Stakeholder Perceptions of an Abbreviated Survey to Assess the Accessibility of Community-Based Physical Activity for People With Limited Mobility

Abstract

Objective

An abbreviated Community Accessibility Snapshot (CAS) was developed to provide a rapid, user‑friendly method for assessing the accessibility of community physical activity environments for individuals with limited mobility. This study aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of the CAS and its accompanying rating tiers to inform refinement of the instrument.

Design

We used a focus group design with thematic analysis.

Setting

Focus group interviews were conducted through remote meetings.

Participants

Sixteen adults (N=16) representing 2 stakeholder groups: adults with mobility limitations (n=14) and professionals working in fitness or recreational sport facilities (n=2). Participants were adults spanning a wide age range (mean±SD: 52±15y). Convenience sampling and recruitment through national disability‑focused platforms may limit generalizability, and the small number of professionals constrains provider‑specific insights.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Stakeholder feedback on survey clarity, feasibility, and interpretability, collected through focus group transcripts coded independently by 2 researchers.

Results

Four focus groups yielded themes related to (1) factors shaping accessibility experiences, (2) strengths of the CAS, and (3) recommended revisions. Participants highlighted the need for clear distinctions among rating tiers, reduced respondent burden, and inclusion of visual aids. Intercoder agreement was 97%. Stakeholder input guided revisions to survey wording, domain structure, and rating tier definitions. Although thematic saturation was reached among adults with mobility limitations, the small professional sample represents a limitation. Future research should examine age‑related differences in CAS usability and conduct a psychometric evaluation of the revised instrument.

Conclusions

The CAS shows promise as a brief, end‑user–focused tool to communicate accessibility of community-based physical activity settings for adults with mobility limitations. Incorporating stakeholder feedback strengthens the tool’s clarity and usability. Further work is needed to assess reliability, validity, and applicability across diverse age groups and facility types.

People with disabilities have significantly lower rates of physical activity than the general population.1, 2, 3 Contributing factors include high unemployment rates,⁴ limited safe outdoor mobility options,⁵ insufficient transportation to fitness facilities, and widespread inaccessibility of programs and equipment.^1,6,7 These barriers span multiple socioecological levels—from built environments to organizational policies^1,5,8—and persist despite extensive research documenting facilitators and obstacles to participation.^9,10 Prior studies also note substantial challenges in assessing the accessibility of exercise facilities, equipment, and parks for people with limited mobility.^11,12, 13

Existing tools, such as Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) and Community Health Inclusion Index (CHII), identify important accessibility barriers but are often long, technical, and difficult to score. CHII requires roughly 2 hours and targets policymakers,¹⁴ whereas AIMFREE—particularly the consumer version—may take ≤3 hours and remains subjective.¹⁵ Shorter computer-adaptive versions show promise,¹⁶ but require in-person measurement and are not yet widely available. Thus, the feasibility of using current tools independently and efficiently remains limited.

There is a clear need for brief, user-friendly accessibility assessments that individuals with mobility limitations can complete and share easily. To address this gap, we developed the Community Accessibility Snapshot (CAS), an abbreviated tool derived from AIMFREE and CHII to provide a rapid, site-based assessment. This study examines stakeholder perceptions of the CAS and its rating tiers to guide refinement of the instrument.

Methods

CAS development

Our targeted population for this survey consisted of 2 key stakeholder groups: adults with a movement limitation looking to engage in physical activity in their community, and full-time professionals at a community physical activity or exercise facility. The CAS survey was created with 3 objectives: (1) to clearly provide accessibility information for fitness and recreation environments; (2) to enable users to provide feedback to future users regarding specific sites using a consistent scale; and (3) to receive an assessment based on previous experience. To achieve these objectives, great importance was given to easy of use, requiring low time commitment, mitigating technical language, and reporting distinct levels of accessibility.

