Accessibility of sports facilities and venues in mid-mountain regions: challenges in promoting the "Tourisme & Handicap" brand. A study of the Hautes-Pyrénées region

This study focuses on public programs designed to promote and identify sports facilities certified under the "Tourisme & Handicap" label. The study seeks to explain to what extent these programs achieve (or fail to achieve) the results expected by the “Tourism & Handicap” policy. Based on semi-structured interviews with tourism stakeholders specializing in sports and located in the Hautes-Pyrénées department, this work has helped shed light on the reasons behind the behavioral discrepancies observed among the professionals interviewed. In this study, we highlight the heterogeneity and diversity of the stakeholders involved in the Tourism & Handicap policy, which may partly explain its difficulties in achieving results. Beyond this research, our article aims to raise readers’ awareness of the inequalities associated with vacation travel for people with disabilities and encourage them to reflect on the importance of promoting and communicating accessible offerings.

Fifteen years after the entry into force of Law No. 2005-102 of February 11, 2005, “on equal rights and opportunities, participation, and citizenship for people with disabilities,” Emmanuel Macron acknowledged at the^5th National Conference on Disability (2020) that France is not fully compliant across all sectors of activity. This law stipulated that as of January 1, 2015, all public-access buildings (^ERP1) must be accessible to everyone, including people with disabilities, regardless of their specific limitations. The concept of accessibility means that everyone must be able to enter and exit public access buildings, but also that the services provided must be adapted. The Accessibility Act promised full social participation for all in all aspects of life, based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination: “Everyone must therefore be able to access the goods and services offered by society, regardless of the sector of activity concerned, including tourism” (Degros, 2013, p. 99).

Currently, there are significant disparities in the ability of people with^special needs to take vacations. The qualitative study conducted in 1993 by Oxley and Richard (Reichhart, 2013) shows that the difficulty of finding an accessible destination is the main barrier to travel for people with disabilities. One of the major barriers to travel highlighted by Blaho-Poncé (2013) is a lack of access to reliable information regarding accessible options. Travel independence appears to be another key factor in deciding to go on a trip. Generally speaking, this freedom of movement influences the frequency, duration, and geographic scope of vacations (Atout France, 2010). This observation gives rise to various challenges related to improving the accessibility of tourism facilities and services. First and foremost, tourist sites and establishments should begin the process of obtaining the Tourisme & Handicap (T&H) certification.

An integration policy and its hallmark

The "Tourism and Disability" public policy has helped strengthen the protective measures of disability policies (Revillard, 2017). It contributes to the creation of social order and the resolution of social conflicts (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2018). In the tourism sector, the disability community—including associations of people living with disabilities, such as^{the APF3}—is growing impatient and calling for the concrete implementation of public policies stemming from the new accessibility law. Today, the policy for identifying “Tourism and Disability” offerings helps reduce inequalities in vacation access. Since 2001, the Tourisme & Handicap association—and now the^DIRRECTE4—have been working to support tourism professionals wishing to pursue T&H certification. The T&H state certification applies to various^facilities5 that meet the diverse expectations and needs of tourists during their stay.

The objective of this program is to develop the T&H brand across all sectors of the tourism industry (accommodations, restaurants, attractions, recreational activities, and the tourist office). Its goal is to create a “tourism offering that is tailored and integrated into the general tourism offering ” (T&H, 2013) and to create accessibility pathways that facilitate the realization of specific vacation experiences (Blaho-Poncé, 2013). T&H is the only state-backed brand awarded to tourism professionals, promoting equal rights and the exercise of citizenship. In the vacation sector, it organizes adapted, mixed, and inclusive vacation stays.

that are committed to a quality initiative focused on making leisure activities and vacations accessible to everyone. This T&H certification is part of a highly rigorous and standardized process. The strict enforcement of these standards thereby enhances the brand’s credibility in the eyes of consumers. The uniformity of the certification provides a quality guarantee that is appreciated and valued by tourists with specific needs (Marcotte et al., 2011). The government-issued certification thus helps “reduce the perception of risk for consumers” (Marcotte et al., 2011, pp. 208–207). Its mere presence certifies full or partial travel independence, encourages people to go on vacation, and reduces the risk associated with choosing a tourist destination.

