Dehumanizing air travel: a scoping review on accessibility and inclusion of people with disabilities in international airports
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Worldwide, one in six individuals live with a disability. Many people continue to experience disabling situations, particularly when travelling. Travel can be an important part of the lives of many people, including people with disabilities. Barriers to accessing air travel can lead to a reluctance to travel for these potential passengers. As early as the flight planning stage, options to facilitate accessibility are limited. At airports, passengers must travel long distances in areas where navigation is complex, and accessibility limited. Furthermore, few aircraft are accessible. The travel experience can have adverse effects on the health of people with disabilities. Practices are sometimes not inclusive, not always available, and may not address the full spectrum of possible needs. The objective of this study is to provide a state of art on accessibility features available to people with disabilities in the busiest international airports. Methods: A scoping review of practices in airport accessibility was done. A search strategy was deployed in 4 databases (Avery index to architectural periodicals, Medline, CINAHL, and Web of science). The official websites of the 35 busiest airports were exhaustively consulted. All information regarding accessibility measures and inclusive services were extracted. Results: 31 scientific articles, out of 3,640 screened, and all extracted data from airports' website were considered for synthesis. While efforts are made in major airports, there is a great inconsistency in accessibility features. Both facilitators and challenges are encountered by people with disabilities at every stage of air travel. These stages include journey planning; getting to and from the airport, obtain human assistance, navigate in the premises, check in, security screening, using facilities, boarding and disembarking, customs and immigration procedures, and luggage management. Discussion: Services need to be extensively planned, placing a significant burden on passengers. The disability-centric perspective disregard passengers' unique needs and capabilities, leading to a sense of dehumanization. The complexity of airport organizations, shared responsibilities, limited communication, training challenges can deter accessibility initiatives and create discomfort during travel. This study is the first step of a broader project supported by Canadian Accessibility Standards, focusing on enhancing inclusive accessibility in Canadian airports.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».