The initial CAS domains were derived from a targeted review of items used in AIMFREE and the CHII, with the goal of identifying constructs most consistently linked to accessibility in community fitness and recreation environments. The research team first extracted domains common to both instruments and categorized them by frequency of use, clarity, and feasibility for end‑user self‑report. To ensure relevance, we conducted preliminary consultations with individuals with mobility limitations and with fitness professionals before survey development. During these sessions, stakeholders were asked which environmental features most strongly influence their ability to use a facility. Feedback consistently emphasized restrooms, parking, access routes, activity‑area features, and staff support as the most salient determinants of accessibility. These stakeholder‑identified priorities guided the final selection of CAS domains. Items within each domain were adapted from AIMFREE and CHII but modified to reduce technical language, remove objective measurements requiring specialized equipment, and improve usability for community members. Stakeholder input, therefore, informed both the prioritization of domains and the simplification of item wording to enhance clarity and feasibility.

The research team consulted several individuals from both stakeholder groups to determine the most important domains from CHII and AIMFREE to include. The research team used this feedback to choose restroom, parking, access routes, activity, and staff as domains for inclusion in the CAS, and individual items were chosen to represent these domains (appendix 1). To enhance ease of use, technical language was revised, numeric measurements were removed, and some items were collapsed into a single item for usability.

A set of rating tier definitions was created to accompany the CAS to provide a consistent interpretation of various sites and provide a guide for survey interpretation. This scale was split into 5 levels of accessibility from “not accessible” to “excellent” and includes criteria for achievement at each tier within the scale (appendix 2).

Recruitment

Stakeholders were recruited through targeted outreach using the National Center on Health, Physical Activity, and Disability website and associated social media channels. Announcements invited adults with mobility limitations and full‑time professionals working in fitness, sport, or recreation facilities to participate in focus groups about accessibility assessment. Interested individuals were directed to a secure screening questionnaire that collected demographic information, disability status (for the mobility‑limited group), and employment role (for the professional group). Eligible individuals were selected consecutively as they responded, with the aim of achieving representation across age ranges, sex identities, and U.S. geographic regions. No participants were excluded based on type of mobility aid, specific diagnosis, or type of fitness facility to capture a broad range of experiences. To reduce potential selection bias inherent to convenience sampling, recruitment materials were disseminated nationally, and focus groups were scheduled at multiple times to accommodate varied availability. All eligible respondents who indicated interest were invited until groups reached the target size. Although convenience sampling may introduce bias, transparency in inclusion criteria and broad national outreach were used to mitigate this limitation.

Procedures

A focus group study design was used to investigate the aim of the study. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research was used to report this study.¹⁷ This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. All study procedures—including recruitment, screening, informed consent, data collection, and data management—were conducted in accordance with institutional guidelines and federal regulations for the protection of human subjects. Participants provided electronic informed consent before joining a focus group. Focus group meetings concentrated on (1) the CAS survey and (2) the tier definitions used to represent a facility’s accessibility. Separate focus group interview guides were created for adults with disabilities and fitness professionals. Guiding questions prompted participants to provide previous experiences relating to accessibility, perceptions of the CAS, and feedback to improve the instrument. Each focus group was designed to include 2-8 participants.

Focus group interviews were conducted online via Zoom and led by a woman interviewer. The interviewer was a senior inclusion specialist and was trained in leading focus group interviews. The interviewer asked questions of the group from an interview guide/template, and each focus group lasted 1-2 hours. The participants received an email with the meeting link for the meeting 7 days before the scheduled time and again on the day of the meeting. Participants were also informed of the key areas of discussion and sent a copy of the survey for review. A researcher (C.M.) attended the focus groups to assist the interviewer and take notes. Participants were made aware of the researcher’s presence but did not see or hear them. After the qualitative data were analyzed, the content of the CAS was revised. This revision was sent with a short report of the findings to all the participants. They were encouraged to provide feedback through email.