As of March 2022, the website tourisme-handicap.gouv.fr listed 4,120 tourist establishments with T&H certification, with 91% catering to hearing impairments, 96% to intellectual disabilities, 76% to mobility impairments, and 66% to visual impairments, compared to 3,346 in 2009 (Atout France, 2011). There has thus been an increase in the number of certified establishments. However, this “does not preclude facilities from being accessible in accordance with legislation in effect since 2005 without necessarily seeking certification” (Amiaud, 2012, p. 34). Professionals interviewed by this author explained that they did not feel the need to pursue a certification process which, in their view, could lead to a new form of stigmatization and would not serve to enhance an establishment’s reputation (Amiaud, 2012). Having covered the theoretical aspects, we can now move on to the next section, which examines the attitudes of certified tourism professionals toward the T&H label.

Government initiatives and the implementation of programs to promote the supply

The success of the implementation of the “Tourism and Disability” public policy is closely linked to efforts to identify and promote certified facilities. Once facilities have been identified, it is important to highlight what is accessible in order to inform the relevant public. The Atout France team (2011) surveyed 616 certified professionals regarding their use of the certification and their communication strategies. Among members of the T&H network, differences in behavior regarding the use of the certification are evident. The study classified certified professionals according to several types of behavior regarding the certification and its use. (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Classification of certified sites (Atout France, 2011)

The “Convinced Opportunists,” as the study calls them, account for 32% of the certified facility managers in the survey. For them, committing to the certification process aligned with the need to carry out renovations on their premises. They express awareness of disability issues. These organizations, mostly small in size, view the label as a means of differentiation and see it as a competitive advantage. However, their promotional activities related to this label remain rare. The organizations justify this lack of activity by stating that they do not need to attract more customers. Another category of professionals, called the “Rationals " (23%), are larger establishments, such as hotels or those offering outdoor activities. They are very active in their promotional efforts and aim to expand their customer base, particularly among seniors. Sensitivity to disability-related issues exists, but is not the primary motivation for their efforts (Atout France, 2011). Finally, the “Mixed Results” group accounts for 31%. They are characterized by a high level of awareness regarding disability. Most have been approached and supported by tourism organizations to engage in the certification process. Their communication efforts, however, are very limited and not very active. This shortcoming is often attributed to a lack of human and material resources.

Drawing on the theoretical framework developed by Lascoumes and Le Galès (2018), we will attempt to better understand these behavioral discrepancies in the use of the label by applying the sociology of public action. These authors have examined the various barriers associated with the practical implementation of public policies. One of these refers to the diversity and heterogeneity of the actors involved in these policies. It is clear that tourism stakeholders are highly diverse and are not subject to the same type of governance or the same interests. “They regularly clash over their objectives and means of action” (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2018, p. 15). We might wonder whether their diversity is not an obstacle to the use of methods for identifying and promoting the T&H label, due to their divergent interests and modes of governance. The work of these authors has shown that public policies implemented using a ^{top-down model⁶} have proven more fragile in their implementation compared to those developed using a bottom-up model. A model often perceived as overly authoritarian by stakeholders, and programs enacted with a lack of coherence and rationality on the part of decision-makers (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2018). For example, the requirement to make all public buildings accessible following the law of February 11, 2005, is based on a top-down model . In contrast , the certification process is based on a bottom-up model, as it stems for the most part from a voluntary commitment by stakeholders who are subsequently supported by the government in their efforts.

This article will therefore seek to examine the extent to which tourism professionals contribute to promoting the destinations they have made accessible. We will also attempt to understand their role in implementing promotional programs and identifying certified tourism offerings. A field study conducted in a mid-mountain region among certified sports tourism professionals will enable us to carry out an empirical analysis and test our research hypotheses.

Methodology

To begin our analysis, we interviewed several professionals certified by T&H. It seemed clear to us that we should conduct a qualitative study in order to gain greater depth in our data analysis. The method chosen was to conduct semi-structured interviews. This approach is considered effective for gathering “the opinions of the interviewees, as well as the contextual, social, and linguistic elements necessary for understanding those opinions” (Duchesne, 2000, p. 2).

Five semi-structured interviews, lasting between 20 and 40 minutes, were conducted to help us understand the connections between the diverse experiences of certified tourism stakeholders and their communication programs regarding the certification. These explanatory interviews will help us gain a deeper understanding, through their accounts, of the challenges associated with promoting accessible sites. We seek to understand the involvement of professionals in public programs designed to identify certified tourism offerings and why these programs do not meet their needs.

