International Approaches to Neurodivergent Airport Accessibility

After looking more closely at Heathrow’s Flight Ready Programme, I wanted to widen my research and explore how airports internationally are approaching neurodivergent accessibility. Rather than looking for one airport that is doing everything “best”, I chose examples that use different types of design and support, including sensory mapping, interactive training, connected accessibility services and sensory spaces.

Gold Coast Airport, Australia

Gold Coast Airport has partnered with Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) to develop support for autistic and neurodivergent passengers. Its approach includes the Sunflower Lanyard, therapy dogs, a terminal sensory map, communication boards, Social Stories and a 360° virtual airport tour.

The Terminal Sensory Map is particularly interesting because it identifies areas with low, medium and high sensory levels, allowing passengers to make more informed choices about their route through the airport. The terminal also includes low-sensory facilities and sensory-friendly spaces.

Gold Coast also uses communication boards combining pictures, icons and text for passengers who may find verbal communication difficult. This feels relevant to my previous research around giving people alternative ways to communicate without relying entirely on speaking to staff.

The Written and Visual Social Stories are particularly relevant to my own ideas. Their videos show passengers what different parts of the journey will actually look like, including the security process and scanners. This is close to my earlier idea around visually explaining the body-scanner process through a memorable movement such as “tree” and “star”. Finding an existing example means I can now ask what this type of video already communicates successfully and whether there is any need for a more interactive or memorable approach.

The airport also provides a 360° virtual tour, which connects directly with my interest in airport rehearsal from home.

Vancouver International Airport (YVR), Canada

YVR has worked with organisations including the Canucks Autism Network and Pacific Autism Family Network to create resources intended to build confidence before travelling.

The I CAN Fly with YVR resources include a step-by-step storybook, checklist, airport map and travel advice. These explain the routines involved before, during and after flying.

The most interesting resource for my project is YVR’s Interactive Travel Training Series. Rather than simply watching what happens, users help an autistic traveller move through situations including check-in, security, boarding and customs. The user can interact with scenarios and observe the results of different choices.

This is very close to the type of interactive rehearsal I have been considering. It makes me question whether VR is necessarily required, or whether an interactive training experience could provide some of the same benefits through a more accessible platform.

I would like to investigate how much choice the user actually has within the training, whether situations can be repeated, whether unexpected changes are included and whether the resource has been evaluated with autistic adults.

Dubai International Airport (DXB), UAE

Dubai’s approach feels different because accessibility appears to be designed as a connected system, rather than one individual intervention.

Support includes Sunflower routes, specially trained Guest Experience Ambassadors, priority routes through stages such as check-in and security, an Assisted Travel Lounge, a visual Travel Planner, travel rehearsals and the DPNA booking code, which allows an assistance requirement to be communicated through the booking system.

This is interesting in relation to my earlier finding that accessibility services can become fragmented. At DXB, several forms of support appear to operate across different stages of the passenger journey.

This raises an important question for my project:

Could accessibility become more useful when different forms of support are connected rather than requiring the passenger to find each service separately?

Changi Airport, Singapore

Changi’s Calm Room at Terminal 2 takes a much more environmental approach. It is designed for travellers with invisible disabilities and contains four zones intended to support different sensory needs.

One area, The Forest, uses projections of greenery, nature sounds and different seating options to create a calmer environment away from the main terminal. Passengers can also access information and virtual support within the space.

I really like the principle behind this idea. Travelling with my autistic sister has made me aware of how valuable somewhere genuinely quiet and safe to regulate could be during an airport journey.

However, it also raises a question from my own personal experience. My sister and I have attended autism-friendly cinema screenings where the environment that was intended to be more accessible actually became more difficult for her because different autistic people had very different sensory and communication needs.

I cannot assume that the same problem occurs within Changi’s Calm Room, but it makes me question how a shared sensory-friendly space accommodates conflicting sensory needs. Something that helps one person regulate may be overwhelming for someone else.

This makes me interested in whether the four zones provide acoustic or physical separation, whether passengers have individual control over stimulation and how the space was tested with neurodivergent users.

Initial Reflections

These airports demonstrate that neurodivergent accessibility can take very different forms.

Gold Coast uses visual information, sensory mapping and virtual familiarisation.

YVR focuses heavily on structured preparation and interactive training.

Dubai connects accessibility across multiple parts of the passenger journey.

Changi focuses on the physical and sensory environment.

Rather than one of these approaches being the answer, I think the most interesting finding is that accessibility may need to combine information, rehearsal, sensory choice, communication and human support.

The examples also reinforce something that has been appearing throughout my research: autistic passengers do not all need the same intervention. A “sensory-friendly”, “autism-friendly” or “accessible” space is only useful if it allows for different and sometimes conflicting needs.

Emerging Questions

• Could sensory maps allow passengers to choose routes based on their individual needs?
• Could interactive rehearsal be more useful than a passive video or PDF?
• Does VR offer anything that existing interactive training does not?
• What happens when accessibility services are connected across the whole airport journey?
• How should sensory spaces accommodate people with very different sensory needs?
• Are these resources designed primarily for children and families, or do they work equally well for independent autistic adults?
• How much evidence exists showing that these interventions actually improve autistic passengers’ experiences?

Key Takeaway

International airports are already experimenting with very different forms of neurodivergent accessibility. The opportunity may not be to invent one new accessibility feature, but to understand which approaches genuinely give autistic adults greater predictability, choice and control over their journey.