Data analyses

Each focus group was audio-recorded with the participants’ consent, and a transcription service was used to generate a transcript. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes and subthemes were extracted in line with field standards.^18,19 Two members of the research team coded transcripts, and intercoder reliability was assessed using percent agreement and considered acceptable if agreement exceeded 90%. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed in NVivo 14 (QSR International).^a

To enhance analytic rigor, coding followed a multistep iterative process. Two trained coders first completed a joint calibration exercise using 1 transcript to establish a shared understanding of code definitions and decision rules. A preliminary codebook was developed deductively from the interview guide and inductively from emergent concepts in the data. Coders independently applied the codebook to all transcripts, meeting after each transcript to discuss discrepancies, refine code definitions, and document analytic decisions in an audit trail. Interrater reliability was assessed using percent agreement, with a priori criterion of ≥90% indicating acceptable reliability.²⁰ When discrepancies occurred, coders engaged in consensus resolution through structured discussion rather than majority rule, ensuring interpretive alignment. The finalized codebook was then applied consistently across all transcripts. This systematic approach strengthened the dependability and confirmability of the qualitative analysis.

Results

Stakeholders provided feedback across 4 focus group meetings. The first 3 focus groups were attended by people with limited mobility. The final focus group was conducted for fitness professionals. Of the scheduled participants, 10 were “no‑shows” for their assigned focus group session. Research staff attempted recontact for each no‑show; 3 participants were rescheduled successfully, whereas 7 did not reply after multiple attempts and were removed from the active contact list. No enrolled participants withdrew after providing consent. Upon completion of the initial analysis, the research team disseminated a summary of findings and a revision of the CAS to all participants. Optional feedback was solicited via email, and responses received were used to validate the thematic structure, though no substantial modifications to coding or theme definitions were required. Participant characteristics can be found in table 1.

Table 1.

Participants

Focus Groups	4
N	16
Adults with a disability	14
Physical activity professionals	2
Mean age, SD	52±15 y
Men	5
Women	9
Types of disabilities	Spinal cord injury, spina bifida, osteoarthritis, cerebral palsy, amputee, post stroke, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, traumatic brain injury, fibromyalgia
Types of professionals	Personal training center manager, fitness instructor/adjunct professor
Age SD (y)	14

Thematic saturation was evident within the mobility‑limited stakeholder group, with later focus groups producing no new codes or concepts. In contrast, the small number of fitness professionals precluded subgroup saturation, limiting the analytic depth of provider‑specific themes. This limitation primarily reflects recruitment challenges and underscores the need for future work to sample providers more extensively. Several themes and subthemes were identified, including factors affecting accessibility, strengths of the CAS, and suggestions for future revision (table 2).

Table 2.

Thematic analysis by theme, subtheme, and illustrative quote

Theme	Subthemes	Illustrative Quote
Factors affecting experience	Positive factors	“The gym people were wonderful. They did basically the same thing the physical therapy did, but they added a little bit more to it”
	Negative factors	“because you want to do research before you go there and find out, oh, you can’t even access the facility”
Survey strengths	Nuance of varying accessibility
	Focus areas	“I really think the restrooms and the parking lots are the most important”
	Usable ratings	“so, I think some people searching would like to have a simple question of, you know, Yes, I can work out there if I’m in a wheelchair, yes or no”
Suggested revisions	Inclusion of visual symbols	“…but, you know, you could use like pictograms/symbol or something along those lines to add a little bit of clarity”
	Reduce the number of questions	“again, 10 questions I think is basic”
	Increase descriptive depth of ratings	“and then, it had that ranking under there like, We’re a Level 4, Level 3, or whatever that helps me if I don’t have my phone”

Factors affecting experiences

Participants reported that providers who designed their offerings to be inclusive were likely to elicit a positive experience for those with limited mobility. These providers typically employed staff trained and ready to accommodate individuals with limited mobility and mitigate barriers to participation. Listening to feedback from people with disabilities during the development of facilities was said to improve accessibility and perceptions of inclusion among patrons.

