BBA Dissertation- TURN IT IN

BBA Dissertation
2013.2
Rashmi Rajpal, G3 (Finance)
300719
EXPLORING AND
PROFILING THE DISABILITY
TRAVELLERS’
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS.

Page | 2
Statement of authorship
I certify that this dissertation is my own work and contains no material which has been
accepted for the award of any degree or diploma in any institute, college or university.
Moreover, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the
text of the dissertation.
Signed _________________________________________________
Date ___________________________________________________

Page | 3
Abstract
The abstract should be no more than about 300 words in length as a maximum and
should fit on 1 page only. The purpose of the abstract is to provide a brief synopsis of
your work, some background, key aim and some synthesis of your findings. The
abstract should be written in the past tense and in the 3rd person passive.
Indicated here:
Research questions:
1. What are the main motivational factors affecting the disability traveller?
2. How do barriers affect the level of participation in travelling/ travel decisions
made by the disability traveller?
3. How important is the link between the profile of the disability traveller and
the motivational factors?
Your objectives: The following is the list objectives set in order to answer the research
question
1. To discuss and explore the external and internal motivational factors faced by the
disability traveller.
2. To analyse the main barriers faced by the disability, to evaluate the effects of
removal of these barriers by Disability Discrimination Acts.
3. To formulate a relevant questionnaire based on the positivist philosophy.
4. To present the results of the questionnaire form of descriptive statistics.
5. To highlight a model of push and pull factors faced by the disability traveller.
Keywords: Disability Traveller, Intrinsic Motivational factors, Extrinsic
Motivational factors Disability Discrimination Acts, Barriers.

Page | 4
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my very great appreciation to Dr. Dimitrios Diamantis (my
supervisor), the Masters in Business Administration program manager at the Les
Roches International School of Hotel Management, for his advise and constructive
suggestions throughout the development of the research work.
I would wish to acknowledge the help provided by the authors for the basis of
literature utilized in this paper.

Page | 5
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................9
1.1. Dissertation Structure ...................................................................................9
1.2. Aim and Objectives.....................................................................................10
1.2.1. Research questions.............................................................................10
1.2.1. Research questions.............................................................................10
1.2.2. Objectives............................................................................................10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................12
2.1. External factors and disability .....................................................................12
2.1.1. Disability Discrimination Acts...............................................................12
2.2. The disability traveller.................................................................................13
2.2.1. The Profile...........................................................................................14
2.2.2. Constraints and barriers faced.............................................................15
2.3. Internal Motivational factors........................................................................16
2.3.1. Motivation and Holiday perception.......................................................17
2.3.2. Push and pull factors ...........................................................................17
2.3.1. Decision making process and travel decisions.....................................20
3. DATA AND METHODS......................................................................................22
3.1. Research Philosophy..................................................................................22
3.2. Research approach, Design and Time Frame.............................................23
3.2.1. Research approach .............................................................................23
3.2.2. Design and Time frame .......................................................................26
3.3. Research Strategy.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4. Data Collection and Sampling.....................................................................26
3.4.1. Questionnaire design...........................................................................28
3.5. Data Analysis..............................................................................................29
3.6. Ethics .........................................................................................................31
3.7. Limitations and Credibility...........................................................................31
4. RESULTS..........................................................................................................31
4.1. Travel preferences......................................................................................32
4.2. Push/ Pull factors........................................................................................34

Page | 6
4.2.1. Pull Factors .........................................................................................35
4.2.2. Push Factors .......................................................................................37
4.2.3. Choosing a destination ........................................................................39
4.2.4. Negative Experience ...........................................................................40
4.2.5. Barriers and Disability Discrimination Acts...........................................41
4.2.6. Demographics .....................................................................................45
5. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................49
5.1. Intrinsic motivational Factors ......................................................................50
5.1.1. Pull Factors .........................................................................................50
5.1.2. Push Factors .......................................................................................51
5.2. Extrinsic Motivational Factors .....................................................................51
5.2.1. Disability Discrimination Acts...............................................................51
5.3. Barriers and Participation ...........................................................................51
6. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................53
6.1. Main findings ..............................................................................................53
6.2. Recommendations for further research.......................................................54
6.2.1. New Research questions:....................................................................54
APPENDICES .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
REFERENCE LIST...................................................................................................56

Page | 7
Table of figures
Figure 3-1: The Deductive Approach model (Brotherton, 2008, p. 18) ................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4-1 : The percentage of respondents that travel independently......................32
Figure 4-2 : The percentage of respondents that feel externally motivated to travel..33
Figure 4-3 : Percentage of respondents that feel internally motivated to travel. ........34
Figure 4-4 : The average percentages of the Likert Scale strongly agree and Agree
for the pull factors. ....................................................................................................36
Figure 4-5 :The average percentages of the Likert Scale strongly agree and Agree for
the push factors ........................................................................................................38
Figure 4-6 : Factors considered by respondents when choosing a destination..........39
Figure 4-7 : Feedback of how respondents would respond to negative experience...40
Figure 4-8 : Feedback of respondents on the extent to which architecture acted as a
barrier.......................................................................................................................41
Figure 4-9 : Feedback of respondents on the extent to which negative attitude acted
as a barrier ...............................................................................................................42
Figure 4-10 : How respondents felt of poor online information (Accessible) as a
barrier.......................................................................................................................43
Figure 4-11 : Respondents participation (Removal of barriers) .................................44
Figure 4-12 : Respondents that benefited from DDA.................................................44
Figure 4-13 : Gender of respondents ........................................................................45
Figure 4-14 : Employment.........................................................................................46
Figure 4-15 : Dimension of disability .........................................................................47
Figure 4-16 : Marital status of the respondents. ........................................................48
Figure 5-1 : The figure illustrates the main factors affecting the disability traveller. ...49

Page | 8
Index of Tables
Table 2-1 : "Push” factors, (Shi, Cole, & Chancellor, 2012, p. 229)...........................19
Table 3-1 : Justification for the questions utilized for the online survey. ....................28
Table 4-1 : The "pull" factors.....................................................................................35
Table 4-2 : The "push” factors...................................................................................37

Page | 9
1. INTRODUCTION
The first real attempt to identify the disability traveller was made during the late
nineties, the increasing numbers of disabled travellers lead to awareness amongst
the tourism industry, (Var, Yesiltas, Yaylu, & Ozturk, 2011, p. 599). The tourism
industry today considers the disability traveller as a viable consumer segment, studies
in the past proposed they have similar needs and desires to those of the able-bodied
traveller, (Yau, McKercher, & Packer, 2004, p. 946). However in opposition, current
studies propose that there is a significant gap between the tourism industry and the
disabled traveller, (Shaw & Coles, 2004, p. 397). Therefore, it is acceptable to
articulate that there is lacking information on the disability traveller, (Darcy, 2010, p.
816). Consequently, in order to cater for the disabled traveller appropriately, the
tourism industry should gain vital information such as the motivational factors and
barriers they consider and are faced by when making travel decisions, (Shi, Cole, &
Chancellor, 2012, p. 228). Therefore the following sections contain the structure
adopted for this study in order to justify and manage the results appropriately. In
addition, the main aim, objective and research questions are outlined.
1.1. Dissertation Structure
The following dissertation is segmented into six main sections, the introduction that is
comprised of the objective and aims of this study. Three research questions were
formulated in order to aid in gathering and critically analyzing the relevant literature.
The third section of the study contains the research methodology that was planned in
order to form a rigid research process, the positivism stance of this study. An online
survey was carefully constructed and distributed in order to collect relevant data that
could be compared to the literature, ensuing relevant in the results section contains
the analysis of the descriptive data collected; the section to proceed contains a
discussion of the results obtained and the framework of literature from which the last
chapter highlights the major conclusions and further improvements.

Page | 10
1.2. Aim and Objectives
1.2.1.Research questions
Based on background information provided above, the main aim of this study is to
explore and profile the disability traveller motivational factors. In order to
achieve the aim of the study, three research questions were constructed. Therefore
the aim can be achieved by answering the following research questions and
addressing the objectives stated to proceed the research questions.
1.2.1.Research questions
The study strives to answer the following research questions :
3. How important is the link between the profile of the disability traveller and
the motivational factors?
1.2.2.Objectives
The following is a list of objectives that were the main focus of the study:
1. To discuss and explore the external and internal motivational factors faced
by the disability traveller.
2. to analyse the main barriers faced by the disability, to evaluate the effects of

Page | 11
4. To present the results of the questionnaire form of descriptive statistics.

Page | 12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The number of travellers with impairments travelling today has increased, (Var,
Yesiltas, Yaylu, & Ozturk, 2011). However, it has been seen there is minimal research
conducted regarding disabilities and these travellers, (Shaw & Coles, 2004, p. 397).
The consumer expectations of the marketplace and the style of interaction are
evolving at a rapid rate (Victorino,Verma, & Wardell,2008 as cited in (Darcy,
Cameron, & Pegg, 2010, p. 515). However, one market has been continuously
disadvantaged by the Global Tourism industry, this is the physically impaired that
require access needs and the disabled (Eichhorn & Buhalis, 2007) as cited in (Darcy,
Cameron, & Pegg, 2010, p. 515).
The following literature review focuses on what motivational factors are considered by
the disability traveller and are considered in relation to the individual disability profile
and the barriers they may face when making travel decisions or during their journey.
The following parts have been narrowed down to the external and internal
motivational factors affecting the disability traveller, the profile of the traveller, the
travel constraints faced by the traveller and the removal of barriers while travelling.
Therefore the main aim for this literature is to explore the “push” and “pull” factors and
discuss the relationship between these factors in regard to the dimensions of
disability of the traveller.
2.1. External factors and disability
2.1.1.Disability Discrimination Acts
Since the late 20th
century many countries have passed laws in order to reduce the
discrimination amongst the increasing numbers of disabled, (Shaw, Veitch, & Coles,
2005, p. 167).

Page | 13
The Disability Discrimination Act has been passed ever since 1995 in the UK,
similarly there are other such acts implemented in Australia, USA and Turkey as
shown in recent literature. The discrimination act, strives to make sure those with
disabilities are treated in a similar manner to the able-bodied and should not face
negative treatment due to their disability (Darcy, 2010, p. 816). According to (Var,
Yesiltas, Yaylu, & Ozturk, 2011 cited in Miller and Kirk (2002)), USA began the
American with disability Act (ADA) in 1990, the UK approved of the Disability
Discrimination Act in 1995, additionally other countries such as , Turkey approved of
the “the Law for Disabled People” in 2005, (Var, Yesiltas, Yaylu, & Ozturk, 2011, p.
600).
In agreement, it aims to shield the disabled in areas such as, access to goods,
employment and other facilities and services, (Bell & Heitmueller, 2009, p. 465). The
above literature is further backed by author Shaw et al (2004, p. 397) and author
Shaw et al (2005, p. 167) that expand on the increased awareness the DDA has
brought about to the tourism industry; this can be regarded as an important economic
advantage of the acts for all countries.
As put forward by (Darcy, 2010), the base of any touristic experience for the disabled
relies mainly on the accessibility of the destination and therefore the built environment
corresponds with the DDA in UK such that implications seen in studies where certain
destinations cater solely for the disabled are considered to be an act of
discrimination, (Shaw & Coles, 2004, p. 399). The main reason as to why this study
focuses on the DDA act in UK is due to the fact that it was a pioneering act,
additionally the UK is a universally known destination that hubs a number of
physically impaired citizens, with an increasing number, (Bell & Heitmueller, 2009, p.
466).
2.2. The disability traveller
The number of people with physical, emotional, developmental impairments has been
increasing over the past years all around the world (Johnson, 1991, p. 21) a fact has
been contested across all other literature available. In fact, the author briefly

Page | 14
explained that recently there has been a tremendous improvement in medical science
causing more saved lives, which has lead to an increase in the number of disabled
people. Author Simon Darcy (2010, p. 516) supports the argument of the authors and
furthermore suggests that the number of people with disabilities is likely to increase
especially in the Western developed countries which is argued by (Johnson, Mary.
1991, p. 21). The point mentioned above has been supported by all the sources
including (Kim & Lehto, 2012, p. 451). The dimension of disability as categorized
above is a vital part of understanding the disability traveller.
Furthermore, elimination of barriers could help and can be considered not only
economically benefiting to the industry but also portrays the company as being more
humanitarian, thus making the disabled traveller feels more welcome in the
environment and abiding to the disability discrimination acts, (Porges, 1978, p. 6).
2.2.1. The Profile
Author Shaw et al (2004, p. 173) explained the correlation between the different
profiles of the disability traveller in relation to the ease of holiday taking as follows,
those with visual or hearing impairments are likely to have a similar holiday
experiences as those who are able bodied furthermore, those with slight physical
impairments, profoundly deaf or blind and those who have physical impairments and
require walking aid are likely to consider taking holidays depending on the services
and facilities provided for the disabled , and lastly, those who use wheelchairs and
have a mental impairment with behavioural problems are likely to find holiday taking
complicated and it may involve loss of respect and dignity for the disabled person. In
agreement author Yau, et al (2004, p. 948) mentioned that socio demographic
variables play a role in the major criteria selection while taking a holiday, however,
(Darcy, 2010, p. 818) further emphasized on the most important criteria for planning a
holiday is the dimensions of disability which can be described as the profile of the
disability traveller, and the necessary level of support needs required. Therefore, in
agreement author Darcy (2010, p. 817) and author Shaw et al (2004, p. 167) suggest
that the profile of the disability traveller plays a role when planning a holiday.

