To that end, a survey has been opened to adults who have travelled through an airport in the last three years. Both neurodivergent and neurotypical people can take part, as can relatives and carers who wish to share their experience. Williamson stressed that the research is designed to avoid preconceptions about what travellers need, while Buckle argued that assessing accessibility means considering sensory and cognitive processing alongside architecture and operations.
That last remark sums up a shift in thinking about accessible tourism. For years the conversation focused mainly on ramps, lifts, adapted toilets and assistance for people with reduced mobility, all of which remain essential. But it is increasingly recognised that bright lights, loud noises, confusing signs, long queues and unexpected changes can make an airport overwhelming for many people, from those with autism or attention deficit disorder to anxious travellers, families with small children and older passengers.
For the industry, the issue goes beyond social responsibility. Travellers with accessibility needs, and the people who travel with them, form a broad, loyal and demanding segment that values places where it feels understood and tends to recommend them. An airport, hotel or destination that improves its experience for this audience ends up improving it for everyone: clear information, quiet spaces, trained staff and predictable processes benefit the hurried traveller, the parent with children and the first-time flyer alike.
A shared accreditation would also provide something that is in short supply today: comparable criteria. If different airports, stations, cruise terminals and accommodations could be measured against the same yardstick, travellers would have reliable information for planning and businesses a concrete path to improvement. It would also be an opportunity for staff training, the design of spaces and digital communication to align with recognised standards.
Destination managers can draw a lesson as well. Accessibility is not measured only at the moment of purchase or on arrival at the hotel, but across the whole journey, and every weak link, whether transport, information or service, can spoil an experience that was otherwise excellent. That is why coordinating airports, carriers and accommodation matters as much as investing in infrastructure.
There is, finally, a commercial argument that rarely gets enough attention. Airports earn more when passengers are calm, because relaxed travellers browse, eat and shop. Anything that reduces stress at the terminal therefore benefits the whole airport community, from retailers and restaurants to airlines and ground staff, and strengthens the case for treating inclusion as an investment rather than a cost.
It is still too early to know what the consultation will yield and how the accreditation will be applied, and no figures have been published that would allow the impact to be sized. But the initiative arrives at a favourable moment, with an industry increasingly attentive to inclusion and with destinations beginning to compete on being welcoming to all. Every step in that direction brings travel closer to a simple idea: that tourism is better when nobody is left out.