Participants noted that providers could ensure a positive experience using technological aids and devices. One participant shared that the presence of updated fixtures and utilities in bathrooms made inaccessible places much more available to her. Our participants pointed out that those using varying mobility aids also had varying needs. These variations must be considered when designing accessibility solutions. A participant shared her experience at a bowling alley, which she visited with fellow wheelchair and prosthetic users. This facility had incorporated technology that enabled wheelchair users to participate while seated. Participants perceived that facilities with greater adaptive technology utilization and providers’ attention to detail and utilization of stakeholder insights promoted accessibility. Another factor was ensuring all patrons were treated respectfully, regardless of ability level. One participant shared that the patrons perceive a professional as inclusive when they consistently are seen helping others with mobility limitations. Participants also illustrated how providers must consider the needs of all potential end users, because a failure to do so may elicit negative experiences.

Factors leading to a negative experience

Though previous research identified factors that contribute to services being perceived negatively by end users with disabilities, participants relayed negative perceptions of the accessibility of community facilities.21, 22, 23 The inability or unwillingness of providers to work with individuals with limited mobility to promote access or mitigate barriers to participation was a major negative experience reported by participants. A wheelchair user and her husband were made to wait an hour and a half to receive accommodation and could not participate. Participants reported a negative perception of service experiences when the providers failed to deliver the accommodation that was advertised. A participant traveled out of town to a community facility that was promoted as accessible for wheelchair users. This participant could not access the entrance because the passages were not wide enough for a wheelchair. These negative experiences were the result of wasted time and effort, which fostered embarrassing situations for our participants.

Another negative factor that emerged was the unavailability or failure of technological aids. A participant spoke of an elevator failure that made it impossible for her and others with disabilities to leave or enter a facility for several hours. The lack of sliding doors as a barrier to access was frequently reported, along with improper bathroom fixtures. Participants highlighted the lack of availability of adaptive exercise equipment as a factor that contributed to poor accessibility.

Strengths of the survey tool

An area that was identified as a strength of the CAS by participants across focus groups was the ability of this tool to maintain a degree of nuance in accessibility. The CAS can provide respondents with information pertinent to the nature and severity of their disability, such as the surface of a parking area. Another area of the CAS that was perceived well was the accessibility rating with tier definitions, both in structure and detail. Most participants believed that they could use the scale to interpret ratings to real life instances and found the scale comprehensive in meaning. Participants perceived the CAS as usable, noting that the length of the CAS made it much more likely that they would take the time to complete it.

Suggested revisions

The participants across all focus groups provided several key areas of revision for the CAS. To mitigate the likelihood of a respondent being overwhelmed by the CAS, the inclusion of symbols and visual aids would facilitate the ease of completion by users with limited health literacy. Participants suggested that visual representation using symbols could convey information without the need for technical language and mitigate confusion. Some participants wanted more description of each tier on the scale. For example, a clearer distinction between ratings 2 and 4 on the scale could improve its utility for end users.

Although the CAS is abbreviated, participants shared concerns regarding the length of the proposed tool and suggested reducing the CAS to only 10 items.

Discussion

This study gathered perspectives from adults with mobility limitations and fitness professionals to refine the CAS. Their feedback revealed key strengths of the tool as well as specific revisions that could improve clarity, usability, and interpretability.

Key findings

Positive accessibility experiences were linked to environments intentionally designed to support diverse mobility needs, including adaptive technologies and attentive staff. Participants emphasized that such features promote independence and confidence. In contrast, negative experiences commonly stemmed from unmet accessibility claims, malfunctioning equipment, and structural barriers—such as narrow entrances or nonfunctional elevators—that limited participation.

Strengths of the CAS

Participants viewed the CAS as clear, usable, and appropriately concise. They appreciated its capacity to capture nuanced accessibility differences relevant to various disability types. The structured rating scale also helped users interpret site accessibility in practical terms, enhancing the tool’s perceived usefulness.

