…”

Traveling with special needs: investigating constraints and negotiation strategies for engaging in tourism activities

“…The results of Yim's (2013) study on the barriers identified by PwSN while visiting casinos in Macao reveal that the structural constraints (e.g. insufficient facilities and accessibility, insufficient space, blockage of entrances, insufficient information, financial barriers) and interpersonal constraints (social exclusion, insufficient communication, poor staff service) stand out as being the main ones.…”

“…Currently the accessible tourism market (which includes PwD, people with other functional limitations and elderly) is already a highly significant market. PwD represent about 15% of the whole world's population (World Bank, 2020), and this is expected to grow greatly due to the aging of the population (Alves et al , 2020; Blichfeldt and Nicolaisen, 2011; Carneiro et al , 2022; Darcy, 2002; Darcy and Pegg, 2011; Eusébio et al , 2022; Ozturk et al , 2008; Pagán-Rodríguez, 2014; Rucci and Porto, 2022; Small and Darcy, 2010; Yim, 2013). Moreover, engagement in tourism activities has a great impact on the well-being of participants (Eusébio and Carneiro, 2014; McCabe, 2009; Moura et al , 2022; Small and Darcy, 2010) and people feel different when they travel.…”

Navigating services for consumers with disabilities: a comprehensive review and conceptual framework

“…Service providers’ social attitudes and responsiveness make it harder for them to achieve CwD’s standards. Institutional, informational and attitudinal barriers prevent CwD from accessing services, making their lives difficult (Khumalo and Ndlovu, 2017; Wan, 2013; Yu et al , 2015). These issues arise because CwD service design mostly takes a medical approach (Khumalo and Ndlovu, 2017; Nicolaisen et al , 2012; Ravneberg, 2009) instead of focusing on the social model (CwD sensitivities and interpersonal relationships).…”

“…Most of the time, CwD’s disability breeds prejudice and stereotypes that negatively affect how these consumers are viewed and how they can access services (Rossow-Kimball and Goodwin, 2018; Stumbo et al , 2011). As a result, CwD feels included and accepted in a service context when facility-specific and attitudinal elements of service employees and other customers come together (Baker et al , 2007; Nicolaisen et al , 2012; Wan, 2013).…”