These interviews were conducted with private and public stakeholders based in the Hautes-Pyrénées. We felt it would be instructive to choose a mountainous department whose terrain makes it difficult for tourists with specific needs to access, particularly those with limited mobility. In our survey, we sought to highlight the efforts of managers regarding facilities and/or adaptations. Such work can prove to be extensive and costly in a region as^rugged as the Pyrenees. The selected sample includes tourism professionals involved in outdoor sports and recreational activities. To ensure the heterogeneity of the sample, we varied the characteristics of the stakeholders based on their governance structure, the type of sports services they offer, the year they obtained the label, and their category (see Figure 1).

An interview guide was developed in advance to structure the interviews and ensure a consistent focus throughout each session. The four themes listed below were addressed to help us address the research question. The initial phase focused on the certification process required for accreditation. The rest of the interview addressed the means of communication used, followed by the nature of relationships and interactions within stakeholder groups at the local level. To conclude, we asked for an assessment of the brand from their perspective and that of their customers. The comparative table below highlights the key characteristics of each organization interviewed and allows us to emphasize their diversity.

The diversity of our sample of stakeholders is particularly evident in terms of size, their reach within the Hautes-Pyrénées region, and their governance structure.

A comprehensive analysis of the implementation of identification and promotion programs

Factors influencing the certification process

The reasons for joining the T&H network vary among the professionals surveyed. Within public organizations, we observed that, for the most part, the certification process began after construction or renovation work had been completed. Valérie Nogué, manager of a climbing gym in the Gavarnie Valley, confirms that this social initiative was driven by local elected officials and departmental services, then coordinated by public authorities, at the initiative of the Villaris town hall. “In fact, the accessibility features for people with disabilities were installed when the building was constructed. It was part of the same initiative.” The climbing gym is classified as a public access building (ERP) because it is a public facility open to all. The facility was therefore required to make itself accessible (top-down). However, since the certification is a voluntary process, it was a proactive initiative that prompted local elected officials to initiate these modifications.

For the Gaves Greenway, its certification coincided with the redevelopment of the trail, which was formerly a railway line. Its virtually flat terrain has made it easily accessible. Marie-Lys, director of the Lourdes Tourist Office: “They took advantage of this site, which was already quite accessible by nature, to certify it by installing certain facilities that met the criteria of the Tourisme Handicap certification.” From a legal standpoint, the Greenway, considered a Public Access Facility (IOP), is not subject to any accessibility requirements. We can therefore speak of certification as an opportunity that was granted to a trail renovation project. It is interesting to note that the officials interviewed are aware of this information. This indicates clear and consistent communication between stakeholders and project managers.

Compared to private facilities, most managers first learned about the certification through its promoters, such as DIRRECTE, and/or through organizations that work directly with people with disabilities of any kind. In the case of the Cla-Haras equestrian center, the investments had already been made prior to the certification process.

“We wanted to create a center that was accessible to everyone.” The facility already met some of the criteria when they were approached by the certification evaluators. “They contacted us and asked if we wanted to apply for the certification. We were told we’d need to make some additional improvements—to the restrooms, signage, and so on.” Clara , manager of the equestrian center.

The results are the same for the dog-sledding activity. Ingrid, the instructor, says that her equipment was already accessible before the certification process began. Offering adapted services was a personal goal that came to fruition through specialized training in adaptive sports for dog-sledding. “ I had earned my disability sports certification quite a few years ago, and it was a guy (…) who suggested I get certified by Tourisme et Handicap. So, in fact, I had people from the certification body come to the site to check accessibility, the restrooms, the activities, etc.—the equipment I provided for my activities, for people with mobility impairments and various disabilities. So they certified me for all four types of disabilities.” The accessibility of their services is the result of voluntary (bottom-up) initiatives that prompted them to begin the certification process and meet its criteria. In both cases, our interviewees were approached and encouraged by certification program representatives to join the Tourisme & Handicap network.