Page | 15
Each of the dimensions of disability face varied barriers in order to better the disability
traveller the following literature expands on the barriers faced and the elimination of
barriers through different disability discrimination acts emphasized earlier, (Porges,
1978, p. 6).
2.2.2.Constraints and barriers faced
2.2.2.1. Existing barriers and constraints
It has been argued that only a small number of people with disabilities engage
completely in tourism (Darcy & Damwalla, 1999, p. 42). Author Porges (1978, p. 6)
mentioned that barriers such as architecture and negative public attitudes exist. This
has been supported and categorized into different factors influencing barriers by
Smith’s (1987, cited in (Yau, McKercher, & Packer, 2004, p. 948)) They identified
three main barriers environmental, interactive and intrinsic. Author Johnson, Mary
(1991, p. 21) gave the example of the case of Cocoa Beach Hilton, Florida they
disregarded the disability needs and not take into consideration the accessibility and
later had to renovate and cater for disability access, this can be seen as a barrier and
proves author Porges Edward Brodsky (1978, p. 6) arguments. Furthermore, author
Darcy (2010, p. 817) mentions another intrinsic constraint that has not been
researched or addressed completely, nevertheless, it is considered highly important.
This is the poor presentation of information and lack of detail for the accessible
accommodation being marketed on various websites, (Sambhanthan & Good, 2013).
In addition, this may arise as managers do not consider the disabled a significant
viable market segment and therefore do not promote the availability of accessible
rooms in the desired manner, (Darcy, 2010, p. 818). Furthermore author Darcy
deduced the following to be constraints: lack of accessible accommodation,
accessible accommodation that did not fulfil the standards, inadequate accessible
information provided and lastly locating existing accessible accommodation was
found to be difficult in agreement, author (Var, Yesiltas, Yaylu, & Ozturk, 2011)
expanded on the contemporary issue of lack of accessibility E-commerce websites.

Page | 16
2.2.2.2. Removal of barriers
Author Yau et al (2004, p. 948) addressed the issue of elimination of barriers and
argues that elimination of physical barriers may only be a small fraction of the reason
as to why the disabled don’t travel or minimise travelling. He also supports the
argument that existing barriers cause a decrease in participation. Author Nyaupane,
Gyan P. et al (2007, p. 433) addressed the leisure constraints for people with no
impairments in his study and states that there is a significant decrease in participation
through the leisure constraint model put forward by Crawford and Godbey (1987 as
cited in (Nyaupane & Andereck, 2007, p. 433)) and what this signifies is that both
disabled and able bodied individuals decrease their level of participation when met
with barriers and constraints.
Due to the increasing awareness of the disabled travellers demand and supply
requirements, many providers have acted upon the supply, such an example is stated
by author Porges (1978, p. 6), where restaurants today are improving the
environment for the disabled by modifying the seating arrangement, providing Braille
menus as well as educating the employees on ways to handle the extra needs of the
disabled guest.
2.3. Internal Motivational factors
The following literature expands on the push and pull, factors affecting mainly the
disability traveller. As seen in most of the study it is possible to segment the different
kinds of motivational factor, for example intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. ,
(Shaw & Coles, 2004, p. 398). The intrinsic motivators act as self accomplishment
driven factors, where the motivational level is centred within the individual. Adversely
the external or extrinsic motivational factors being viewed in this literature are and
emphasis of the introduction of the disability discrimination acts, these factors that are
based upon external forces, author.

Page | 17
2.3.1.Motivation and Holiday perception
As put defined by author Baloglu et al (1996, p. 32), motivation is a variable used to
interpret the behaviour of a traveller; it is one of the most significant variables as it
takes into account both the impelling and compelling forces. The impelling forces act
as a drive and therefore push the disabled into travelling, the compelling are the
forces that seek the attention and can said to be the pull factors that influence the
travel decisions, (Shi, Cole, & Chancellor, 2012, p. 229).
The disability traveller has the same perception as an able bodied traveller; they have
similar drives, “push” factors with a slight variation such as to re-charge before
engaging back into their monotonous lives, to enjoy and relax in a new safe
environment with freedom, (Shaw & Coles, 2004, p. 399).
A few examples discovered of generic compelling forces could be experiencing new
and different lifestyles, finding thrills and excitements, escaping from the ordinary and
many others. However, the compelling forces of the able bodied varied to that of the
disabled, a few examples that were alike are opportunities to gain knowledge and
warm welcome for tourist, (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996, p. 32). The following sub section
overviews these “push” and “pull” factors with an emphasis on the disabled traveller
and what they perceive.
2.3.2. Push and pull factors
Crompton, John L (1979, p. 410) identified “push” factors as the internal desire that
stimulates one to travel and “pull” factors are those that attract or influence the choice
of the traveller, encouraging them to visit a certain destination. The above literature is
backed by author Baloglu & Uysal (1996, p. 32) and he further quotes “These forces
(motivational factors) describe how individuals are pushed by motivational variables
into making a travel decision and how they are pulled (attracted) by the destination
area.”

Page | 18
According to Author Shi et al (2012, p. 229) and author Baloglu et al (1996, p. 32)
there are 11 main “push” factors and 3 main “pull”, Author Shi et al (2012, p. 229)
identified the “push and “pull” table as one of the most frequently used framework in
studying the travel motivations, therefore the following table 2-1 summarizes the
“push forces in detail and the “pull” factors are studied thereafter.
Factor Theme Summary
Escape from perceived
mundane
For a disabled traveller
escape from perceived
mundane environment is
likely to be a hospital or a
concise area they live in
daily, this is similar to the
able-bodied.
Level
Of motivation is
extremely
important for the
disabled traveller.
Exploration and evaluation
of self
It is more important for the
disabled to find themselves
than the able-bodied as from
their travel experiences they
are likely to gain more
confidence and move forward
in their personal lives.
Helped in gaining
more confidence
and provided
insights to move
forward.
Relaxation Was considered a very
famous “push” factor,
similarly to the traveller with
no impairments.
Considered a
stress reliever.
Enhancement of
relationships with family
and friends
Disabled travellers fancied
meeting with friends and
family, and being able to
move at their own pace.
Enjoyed when
they could travel
according to their
own pace.
Facilitation of social
interaction
Enjoyed
interaction with

Page | 19
others.
Independence Regaining control over one
self is a great motivator and
therefore for the disabled this
is a great confidence booster,
for the disabled more than
the able-bodied.
A great motivator
and confidence
booster.
The desire of being in a
natural environment
Even though the disabled
have accessibility issues it
was seen that they enjoyed
being in the natural
environment.
The natural
environment and
acted as a extra
motivational factor
to overcome
barriers.
Adventurous/ risk Many of the disabled
travellers found it necessary
to challenge themselves, to
be active and to take risks.
Found it
necessary to
challenge
themselves.
Do it today Due to the required physical
impairments the disabled
traveller is motivated by the
concept of ‘life is short' and
therefore felt the need to
travel while they still can.
Acted as a
motivator as ‘life is
short’ was the
motto.
Table 2-1 : "Push” factors, (Shi, Cole, & Chancellor, 2012, p. 229)
2.3.2.3. “Pull” factors: Influence the choice
Novelty, similar to the need of the able bodied the disabled travellers find it extremely
exciting to travel to discover and explore new cultures, meet new people and
experience the culture while they can. As mentioned above the “pull” factors tend to
catch the attention of the traveller and have an effect on the travel decisions, (Shi,
Cole, & Chancellor, 2012, p. 229)..

