Assignment 5: Major Paper
Jeffrey Legaspi
Langara College
RECR 4400
Yue-Ching Cheng
March 24, 2024

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Background and Context .............................................................................................. 3
Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 8
Research Findings and Analysis ............................................................................... 10
Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 15
Recommendation #2 ................................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 18

Executive Summary
People with disabilities face barriers that prevent them from accessing indoor recreation
programs and spaces in community centers. These barriers are external, meaning they
are external to people with disabilities. Examples of external barriers include physical
limitations in the built environment and the attitudinal beliefs of those without disabilities.
Increasing accessibility is a process that involves step by step changes, while taking
into account the abilities and interests of people with disabilities (Riley et al., 2008).
Some ways to remove barriers and make community center programs and spaces more
accessible include working with organizations that support people with disabilities and
creating accessiblity plans to remove specific barriers (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited
in Gostic & Beyer, 1993). Another way to remove barriers is to integrate inclusive
health, which is to make existing programs and services more accessible by providing
equitable access and full participation (Villasencio, 2021). Primary research was
conducted to find what barriers exist in recreation spaces and programs: recreation staff
were interviewed, accessibility documents were analyzed, and recreation programs
were observed. Some findings include implementing staff training and the importance of
working with organizations that support people with disabilities. Other findings include
implementing segregated programs and working to retrofit older infrastructure to remove
barriers. From the research, the data shows that there are barriers in recreation for
people with disabilities, but they can be removed. Some recommendations to remove
them include implementing awareness training for staff, increase programming for
people with disabilities, prioritize which physical barriers need to be removed in the built
environment, and provide resources for people with disabilities to access subsidies or
find specialized programs.
Introduction
The purpose of the paper is to find what barriers exist for people with disabilities when
accessing indoor recreation centers and programs, and how can those barriers be
removed. People with disabilities deserve the same recreation opportunities as people
without disabilities, but different categories of barriers exist. Some examples of
1

categories include physical barriers such as narrow hallways, or attitudinal barriers due
to stereotypes that people without disabilities have. Each community center has their
own set of barriers, and it is important to find out what barriers exist to become more
inclusive. Recreation is important for every person’s life because it brings fulfillment,
pleasure, and joy, and people with disabilities deserve to experience recreation.
The research question for this project is:
What barriers do people with disabilities face when accessing indoor recreation
programs and spaces in community centers in the City of Richmond, and what
can be done to remove those barriers to ensure they can participate in recreation
fully?
Barriers are anything that hinders the full equal participation in society of a person with
an impairment (King's Printer, 2021). Barriers can be attitudinal, physical,
communication barriers, systemic, sensory, or lack of technology (Government of British
Columbia, 2021). People with disabilities are those with long-term or short-term
physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments (United Nations, 2007).
Recreation programs are activities performed in leisure, and include sport and
exercise activities, outdoor, social, and similar activities with the purpose of bringing
pleasure and joy (Petersen et al.,2021). In the context of this project, recreation
programs are activities at a community center that is held by the community
center/association or outside organizations. Recreation spaces are physical spaces
where people access the community center and use the physical space to perform
recreation or navigate the built environment. Removing barriers includes removing
barriers in the built environment (structural) or social barriers by for example,
demystifying assumptions (Rolfe et al., 2012). Participating in recreation fully means
people with disabilities will be able to participate independently in various community
activities including physical activity and recreation (Riley et al., 2008). This also means
navigating recreation spaces without experiencing any physical barriers in the built
environment.

2

Background and Context
Barriers for people with disabilities come in different categories: physical, attitudinal,
informational (e.g. lack of large-print materials), systemic, or sensory (e.g. perfume use
or lack of signage) (Government of British Columbia, 2021). 926,100 out of
approximately 4.3 million people in British Columbia over the age of 15 has a disability
(Government of British Columbia, 2021; Statistics Canada, 2022). What this means in
terms of recreation is that people with disabilities represent a large population of users
in community centers.
West Richmond Community Centre is a municipal community center located in
Richmond, BC. Richmond is a city with 230,584 people, with people of Chinese or
South Asian ancestry representing more than 60 percent of Richmond residents (City of
Richmond, 2023). Some facility amenities at West Richmond include a fitness centre,
multipurpose rooms, a games room, gymnasiums, and upstairs floor which includes a
preschool and out of school and change rooms with showers and lockers. The Agency
Advisor for this research project is Leonid Oldfield, who is the Youth Development
Coordinator at West Richmond. Their role in the research project is to provide support in
conducting research and providing guidance where needed.
The author’s involvement in the topic area is that the author identifies as having a
disability and has performed an internship with the BC Public Service at the
Accessibility Directorate, which is a branch in government that works across
government and disability communities to improve accessibility. During this time, the
author was involved in creating the Accessibility Feedback Tool for the province, which
is an online form that allows B.C residents to provide feedback on barriers when
accessing government services or facilities.
Literature Review
Many people with disabilities do not have access to a full range of recreation
opportunities due to a lack of skills, lack of opportunities, or injury or psychological
trauma (Charles & Michael, 2017). Recreation is important for every person’s life
3

because it brings fulfillment, pleasure, and joy, but there are barriers that prevent people
with disabilities from fully accessing recreation. Accessibility for people with disabilities
is important for inclusivity because from a statistics standpoint, 15 percent of the world’s
population lives with some form of disability (Boes, 2024). To encourage participation,
organizations may provide targeted services, policies, and programs (Rivera, Smith, &
Hesketh, 2024). Examples of this may include adaptive sports, special events for people
with disabilities, or subsidy programs to remove financial barriers.
There is a solid foundation of evidence that there are barriers that prevent people with
disabilities from accessing programs and spaces in community centers. People with
disabilities have access to less recreation opportunities than those without disabilities
due to fewer friends with whom to participate with in activities, skill deficits and
independence, and impaired cognitive abilities and social skills (Solish, Perry, & Minees,
2010). Although access to recreation for people with disabilities has been improving,
there are still barriers that need to be removed to ensure full participation in recreation.
Intrinsic barriers, which are someone’s own physical and mental limitations, compound
external barriers, which are things external to people. Internal barriers will always exist;
external barriers are what limits the participation of people with disabilities, but they can
be changed (Charles & Michael, 2017). Examples of external barriers include physical
limitations in the built environment and the attitudinal beliefs of those without disabilities,
which can be found in community centers.
External barriers come in different categories (Rimmer et al. 2004):
1. Those in the built and natural environment
2. Economic issues
3. Emotional and psychological barriers
4. Equipment barriers
5. Use of interpretation of guidelines, codes, regulations, and laws
6. Information-related barriers
7. Professional knowledge, education, and training issues

4

8. Perceptions and attitudes of persons who are not disabled, including
professionals
9. Policies and procedures at the facility and community level
10. Availability of resources (Rimmer et al., 2004)
External barriers can also be divided into different categories: attitudinal, communication
(inaccessible language), programmatic (failure to make accommodations), social, and
physical (Villasencio, 2021). To remove external barriers, recreation organizations can
start by [1] contacting organizations of or for people with disabilities to identify physical
barriers to facilities or services, [2] make a list of policy and communication barriers, [3]
consulting organizations of or for people with disabilities, set priorities for removing
physical barriers and changing policies, [4] Develop a plan to achieve compliance, and
[5] Avoid making judgements based on myths, fears, or stereotypes (Charles & Michael,
2017 as cited in Gostic & Beyer, 1993).
Recreation organizations are continuously working to improve accessibility to recreation
programs and services, one way being through inclusive health. Inclusive health
encourages existing programs and services to become more accessible by providing
equitable access and full participation (Villasencio, 2021). Some ways to promote
inclusive health include creating welcoming spaces, using accessible communication
(e.g. plain language), staff awareness, and developing an inclusion policy (Villasencio,
2021). For community centers to remove barriers, constant learning, adaptation, and
patience must be integrated to overcome these barriers (Boes, 2024).
It is important to realize that increasing accessibility is a process that involves step by
step changes, while taking into account the abilities and interests of people with
disabilities (Riley et al., 2008). Each community organization will require a different plan
to remove barriers, but one way to start is conduct an accessbility assessment to obtain
input from people with disabilities who use a facility or community centre, (Riley et al.,
2008). They can provide a lived experience perspective, which is valuable in finding
barriers that the organization may not be able to see themselves.