In an effort to assess the relationship between professionals’ awareness of disability and the efforts they make, we found that in the public sector, managers do not necessarily have personal experience living with a disability. The certification of their facilities is driven either by legal requirements or by opportunities arising from renovation projects. In contrast, we observe that certified private sector entities seem to have a greater awareness of the challenges faced by people living with disabilities. This awareness drives proactive efforts to provide adapted services. “I provide equine-assisted therapy for people with disabilities. I use this time with the horse to work with individuals who have neurological disorders.” ” Clara . We observe that their determination to obtain certification goes far beyond commercial motivation. There is a calling to provide assistance and to act in solidarity with people with disabilities. “I think there’s a need to make the activity accessible to everyone, actually.” “It’s rewarding, but in a different way—on a human level.” Ingrid

The tools used to promote the certified product

Publicly managed facilities such as the climbing gym, the Pic du Jer Funicular, and the Gaves Greenway have chosen to promote their T&H certification primarily through digital channels such as websites, social media, and blogs. All the organizations surveyed report being listed on the Tourisme & Handicap association’s website, their local tourism office’s site, and the^HPTE8 department’s site. Valérie, an employee at the climbing gym, explains: “There’s nothing special about it, really—it’s just highlighted on the label’s dedicated website.” She confirmed during the interview that she is listed on the tourist office’s website and the Vallée de Gavarnie tourism agency’s site. “I haven’t checked this year, but we were definitely listed last year .” Jean-Marc from the Funicular. Regarding the Voie Verte, following the updates made to the Lourdes Tourist Office website, Marie-Lyse assures us “that there will be a page dedicated to accessibility regarding its tourism offerings, particularly those with the label.” The managers of these facilities report changes to the booking platforms. We will increasingly see on these sites a notation (comment, label, icon) regarding the site’s accessibility and the adaptation of services. “We’re going to have a brand-new online booking system because of COVID capacity limits, and yes, we’ll definitely indicate that on the booking.” Jean-Marc from the Funicular.

In contrast, activities run by private organizations, such as the equestrian center and dog-sledding tours, primarily promote their accessibility through more traditional channels like posters, flyers, magazines, brochures, and so on. Ingrid, a dog-sledding guide, does not have a website and prefers to rely on word of mouth. “Since centers for people with disabilities communicate a lot with each other, that’s how I get new contracts or new opportunities.” The equestrian center wanted to put up a large sign at its entrance, specifying the certification. “We put it up for the public who come to visit us at the facility, so they can see right away that it’s a certified center.” The equestrian center, for example, is very proactive in its efforts. The facility’s accessibility is highlighted in several specialized horseback riding guides for people with disabilities. “There’s a guide called ‘Equi-Handi,’ which I’ve applied to be listed in. (…) There are other magazines as well, but I don’t remember the exact names; I just know we’re featured in them.” Clara , manager of the equestrian center.

In summary, we observe that the majority of the organizations surveyed make an effort to communicate about the accessibility of their facilities and their accreditation. We note that an organization’s capacity to accommodate visitors and the attractiveness of its surroundings influence the quantity and diversity of promotional efforts. Professionals capable of hosting groups of people with disabilities are more inclined to promote their facilities. The Voie Verte des Gaves is an example of a major site heavily frequented by pedestrians and cyclists, as is the Cla’Haras center, which has over 80 horses in board at its stables. Both are models to follow in terms of efforts to promote the label. The limited communication efforts of small-scale organizations

can be explained by the fact that there is no need to attract more visitors; this is the case for Ingrid and her sled dogs. We also observe that professionals who recognize the label as a mark of quality and a way to stand out from the competition tend to highlight it more prominently. To deepen our analysis, we need to establish a connection between these different behaviors regarding the use of the label and the relationships among certified professionals operating within the same region.

Channels of collaboration among stakeholders

These semi-structured interviews allowed us to examine the various existing or non-existent collaborations between tourism professionals and disability organizations. The results highlighted the strong interactions between private organizations and associations. The equestrian center and the sled dog team told us they regularly interact with organizations both within and outside the Hautes-Pyrénées department. Clara explained that she has a partnership with the departmental committee for adapted sports, which allows her to be contacted regularly by centers for people with disabilities and to host groups on multiple occasions. “So we work with them regularly, and they handle the coordination with the facilities. We host open houses to introduce people to adapted horseback riding, and we also provide therapy sessions with patients from specialized centers—often these are associations.” Ingrid also works with associations in the disability sector. Groups organize outings and regularly come to try out her adapted dog-sledding program. “I’ve worked with several centers that aren’t necessarily the closest ones. Then there’s Le Bialais’, which is in (…) or other centers that call on me every year.”

