Fitness Facility Evaluation: “Fitness Results”
Nowadays, inclusive behavior towards the decrease in the number of people being discriminated against due to their age, race, or physical characteristics, has become a crucial issue for public services. Gyms and other fitness facilities, in particular, are now focused on providing proper service for people with disabilities. In the course of this paper, the fitness center “Fitness Results,” based in Ontario, Canada, will be analyzed on the subject of inclusiveness.
The aforementioned gym was chosen primarily due to positive visitors’ feedback on the Internet. To begin with, the website of “Fitness Results” does not include any images depicting people with disabilities using the facility (Fitness Results). Moreover, the images include only professional sportspeople, which does not benefit the overall notion of equality in terms of human body depiction. The description of specialized facility features for people with disabilities is absent, which creates the impression of the establishment being non-inclusive.
According to the Accessibility of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), each facility should provide all the necessary facilities for people with disabilities. Thus, the aforementioned gym is either at the stage of development or explicitly violates the act. Speaking of the inclusive services, there is no indication of any programs or services designed to help people with disabilities use the facility.
The overall philosophy of the facility does not create the impression of being interested in equal opportunities for all the citizens of Ontario. However, the gym has the potential to become inclusive due to several factors. First of all, the center has a program designed specifically for older people in order to help them improve their health conditions, which means that the gym’s owners are predisposed to help various social groups. Moreover, the visitors’ relatively positive feedback on the facility can help create the trend of inclusiveness in the area once the gym decides to improve its accessibility rate.
In the context of an inclusive society, people with disabilities should realize that they are members of the community who can make an impact on their surroundings. Such actions are also known as meaningful participation, which implies person and environment-based criteria (Claire et al.). A new participant with a disability at “Fitness Results” would be able to experience the sense of belonging to a community as well as to establish proper communication with other area residents by exercising.
Taking everything into consideration, it is evident that on the current stage of the center’s development, it is unlikely one would recommend it to a friend with disabilities. On the scale from 1 to 20, where 20 means that the facility is extremely likely to be recommended, fitness center “Fitness Results” can be marked 5. Such a mark is given due to the gym’s potential to become inclusive. Right now, however, this establishment is not accessible for people with disabilities by all the criteria.
The major recommendation towards the gym’s improvement would be to create programs for people with disabilities by employing fitness coaches who specialize in working with this social group. Another piece of advice would be to redesign the website on the subject of inclusiveness not only for people with disabilities but generally for various social groups.
Hence, the fitness center “Fitness Results” based in Ontario, Canada, was analyzed in terms of the level of inclusiveness for people with disabilities. The research has shown that the facility is not aimed at paying enough attention to area residents with disabilities. The gym has to implement inclusive programs as soon as possible in order to stay relevant for society, especially now, when the local government is also concerned by the issue.
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. 2014. Web.
Fitness Results: Home. Fitness Results, 2020. Web.
Willis, Claire, et al. “Elements contributing to meaningful participation for children and youth with disabilities: a scoping review.” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 39, no. 17, 2017, pp. 1771-1784.