5

One point of controversy in recreation for people with disabilities is balancing
segregated activities and making current programs more inclusive. Historically,
recreation for people with disabilities has been comprised of segregated recreation
programs where people participate in groups based on disability, not on the type of
activity (Mayer & Anderson, 2014). In the 1970s, there were not many programs for
people with disabilities, until the 1980s where the head of Las Vegas’ adaptive
recreation unit created more than 100 programs for people with disabilities (“The Quiet
Influence of Inclusion”, 2005).
The original reasoning behind segregated programs that it was thought that people with
disabilities needed programs to accommodate lower skill levels, different learning
processes, or varying physical abilities (Mayer & Anderson, 2014, as cited in Fennick &
Royle, 2013). However, segregated programs are legitimate, but become controversial
if segregated programs are the only ones made available to people with disabilities
(Charles & Michael, 2017). Segregated programs even may be preferred by the
recreation partcipant (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in McGovern, 2005). Some
benefits of segregated programming is that it creates peer acceptance, almost like a
sanctuary – it also creates self esteem and provides a place for social bonding (Mayer &
Anderson, 2014).
In making programs more inclusive, participation is open for everyone, and
accomodations are made for people for who need it. Inclusive recreation benefits both
people with and without disabilities by developing friendships, increasing one’s selfimage, feeling more included in the community, higher self-esteem, and decreased
negative stereotypes (Mayer & Anderson, 2014 as cited in Anderson & Kress, 2003;
Schleien & Green, 1992; Snow, 2013). Programs can be made inclusive by providing
social inclusion training for staff to promote inclusive health (Mendez-Hodgkinson &
Cervantes, 2012).
The physical activity needs of people living with disabilities are understudied (Martin
Ginnis et al., 2023). Staying active is more important for people with disabilities due to
risks of heart disease, stroke, obesity, diabetes, and cancer (Taking up adaptive sports:
6

Don't let a physical disability or limitation stop you from staying active., 2023) and
people with disabilities have poorer levels of health than the general population (World
Health Organization, 2011). The physical activity needs of people with disabilities are
different than those without disabilities (Martin Ginnis et al., 2023), preventing people
with disabilities participating in recreation due to programs not meeting their health
needs.
The benefits of recreation are more crucial to those with disabilities than those without
since for example (Roy, 2016), those with mobility disabilities experience atrophying
muslces, losing what little amounts of movement they had left (Cooper, 1999). There is
a profound amount of literature on what barriers exist preventing people with disabilities
participate in physical activity, but very little research has been done to remove these
barriers or develop stratgies to alleviate them (Martin Ginis, et al., 2021). Some barriers
that prevent participation in recreation programs include environmental barriers and lack
of adaptive equipment (Yoh et al. 2008). Furthermore, the high level of inaccessibility in
outdoor environments amplifies the barriers in indoor recreation facilities, since it
becomes more of an outlet for physical activity (Yoh et al. 2008).
Segregated programs were made with the thought that people with disabilities needed
programs that can accommodate lower skill levels, different learning processess, or
varying physical abilities (Mayer & Anderson, 2014, as cited in Fennick & Royle, 2013).
There is a lack of research on the physical activity needs for people with disabilities; the
physical activity needs for people with disabilties are different than those without, and
more research needs to be done to find methods to alleviate this.
The different categories of barriers (attitudinal, communication, programmatic, social,
and physical) can be found throughout different areas of a community centre. Some
community centers may have outdated inclusion policies, or old equipment that is
inaccessible, but there is always a solution to remove those barriers. Something else
that is important is finding out how to make programs more inclusive for people with
disabilities. Staff teaching the program will have insight into how they may adapt their
program for those who need it, and a barrier to participation may be discovered.
7

Another point is that people with disabilities have poorer levels of health, as mentioned
earlier, but performing sport is a fundamental human right where it provides freedom of
movement, and the right to leisure (Roy, 2016). This is important not only to improve the
health of people with disabilities, but to provide freedom and leisure, and finding a way
to grant that will be part of the project’s research.
This adds another way to see which barriers that need to be removed. In conclusion,
the literature focuses on what external barriers exist and how they can be removed, the
shift from segregrated programs to inclusive programming, and considering that the
health needs of people with disabilities is different than those without disabilities.
Methodology
The methodology used for the research project is content analysis, performing
interviews, and observing programs. For content analysis, 4 documents were analyzed:
•

Draft Richmond Accessibility Plan 2023-2033. This document was chosen
because the plan identifies barriers in participation for people with disabilities, as
well as solutions for those barriers.

•

City of Richmond Enhanced Accessibility – Design Guidelines and
Technical Specifications. This document was chosen because it assists city
staff to incorporate accessibility features that go beyond the BC Building Code for
accessibility in City-owned buildings, which can help overcome barriers to the
physical space in community centers.

•

City of Richmond 2023 Accessibility Initiative. This document was chosen
because it was used to give staff a resource on how to navigate barriers for
people with disabilities, which can help overcome attitudinal or systemic barriers.

•

Rick Hansen Foundation Physical Space Assessment for West Richmond
Community Centre. This document was chosen because it gives staff
information about what physical barriers exist in the community centre. This
assessment was conducted by the Rick Hansen Foundation for West Richmond
in 2018. It provides information on how physical space can be modified to
overcome barriers.
8

Each document was analyzed using a framework (found in Appendix E) that asks
questions based on the framework and literature review. Content analysis was used in
the research plan since the documents researched identify barriers to participation, and
how they can be removed. Content analysis is important because the information found
in the documents can help guide decision making in how organizations can remove
barriers.
5 people were interviewed:
•

Steve Mahon – Area Coordinator at West Richmond

•

Melissa Martin – Community Facilities Coordinator at West Richmond

•

Vicki Barrett – Recreation Customer Service Attendant at West Richmond

•

Amanda McCulley – Planner 2 – Accessibility at City of Richmond

•

Isabel Wong – Community Facilities Coordinator at Steveston Community Center

The interviews were performed using the question guide found in Appendix A.
Interviews were conducted in the research plan because staff who have been working in
recreation have experience in working with people with disabilities. This includes
listening to their experiences and receiving consultation or performing work to create
accommodation or remove a barrier. The interviews are important because recreation
staff have experience identifying and removing barriers, and the difficulties that come
with removing barriers due to, for example, old infrastructure at a community center.
3 programs were observed:
•

