Allison Qualls

Emphasis Area Paper

RMP 800 Concepts of Leisure and Recreation
Professor Cindy Hartman
November 30, 2022
Introduction

In the United States over twenty-six percent of the population has a disability (CDC,

2020). These disabilities include physical, cognitive, mental health, hard of hearing or deafness,

and being blind. When it comes to mobility over thirteen percent of people who are considered

disabled have a mobility disability. This affects their ability to move and access facilities or

activities without having to use a mobility aid. Mobility aides can range from manual

wheelchairs, power wheelchairs, canes, crutches or walkers that allow the individual to have

independence in their everyday lives. Another important statistic to be aware of is that over thirty

percent of individuals with disabilities are considered obese compared to the twenty-six percent

of people without disabilities who are obese (CDC, 2020). Mental distress is also over thirty

percent in individuals with disabilities (CDC, 2022). The importance of these statistics and

mentioning them in relevance to this literature review is the importance of having access to

resources that decrease these statistical numbers. Literature has proven the importance of access

to outdoor recreation which can help improve social, mental, physical, and cognitive aspects of

individual.

Since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 there have been improvements to

accessibility of different environments and services. However, some services are still have

limited accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This literature review will have a limited

focus on campus recreation and their inclusive practices due to the limited articles available,

however it is important to have an understanding the importance of having more programming

for individuals with disabilities. This literature review will review twelve articles and will

discuss three themes of barriers, benefits, and inclusion.

Benefits

Benefits of adaptive leisure can include personal enrichment, collective impact, and

contributors to the recreational leisure activities (RLA) experience (Labbé et al., 2019, p.289). In

personal enrichment participants of the study found meaning in participating in adaptive

activities, participants also saw growth in various skills and knowledge of activities that they

participated in. Participants also felt a sense of control and freedom from doing regular everyday

activities. And finally for personal enrichment participants saw improvement in health and well-

being improving physical health and overall mood (p.290). For collective impact the study found

three themes of connectedness, raising awareness and opening new avenues. Providing

opportunities to participate in activities provided feelings of connectedness that also creates

belongness with peers, staff and volunteers. Raising awareness allowed individuals with

disabilities to have more access to information that they may not have had in other programs

about daily life, employment, and social needs (p.290). This also opened new avenues for

participants to look for new RLA that they may have not known about before participating. In

the last theme of contributors to the RLA experience there was also three key themes to look at.

These themes were program delivery and logistics, program social dimensions and external

environmental factors. Being able to program at a low cost is important for this population, but it

is important that the programs have excellent communication with their participants as well to

provide the best programming possible. Nicola Burns, Kevin Paterson and Nick Watson found

similar benefits that while there can be barriers to participating in the outdoors for some

disabilities, the outdoors gave other disabilities an opportunity to feel and hear different textures

in the countryside. Deaf people found the countryside to be an escape from a society that values

hearing as an important sense. The countryside also was important for improving wellbeing.
Social inclusion was another highly sought benefit because it provided association with peers

who have similar experiences. And finally personal identity was important when associated with

countryside leisure experienced by individuals with disabilities because it gave the individuals a

sense of strength and autonomy (p.413). Other benefits that were mentioned were accepting

disability, freedom, providing community, physical and psychological health (Labbé et al., 2019,

p.292).

Barriers

Barriers to accessible outdoor recreation can range from physical barriers to social

barriers. Physical barriers can be a playground or site that is considered ADA complaint but is

not accessible as stated in the article “A ramp that leads to nothing: outdoor recreation

experiences of children with physical disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Annika L.

Vogt, Chris A. B. Zajchowski, and Eddie L. Hill. Another physical barrier in the article is that

while there are ramps for beaches, the ramps only go close to water and do not go perpendicular,

making it difficult for families to space out and enjoy the water similar to able-bodied families

(p.747). Williams et al. and Menzies et al. had similar conclusions about barriers that individuals

with disabilities encounter. These barriers include cost of equipment or activity (Menzies et al.,

2021, p.386), finances are a concern for people with disabilities as close to a third of individuals

with disabilities are below the poverty line (Williams et al., 2004, p.94). Individuals with

disabilities also have issues with transportation which can require extra planning and assistance

from other individuals (Menzies et al., 2021, p.386). Social expectations of participating in

activities like team sports are considered a barrier due to the attitudes that individuals without

disabilities may have towards individuals with disabilities (Williams et al., 2004, p.94), which
can make it difficult individuals with disabilities to feel like they belong in these activities.

