Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This paper introduces the themed issue and examines a question that tourism research has rarely asked directly: what happens when the drive to make destinations greener meets the obligation to make them open to everyone, and what role technology plays in that meeting. It reads the eight contributions together to show where accessibility, sustainability and technology support each other and where they pull apart. Design/methodology/approach The paper is structured as a guest-editorial viewpoint. It synthesizes the eight articles in the issue, which together draw on systematic and bibliometric reviews, institutional documents, stakeholder interviews, on-site accessibility evaluations and interviews with disabled visitors, more than 600,000 accommodation listings and over 1,300 online visitor reviews, and situates them within the wider literature on accessible, sustainable and smart tourism. Findings Four observations run through the issue. First, accessibility and sustainability are usually studied, governed and marketed as separate agendas and the assumption that they align naturally is seldom tested. Second, technology works in both directions: it can remove barriers, but the same digital tools can quietly create new ones. Third, much exclusion is informational rather than physical, and is therefore cheaper to address than is often assumed, although at historical sites physical barriers remain decisive for many disabled visitors. Fourth, integrating the two goals depends less on technology itself than on governance, procurement and how projects are specified from the start. Originality/value The issue moves the discussion from treating inclusion and sustainability as parallel commitments to treating their interaction as an object of study in its own right. The introduction proposes a research agenda and practical priorities for destination managers, platforms, hospitality operators, heritage site managers and policymakers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bahcelerli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: