Contents
- Accessible gym facilities statistics: what facility audits found overall
- Accessible gym facilities statistics: entrances, routes and equipment access
- Accessible gym facilities statistics: locker rooms, bathrooms and pools
- Accessible gym facilities statistics: programs, policies and staff support
- Accessible gym facilities statistics: differences by facility type and setting
- Accessible gym facilities statistics: Gym access barriers reported by people with disabilities
- Sources
Accessible gym facilities statistics: what facility audits found overall
Facility assessments show that accessibility can differ substantially across parts of the same gym. In an Addis Ababa study published in 2016, researchers assessed 39 fitness centers using the AIMFREE tool: 24 commercial centers and 15 hotel fitness centers. The study did not state its fieldwork year. None of the 39 facilities received a 100% accessibility rating. The mean scores across the full group also varied by feature, with locker rooms and showers scoring lower than equipment and bathrooms. These are study-specific assessment results, not a current inventory of gyms in the city. Source: Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| Addis Ababa assessment area | Facilities assessed | Mean accessibility score |
|---|---|---|
| Access routes and entrance areas | 39 | 53.23% |
| Equipment | 39 | 60.41% |
| Facility information | 39 | 52.13% |
| Locker rooms and showers | 39 | 36.38% |
| Bathrooms | 39 | 60.59% |
| Hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas and steam rooms | 21 | 67.38% |
| Elevators | 16 | 53.56% |
The percentages are the study’s mean universal accessibility scores; the counts vary where fewer facilities had the feature being assessed. The reported standard deviations were 20.398 for routes and entrances, 32.454 for equipment, 27.886 for information, 25.353 for locker rooms and showers, 24.569 for bathrooms, 17.985 for hot tubs and related rooms, and 18.385 for elevators. The spread in scores indicates that individual facilities differed around the means; it does not establish why they differed. Source: Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A second study, published in 2011, assessed 44 fitness and recreational facilities in one midsize Ontario city that had identified themselves as “accessible.” The paper reports that 56 facilities were initially identified for possible inclusion. The final assessment and the initial identification count describe different stages of the study. That distinction matters when interpreting the findings: the results concern facilities identified as accessible, not a random sample of all facilities. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
Accessible gym facilities statistics: entrances, routes and equipment access
Routes, entrances and equipment are separate points in a visit, and a score for one does not guarantee access to the others. In the Ontario study, the mean universal accessibility score for fitness-center equipment was 47.7% across 19 facilities. The standard deviation was 5.3, and the reported range was 40.1–57.9. In the Addis Ababa study, the full-group mean for routes and entrance areas was 53.23% across 39 facilities, while equipment averaged 60.41% across the same number. The studies use their own assessment contexts, so these figures should be read within each study rather than as a direct ranking between cities. Sources: Ontario study; Addis Ababa study
The Ontario assessment also recorded mean scores of 54.5% for parking lots, 51.6% for entrance areas and 49.0% for elevators. These were measured in 35, 41 and 7 facilities, respectively. Each value is a percentage score from the study’s universal accessibility measure, and the feature-specific sample sizes show that not every area was assessed in the same number of facilities. The reported standard deviations and ranges were 13.6 (16.2–73.0) for parking, 5.4 (34.0–59.1) for entrances and 4.8 (42.0–54.8) for elevators. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
In Addis Ababa, the study presented facility-type results as AIMFREE percentile ranks, a measure distinct from the universal accessibility percentages above. For the 24 commercial centers, the mean route-and-entrance score was 39.25, and the equipment score was 43.21. Among 15 hotel fitness centers, the corresponding means were 75.60 for routes and entrances and 87.93 for equipment. The table reports standard deviations of 7.67 and 29.24 for the commercial scores, and 12.70 and 11.63 for the hotel scores, respectively. Source: Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Accessible gym facilities statistics: locker rooms, bathrooms and pools
Changing areas and bathrooms are part of the access experience alongside the workout floor. In Ontario, the mean universal accessibility score was 31.1% for bathrooms, assessed at 42 facilities, and 42.2% for locker rooms, assessed at 37. Their standard deviations were 5.5 and 7.1; reported ranges were 16.8–45.8 and 19.6–56.3, respectively. Swimming pools had a mean score of 37.0% across 29 Ontario facilities, with a standard deviation of 9.1 and a range of 16.9–51.4. These are facility assessment scores, not percentages of facilities that meet a particular standard. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
The Addis Ababa study’s full-group mean for bathrooms was 60.59% across 39 facilities. Locker rooms and showers averaged 36.38%, also across 39. As with other categories, the source labels these as universal accessibility percentage scores. Its facility-type table uses AIMFREE percentile ranks instead: commercial centers averaged 44.54 for bathrooms and 24.83 for locker rooms and showers; hotel centers averaged 86.27 and 54.87, respectively. For the commercial scores, the standard deviations were 15.99 for bathrooms and 15.83 for locker rooms and showers; hotel values were 8.40 and 27.17. Source: Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| Ontario facility feature | Facilities assessed | Mean accessibility score | Reported range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bathrooms | 42 | 31.1% | 16.8–45.8 |
| Locker rooms | 37 | 42.2% | 19.6–56.3 |
| Swimming pools | 29 | 37.0% | 16.9–51.4 |
The table keeps the Ontario study’s facility counts and score ranges alongside each mean. A facility may contain some accessible elements and still have barriers elsewhere; the aggregate score summarizes the assessment tool’s indicators and should not be mistaken for a simple pass-or-fail count. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