Another persistent theme of barriers was incomplete knowledge this was identified in a survey

noting that there was minimal information on how to create a program that includes both people

with disabilities and without disabilities, activities that would be appropriate to offer students

with disabilities, and how staff can be trained to run a trip with students with disabilities and

without disabilities successfully and safely (Daniels et al., 2017, p. 92). These barriers are

important to understand recognize as we work towards more inclusive practices.

Inclusion

Inclusion is an important practice to look at when including individuals with disabilities

in recreation practices. It should recognize that there is not currently a “cookie-cutter approach to

inclusive service delivery (Schleien, S.J., Miller, K.D. & Shea, M., 2009, p.18)” for recreation

agencies. Mary Ann Devine and Linda Kotowski’s article “Inclusive leisure services: results of a

national survey of park and recreation departments” describes how park and recreation

departments can be inclusive. The authors encourage park and recreation departments to make a

commitment and effort to be more inclusive but recognize that financial constraints make it

difficult to provide quality inclusion services. However, inclusion practices that departments can

add, is having individuals with disabilities train staff on inclusion practices (p.67) and provide

programming accommodations for participants (p.68). Inclusive programming is an area that

needs to be important to the administrators and should be included in inclusion goals and

performance objectives (Schleien, S.J., Miller, K.D. & Shea, M., 2009, p.32), if inclusion

programming is not seen as important, programs may have less successful programming which

can affect the community that they work in. When creating inclusive practices programs should

also be looking at different types of theories and which ones to use to create the best inclusive
program. A few of these theories were: principles of normalization, self-determination theory,

social role theory, contact theory and ecological theory (Scholl, K.G., Glanz, A. & Davison, A.,

2006, p. 105). These theories look at normalizing the concept of disability in society and

understanding the basic needs of individuals to ensure that they are also included in practices.

The article also talks about the importance of inclusion being the responsibility of the service

provider (Scholl, K.G., Glanz, A. & Davison, A., 2006, p.106). Another theory that programs

should consider is the ecological theory which would programs to make system wide inclusion

changes with considering individuals with disabilities and comparing their leisure options that

are available for this population to the programs mission statement, and programming strategies

(Devine, M.A. & Kotowski, L., 1999, p.66).

Providing adaptive programs for individuals with disabilities can also shape and meet

community needs (Thicke, T., p.21). Community needs can also be seen as supporting others in

their outdoor recreation activities, volunteers reported that they are motivated to volunteer with

these types of programs to stay fit, enjoy the outdoors and share the experience with others

(James, L., Et al., 2018, p.1586). When programs or volunteers notice barriers to the activity,

they can help change the way inclusion is seen (James, L., Et al., 2018, p.1588) and how to use

assistive technology to it's full use (Thicke, T., n.d., p.21). Inclusion practices benefit from

having a strength based and recognizing the individuals who participate. The article “Integrating

persons with impairments and disabilities into standard outdoor adventure education programs”

by Cindy Dillenschneider, gives five principles for accommodating students with disabilities.

These principles include: “communicate with students about fundamental activities and

environments they experience” (this relates to experiences that involve sitting in canoes for hours

or other activities that are similar), “always have the person with impairment (the student, in this
case) assist the instructors in understanding his or her actual needs and strengths”, “commit to

possibility thinking”, “provide appropriate, high-quality, and individualized supports”, and “do

no harm” (p.77-80). Dillenschneider’s principles are important to consider in inclusion because

they view the person and their needs first without making the focus on the inability to do certain

activities. At times it can be difficult for programs that have not provided inclusive programming

before to see past the barriers, which is why it is so important to talk about creating more

inclusive programming.

Conclusion

In the articles that have been reviewed there were three themes that were important to

discuss: benefits, barriers, and inclusion. With over twenty-six percent of the population having a

form of a disability it is important to provide inclusive and accessible programming because the

benefits are positive and important. These benefits include improvement in physical health,

social inclusion, freedom from societal expectations (Labbé et al., 2019) and (Burns et al., 2009),

and accepting disability (Labbé et al., 2019). However, barriers to accessible outdoor leisure

make it difficult for individuals with disabilities to experience the benefits. These barriers

include transportation issues (Menzies et al., 2021), access to services (Vogt et al., 2022), limited

knowledge (Daniels et al., 2017), social expectations (Williams et al., 2004), and finances

(Williams et al., 2004) and (Menzies et al., 2021). With having knowledge of these barriers’

programs can help make the changes to accessible outdoor recreation. Practices that programs

should consider including are making inclusion and accessibility a priority (Schleien, S.J.,

Miller, K.D. & Shea, M., 2009), using theories to strengthen their inclusion practices (Scholl,

K.G., Glanz, A. & Davison, A., 2006) and (Devine, M.A. & Kotowski, L., 1999), having a

strengths-based approach (Dillenschneider, 2007), involving the community others (James, L., Et
al., 2018), and having knowledge of adaptive or assistive technology (Thicke, T., n.d.). Having

the knowledge of these articles can help make more inclusive and accessible outdoor recreation

that will benefit everyone whether they have a disability or not and creates a stronger community

that allows to share lived experiences.

 References
Burns, N., Paterson, K. & Watson, N. (2009). An inclusive outdoors? Disabled people’s
experience of countryside leisure services. Leisure Studies, 28(4), 403-417.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, September 10). Many adults with disabilities
report frequent mental distress. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved
December 4, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/features/adults-
with-disabilities-mental-distress.html#:~:text=An%20estimated%2017.4%20million
%20(32.9,in%20the%20past%2030%20days.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, October 28). Disability impacts all of us
infographic. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved December 4, 2022,
from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-
all.html#:~:text=26%20percent%20(one%20in%204,Graphic%20of%20the%20United
%20States.
Daniels, E., Cottingham, M., Walsh, D.W. & Pearson, D. (2017). An evaluation of university
recreation center outdoor programs for people with disabilities: perspectives from
professionals. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 9(1), 83-97.
Devine, M.A. & Kotowski, L. (1999). Inclusive Leisure Services: Results of a national survey of
park and recreation departments. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17(4),
56-72.
Dillenshneider, C. (2007). Integrating persons with impairments and disabilities into standard
outdoor adventure education programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(1), 70-83.
James, L., Shing, J., Mortenson, W.B., Mattie, J. & Borisoff, J. (2018). Experiences with and
perceptions of an adaptive hiking program. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(13), 1584-
1590.
Labbé, D., Miller, W.C. & Ng, R. (2019). Participating more, participating better: Health
benefits of adaptive leisure for people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal,
12, 287-295).
Menzies, A., Mazan, C., Borisoff, J.F., Mattie, J.L. & Mortenson, W.B. (2021). Outdoor
recreation among wheeled mobility users: perceived barriers and facilitators. Disability
and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(4), 384-390.
Schleien, S.J., Miller, K.D. & Shea, M. (2009). Search for best practices in inclusive recreation:
Preliminary findings. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(1), 17-34.
Scholl, K.G., Glanz, A. & Davison, A. (2006). Importance-performance analysis of supportive
recreation inclusion services: community agency perspective. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 24(2), 102-124.
Thicke, T. (2009). Adaptive hiking: visions of possibility. Occupational Therapy Now, 11(4), 20-
22.
Vogt, A.L., Zajchowski, C.A.B. &Hill, E.L. (2022). A ramp that leads to nothing: outdoor
recreation experiences of children with physical disabilities during the COVID-19
pandemic. Leisure Studies, 41(5), 742-752.
Williams, R., Vogelsong, H., Green, G. & Cordell, K. (2004). Outdoor recreation participation of
people with mobility disabilities: Selected results of the national survey of recreation and
the environment. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(2), 85-101.