Active Movement for Chronic Conditions 55+ (special status)

•

Special Olympics Basketball (general observation)

•

Multisport – Children (general observation)

Each program was observed using a checklist of questions found in Appendix D.
Observing programs was part of the research plan because there is the ability to see
what barriers exist in real time, but also to see what was being done to remove barriers
as well. In programs, accommodations can be identified, such as providing different
activities for varying skill levels. Observing programs is important for the research plan
9

because the framework is able to identify what recreation programs have been doing or
can do to remove barriers for people with disabilities.
During the implementation of the research plan, a challenge that was encountered was
that getting through the research plan was challenging. Since this is a large research
project, lots of effort was expected to be put into it, but the amount of effort was
underestimated. While the effort put into actually analyzing, observing, and interviewing
went as expected, getting it to all happen was challenging as well. It takes lots of time to
commute to and from the community center multiple times a week to perform the
research, however some of the interviews were done remotely, which helped alleviate
how many trips were needed. It took work to make sure the research plan went
smoothly as well; it took quite a bit of planning to fit in with responsibilities from other
classes as well as work and other life priorities. The message here is not saying that
researching is not a lot of work, because it is, it is more so that for it to go smoothly, it
takes time and thinking to make sure it goes according to plan.
A success found in the research plan is that program observation and interviews
allowed for reflection of the research topic, and also being involved more in recreation.
Getting out and observing programs and talking to staff is a different experience than
the author’s current position in recreation, which is being at the front desk at a
community center. For the past two years, there has not been much involvement for the
author in recreation due to working in positions that are not in the recreation industry.
However, performing the research was inspiring, and has given hope for pursuing a
career in recreation once again.
Research Findings and Analysis
One finding from the primary and secondary research is that working with organizations
that support people with disabilities is important to remove barriers. They can remove
barriers based on what the organization can provide. For example, Special Olympics
BC can remove barriers that are attitudinal and social because they provide sports
programs that not only accommodate people with disabilities but provide social
opportunities as well. Another example is working with the Rick Hansen Foundation to
10

remove physical barriers, because they can provide an assessment on what physical
barriers exist in a community center. Organizations that support people with disabilities
are able to provide a variety of things that community centers may not be equipped with
to remove barriers.
A second finding is that training for recreation staff is important to remove attitudinal,
social, communication, or programmatic barriers. During the interviews, the need for
training was brought up in four out of five of the interviews. The types of training
mentioned includes instructor training, education for groups that have autism or
developmental disabilities, or workshops to learn about people with disabilities (an
example being the 2023 City of Richmond Accessibility Initiative done by content
analysis. Training is important to remove attitudinal and social barriers, but it also
promotes inclusive health. Inclusive health encourages existing programs and services
to become more accessible by providing equitable access and full participation
(Villasencio, 2021).
A third finding is that recreation managers are all for accessibility, but there is the
question of “if they could, they would”. So, what is preventing community centers from
removing barriers for people with disabilities?
One factor is that many community centers were built many decades ago. For example,
Steveston Community Center, where Isabel Wong works, was built in 1957 (Steveston
Community Society, 2007). Even in the 60s and 70s, there was not much being done to
make buildings accessible in North America (British Columbia Office of Housing and
Construction Standards, 2014). West Richmond Community Center is an older building,
and the Rick Hansen Foundation Physical Space Assessment for West Richmond
Community Centre done in the primary research identifies the barriers in the built
environment. Making these changes can be difficult, because as stated in the interview
with Amanda McCulley, it requires significant investment and time to perform. Balancing
resources and the needs of people with disabilities is something that recreation
managers must consider.

11

Another finding is that while inclusive health is important and should continue to be
implemented, segregated programs not only have benefits, but remove barriers by
removing barriers in programs for people with disabilities. For example, in Special
Olympics Basketball, the environment is very inclusive and non-discriminatory. As
mentioned in the literature review, segregated programs even may be preferred by the
recreation partcipant (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in McGovern, 2005) – and that it
creates peer acceptance and self esteem, and provides a place for social bonding
(Mayer & Anderson, 2014). Special Olympics Basketball removes social barriers
because participants will feel accepted, where other programs may present social
barriers that are out of control of some participants. Inclusive health should always be
promoted, but segregated programs are needed since they may be preferred by some
participants (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in McGovern, 2005).
The last finding is that policies play a part in external barriers for people with disabilities.
In the interview with Isabel Wong, she mentions that people with disabilities just need
their barriers removed – not extra support and the barrier is the problem – not the
disability. This attitude is spectacular to have, but sometimes policies and procedures
become obstacles in removing external barriers. Policies and procedures at the facility
and community level and the availability of resources are types of external barriers that
can exist for people with disabilities (Rimmer et al., 2004). An example may be the high
cost to retrofit a community center with new, accessible washrooms. While the barrier
can be removed, the costs and procedures needed to perform it may be out of control
for recreation managers.
What the data from the primary and secondary resarch means for the research topic is
that there is a idea of what barriers exists in recreation programs and spaces in
community centers. From the primary research, performing content analysis has shown
that the perspective of organizations is important in identifying physical barriers.
Recreation organizations can start contacting organizations of or for people with
disabilities to identify physical barriers to facilities or services (Charles & Michael, 2017
as cited in Gostic & Beyer, 1993). The Rick Hansen Assessment performed for West
Richmond Community Center identifies physical barriers in the facility, and the City of
12

Richmond Enhanced Accessibility – Design Guidelines and Technical Specifications
provides guidelines on what can be done to remove physical barriers in the facility as
well.
People with disabilities need their physical exercise needs to be met, but a combination
of some or all categories of external barriers can prevent this. The different categories
of external barriers include attitudinal, communication (inaccessible language),
programmatic (failure to make accommodations), social, and physical (Villasencio,
2021). The primary research from observing the program Active Movement for Chronic
Conditions helps since the program removes external barriers. The program uses
adaptive equipment (very low resistance exercise tubing with handles) and is performed
in a space where wheelchairs are able to perform the activity. The physical activity
needs of people with disabilities are different than those without disabilities (Martin
Ginnis et al., 2023). In Active Movement for Chronic Conditions, participants with
physical disabilities are able to perform exercises that are safe for them. Some of the
conditions that some participants have include cancer, parkinson’s disease, or
ostheoarthritis, as mentioned by the instructor. Programs like Active Movement for
Chronic Conditions alleviate external barriers, and is one way that people with
disabilities can participate in recreation programs.
In recreation, social inclusion is important because inclusive recreation benefits both
people with and without disabilities by developing friendships, increasing one’s selfimage, feeling more included in the community, higher self-esteem, and decreased
negative stereotypes (Mayer & Anderson, 2014 as cited in Anderson & Kress, 2003;
Schleien & Green, 1992; Snow, 2013). From interviewing Steve Mahon, he states that
relationships in recreation are very important. Good relationships are important to create
welcoming spaces, and welcoming spaces are key for creating inclusive recreation.
Creating good relationships with organizations and/or people with disabilities is
important, since to remove external barriers, recreation organizations can contact
organizations of or for people with disabilities to identify physical barriers to facilities or
services or consult organizations of or for people with disabilities to set priorities for