Accessible gym facilities statistics: programs, policies and staff support
Accessibility includes service features as well as the building. In Ontario, the mean score for fitness programs was 63.1% across 35 facilities. The standard deviation was 18.8, and the range extended from 28.8 to 100.0. The mean professional-support-and-training score was 47.9% across 34 facilities, with a standard deviation of 11.5 and range of 26.8–85.8. The source reports assessment scores for these categories; they do not directly measure how often staff provided assistance or how participants experienced a specific class. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
The Ontario paper also separated recreational centers from fitness centers. For professional support and training, recreational centers averaged 42.9% (17 assessed; standard deviation 7.3), while fitness centers averaged 52.9% (17 assessed; standard deviation 12.8). For fitness programs, recreational centers averaged 59.9% (19 assessed; standard deviation 18.3), and fitness centers averaged 67.0% (16 assessed; standard deviation 19.2). The group sizes differ by indicator, so the comparison applies only to the facilities assessed in each category. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
The evidence here does not include a comparable score for formal gym policies. It does show that the Ontario assessment treated programs and professional support as measurable dimensions of accessibility, distinct from physical features such as doorways or bathrooms. Those categories can help readers see why access is broader than reaching the exercise equipment, while the study’s scores remain specific to its assessment tool and sample. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
Accessible gym facilities statistics: differences by facility type and setting
In Addis Ababa, the overall universal accessibility ratings were 39.25% for 24 commercial fitness centers and 75.60% for 15 hotel fitness centers. The study’s Table 2 then reports AIMFREE percentile ranks by subscale, including routes and entrances, equipment, bathrooms, locker rooms and information. This distinction in labels is important: the subscale values below are not percentages, while the overall ratings are reported as percentages. Source: Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| AIMFREE percentile-rank subscale | Commercial centers (n=24) | Hotel centers (n=15) |
|---|---|---|
| Routes and entrance areas | 39.25 ± 7.67 | 75.60 ± 12.70 |
| Equipment | 43.21 ± 29.24 | 87.93 ± 11.63 |
| Bathrooms | 44.54 ± 15.99 | 86.27 ± 8.40 |
| Locker rooms and showers | 24.83 ± 15.83 | 54.87 ± 27.17 |
| Information | 37.88 ± 24.94 | 74.93 ± 13.54 |
The table’s values are means and standard deviations, as labeled in the source. They describe the sampled facilities in that city and do not explain why the groups differ. The study does not state its fieldwork year, so its findings should not be presented as a current comparison. Source: Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
The Ontario study’s initial list included 21 private for-profit health clubs and 5 public nonprofit health clubs. It also identified 30 publicly funded recreational facilities, including 14 community pools. The target city’s population was reported as 504,559, based on a 2006 census source cited in the paper; this is a historical figure, not a current population estimate. These details describe the study setting and selection pool, rather than the assessed facility counts for every specific measure. Source: Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
Accessible gym facilities statistics: Gym access barriers reported by people with disabilities
Facility audits record features; participant surveys capture what respondents say limits participation. A study published in 2022 reported organizational barriers among people with disabilities. The data collection period is not stated in the checked results. The most frequently listed items in the reported passage were lack of accessible showers and changing rooms (66.0%), lack of accessible routes to the gym or sports venue (63.8%), lack of accessible toilets (63.6%), and absence of accessible door handles (62.9%). Narrow corridors or corridors with barriers were reported by 60.0%; lack of an indoor track for walking or wheelchair movement by 58.5%; and lack of accessible ramps at the gym or sports venue by 56.9%. These are participant-reported barriers, not audit estimates of the share of gyms with each feature. Source: Investigation of Constraints Toward Participation in Sports and Leisure Activities of People with Disabilities
The same paper’s Table 3 distinguishes responses by perceived severity. It reports that 29.8% rated lack of accessible showers or locker rooms as a “very big barrier.” For lack of accessible bathrooms at a fitness center, 18.6% selected “very big barrier.” A separate item found 25.4% rated lack of accessible exercise equipment at a fitness center as a “big barrier.” These percentages refer to particular response categories, so they should not be combined with the broader organizational-barrier figures as though they shared the same measure. Source: Investigation of Constraints Toward Participation in Sports and Leisure Activities of People with Disabilities
Together, the audit and survey findings cover different questions: what accessibility indicators facilities received, and which barriers respondents identified. Both point to multiple stages of access—from routes and entrances to changing spaces, toilets, equipment and program support—but the studies differ in location, date, sample and measurement. Their results offer specific evidence from Addis Ababa, Ontario and the 2022 participation-barrier study; they should not be read as national estimates or as a current census of gyms.
Sources
- Fitness Facilities Still Lack Accessibility for People with Disabilities
- Assessing the Universal Accessibility of Fitness Centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
- Universal Accessibility of “Accessible” Fitness and Recreational Facilities for Persons With Mobility Disabilities
- Investigation of Constraints Toward Participation in Sports and Leisure Activities of People with Disabilities