Page | 20
Education, their willingness to learn motivated them to travel and fulfil their desire to
gain knowledge, due to their impairments some of the disabled might find it even
more intriguing to gain more knowledge of certain destinations and therefore this
influences their travels decisions and hence the destination choice, (Shi, Cole, &
Chancellor, 2012, p. 229).
Accessibility, This can be considered one of the main motivational factors for the
disabled traveller. Information on travel accessibility, friendly attitude of service
providers was factors that influenced the travel decision, (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996, p.
32). In contrast to the influences on destination choice by physical accessibility , it
was seen that the travel decisions made where highly affected by how easily
accessible the travel information was online and whether the online information was
friendly to the different impairments of the traveller, (Sambhanthan & Good, 2013).
2.3.1.Decision making process and travel decisions
According to Var et al (2011, p. 601) even though the motivational factors involved in
the decision making process of the disability traveller are similar to the able-bodied
there is a slight difference when evaluating a tourist sight, which means that the pull
factors that correspond mainly to the destination choice are likely to be studied more
in terms of accessibility. Furthermore, he identified that the first tourist experience
was another vital factor that had an impact on the travel making decisions of the
disabled traveller. However it was argued that the attitude of the service provider
played a greater role in decision making than the physical accessibility, (Shaw,
Veitch, & Coles, 2005, p. 398).
2.3.1.4. Online accessibility
In a research done by (Sambhanthan & Good, 2013) to investigate the accessibility
problems in relation to the e-commerce websites, the author established that the
physically impaired have a significant influence on the accessibility of the website.

Page | 21
While the typical area of service failure and complaints have been systematically
investigated for the general travelling public, service failure issues for the disabled
have been widely ignored, (Kim & Lehto, 2012).

Page | 22
3. DATA AND METHODS
The methodology is an important tool that plays a role in accomplishing a
substantial section of this study, in detail, it acts to obtain and analyze the data.
Henceforth, the research designs addressed for each study can be said to vary
and must be taken into consideration in order to successfully compute results and
obtain the relevant conclusions for the study addressed, (Bean. P. John. P. 170).
The above literature addresses the internal and external motivational factors
affecting the disability traveller. The barriers faced by the disabled traveller and
the Disability Discrimination Acts involved in removal of these barriers. In order to
From the literature studied in this dissertation it was gathered that in order to
answer the research question and obtain relevant response the questionnaire will
be the source of primary data for this study.
The main objective of the primary research being questionnaire in this research
methodology aims at investigating relevant data in order to compare with the
observable facts found in the contents of the literature, (Blumberg, Cooper, &
Schindler, 2008, p. 278)
3.1. Research Philosophy
This dissertation adopts a positivism research philosophy. What is positivism?
Author Clark et al (1998, p. 10) defines “Positivism as a doctrine or belief that only
true knowledge is scientific in character, describing the interrelationships between
real and observable phenomena (whether social or physical.” (Clark, Riley, Wilkie,
& Wood, 1998, p. 10). This enables the researcher to study the behaviour of
people and provides understanding what drives them to behave in a certain
manner. The positivism research philosophy was adopted by this study mainly
due to the availability of social phenomena, in this case, the disability traveller.
Additionally, it was adopted as it allows the researcher to be independent and

Page | 23
observe analytically which is vital in the case of exploring and profiling the
disability traveller, (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2008, p. 20).
As literature on the disability travel exists but it is limited or lacks precision, (Var,
Yesiltas, Yaylu, & Ozturk, 2011, p. 599). This study intends on withdrawing new
conclusions based on previous knowledge, in order to effectively explore the
disability traveller motivational factors in relation to their disability profile.
3.2. Research approach, Design and Time Frame
3.2.1.Research approach
There are two prominent research approaches, the inductive and the deductive.
(Clark, Riley, Wilkie, & Wood, 1998, p. 10). The inductive approach that is derived
from the interpretive philosophy, it can be summarised as an approach that
focuses on an unknown field of study where observations and suitable
measurements are conducted in order to develop new conclusions and theories,
ideally associated with social construction, meanings and perceptions,
(Brotherton, 2008, p. 16). However, this study uses the opposite alternative of the
inductive which is.: the deductive approach, as it is commonly associated with the
positivism philosophy that this is related to this research paper, as mentioned
above.
As positivism suggests at the derivation of law like generalisations the deductive
approach is where the researcher concludes from the necessary generalisations
and proceeds further to implement, refine or develop a new theory, (Brotherton,
2008, p. 18). Therefore, deductivism is seen as the best approach for this
dissertatation as there are significant generalisations made since the year 1950,
where the disabled traveller needs were began to be explored, (Darcy, 2010).

Page | 24
Identify the
problem
Produce
theoretical
framework
Write the
hypothesis/
research
question
Formulate the
constructs,
concepts and
operational
difination
Design the
research
Collect the
data
Analyse the
data
Interpret the
data
Implement or
refine the
theory or
develop a
new theory
The Figure 3-1 above illustrates the deductive approach cycle adopted in this
study. The following indicates how it has been utilized:
3.2.1.5. Identifying the problem,
The main problem that has been identified in this research paper is the
motivational factors that affect the disability traveller.
3.2.1.6. Produce theoretical framework,
Relevant literature was studied and critically analyzed in order to construct a
suitable literature review. It outlines the main internal and external factors that
affect the motivation of the disability traveller and hence provides a suitable
framework that assists in defining the research questions.

Page | 25
3.2.1.7. Write the research question,
As found in the introduction of this dissertation main research question was
formed in order to create a clear set of aims for the study. The following are the
three main aims of this study:
3. How important is the link between the profile of the disability traveller and the
motivational factors?
3.2.1.8. Design the research:
The methodology section of this study suggests an appropriate research design, it
addresses the research philosophy, approach and data analyse approach used in
the entire study.
3.2.1.9. Collect the data:
After the distribution of the questionnaire, relevant quantitative data is collected in
order to aid the next step in the process; the data was collected and exported to
SPSS in order to attempt various analytical tests.
3.2.1.10. Analyse the data
The significant results are placed into appropriate tables or figures such as bar
graphs, pie charts and Likert scale tables and a descriptive and inferential
analysis is undertaken.
3.2.1.11. Interpret the data
Once the data has been analysed, the key findings are compared to the
framework, differences and similarities are ruled out and appropriate conclusions
are drawn.

Page | 26
3.2.1.12. Implement or refine the theory or develop a new
theory
From the conclusions drawn at the interpretation stage, new theories are able to
be implemented or refined based on the new deductions made, additionally for
this study a new set of research questions will be constructed for future studies as
a recommendation.
3.2.2.Design and Time frame
The nature of this study as the aim suggests is exploratory, the main reason why a
specific research maybe considered exploratory is due to the research being self
evident or perhaps the situation is new or information has been not accessible,
(Brotherton, 2008, p. 12). Therefore this study is regarded as exploratory in nature as
there is information available however it still contains gaps that need to be filled,
(Shaw & Coles, 2004, p. 397). The time frame that was set for the distribution of the
online survey was 14 days, so as to allow as many disabled travellers to respond.
3.3. Data Collection and Sampling
The main purpose of a well designed questionnaire according to (Brotherton,
2008, p. 132) is, it acts as an accurate source of information being conveyed by
the respondent in a direct manner, for example the questionnaire contains
questions that are dictative in nature, and therefore focus on what is to be asked.
These questions have been directly engineered from the literature provided
above. In order to make the respondent more comfortable in answering the
questions with a genuine answer, the aspect of confidentiality was introduced at
the beginning of the questionnaire.