13

removing physical barriers and changing policies (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in
Gostic & Beyer, 1993).
Working with organizations that support people with disabilities allows for barriers for
people with disabilities to be removed for participation in recreation. Working with
outside organizations to receive consultation or offer programs is one way to remove
external barriers (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in Gostic & Beyer, 1993). There are
pieces of primary research that support this, including Special Olympics BC and the
Rick Hansen Foundation. In relation to the research question, outside organizations
remove barriers by providing accomodations and a safe space for people with
disabilities and/or providing input on how community centers themselves can remove
barriers in their spaces and programs.
Removing attitudinal, social, communication, or programmatic barriers is important to
consider when accessing recreation programs and spaces. Staff training is important
because knowledge, education, and training issues as well as the perceptions and
attitudes of persons who are not disabled, including professionals are external barriers
to participation for people with disabilities (Rimmer et al., 2004). Staff training was
mentioned in each interview, and how implementing it can remove misconceptions. The
lack of knowledge/perceptions and attitudes of people without disabilities Rimmer et al.,
2004) is a barrier that people with disabilities face when accessing recreation programs
and spaces, and staff training through workshops or training sessions can remove those
barriers.
During the interviews, the need for training was brought up in four out of five of the
interviews. The types of training mentioned includes instructor training, education for
groups that have autism or developmental disabilities, or workshops to learn about
people with disabilities (an example being the 2023 City of Richmond Accessibility
Initiative done by content analysis. Training is important to remove attitudinal and social
barriers, but it also promotes inclusive health. Inclusive health encourages existing
programs and services to become more accessible by providing equitable access and
full participation (Villasencio, 2021).

14

The aging infrastructure of community centers presents itself as a physical, external
barrier when people with disabilities access indoor recreation programs and spaces
(Rimmer et al., 2004). Older buildings have physical barriers in their space since they
were built without people with disabilities in mind (British Columbia Office of Housing
and Construction Standards, 2014). While each building may have different issues, an
assessment from an outside organization such as the Rick Hansen Foundation to
identify barriers in a community center. To remove the barriers, community centers can
use the information from the assessment (Riley et al., 2008) and prioritize which
physical barriers they can remove to ensure people with disabilities can participate in
recreation.
Segregated programs remove barriers for people with disabilities by providing activities
for all abilities, and by creating an environment that is inclusive and non-discriminatory.
Segregated programs such as Special Olympics BC and Active Movement for Chronic
Conditions create peer acceptance, increases self esteem and provides a place for
social bonding (Mayer & Anderson, 2014). Non segregated programs may present
social and attitudinal barriers due to judgements based on myths, fears, or stereotypes
(Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in Gostic & Beyer, 1993). Recreation programs
should be inclusive of everyone, including people with disabilities, and recreation
programs can be made inclusive by providing social inclusion training for staff to
promote inclusive health (Mendez-Hodgkinson & Cervantes, 2012).
Recommendations
Recommendation #1
The first recommendation will be to create opportunities for staff to be trained in
awareness training to work with people with disabilities. Some examples include
attending workshops, performing activities, or listening to presentations. An example of
awareness training may be attending a workshop hosted by the City of Richmond during
Accessibility Week in late May, to perform the City of Richmond Accessibility Initiative.
For West Richmond Community Center specifically, they can either create a workshop

15

to train their own staff or refer staff to workshops. West Richmond can work with
organizations that support people with disabilities as well as delivering training.
During interviews with staff, it was mentioned that staff training for awareness for people
with disabilities is important. To remove barriers, people must avoid making judgements
based on myths, fears, or stereotypes (Charles & Michael, 2017 as cited in Gostic &
Beyer, 1993). People have unconcious biases that they may not be aware, so having
staff training will help dispel stereotypes or myths. Recreation managers should take
into account integrating staff training for people with disabilities into their training
programs. Managers can also choose the types of training they can offer – activities and
workshops can help staff think about actions they can take to remove barriers for people
with disabilities on their terms. Lectures/talks can provide information to remove
attitdutinal or social barriesr by removing myths, fears, and stereotypes.
Recommendation #2
The second recommendation is to create more programs for people with disabilities
in mind. West Richmond Community Center already has many programs for people
with disabilites including Active Movement for Chronic Conditions, fitness classes for
seniors, and they host organizations for people with disabilities including Special
Olympics BC and Canucks Autism Network. Some programs they can make can include
youth with autism program, as mentioned by Isabel Wong during her interview, or offer
fitness programs for adults with disabilties. A workaround may be to allow adults with
disabilities to sign up for these programs as well.
Programs for people with disabilities are important because the benefits of recreation
are more crucial to those with disabilities than those without since for example (Roy,
2016), those with mobility disabilities experience atrophying muslces, losing what little
amounts of movement they had left (Cooper, 1999). People with disabilities have poorer
levels of health, as mentioned earlier, but performing sport is a fundamental human right
where it provides freedom of movement, and the right to leisure (Roy, 2016).
Specialized programs can remove barriers depending on what the program is offering.
For example, if it is a fitness class for people with chronic conditions, it can remove
16

physical barriers because the exercises are accessible for all. It can also remove social
and attitudinal barriers because participants can perform their exercises in a judgement
free space.
Recommendation #3
The third recommendation is to prioritize which physical barriers need to be
removed in the community center. They can be put in order using factors such as
priority to remove the barrier, the investment needed, and how quickly the barrier can
be removed. Community centers can receive assessments from outside organizations
in order to find what external barriers exist, but what the community center does with
that information is up to them. Receiving assessments is helpful because each
community center will require a different plan to remove barriers, and a good way to
start is conduct an accessbility assessment to obtain input from people with disabilities
who use a facility or community centre (Riley et al., 2008).
To remove external barriers, community centers can prioritize which physical barriers to
remove. For older community centers, their list may be different than a community
center that is modern, and was built with more thought to remove barriers for people
with disabilities. It is also beneficial to prioritize which barriers to remove because as
mentioned in the interview with Amanda McCulley, funding will be limited. Removing
barriers can be categorized in its priority in needing to be removed. For example,
implementing a visual fire alarm for people with a hearing disability is mostly likely a
higher priority than implementing braille features on signage. These examples come
from the Rick Hansen Foundation Physical Space Assessment for West Richmond
Community Centre. Once the external barriers in the built environment are identified, it
is up to recreation managers to decide which barriers they want to remove in what
order.
Recommendation #4
The fourth recommendation is for the community center to provide resources for
people with disabilities to access subsidies or find specialized programs. In the
17

interview with Vicki Barrett, it was mentioned that there is lack of braille, and she
suggested having a workshop on how to register for programs and make finding classes
easier at home through registering on the city website. Some things to try include
pamphlets on what subsidies people with disabilities can access, provide program
guides on organizations that support people with disabilities, or large print versions of
the community center’s program guides. Organizations can provide targeted services
and programs to remove barriers for people with disabilities (Rivera, Smith, & Hesketh,
2024).
This recommendation can come in the form in the form of a pamphlet display at the
front desk, posters on a community board, and offering alternative versions of
community center pamphlets and materials. This can include an electronic format
and/or large print. A workshop can be offered at the community center as well where the
basics of navigating the program registration website can be taught.
Conclusion
The purpose of the paper is to find what barriers exist for people with disabilities when
accessing indoor recreation centers and programs, and how can those barriers be
removed. Different categories of barriers exist: attitudinal, communication (inaccessible
language), programmatic (failure to make accommodations), social, and physical
(Villasencio, 2021). These are external barriers, meaning that they are external to
people. Internal barriers will always exist; external barriers are what limits the
participation of people with disabilities, but they can be changed (Charles & Michael,
2017). External barriers can be removed by working with organizations that support
people with disabilities or by creating a plan that prioritizes which external barriers can
be removed. The different categories of external barriers exist in community centers for
people with disabilities.
The research methods used include interviews with recreation staff, managers, and city
planners, analysis of documents that provide information on what barriers exist and how
to remove them and observing recreation programs. Each research method had a
framework built that used the literature review as a foundation. The findings from the
18

research include [1]Working with organizations that support people with disabilities to
remove barriers, [2] training recreation staff to remove attitudinal, social,
communication, or programmatic barriers, [3] using assessments to find physical
barriers and the challenges that come with implementing the assessment in older
community centers, [4] segregated programs remove barriers in programs for people
with disabilities, where participating in the same type of program may present barriers,
[5] inclusive health is important and should continue to be implemented, but segregated
programs are needed since they may be preferred by some participants, [6] policies and
procedures become obstacles in removing external barriers. These findings are ways to
remove barriers so people with disabilities can access recreation programs and spaces
and participate in recreation fully.
Community centers can contact organizations of or for people with disabilities to identify
physical barriers to facilities or services. To remove barriers to participation, special
programs need to be offered to remove external barriers, an example being Active
Movement for Chronic Conditions, a program offering exercise to people with
disabilities. It is important to maintain good relationships with organizations supporting
people with disabilities, as they can provide programs for people with disabilities and
give input on how to set policies or remove barriers. Other ways that barriers can be
removed include staff training to remove attitudinal barriers or providing segregated
programs to remove social barriers.
Some ways or methods to remove barriers to participation in recreation in community
centers include [1] creating opportunities for staff to be trained in awareness training to
work with people with disabilities, [2] create more programs for people with disabilities in
mind, [3] prioritize which physical barriers need to be removed in the community center
depending on resources available and the barrier’s priority, and [4] to provide resources
for people with disabilities to access subsidies or find specialized programs.
The first step to removing barriers for people with disabilities is to take initiative and take
the right steps in finding what barriers exist. Once those barriers are found, each
community center find their own ways to prioritize what barriers are removed in what
19

order. Including people with disabilities in recreation programs and spaces is important
so they can fully participate in their community. People with disabilities represent a large
population in British Columbia, and community centers must continue to support them to
be inclusive of everybody who participates in recreation. Recreation is important for
everybody, both people with and people without disabilities, and community centers
must be willing to take the necessary steps to ensure people with disabilities can fully
participate in recreation without facing barriers.

20

References
Anderson, L., & Kress, C. B. (2003). Inclusion: Including people with disabilities in parks
and recreation opportunities. State College: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Boes, D. (2024). Developing Inclusive, Equitable and Universally Designed Public
Recreation Spaces. Parks & Recreation, 16-17. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=174572295&site=eds-live&scope=site
British Columbia Office of Housing and Construction Standards. (2014). BUILDING
ACCESS HANDBOOK: 2014 Illustrated Commentary on Access Requirements in
the 2012 British Columbia Building Code. British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved
from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-andindustry/construction-industry/building-codes-andstandards/guides/2014_building_access_handbook.pdf
Charles, B., & Michael, M. (2017). Introduction to Recreation Services for People with
Disabilities : A Person-Centered Approach. Sagamore Publishing. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=cat05664a&AN=lang.b1887065&site=eds-live&scope=site
City of Richmond. (2023, August 7). City Profile. Retrieved from
https://www.richmond.ca/culture/discover-richmond/profile.htm
Cooper, R. (1999). Research on Physical Activity and Health among People with
Disabilities: A Consensus Statement. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development .
Fennick, E., & Royle, J. (2003). Community inclusion for children and youth with
developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 20-27. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2003-01955-003&site=eds-live&scope=site
Gostic, L., & Beyer, H. (1993). Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act: Rights
and responsibilities of all Americans. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Government of British Columbia. (2021). AccessibleBC: B.C.’s Accessibility Plan for
2022/23 to 2024/25. Retrieved from Government of British Columbia:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/about-the-bcgovernment/accessibility/legislation/accessiblebc
King's Printer. (2021, June 17). ACCESSIBLE BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT. Retrieved
from BC Laws:
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/21019#section
1
Martin Ginis, K. A., Lawrason, S. V., & Berrisford, H. A. (2023). Translational Physical
Activity Research Involving People With Disabilities: A Review and a Call to
Action. Kinesiology Review, 87-97. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=161662221&site=eds-live&scope=site
Martin Ginis, K. A., van der Ploeg, H. P., Foster, C., Lai, B., McBride, C. B., Ng, K., . . .
Heath, G. W. (2021). Participation of people living with disabilities in physical
activity: a global perspective. The Lancet. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=edssch&AN=edssch.oai%3aescholarship.org%3aark%3a%2f1
3030%2fqt6wg9c1nr&site=eds-live&scope=site
Mayer, W. E., & Anderson, L. S. (2014). Perceptions of People With Disabilities and
Their Families about Segregated and Inclusive. Therapeutic Recreation Journal,
150-168. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=95999865&site=eds-live&scope=site
McGovern, J. (2005). Recreation access rights. Retrieved from National Center of
Physical Activity and Disability: ncpad.org
Mendez-Hodgkinson, N., & Cervantes, C. (2012). Morgan’s Wonderland: Inclusive
Recreation and Leisure Facilities for Individuals with Disabilities. Palaestra, 2327. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=79271784&site=eds-live&scope=site
Petersen, C. B., Maj, B.-J., Aadahl, M., & Lau, C. J. (2021). Participation in recreational
activities varies with socioeconomic position and is associated with self-rated

health and well-being. Prev Med Rep. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684004/
Riley, B. B., Rimmer, J. H., Wang, E., & Schiller, W. J. (2008). A Conceptual Framework
for Improving the Accessibility of Fitness and Recreation Facilities for People
With Disabilities. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 158-168. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=28043494&site=eds-live&scope=site
Rimmer, J. H., Riley, B., Wang, E., Rauworth, A., & Jurkowski, J. (2004). Physical
activity participation among persons with disabilities: Barriers and facilitators.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 419-425.
Rivera, E., Smith, C., & Hesketh, K. D. (2024). Priority populations’ experiences of the
accessibility and inclusion of recreation centres: a qualitative study. BMC Public
Health. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17595-3
Rolfe, D., Yoshida, K., Renwick, R., & Bailey, C. (2012). Balancing safety and
autonomy: structural and social barriers affecting the exercise participation of
women with disabilities in community recreation and fitness facilities.
Paralympics and Disability Sport, 265-283. Retrieved from https://doiorg.ezproxy.langara.ca/10.1080/2159676X.2012.685099
Roy, E. C. (2016). Aiming for Inclusive Sport: the Legal and Practical Implications of the
United Nation’s Disability Convention for Sport, Recreation and Leisure for
People with Disabilities. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal.
doi:10.16997/eslj.75
Scheleien, S. J., & Green, F. P. (1992). Three approaches for integrating persons with
disabilities into community recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 10(2), 51-66.
Snow, K. (2013). Separate and unequal. Retrieved from www.disabilityisnatural.com
Solish, A., Perry, A., & Minees, P. (2010). Participation of Children with and without
Disabilities in Social, Recreational and Leisure Activities. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 226-236. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=49159685&site=eds-live&scope=site

