University recreation centers are essential for college student physical activity, yet 68% of students with disabilities (SWD) use these facilities fewer than five times annually. Physical and programmatic barriers, including physical access and program inclusivity, may limit SWD participation. This study evaluated the accessibility of three campus recreation facilities at southeastern U.S. public universities using the AIMFREE assessment and interviews with campus recreation directors and staff. Results showed below-average accessibility (<50%) across half of AIMFREE sections, with policies, access routes, and professional training scoring the lowest (7–35%). Interviews revealed gaps in funding allocation, limited adapted programming, and insufficient inclusive marketing efforts. Staff also cited a lack of knowledge, training, and resources as significant barriers but expressed a commitment to addressing these challenges. Findings emphasize the need for tailored training programs that address the unique environmental and cultural contexts of campus recreation to improve accessibility and inclusivity for SWD.
Arbour-NicitopoulosK. P.GinisK. A. M. (2011). Universal accessibility of “accessible” fitness and recreational facilities for persons with mobility disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.28.1.1
2.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Disability and health inclusion strategies. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD).
3.
CroweS.CresswellK.RobertsonA.HubyG.AveryA.SheikhA. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
4.
CruzesD. S.DybaT.RunesonP.HostM. (2011). Case studies synthesis: Brief experience and challenges for the future. In 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 343–346). IEEE.
5.
CunninghamC.O’DonoghueG.CosgraveS.SandsT.LeacyB.MarkieviczI.MonaghanA.ShieldsN. (2022). Gym staff perspectives on disability inclusion: A qualitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45(3), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2036826
6.
DevineM. A.KotowskiL. (1999). Inclusive leisure services: results of a national survey of park and recreation departments. Journal Of Park & Recreation Administration, 17(4), 56.
7.
ForresterS. (2014). The benefits of campus recreation. NIRSA.
8.
HaegeleJ. A. (2019). Inclusion illusion: Questioning the inclusiveness of integrated physical education: 2019 national association for kinesiology in higher education hally beth poindexter young scholar address. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ), 71(4), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14645260
9.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). College navigator. U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
10.
NikolajsenH.SandalL. F.JuhlC. B.TroelsenJ.Juul-KristensenB. (2021). Barriers to, and facilitators of, exercising in fitness centres among adults with and without physical disabilities: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and PublicHealth, 18(14), 7341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147341
OakesL. R.NicholsT. R.SchleienS. J.StrackR. W.MilroyJ. J. (2021). Exploring inclusion of college students with IDD in campus recreation through the lens of recreation departments’ organizational level stakeholders. Recreational Sports Journal, 45(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558866120982594
13.
OmiegbeO.EzehiF. C. (2023). Correcting misconceptions about persons with disabilities. Special Needs Education from the Lens of Interdisciplinary Dialogue: A Festschrift in Honour of Prof. Emeka D. Ozoji, 1(1), 67–80.
14.
PansM.Úbeda-ColomerJ.MonforteJ.Devís-DevísJ. (2021). Physical activity and accomplishment of recommendations in university students with disabilities:A longitudinal study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5540. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115540
15.
RichardsK. A. R.HemphillM. A. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data 585 analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084
16.
RichardsonE. V.MotlR. W. (2019). A narrative exploration of an adapted physical activity space and its impact on persons with physical impairments. Disability & Society, 35(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1617111
17.
RichardsonE. V.SmithB.PapathomasA. (2016). Disability and the gym: Experiences, barriers and facilitators of gym use for individuals with physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(19), 1950–1957. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1213893
18.
RichardsonE. V.SmithB.PapathomasA. (2017). Collective stories of exercise: Making sense of gym experiences with disabled peers. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 34(3), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2016-0126
19.
RileyB. B.RimmerJ. H.WangE.SchillerW. J. (2008). A conceptual framework for improving the accessibility of fitness and recreation facilities for people with disabilities. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.5.1.158
20.
RimmerJ. H. (2005). The conspicuous absence of people with disabilities in public fitness and recreation facilities: Lack of interest or lack of access?The Science of Health Promotion, 19(5), 327–329. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-19.5.327
21.
RimmerJ. H.PadalabalanarayananS.MaloneL. A.MehtaT. (2017). Fitness facilities still lack accessibility for people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 10(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.12.011
22.
RimmerJ. H.RileyB.WangE.RauworthA. (2004). Development and validation of AIMFREE: Accessibility instruments measuring fitness and recreation environments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(18), 1087–1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280410001711432
23.
SavageM. N.Colombo-DougovitoA. M. (2023). Capabilities, opportunities, and motivation: Exploring fitness program experiences of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10), 5771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105771
24.
WangD.BrownG.Mateo-BabianoD. (2013). Beyond proximity: An integrated model of accessibility for public parks. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 2(3), 486–498.
25.
WilsonO. W.PowersS. L.BoppM. (2022). Policies and practices for equity: perspectives of campus recreation staff in North America. Recreational Sports Journal, 46(2), 152-165. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15588661221089340
26.
Yin, R. K.. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
27.
YohT.MohrM.GordonB. (2008). Assessing satisfaction with campus recreation facilities among college students with physical disabilities. Recreational Sports Journal, 32(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1123%2Frsj.32.2.106