Page | 27
Question Reference
Are you influenced by external
motivational factors (i.e. Disability
acts)
Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity:
Disability, accessible tourism and
accomodation information preferences.
Tourism Management, 31, 816-826.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.010
Are you influenced Internal (i.e. self
accomplishments) motivational
factors?
Shaw, G., & Coles, T. (2004). Disability, holiday
making and the tourism industry in the
UK : a preliminary survey. Tourism
Management, 25, 397-403.
doi:doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00139-
0
According to you, please rate how
much do the following factors
“PULL” you to travel to a certain
destination
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments
of push and pull motivations:a canonical
correlation approach. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality management,
8(3), 32–38.
much do the following factors
“PUSH” you to travel
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments
of push and pull motivations:a canonical
correlation approach. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality management,
8(3), 32–38.
important the following factors are
when choosing a destination
If you had a negative travel
experience how would you convey
your complaint, rate accordingly
Kim, S. E., & Lehto, X. Y. (2012). The voice of
tourists with mobility disabilities: insights
from online customer complaint websites.
International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality, 24(3), 451-476.

Page | 28
From the following, what would you
consider to be a barrier and please
rate them accordingly
Var, T., Yesiltas, M., Yaylu, A., & Ozturk, Y. (2011).
A Study on the Travel Patterns of Physically
Disabked People. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 16(6), 599-617.
doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.610143
If the barriers mentioned above
were to be removed do you believe
you would engage/participate fully
in travel tourism?
Yau, K.-s. M., McKercher, B., & Packer, T. L.
(2004). Traveling with a disability more than
an access issue. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(4), 946–960.
Do you feel the Disability
Discrimination acts have benefited
you?
Bell, D., & Heitmueller, A. (2009). The Disability
Discrimination Act in the UK: Helping or
hindering employment among the disabled?
Journal of Health Economics, 465-480.
doi:10.1016/j.jhealco.2008.10.006
What disability profile do you
belong to?
Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010).
Accessible tourism and sustainability: a
discussion and case study. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 515–537.
Table 3-1 : Justification for the questions utilized for the online survey.
3.3.1.Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was formulated using software known as EQTS; the following
are the three question groups that were formed in order to make the layout more
appealing to the respondent.
3.3.1.13. Section A- Short warm up Yes / No
This section contained brief to the point questions where the respondent was able
to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”. The main reason for this is to gain basic

Page | 29
information on the respondents travel preference, additionally it aids in
familiarising the disability traveller on the basis the questionnaire is focused on
and briefly what the study aims to achieve, (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996, p. 32).
3.3.1.14. Section B- Main Push and Pull factors
This section addresses the main “push” and ‘”pull” factors an able bodied traveller
may face as well as the disabled, generic factors were utilized, (Shi, Cole, &
Chancellor, 2012, p. 229). The second topic covered in this question section is the
barriers faced by the traveller and the impact of removal of these barriers on the
disabled traveller,
The questions in this section accommodate the Likert Scale, where the
respondent must choose from strongly agree to strongly disagree (1-5),
(Brotherton, 2008, p. 98) The main reason the questions in this section adopted
the Likert scale was to be able to quantify the extent to which the “push” and “pull”
factors motivated the traveller, another reason was to be able to explore the
barriers faced by the traveller, (Kim & Lehto, 2012, p. 452).
3.3.1.15. Section C- Demographics
This is the last section; it is comprised of the demographical questions such as
the age, gender, occupational status and the profile of the disability traveller. The
respondent was provided with a set range for example the disability profile had a
drop down list of profiles; vision, hearing, physically disabled. This range was
made definite so that the results were more accurate and the analysis of the
relationship between the profile and the motivational factors of the disabled
traveller is explored to its fullest, (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010, p. 517).
3.4. Data Analysis
As mentioned by (MacDonald & Headlam, 1986, p. 8) there are two main types of
research methods, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative method strives to
quantify, in which the researcher adopts research instruments to successfully

Page | 30
compute this method examples of quantifiable instruments are the use of
experiments and questionnaire, (Clark, Riley, Wilkie, & Wood, 1998, p. 40). In
contrast the qualitative method focuses on the quality of information which can be
based on the skills of the researcher; interviews are the main source of qualitative
data, (Clark, Riley, Wilkie, & Wood, 1998, p. 40).
A quantitative evaluation is considered appropriate for this study and therefore
utilized for this research project, the main aim of choosing quantitative method to
collect data enables the researcher to answer the research questions in a
quantifiable manner by use of statistical display that enhances the accuracy of the
results and aids in explaining what is observed, (Harwell, p. 149). The justification
of choosing quantitative method is mainly because it focuses on generalising
which relates to the research philosophy of this dissertation, also it predicts and
emphasizes on causal explanations. An example of this causal relationship
explanation that can draw at the completion this study is whether the profile of the
traveller affects the motivational factors, (MacDonald & Headlam, 1986, p. 9).
The quantitative method according to author (Clark, Riley, Wilkie, & Wood, 1998,
p. 40), employs research instruments such as, (questionnaires, experiment).
Therefore, the questionnaire mentioned above was sent out to disability website
around the world as well as a number of social networking pages that displayed
information the disabled.
The adverse of probability sampling, No probability sampling was carried out.
Where each member of the population has the option of not being selected,
(Clark, Riley, Wilkie, & Wood, 1998, p. 75). The sample is known as the sub set of
a population, in this study the sample size of disability travellers was significantly
smaller than expected. 37. The results of the 37 respondents were exported from
EQTS to SPSS where frequency tables, advanced statics such as T-Test, ANOVA,
Cluster analysis and regression were demonstrated. However, due to the sample
size being smaller than expected the significance of the advanced statistics was
low. The main difficulty that was faced was the lack of availability of disabled
travellers. Additionally, some of the respondents might have not answered the
questionnaire whole-heartedly and therefore many questions could not be
correlated.

Page | 31
3.5. Ethics
One of the major ethical issues this study may face is, lack of responses due to an
inferiority complex the questionnaire may impose to the respondent, however the
questionnaire does assure the respondent of complete confidentiality in order to
eliminate this ethical issue.
3.6. Limitations and Credibility
In order for research to be successful and of good quality, attention to the possible
limitations should be considered at the infant stages of the research process,
(Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2008, p. 381). However, despite all precautions
taken into consideration experiencing limitations is close to inevitable. A number of
limitations could result due to the outcome of an unforeseen circumstances,
another possible reason as to why a limitation could arise during the study is due
to the accidental omission of a vital step in addressing the research question,
methodology and the results and findings.
4. RESULTS
The following section contains the data that was collected from the questionnaire
constructed via EQTS and distributed electronically. The questionnaire results were
exported from EQTS to SPSS in order to perform statistical tests as well as retrieve
descriptive data in forms of frequency tables. Since the study is quantitative in nature
it will display a number of tables and figures with the actual figures of data collected,
these findings will aid in the discussion section of this paper, to link the relevant
literature to the results found. There are three main sub-sections of findings that have
been divided similarly to the questionnaire design as mentioned in the methodology;
the travel preferences, push and pull motivational factors and lastly the demographics
of the disability traveller.