Special Olympics BC. (2024). Special Olympics Richmond. Retrieved from
https://www.sobcrichmond.ca/current-programs
Statistics Canada. (2022). British Columbia – Age distribution, 2001 to 2021. Retrieved
from British Columbia: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2021/as-sa/fogsspg/alternative.cfm?topic=2&lang=E&dguid=2021A000259&objectId=1
Steveston Community Society. (2007, November). Steveston Community Centre 19572007. Richmond, BC. Retrieved from
https://stevestoncommunitysociety.com/pdfs/NovDec2007.pdf
Taking up adaptive sports: Don't let a physical disability or limitation stop you from
staying active. (2023). Harvard Men's Health Watch, 3. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=hxh&AN=162044980&site=eds-live&scope=site
The Quiet Influence of Inclusion. (2005, July). Parks & Recreation, p. 80. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=17651806&site=eds-live&scope=site
United Nations. (2007). United Nations Enable. Retrieved from Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs):
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/faqs.htm#:~:text=The%20term%20person
s%20with%20disabilities,in%20society%20on%20an%20equal
Villasencio, D. (2021). Inclusive Health in Parks and Recreation. Parks & Recreation,
22-23. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.langara.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=148842759&site=eds-live&scope=site
World Health Organization. (2011). World Report on Disability. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functionsdisability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability
Yoh, T., Mohr, M., & Gordon, B. (2008). Assessing Satisfaction With Campus
Recreation Facilities Among College Students With Physical Disabilities.
Recreational Sports Journal, 106-113. doi:10.1123/rsj.32.2.106

Appendix A – Interview Questions
Interview questions:
1. Tell me about your position. Have you done any work in recreation prior to this?
2. What is one thing you think that makes recreation inclusive for people with
disabilities?
3. Do you have any experience working with people with disabilities?
4. Do you think the physical space in the community centre allows for people with
physical disabilities to participate in programs?
5. What would be some tools you would like to learn to further improve your ability
to work with people with disabilities?
6. In your specific position, what would be something you could change to make
things easier for people with disabilities?
7. What do you think community centers can add to the physical space to make it
easier to access for people with disabilities?
8. What stereotypes do you think exist against people with disabilities?
Appendix B – Interview Notes
Melissa Martin
Monday February 26, 2024 at 11:00am over Zoom
1. Community Facilities Coordinator for West Richmond. Oversee association
coordinators, seasonal programming, odds and ends around community.
Recreation leader before, worked for community associations in special events,
supervisor in Out of School Care (OSC)
2. Partnerships that benefit everyone. This includes working with organizations that
support people with disabilities. Specialized training that will help individuals work
with people with disabilities.
3. OSC in out of school care where children with disabilities use OSC
4. Yes – wide hallway, elevator, accessible parking, benches for sitting. Lower
space in front counter, wide doors. Seating throughout facility.

5. Access to training. More funding for training.
6. Our seasonal programs. Training for programs – instructor awareness.
Specialized equipment for programs, one on one support for general art
programs. There is lots that can be implemented.
7. Good lighting and sound systems is not really considered, and it can be easy to
overlook. Not something that can be easily changed, but parking spots for people
with disabilities are far from the front entrance of the community centre.
8. Lack of education of knowledge, people make assumptions. Lack of awareness.
Steve Mahon
Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 2:15pm over phone call
1. Started teaching hockey programs, worked in Richmond adult’s roller hockey
league in the 90s, worked at ice rink, UBC, Vancouver Grizzlies, 8 rinks.
Richmond Youth Basketball League, Summer Slam. South Arm Coordinator,
then various community centers.
2. People with disabilities require their own space/time. Their needs and
requirements must be found out and met. Recreation is all relationship based.
3. Basketball BC – wheelchair basketball groups. Required special storage and
access. People with developmental disabilities are a part of the team – playing or
volunteering. Special Olympics, Rafael’s living foundation, Canucks Autism
Network. Work with them directly/indirectly. Accommodation is important – need
to bring in extra staff if needed to adapt.
4. Wheelchairs – yes. Other disabilities such as hearing/visual, no. Lots of what ifs
to cover everything. If someone does come forward, we can work with them to
help them out. If it becomes a regular thing, then it is more feasible to act.
5. We already have the tools – id say more awareness of what is out there for
people to do more. Relationships with organizations that support people with
disabilities are important. Special sound systems for people that can’t hear well.
Education/training for groups that have autism or developmental disabilities.

6. If someone comes to me with a challenge, I have the ability for the most part to
make changes. We really haven’t been faced with the challenge to modify the
community centre – but in terms of financial barriers, it is more of a challenge.
7. We have a Rick Hansen assessment on what we can add – I’ll send it over. But
generally, you don’t really see it until it gets brought up. So, the assessment is
good. For example, for designing the City Centre new centre, we had the
accessibility council walk around the other, older sites. They bought up access to
the sink, and there were no paper towels because some people needed them to
clean something of their wheelchair. Braille, Bluetooth audio system embedded
in the centre.
8. That people may not want to be interacted with because they may require special
attention, or you may not be able to provide accommodation - because its
uncomfortable since you may not be able to give. There are a lot of unknowns
between people with disabilities versus people without that makes everyone feel
unsure.
Vicki Barrett
Thursday, February 22, 2024 in person, 6:00pm
1. Front desk at community centre. This is my first job in recreation.
2. We provide lots of programs for people with disabilities, the Rafael Living
Foundation, which is a basketball program for people with disabilities and Special
Olympics. We offer a good number of programs for people with disabilities
3. I’ve worked with people with disabilities before here at the community centre –
mostly through helping people register for programs and helping setup for spaces
for programs. Also for seniors programs, we work with people that have mobility
or hearing impairments as well.
4. Yes. We have elevators, wheelchair accessible showers, lots of space for
wheelchairs, and entrances and exits. There are wide hallways, and we have a
wheelchair accessible counter at the desk too

5. Workshops to learn about people with disabilities and participate in programs
with people with disabilities to see what it is like. It is about what we don’t know,
learning about things we don’t know will help us challenge our biases.
6. Making registration easier for programs – a workshop on how to register for
programs and make finding classes easier at home. The online portal can be
tricky to navigate because to find certain programs, you have to input lots of
filters, which may be difficult
7. There is a lack of braille and there is no electronic format for the program guide.
We should have it so there is accessible text that people with disabilities can
transcribe if needed to.
8. They are looked upon as childlike and innocent – but they are not. We should not
speak down to them. They are people as well, and like we should all be treated
equally regardless of background, ability, and upbringing.
Isabel Wong
Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 10:00am over Zoom
1. Community Facilities Coordinator at Steveston. Oversee programming,
supervision of instructors and other coordinators. Rec leader, recreation facility
clerk, youth coordinator, summer coordinator, volunteer coordinator, out of
school care
2. Recreation is meant to be a starting point for anybody – base level to enjoy an
activity. We need to try to remove barriers in participation to meet this.
3. Support worker in out of school care, as youth coordinator – we implemented a
youth program for those with autism.
4. We do the best we can – if we can make it happen we will. Old buildings really
make it difficult to meet the needs of the community. We do the best we can and
encourage people to participate when able to, but we do the best we can.
5. Meeting and working with disability advocates – learning from people who have
first hand experiences. Education on ways on how to include more people and
push us to go out of the box.

6. Planning for the new Steveston Community Centre – coming up with ways to
make it accessible including signage and physical space. But for now – we may
ask somebody to use a more simple font if they want to put up signage or a
poster. Education and putting in the effort is important.
7. Wayfinding is really helpful, different paths with patterns for those walking sticks.
Considering all users is really important – not just the majority.
8. People with disabilities just need their barriers removed – not extra support. The
barrier is the problem – not the disability. It doesn’t mean you are unable – things
are just different.
Amanda McCulley
Friday, March 8, 2024 at 10:00am over WebEx
1. Planner 2 – Accessibility. Full disclosure - started this position in early February
this year. Subject matter and leadership on accessibility. Implementing
accessibility plan – the plan will be finalized in 3-4 weeks. Did day and overnight
camps, and coordinated adapted recreation programs at Cerebral Palsy
Association of BC
2. Adaptive recreation through modification, or provision for adaptive equipment
3. My siblings, and at Cerebral Palsy Association of BC. Colleagues have people
with disabilities as well
4. Unable to answer.
5. Training with Rick Hansen Foundation on how to formally conduct Accessibility
audits. Training for helping evaluate the built environment.
6. City of Richmond Accessibility plan – draft actions. Action 4.1 is evaluating
programs for accessibility. And also work with disability organizations to provide
recreation.
7. If older centers could be updated to new accessibility guidelines. The challenge
with this is that they require significant investment and time, but it will be helpful.
The infrastructure is aging in the city

8. There’s a lot. Ideas they don’t want to participate in the community or have
meaningful lives. They aren’t “good friends and lazy”. This is ableism. We want
people with disabilities to participate fully and we want to continue awareness on
ableism.

Appendix C – Program Observations Checklist
•

Is the program itself flexible if people with disabilities were to participate?

•

Are the instructors inclusive of all skill levels? What happens if a participant
cannot execute something?

•

How does the program look to benefit the participants?

•

Are there physical barriers in space?

•

Do you notice any other barriers that are not physical? Attitudinal,
communicative, policies?

Appendix D – Observation Field Notes
Multisport – Children
Feb 21, 2024, 5:30pm
West Richmond Community Centre Gym
Structured environment, from a general public perspective
The transition between classes in the gym was hectic. The last class that was getting
out of the gym met outside with people from the Multisport class trying to get into the
gym. For some, this may be a sensory overload. While it may not be part of the
observation checklist, it is something worth noting.
Multisport is a class where instructors teach movement skills so they can play different
sports such as basketball, hockey, soccer, and volleyball. For this session, multiple
indoor soccer nets were set up, so they were doing soccer. They started with warm up
by doing various movements such as jogging or skipping back and forth across the
length of the gym. The instructors were patient with children who were going at different
paces. In terms of the space, there was lots of space in the gym, since there were not
too many children in the class. If a child with a more apparent physical disability were to
participate, however, it is unknown if the activities in mind will be beneficial.

The class then learned how to pass the ball in soccer. The instructors were providing
step-by-step instruction with each other on how to pass the ball. It seemed as if it was a
little too simplified, but there was effort put into the explanation. The children were then
paired and practiced passing the ball with each other. One thing that helped inclusivity
was that the distance between students wasn’t fixed, so if the distance felt
uncomfortable, there was no pressure to make it shorter. The program looks to teach
skills at as many different paces as possible. There was lots of room in the gymnasium
for people to move around freely.
The last activity was then a challenge for shooting a soccer ball into a net, with an
instructor as goalie, and everybody lined up to take a shot at the net to see how many
goals everyone can score in a time limit. It looked like everyone was having fun and it
made the class feel welcoming while getting everybody’s heart rates up.
Special Olympics Basketball
Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 6:30pm
Structured environment, from a general public perspective.
West Richmond Community Centre Gym
Field Notes
The first thing noted was the camaraderie displayed by the coaches. Before the
program started, everyone was chatting, catching up with each other, and telling each
other how their day went. It is different than things like fitness classes, where people
usually keep to themselves before the class starts.
Warm up began, and after warming up, the coach explained what they were going to do
for today. Today’s focus was on dribbling, which is a very fundamental skill to learn
when first learning to play. The coach broke down how to dribble the basketball, but
there was a large focus on the visual part of it. The coach said to look at their fingers,
their body position, and “look at my head – it is up at all times”. It is important to be good

at dribbling since it is something you can always get better at. What was noticed was
that they are detailed in their explanation so players of all skill levels can understand.
They were then divided into groups. It is a program where there are players of different
skill levels, and it seemed they have been doing it for a while, so the groups formed
quickly. Players who were more experienced were building on their dribbling skills,
doing a drill where they are dribbling while moving left and right, with the coach making
sure they are doing okay. The players who were not as experienced were doing dribbles
one hand at a time while staying in the same place, with the coaches using their hands
to guide those who needed help with the movement. It was good to see flexibility for all
skill levels and the program is made to be flexible for people with disabilities. After
practicing dribbling for about 10 minutes, there was a short break.
After the break, there was going to be some scrimmages. The scrimmage was
straightforward, with teams having equal amounts of people of varying skill levels. The
scrimmages were encouraging, where coaches never said anything negative, only
encouraging things. The atmosphere was about skill building and improvement, and
everybody was in it together. The ball was passed around as much as possible, and
even if not, everybody got to shoot, players had fun trying to apply their newfound
dribbling skills, since the coaches were reminding them of what they learned during the
drills earlier.
Overall, Special Olympics Basketball is about skill building and inclusivity. It is a strong
community where players not only care about getting better at sports, but to build
friendships and be able to do new things together. This is a benefit of the program
Active Movement for Chronic Conditions 55+
Wednesday, March 6, 2024, 1:00pm
Structured environment, special status granted.
The room had chairs formed in a circle in a large ballet like studio. There was an open
layout and lots of room for moving around. There were multiple volunteers who were

helping out with the program. For warm up, participants could do this activity seated or
standing, tapping their feet to music that is slow (below 130bpm). They were asked to
tap their toe in different directions. There were two instructors leading the exercise –
one doing the exercise standing up, the other sitting down. The lead instructor provided
guidance to do the movement correctly. So far, people are enjoying the class. The
instructor is also knowledgeable about different conditions, where they explain how
certain exercises are affected if you have something such as osteoarthritis.
They then got some tubing, which is a resistance band with two handles. They
performed core exercises, where the leg comes up, while again sitting or standing.
There is lots of room for accommodation since people come in with different conditions
where they may not be able to perform certain exercises. They then moved to shoulder
exercises, where the tubing is used as resistance to perform an arm movement that is
similar to “opening the fridge door”. They then performed multiple more different
exercises using the tubing, including a back and punching exercise. The exercises were
performed with multiple variations – this was a common theme.
The class then moved on to partner work. The instructor encouraged participants to find
a partner they have not worked with before. Participants needed to stand up but can
use a chair to stabilize themselves. They were doing an exercise where they were
facing away from each other, and stepping out, using the tubing as resistance. The
instructors went around to each group, making sure they were doing it properly, and
encouraging them. They then performed balance exercises, where participants leaned
left and right pretending it’s a surfboard – again performed with different variations.
The class then ended after some light stretching. The instructor stayed after the class to
talk with the participants about their health and lives – some of them approached me
and mentioned how their mobility has improved since starting the class. The participants
are able to benefit because the exercises are easy to perform – they are able to do
most of them at home with little to no equipment. There was lots of space to perform the
class, and everyone came with a positive attitude to remove any attitudinal or systemic
barriers.

Appendix E – Content Analysis Framework
•

What is the goal of the document?

•

Do they define terms that may need clarification?

•

Do they provide any statistics or facts on accessibility or people with disabilities?

•

Are there any mention of barriers in participation in recreation for people with
disabilities?

•

Is there any information on how to remove the barriers?

•

What information is there on inclusive programming?

Appendix F – Content Analysis Notes
Document 1: Draft Richmond Accessibility Plan 2023-2033
Accessed on Feb 20, 2024
This document was chosen because it is an accessibility plan made by the City of
Richmond that outlines advancing accessibility in Richmond. The plan identifies barriers
in participation for people with disabilities, as well as solutions for those barriers.
Field notes:
The Richmond Accessibility Plan is made by community members, including people
with disabilities, community organizations that support people with disabilities in
Richmond, and the City of Richmond. There are stories and insights from people with
disabilities.
The document provides a glossary of terms and mentions that one in five Canadians
have a disability, and Canadians aged 65 and older represents over 38% of people
living with a disability. It is almost mentioned that the prevalence and complexity of
disability was found to increase as people age.
The goal of the document is to outline a multi-year accessibility plan to advance
accessibility in Richmond by working with community organizations and people with
disabilities. In terms of recreation, the city works with Community Associations to

provide programs and services that are inclusive and remove barriers to participation so
everyone can participate. The barriers that prevent participation are divided into
categories: physical, attitudinal, sensory, systemic, information and communication, and
technological.
The solutions to removing barriers to participation in recreation were discussed, and
they include:
•

Improving the relationship between community organizations that support people
with disabilities and Community Associations

•

Increasing the number of accessible washrooms and changerooms

•

Plans to expand active transportation networks through parks and public spaces

•

Program information that is easy to find and available in accessible formats

Community Associations will strive to provide programs and services that are inclusive
and remove barriers to participation so everybody can participate. Community centers
also provide inclusive volunteer opportunities to build community. People with
disabilities have also identified that programs and services should be expanded to reach
across the spectrum of disability. This means developing more options for people who
are neurodivergent, have sight or hearing loss, are Deaf, or have multiple disabilities.
Document 2: City of Richmond Enhanced Accessibility – Design Guidelines and
Technical Specifications
This document was chosen because it assists city staff to incorporate accessibility
features that go beyond the BC Building Code for accessibility in City-owned buildings.
Field notes:
The goal of the document is to provide information on how the City of Richmond is
ensuring their buildings reflect a strong commitment to accessible design requirements.
This includes community centers.

They define the Seven Principles of Design, which is a universal design that can
enhance accessibility by making sure that the needs of the community are considered
when new infrastructure is built. The seven steps of use are [1] equitable, [2] flexibility,
[3] simple and intuitive, [4] perceptible information, [5] tolerance for error, [6] low
physical effort, [7] size and space for approach and use. There is also a glossary of
definitions for accessibility in buildings.
A barrier to participation in recreation is assuming that people using wheelchairs are
relatively strong individuals. However, this does not consider those who aren’t as strong
or using a larger mobility device like a power wheelchair. Spaces are recommended to
have enough space for a wheelchair to make a 360-degree turn and allow those with
wheelchairs to reach over an obstruction (e.g. the front desk at a community centre.
There are more specifics, but the document provides an accessibility checklist which
goes over what buildings should have for physical, blind or low vision, deaf or hard of
hearing, and cognitive and developmental disabilities. It covers entrances, parking
areas, signage, ramps, stairs, handrails, elevators, washrooms, and other interior
elements.
There is information on how the barriers should be removed, but not really any
information on how to find ways to do it. For example, the document does not explain
how those running city buildings can purchase accessible doorknobs. They may be an
internal resource since the document is viewable to the public as recommendations that
the City of Richmond is implementing.
Document 3: City of Richmond 2023 Accessibility Initiative
This document was chosen because it was used to give staff a resource on how to
navigate barriers for people with disabilities.
Field notes:

The goal of the document is to provide employees with practice scenarios to solve
attitudinal, communication and technological, physical, sensory, and systemic barriers
for people with disabilities.
They define what each category of barrier is about and provide terminology for certain
topics, such as identity-first (e.g “Autistic person”) versus person-first language (“people
with Autism”). There are no statistics for people with disabilities.
There is mention of barriers to participation in recreation with people with disabilities. In
the physical barriers section, there is an activity that requires you to read a news article
on a person’s experience with using a wheelchair after becoming paralyzed. For
example, they had to circle the parking lot because the few accessible parking sports at
the community centre were occupied, making their daughter late for swimming lessons.
There is not any information on how to remove the barriers, since it is an activity that
makes you reflect. Instead, there are reflections and practice scenarios to get someone
into the right mindset to think about solutions to removing barriers. Inclusive
programming in recreation is not mentioned.
Document 4: Rick Hansen Foundation Physical Space Assessment for West
Richmond Community Centre
This document was chosen because it gives staff information about what physical
barriers exist in the community centre. This assessment was conducted by the Rick
Hansen Foundation for West Richmond in 2018.
The goal of the document is to provide key areas of improvement in eight categories:
1. Vehicle access
2. Exterior Approach and Entrance
3. Interior Circulation
4. Interior Services & Environment
5. Sanitary Facilities
6. Signage, Wayfinding, and Communications

7. Emergency Systems
8. Additional Use of Space
There are also short-term and long-term solutions provided for some barriers as well.
There are no terms to define or statistics – the document provides information on what
barriers exist, and that is what the whole document comprises of.
For the key areas of improvement, they mention what barriers exist for someone who
has a physical disability. For example, the first area of improvement, vehicle access,
they state there is limited width and length of accessible parking spots, no marked
pedestrian crossing from the parking lot, and no designated drop off zone. For the areas
of improvement, it is unknown if West Richmond themselves already knew, but it is
good to have an outside perspective because Rick Hansen can see what West
Richmond doesn’t.
The areas of improvement tell what the barriers are, but also implies what can be done.
For example, an area of improvement for washrooms is to add emergency call buttons –
which can be added (to remove the barrier), but it is up to the community centre to
make the change. There are some short-term and long-term suggestions on how to
remove the barriers in another section of the document. For example, one long-term
solution is to add a fire emergency evacuation chair to be able to evacuate someone
with a mobility disability from the second floor. There are many suggestions in the
document, but these implementations require lots of planning and resources to happen.
These solutions are good for the future and may even save lives as some solutions are
for when emergency situations occur.
There is no information on recreation programming in this document.