According to the study, fitness center managers, instructors, and policymakers all define accessibility in different ways. Some associate it with legal compliance, while others see it as continuous adaptation. This definitional ambiguity leads to inconsistent practice and perpetuates exclusion.

Definitional Ambiguity in “Accessibility”

Repeated exclusion teaches disabled people to anticipate rejection before it occurs. When spaces signal "you don't belong," the message is internalized, leading to self-exclusion. Real accessibility must address both physical barriers and the emotional withdrawal that exclusion causes.

Internalized Inaccessibility

The study identifies not only physical barriers, but also the emotional impact of exclusion, fear, shame, or "othering" faced by disabled participants. These feelings stem from repeated reminders that spaces were not designed with them in mind, which reinforces internalized exclusion.

Fitness centers frequently display disability-friendly imagery or claim inclusivity, but the study discovered that these gestures frequently conceal environments that are still virtually inaccessible. This disparity between symbolic inclusion and functional access reflects how institutions enforce compliance rather than embody inclusion.

Symbolic Versus Functional Inclusion

Nikolajsen, Helene, et al. “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 Public Health, vol. 18, no. 14, 2021, p. 7341. MDPI, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147341

Learn Before

Related

Learn After