The article is kind of lacking. It doesn't go into what makes an accomodation appropriate or not, only listing a handful of examples. The biggest hurdle for these sorts of accomodations is likely staffing and funding. Being able to properly care for an individual with developmental disabilities on a nature hike likely takes more specialized training than a park ranger receiving a single class on the matter. The option of group hikes or having a specialized caregiver accompany individual along on the hike is probably a better accomodation, and I'm sure are already able to be set up at most outdoor locations and reserves (even if it isn't something explicitly assisted with).

“There’s this idea that wilderness needs to be untouched and untrammeled, and it’s only for people who can physically get out there,” Nagakyrie said.

This also sticks me a little bit. Yes, the people need to physically be able to get there. Assistance definitely should be offered, but to what extent should be expected regularly as opposed to needing individual planning?

Part of the article also mentions increased challenges and violence against those with disabilities due to climate change and environmental disaster, which while related to nature and outdoor spaces, I think is an entirely separate issue better discussed in a different article.

I would have liked to see the article go into more detail about what accomodations different demographics need and want. How to fulfil those accomodations. How the lack of funding disproportionately harms certain demographics more.

Wilderness being untrampled and untouched is what makes it worth visiting (respectfully), so a one-size-fits-all solution would do more than good. Bringing public awareness to groups such as the Disabled Hikers organization would do more good, in my opinion.