As for institutional actors, their ties to organizations are far less obvious. Our two managers in charge of the certified program state that, to date, they have no partnerships with groups of people living with disabilities. Valérie from the climbing gym adds , “As for organizations, not really—not to my knowledge…” We find an identical response in the testimony of Marie-Lys from Lourdes. She explains that travel agencies in Lourdes, such as Les Diocèses and Sanctuaire, already have a monopoly on accessible trips and do not seek assistance from the Tourist Office. In the case of the funicular, the site manager states that he does not engage with disability-related associations. His only contact with these groups occurs when instructors come to provide training for hand-bike use at the Domaine du Jer several times a year. To interpret these results, we observe that the main commonalities among the stakeholders who maintain the most relationships with members of the T&H network are: their private governance status and their strong awareness of disability issues.

A few theoretical points are worth noting. In the case of privately managed facilities, the certification process follows a bottom-up model, meaning that the steps taken result from voluntary initiatives by the managers. This contrasts with public agencies, whose certification was driven by local elected officials and the departmental committee, without consultation with the managers. In their case, the certification process follows a top-down model .

As noted earlier, we know that public policies implemented using a top-down approach have been more prone to difficulties in their implementation (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2018). Publicly funded organizations, such as the climbing gym, the Domaine du Jer, and the Voie Verte, do not demonstrate the same level of sensitivity toward disability. Furthermore, as the survey demonstrated, they report more limited engagement with disability organizations. According to Gacoin (2010), changes in public policy suggest a higher likelihood of acceptance when partnerships are established.

The “Hérault Mobility”^app9 is a good example of a technological tool designed through an “institutional” approach that came about as a result of collaboration among various stakeholders. It is the result of a joint project, implemented by local departments within the Hérault department, aimed at creating a tool to promote tailored tourism offerings (Brisset et al., 2020). The launch of this app demonstrates that “regional social dialogue” between different levels of government and label promoters can increase the visibility of regional tourism offerings (Brisset et al., 2020). We can therefore only encourage dialogue among tourism stakeholders with the shared goal of speaking with one voice to publicize the label. Collaborations of this kind consequently enhance the T&H label’s reach and contribute to its promotion.

Conclusion

Highlighting the accessibility of facilities certified by the Tourisme & Handicap label requires a coherent approach to public policy and its action programs. This study sought to identify the obstacles to programs aimed at identifying and promoting certified sports facilities located in the Hautes-Pyrénées region. We found that attitudes toward the T&H label vary from one professional to another, depending on the status of the certified organization (public/private), the managers’ sensitivity toward people with disabilities, and the facility’s capacity to accommodate visitors.

The purpose of this comprehensive analysis is to issue recommendations and propose areas for improvement regarding our initial problem statement. To meet the needs of the target audience—tourists with specific needs—it will be necessary to focus on involving managers in the certification process. By examining the implementation of programs to promote certified offerings, this article has established the bottom-up model as a benchmark for the certification process. This model, in addition to involving managers, also helps raise awareness of the challenges that a tourist with specific needs may face during their vacation.

To promote a facility’s accessibility, it is important to expand communication channels by leveraging a variety of sources. In addition to traditional methods (posters, flyers) and digital tools (booking platforms, search engine optimization), we have emphasized the importance of building partnerships among various stakeholders. “The mobilization of diverse stakeholders and institutions (public, regional, private, and nonprofit) is the primary strength and driving force behind social development projects.” (Gacoin, 2010, p. 83). Public and private interest groups facilitate the implementation of programs to promote certified offerings at the regional level. It would be beneficial to support certified organizations in developing relationships with stakeholders involved in disability issues, as well as with other members of the T&H network.

This article has sought to provide a better understanding of the Tourism and Disability policy and to lay the groundwork for developing an action plan aimed at improving the visibility of certified tourism offerings. It has offered recommendations intended to inform the thinking and actions of current and prospective certified stakeholders. The scope of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study must, however, be qualified. The individual analysis of a few certified tourism professionals provides only a partial view of how communication and promotion programs for the T&H label are developed. Drawing on works such as that of Amiaud (2012), it would be interesting to expand our study to include seaside resorts. We could then observe whether the involvement of professionals in the policy to promote the T&H label is linked to the political strategies of local authorities and the department, or simply to the characteristics of the region. Ultimately, it is through the combination of these different perspectives that a more comprehensive understanding of the consequences of public action will emerge.