Page | 32
4.1. Travel preferences
The following section contains pie charts that convey results obtained regarding the
respondents travel dependency and whether they are externally or internally
motivated to travel.
Figure 4-1 : The percentage of respondents that travel independently.
The figure 4-1, above illustrates the number of respondents that travelled
independently, from the figure, it is seen that majority of the respondents do travel
independently (78%).
78%
22%
Travel Independancy
Yes
No

Page | 33
Figure 4-2 : The percentage of respondents that feel externally motivated to travel.
The figure above illustrates the percentage of respondents that feel they are
externally motivated (disability discrimination acts); the responses suggest that
approximately half of the respondents agreed to be externally motivated however the
other half felt otherwise, not externally motivated. The greater share of respondents
agreed that they were externally motivated.
59%
41%
Externally Motivated
Yes
No

Page | 34
Figure 4-3 : Percentage of respondents that feel internally motivated to travel.
The figure 4-3, above suggests that majority of the respondents (86%) felt they were
internally motivated, by self accomplishments and a smaller percentage (14%) felt
they weren’t motivated by internal factors.
4.2. Push/ Pull factors
The following section provides descriptive data on the “push” and ‘’pull’ factors of
motivation that the respondents faced. This section contains tables that are in the
form of the Likert scale as in the questionnaire as well as the bar graphs that contain
the average percentages of respondents that strongly agree and agree. All the data
provided uses percentages obtained from the frequency tables retrieved from SPSS.
86%
14%
Internally Motivated
Yes
No

Page | 35
4.2.1.Pull Factors
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Agree
Outstanding Scenery 5.4 2.7 5.4 21.6 64.9
Amusement and theme
parks
8.1 24.3 21.6 27.0 18.9
Outdoor activities 5.4 8.1 13.5 40.5 32.4
Water Sports 8.1 13.5 16.2 32.4 29.7
Fast food restaurants 29.7 21.6 8.1 24.3 16.2
Cruise for one night or
more
13.5 10.8 8.1 37.8 29.7
Culture different from
my own
2.7 0 5.4 32.4 59.5
Wilderness and
undistributed nature
5.4 10.8 10.8 29.7 43.2
Opportunities to
increase knowledge
0 0 5.4 35.1 59.5
Museums and galleries 5.4 13.5 18.9 43.2 18.9
Nightlife and
entertainment
10.8 5.4 18.9 35.1 29.7
Exotic atmosphere 2.7 2.7 8.1 35.1 51.4
Table 4-1 : The "pull" factors.

Page | 36
Figure 4-4 : The average percentages of the Likert Scale strongly agree and Agree for
the pull factors.
The Figure 4-4 above represents the average of the strongly agree and agree
percentages.
From the descriptive data provided in the table and the condensed data in the figure
above it was seen that the main motivational factors that “pulled” majority of the
disability travellers to a certain destination were outstanding scenery (average
43.25 %) of the respondents felt between strongly agree and agree for this as a “pull”
factor. Others factor that were popular “pull“ factor amongst the respondents were
experiencing a culture different from my own (average 45.95 %), opportunities
to increase knowledge (47.3 %) and exotic atmosphere (average 43.25%).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percentage%
Pull Factors
Strongly Agree-Agree

Page | 37
4.2.2.Push Factors
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Agree
Being physically active 2.7 5.4 8.1 54.1 29.7
Roughing it 5.4 10.8 27.0 35.1 21.6
Experiencing new and
different lifestyles
0 0 8.1 51.4 40.5
Seeing and experiencing
a foreign destination
2.7 2.7 0 37.8 56.8
Travelling to historically
important places
2.7 2.7 18.9 32.4 43.2
Learning new things,
increasing knowledge
0 2.7 2.7 48.6 45.9
Travelling to safe/secure
places
0 5.4 10.8 45.9 37.8
Seeing as much as
possible
2.7 5.4 2.7 37.8 51.4
Being free to act the way I
feel
0 2.7 13.5 35.1 48.6
Finding thrills and
excitement
2.7 8.1 10.8 32.4 45.9
Getting a change from a
busy job
2.7 8.1 8.1 32.4 48.6
Being daring and
adventurous
8.1 0 10.8 45.9 35.1
Escaping from the
ordinary
0 2.7 5.4 43.2 48.6
Table 4-2 : The "push” factors.

Page | 38
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percentage%
Push Factors
Strongly agree- Agree
The above represents the average of the strongly agree and agree percentages.
From the descriptive data provided in the table and the condensed data in the figure
above it was seen that the main motivational factors that “Pushed“ majority of the
disability travellers were experiencing new and different lifestyles (average 45.95
%) of the respondents felt between strongly agree and agree for this as a “push”
factor. Others factor that were popular “push “factor amongst the respondents were
seeing and experiencing a foreign destination (average 47.3 %), learning new
things and increasing knowledge (47.25 %) and escaping from the ordinary
(average 45.9%).
Figure 4-5 :The average percentages of the Likert Scale strongly agree and Agree for
the push factors

Page | 39
Therefore to summarise, the main “pull ‘factors were outstanding scenery (average
43.25 %), experiencing a culture different from my own (average 45.95 %),
opportunities to increase knowledge (47.3 %) and exotic atmosphere (average
43.25%). Additionally the main “push” factors were experiencing new and different
lifestyles (average 45.95 %), seeing and experiencing a foreign destination (average
47.3 %), learning new things and increasing knowledge (47.25 %) and escaping from
the ordinary (average 45.9%).
4.2.3.Choosing a destination
Figure 4-6 : Factors considered by respondents when choosing a destination
The important conclusions that were drawn from the Figure 4-6 above were, the main
factors most respondents considered when choosing a destination were, the purpose
of the holiday, followed by the accommodation type and the mode of transport. The
length of stay and their disability profile however were not considered as much by
majority of them while choosing a destination.
0 20 40 60 80
Mode of transport
Length of stay
Purpose of holiday
Accommodation type
Profiles of the respondent
Tourism patterns
The frequency of taking a holiday
Travel dependency
Percentage %
Factors
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Page | 40
4.2.4.Negative Experience
Figure 4-7 : Feedback of how respondents would respond to negative experience.
The Figure 4-7 indicates the respondents reaction to a negative experience, majority
of the respondents that had a negative experience while travelling to different hotels
and restaurants felt they were most likely to voice complaints, insist on change in
behaviour for the future and complain privately (negative word of mouth). A great
number did agree with doing nothing about the negative experienced they faced but
the majority strongly disagreed with this option.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Do nothing about it
Private complaining (negative of
word of mouth)
Voice complaint
Go through an agency
Insist on change of future
behavior
Percentage %
Factors
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Page | 41
4.2.5.Barriers and Disability Discrimination Acts
The following section contains the descriptive data of how the disability traveller rated
architecture, negative attitudes and poor display of accessible information on
websites as a barrier. Additionally, the extent to which the Disability Discrimination
Acts affect the respondent are also displayed in form of a pie chart.
Figure 4-8 : Feedback of respondents on the extent to which architecture acted as a
barrier
In Figure 4-8 it can be seen that Architecture was considered a barrier for most of the
respondents, 43% strongly agreed and 13% agreed to it being a barrier. However a
significant percentage of the respondents were undecided 22%. Those who strongly
disagreed to architecture being a barrier were 11% and same for those who
disagreed 11%.
11%
11%
22%
13%
43%
Architecture
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Undecided
Agree
Strongly Agree

