In Part 1, I explored what autistic adults appear to want and need from air travel, identifying recurring themes around predictability, clear information, sensory control, choice, navigation support, communication and autonomy. Part 2 developed this further by questioning what independence actually means and recognising that autistic people can have very different, and sometimes changing, support needs. This raised a final question for this strand: if support exists, what actually makes that support accessible and useful to an independent autistic traveller?
My previous research into airports has already shown that a growing number of airports provide autism-friendly initiatives, including sensory rooms, familiarisation resources, hidden disability schemes and staff assistance. For this page, I wanted to move beyond identifying what support exists and instead consider the qualities that might determine whether that support actually works for the person using it.
The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower provides a useful real-world example of how airports are attempting to recognise non-visible disabilities. Its guidance for autistic travellers identifies many of the barriers already emerging throughout my research, including confusing airline apps, baggage check-in, security, queues, crowds and unexpected disruption such as delays. It also highlights existing responses such as visual guides, preparation videos, sensory rooms and trained staff who recognise the Sunflower.
What interests me here is that accessibility involves more than simply putting a facility into an airport. For example, a sensory room may provide somewhere to escape an overwhelming environment, but it may need to be located, understood and sometimes booked in advance. This raises a wider question about whether an accessible service is genuinely accessible if using it creates another task for an already overwhelmed traveller.
The National Autistic Society similarly recommends preparing for situations where travel does not go according to plan. Its guidance suggests developing a calm plan, scheduling recovery time and establishing alternative ways of communicating when speech becomes difficult during overwhelm. This is particularly relevant because it shifts accessibility away from assuming that preparation can prevent every difficulty. Even a highly prepared traveller may require different support when something unexpected happens.
Hidden Disabilities Sunflower — The Autistic Traveller
National Autistic Society — Going on Holiday
MacLennan et al.'s study, “It Is a Big Spider Web of Things”: Sensory Experiences of Autistic Adults in Public Spaces, moves this discussion beyond individual coping strategies. The research investigated autistic adults' sensory experiences of public spaces and considered what makes particular environments disabling.
The research is important to my project because it suggests that sensory accessibility cannot necessarily be separated into individual features. Experiences of public environments involve interconnected factors, and the authors describe implications for businesses, policymakers and built-environment designers to make public spaces more enabling for autistic people.
This changes the emphasis from asking how an autistic traveller can better cope with an airport towards asking how the airport environment itself might be contributing to the difficulty. A quiet room may be beneficial, for example, but it does not remove the sensory demands encountered while reaching that room, navigating security or waiting at a gate. Accessibility therefore needs to be considered across the wider environment rather than only through isolated adjustments.
This connects back to the research into self-determination that I explored in Part 2. Thompson-Hodgetts et al. found that autistic adults understood self-determination through freedom, agency and having appropriate support to make choices and direct their own lives. Autonomy was also connected to being able to live authentically rather than constantly adapting to external expectations.
Although I previously used this research to reconsider my definition of independence, it also has implications for the design of support itself. Providing more assistance does not automatically create greater accessibility if the traveller has little control over when or how that assistance is provided. Instead, effective support may need to preserve the person's ability to choose what they use.
This reinforces the idea that autism-friendly design should not attempt to create one predetermined journey for every autistic passenger. Accessibility may instead depend upon creating enough flexibility for different people to navigate and regulate their experience in different ways.
Rapp et al. explored this issue from another perspective by interviewing 12 autistic adults about their everyday movements and experiences of urban spaces. Rather than approaching autism and technology entirely through a medical model focused on correcting perceived deficits, the researchers attempted to understand autistic people's spatial experiences from a first-person perspective.
One particularly relevant finding concerned uncertainty barriers. Participants who were more self-sufficient still encountered barriers when moving through the city, particularly because their everyday lives required more frequent and varied journeys. This is interesting for my project because being capable of travelling independently does not remove the uncertainty created by unfamiliar or changing environments.