Bibliography

Amiaud, D. (2012). Public policy on “tourism and disability”: from the local level to the regional level. Mondes du tourisme. Vol. 5, 31–46

Atout France. (2010). Adapting Tourism Services to People with Disabilities. Market Study: The Population of People with

Disabilities and France’s tourism offerings. 1–125.

Blaho-Poncé, C. (2013). The accessibility chain: a cornerstone of access to tourism for people with disabilities. Téoros. 32(2), 104–115. Brisset, L., Blaho-Poncé, C., & Le Roux, N. (2020). E-Accessibility in Tourism. The Case of the “Hérault” Mobile App

“Mobility” as a Tool for Inclusive Public Policy? Nature & Recreation. No. 8 , 91–100.

Duchesne, S. (2000). The Practice of the So-Called “Non-Directive” Interview. Practical Methods. Approaches, Forms of

Experience and Fields of Inquiry in Political Science, by Myriam Bachir. Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 9–30.

Degros, E. (2013). Accessibility and French Law: The Perspective of Sustainable Tourism, Equal for All. Téoros, 32 (2), 96–103.

Gacoin, D. (2010). Understanding Diversity: Leading Social Action Projects. Paris: Dunod. 67–100.

Lascoumes, P., Le Galès, P. (2018). Sociology of Public Action – 2nd edition. Armand Colin. E-book, 1–128.

Marcotte, P., Bourdeau, L., & Leroux, E. (2011). Branding and Labels in Tourism: Hesitations and Challenges. Management & Avenir, 47(7), 205–222.

Revillard, A. (2017). The Reception of Disability Policies: A Biographical Interview Approach. Revue française de sociologie. 58 (1), 71–95.

Reichhart, F., & Lomo Myazhiom, A.-C. (2013). Accessibility and Communication: How Can We Make Accessibility Visible? The Case of Tourist Information for People with Disabilities in France. L’Harmattan. 53–64.

1 Public access buildings (ERP) are buildings, premises, and enclosures to which members of the public are admitted. For example, schools, retail stores, and amusement parks are ERP. (service-gouv.fr)

2 “Like the general population, the population of people with disabilities is made up of individuals with diverse abilities and, of course, different needs when they travel. The range of disabilities is broad; the five main categories of impairments are: motor, visual, intellectual, hearing, and associated disabilities, which should be distinguished from one another. ” (Blaho-Poncé, 2013, p. 105)

3 APF (Association France Handicap, its new name for the past two years) advocates at the national level across all departments to ensure that people with disabilities can benefit from the “Tourism & Disability” policy and meet the criteria of the national “Tourisme & Handicap” (T&H) certification standards. Secondly, the challenge—which will be the very focus of this study—is the identification of accessible sites and services through their inventory and promotion (via guides, brochures, or online portals) (Reichhart, 2013).

4 Regional Directorate for Business, Competition, Consumer Affairs, Labor, and Employment.

5 Among the certified establishments are: museums, eco-museums, and craft centers; restaurants; tourist offices and visitor centers; sites offering sports or outdoor activities; campgrounds; educational farms and wildlife parks; castles, churches, and monuments; parks, gardens and hiking trails, wineries and local gourmet restaurants, convention centers, theaters and movie theaters, tourist trains, theme parks, beaches, etc. (T&H, 2013)

6 A public policy model that favors actions “imposed” from “above,” with little consultation with the stakeholders responsible for implementing them. This model would contrast with a“bottom-up” approach, namely a public policy that emerges “from the bottom up” and is co-constructed with/among the stakeholders concerned (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2018)

7 A section of ground with uneven terrain, bumps, and dips, making it difficult to walk on

⁸ HPTE: Hautes-Pyrénées Tourism and Environment. A private booking agency and information center affiliated with the Hautes-Pyrénées Departmental Council. https://www.tourisme- hautes-pyrenees.com/

9 Hérault Mobility is a mobile app designed to help people with disabilities get around during their vacations. It provides a travel route—with varying levels of accessibility—based on a directory of establishments (shops, hotels, restaurants, sports and cultural facilities, etc.) certified as “Tourism and Disability” and a “travel chain ” (roads, transportation) assessed as part of a region’s application for the “Destination Pour Tous” label. It is promoted by the Hérault department. (Brisset et al., 2020)