Page | 42
Figure 4-9 : Feedback of respondents on the extent to which negative attitude acted as
a barrier
From the Figure 4-9 it illustrates the Negative attitude toward the disability traveller
was considered as a barrier for majority of the respondents, 62% of the strongly
agreed while 19% agreed. A small minority of 3%-5% felt this did not act as a barrier
and 11% were undecided whether negative attitude affected them as a barrier.
3%
5%
11%
19%
62%
Negative attitude
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Undecided
Agree
Strongly Agree

Page | 43
Figure 4-10 : How respondents felt of poor online information (Accessible) as a barrier.
Figure 4-10 indicates there is great percentage (57%) and (21%) strongly agreed and
agrees respectively that poor display of online information regarding accessibility
played a huge role as a barrier to them. A significant percentage of the travellers
were undecided on whether it acted as a barrier.
3% 3%
16%
21%
57%
Poor display of online information,
regarding accessible information
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Undecided
Agree
Strongly Agree

Page | 44
Figure 4-11 : Respondents participation (Removal of barriers)
The above Figure 4-11 represents whether the respondents would participate further
in travelling if the barriers mentioned above were to be removed. A large sum of the
respondents (89%) felt they would engage or participate more in travelling, a small
percentage of 11% felt otherwise.
Figure 4-12 : Respondents that benefited from DDA
The Figure 4-12 above indicates those responses the respondents had towards
disability discrimination acts and to what extent the felt they had benefited from them.
%7% felt they hadn’t benefited from these acts while a smaller percentage of 43% felt
they had benefited from these acts.
89%
11%
Participation
Yes
No
43%
57%
Disability Discrimination Act
Yes
No

Page | 45
4.2.6.Demographics
The following section contains the gender, dimension of disability and the gender of
the respondents in forms of bar graphs and pie charts.
Figure 4-13 : Gender of respondents
From the bar graph in Figure 4-13, Majority of the respondents that undertook the
survey was female 56.8% while the remaining were males, 43.2%. In exact figures 21
females and 16 males filled out the survey, totalling to a sample size of 37.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Female Male
Percentage%
Sex
Gender
Female
Male

Page | 46
Figure 4-14 : Employment
The Figure 4-16above indicates the results of the respondents that are currently
employed and those who are not employed. As seen in the bar graph above majority
51.4% of the respondents are employed in comparison to those who are not (48.6%).
51.4
48.6
47
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
50
50.5
51
51.5
52
Employed Not Employed
Employment
Employed
Not Employed

Page | 47
Figure 4-15 : Dimension of disability
The Figure 4-15 above indicates the various profiles that the disability travellers that
filled in the survey belong to. The greatest response was received from the travellers
with mobility, the physically impaired travellers (56.8%). Another popular profile of
disability travellers that participated in filling out the survey was those with hearing
difficulty (21.6%). Minimal responses were received from travellers that belonged to
the cognitive and vision profile.
Mobility
Hearing
Vision
Cognitive
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Disabilitydimensions
Percentage %
Disability Profile

Page | 48
Figure 4-16 : Marital status of the respondents.
As shown in the Figure 4-16, majority of the respondents were single (43%) or had
never been married before. The married percentage were 32%, 19% had never been
married and a small percentage were divorced or separated.
As for the demographics findings, it was seen that majority of the respondents were
female, single and had never been married before and belonged to the physically
impaired dimension of disability.
The section to proceed is the discussion where a critical comparison between the
literature analyzed above and the descriptive results obtained in the previous chapter
is carried out. The following section is divided into sub sections similar to the results
and provides a conceptual framework of the disability traveler to better understand
the main forces of motivation experienced by the traveler as per the results.
32%
3%
3%
19%
43%
Marital Status
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Seperated
Never been Married
Single

Page | 49
5. DISCUSSION
The Figure 5-1 below is a model created to conceptualise the main findings that were
drawn in the results chapter above. The following chapter aims at critically analysing
the relationships between the literature evaluated above and the analysis of the
summative data provided above.
Figure 5-1 : The figure illustrates the main factors affecting the disability traveller.

Page | 50
5.1. Intrinsic motivational Factors
As mentioned in the literature, the internal motivators play a great role, and have a
greater impact on the disability traveller (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996, p. 32). The findings
suggested a similar result, where majority of the respondents agreed to internal
motivators acted as more of a motivator to travel than the external motivators. The
internal factors are based upon self accomplishments and act as impelling and
compelling forces which can be simplified into the ‘push and ‘pull factors of
motivation.
5.1.1. Pull Factors
The main “pull” factors according to literature were novelty, education and
accessibility. Novelty, the urge to gain knowledge acted as a sense of motivation that
‘pulled’ the traveller to visit a place and fulfilled the desire to learn about the
destination, (Shi, Cole, & Chancellor, 2012, p. 229). From relevant literature it was
gathered that the disabled in general had a greater drive to gain knowledge about
destinations that influenced their travel decisions and destination choices to the
highest degree, this acted as a strong “pull” motivator that attracted them to a certain
destination, due to their impairments some of the disabled were likely to believe it to
be more intriguing to gain more knowledge of certain destinations and therefore this
influences their travels decisions and hence the destination choice, (Shaw, Veitch, &
Coles, 2005, p. 401).
From the results gathered on how the disability traveller respond to the various “pull”
factors the following were main factors that were made prominent, outstanding
scenery (average 43.25 %). Others factor that were popular were also experiencing
a culture different from my own (average 45.95 %), opportunities to increase
knowledge (47.3 %) and exotic atmosphere (average 43.25%). As seen above
these results correspond to the literature analysed earlier, a great percentage of the
respondents were highly intrigued by various destinations so that they were able to
gain knowledge on the particular destination, learn about new cultures and lifestyles

Page | 51
simi However the two new “pull” factors that emerged were the urge to be exposed to
an exotic atmosphere and visit a destination with outstanding scenery.
5.1.2.Push Factors
From the results above the following were the four main “Push“ factors according to
the respondents majority regarded experiencing new and different lifestyles
(average 45.95 %), seeing and experiencing a foreign destination (average 47.3
%), learning new things and increasing knowledge (47.25 %) and escaping from
the ordinary (average 45.9%).
5.2. Extrinsic Motivational Factors
5.2.1.Disability Discrimination Acts
The Figure 4-12 above indicates those responses the respondents had towards
disability discrimination acts and to what extent the felt they had benefited from them.
%7% felt they hadn’t benefited from these acts while a smaller percentage of 43% felt
they had benefited from these acts.
5.3. Barriers and Participation
From the Figure 4-8 it can be seen that architecture was considered a barrier for most
of the respondents, 43% strongly agreed and 13% agreed to it being a barrier.
However a significant percentage of the respondents were undecided 22%.
From the Figure 4-9 it illustrates the Negative attitude toward the disability traveller
was considered as a barrier for majority of the respondents, 62% of the strongly
agreed while 19% agreed. A small minority of 3%-5% felt this did not act as a barrier
and 11% were undecided whether negative attitude affected them as a barrier.

Page | 52
Figure 4-10 indicates there is great percentage (57%) and (21%) strongly agreed and
agrees respectively that poor display of online information regarding accessibility
played a huge role as a barrier to them.
Therefore the literature above was proven correct by the results as architecture,
negative attitude toward the disability traveller and poor display of accessible
information online were considered barriers. (Kim & Lehto, 2012).
After identifying the barriers it was considered vital to investigate to what extent these
barriers affected the participation level of the respondent. According to the Figure
4-11 it illustrated whether the respondents would participate further in travelling if the
barriers mentioned above were to be removed. A large sum of the respondents (89%)
felt they would engage or participate more in travelling, a small percentage of 11%
felt otherwise. In contrast to the literature that suggests they would decrease their
level of participation, (Nyaupane & Andereck, 2007).
The following section concludes this study with an overview of the aims and
objectives were met and future studies that could be carried out in order to receive a
further understanding and develop on accuracy of the study. Future recommendation
and suitable research questions were reconstructed.

Page | 53
6. CONCLUSION
6.1. Main findings
The number of travellers with impairments travelling today has increased, author,
however, it has been seen there is minimal research conducted regarding disabilities
and these travellers, (Yau, McKercher, & Packer, 2004). In addition, the consumer
expectations of the marketplace and the style of interaction are evolving at a rapid
rate (Victorino,Verma, & Wardell,2008 as cited in (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010, p.
515). The main findings that could be concluded were there was similarities in results
in regard to the internal and external motivational factors as what was suggested in
the literature. However the main discrepancy was the level of participation was seen
to increase after being met with a barrier, which differed from the literature.
The following are the objectives and how they were met:
1. To discuss and explore the external and internal motivational factors faced by the
disability traveller.
The internal and external motivational factors were explored in the literature above
and related with the findings from the descriptive data analysis, this indicates the
achievement of this objective.
2. To analyse the main barriers faced by the disability, to evaluate the effects of
The literature review and the findings aided in achieving this objective.
Due to the rigid methodology constructed above and the precautions taken into
consideration while construction and distribution of the questionnaire, the objective
was successfully met.

Page | 54
4. To present the results of the questionnaire in form of descriptive statistics.
This objective was met using SPSS and excel.
The conceptual model as shown in Figure proves the achievement of this objective.
Therefore, in order to achieve the objectives constructed above, relevant literature
was addressed which are the motivational factors and the barrier faced, critically
analysed and computed as the main framework. From which the research
methodology was finalised to provide a basis for the data analysis and finally the
discussion section that linked the literature with the results found during the analysis
stage. However, there are still some limitations and gaps and the following future
research is advisable.
6.2. Recommendations for further research
In order to improve this study the following measures could help gain better results
and a broader understanding of the main motivational factors being faced by the
disability traveller. The following are a few implications that could help increase the
level of motivation and hence participation. Government’s that currently don’t
implement and Disability discrimination acts should enforce these acts in order to
reduce discrimination and increase the participation level, Additionally considering the
facilities provided for the disabled as they do affect the disability traveller. Legislation,
increase the number Disability Discrimination acts, or greater enforcement should be
applied. Internally driven motivators should be further studied as from the results and
literature, the internal motivators play a great role, most respondents felt motivated to
travel due to their self accomplishments or a driver that was brought about from within
them.
6.2.1.New Research questions:
The following are the new set of research questions provided for future studies:

Page | 55
1. What is the relationship between the barriers faced by the disabled traveller and
their future participation levels.
2. What are the major perceptions of Disability Discrimination Acts for the disability
traveller?
3. What is the connection between the travel dependency and the outstanding
scenery?

Page | 56
REFERENCE LIST
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations:a
canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality management, 8(3), 32–38.
Bell, D., & Heitmueller, A. (2009). The Disability Discrimination Act in the UK: Helping
or hindering employment among the disabled? Journal of Health Economics,
465-480. doi:doi:10.1016/j.jhealco.2008.10.006
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. (2008). Business Research Methods.
Maidenhead: McGeaw- Hill Education.
Brotherton, B. (2008). Researching Hospitality and Tourism. London: Sage.
Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E., & Wood, R. C. (1998). Researching and writing
dissertations in hospitality and tourism. Boston: International Thomson
Business Press.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivation for pleasure vacations. Annals of tourism research,
408-422.
Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and
accomodation information preferences. Tourism Management, 31, 816-826.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.010
Darcy, S., & Damwalla, P. S. (1999). The Trouble with Travel:People with Disabilities
and. Social Alternatives, 41-47.
Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010). Accessible tourism and sustainability: a
discussion and case study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 515–537.
Harwell, M. R. (n.d.). Research Design in Qualitative/ Quantitative/ Mixed mthods. In
Opportunities and challenges in designing and conducting inquiry (pp. 147-
163). University of Minnesota.
Johnson, M. (1991, A). Disabled Americans push for access. The Progressive, 55(8),
21-23.
Kim, S. E., & Lehto, X. Y. (2012). The voice of tourists with mobility disabilities:
insights from online customer complaint websites. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality, 24(3), 451-476.

Page | 57
MacDonald, S., & Headlam, N. (1986). Research Methods Handbook. Manchester:
CLES.
Nyaupane, G. P., & Andereck, K. L. (2007). Understanding Travel Constraints:
Application and Extension of a Leisure Constraints Model. Journal of Travel
Research, 434-439. doi:10.1177/0047287507308325
Porges, E. B. (1978). Welcoming the Handicapped Traveler. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 19(6), 6-7.
Sambhanthan, A., & Good, A. (2013, February 21). Implications for Improving
Accessibility to E-Commerce Websites in Developing Countries. Retrieved
from http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5198
Shaw, G., & Coles, T. (2004). Disability, holiday making and the tourism industry in
the UK : a preliminary survey. Tourism Management, 25, 397-403.
doi:doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00139-0
Shaw, G., Veitch, C., & Coles, T. (2005). Acces, Disability, and Tourism: Changing
Responses in the United Kingdom. Tourism Review International, 8, 167-176.
Shi, L., Cole, S., & Chancellor, C. H. (2012). Understanding leisure travel motivations
of travelers with acquired mobility impairments. Tourism Management, 33,
228-231. doi:doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.007
Var, T., Yesiltas, M., Yaylu, A., & Ozturk, Y. (2011). A Study on the Travel Patterns of
Physically Disabked People. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(6),
599-617. doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.610143
Yau, K.-s. M., McKercher, B., & Packer, T. L. (2004). Traveling with a disability more
than an access issue. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 946–960.

BBA Dissertation- TURN IT IN

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to BBA Dissertation- TURN IT IN (20)

BBA Dissertation- TURN IT IN