Suggested revisions

Despite these strengths, participants recommended simplifying item wording further and incorporating visual symbols to support users with lower health literacy. They also requested clearer distinctions between mid-level rating tiers and suggested reducing the overall number of items to minimize the burden.

Implications for practice

The CAS has potential value for community members seeking to identify accessible fitness and recreation sites and for professionals aiming to address accessibility gaps. Its brevity and user-centered structure make it suitable for dissemination through disability networks or facility websites, where it could promote transparency and encourage inclusive design practices.

Future directions

Future research should focus on validating the CAS’s psychometric properties to ensure its reliability and validity. In addition, it would be valuable to explore the impact of the suggested revisions on the survey’s usability and effectiveness. Longitudinal studies could also examine how the use of the CAS influences accessibility improvements in community-based physical activity settings over time.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Because we used a convenience sampling strategy, selection bias is possible—particularly favoring individuals who engage with disability‑focused online platforms or have higher comfort with virtual technology. We attempted to mitigate this limitation by using broad national outreach, inclusive eligibility criteria, and flexible scheduling. The sample size was relatively small, and the focus groups were conducted online, which may have influenced the dynamics of the discussions. Participants represented a wide age range, which reflects the demographic diversity of adults with mobility limitations who use community fitness and recreation spaces. This diversity allowed the focus groups to capture a broad spectrum of accessibility experiences and priorities. However, age‑related differences may have influenced the perspectives shared—for example, older adults may face different physical challenges or have distinct expectations for facility design and technology use compared with younger adults. Because the study was not powered to examine age‑based differences, these potential variations could not be explored in depth and may have shaped the salience of certain themes. Future research should investigate whether the usability and interpretation of the CAS differ across age groups to ensure that the tool is responsive to the needs of adults across the lifespan. The questions used within the CAS come from 2 previous tools (AIMFREE and CHII), and it is possible that this decision limited the findings of this research. These focus groups were designed to help refine the instrument. However, the psychometric properties of this tool are not yet determined.

The limited participation of fitness/recreation professionals (n=2) represents a constraint on the interpretability of provider-level themes. Although the primary aim was to refine the CAS with stakeholder input, the small professional sample restricts generalizability and may underrepresent organizational or staff-focused considerations. Future research should specifically target a larger number of professionals to strengthen coverage and achieve stakeholder balance.

Conclusions

Stakeholder feedback informed meaningful refinements to the CAS, a brief tool designed to assess the accessibility of community-based physical activity settings for adults with mobility limitations. The CAS shows promise as a practical, user-driven measure, but further testing is needed to establish its reliability and validity and to ensure it supports broader efforts to enhance inclusion in community fitness and recreation environments.

Supplier

• a.NVivo 14; QSR International.

Disclosure

The investigators have no financial or nonfinancial disclosures to make in relation to this project.

Appendix 1. Community Accessibility Snapshot (CAS)

Parking and Entrance

• 1. If there is parking available, are any of these features present? (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Accessible spaces designated with an upright sign
  • b)
    Designated van accessible parking spaces
  • c)
    Clear aisles adjacent to accessible parking leading to entrance or entrance path
  • d)
    Surface is made of

    • i.
      Pavement/concrete
    • ii.
      Dirt/grass
    • iii.
      Gravel/rocks
  • e)
    None of the above
  • f)
    N/A, no parking lot available

Comments:

• 2. If there is a sidewalk or path connecting to the building entrance from the parking lot, are the paths from the parking area: (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Wide enough for a wheelchair
  • b)
    Free of obstacles or hazards
  • c)
    Slope is not extreme
  • d)
    Surface is firm pavement/concrete

    • i.
      Dirt/grass
    • ii.
      Gravel/rocks
  • e)
    None of the above
  • f)
    N/A, no sidewalk or path

Comments:

• 3. If there are curb cuts on the path from the Parking Area, indicate the following characteristics: (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Slope is not extreme
  • b)
    Free of breaks on the surface
  • c)
    A detectable warning
  • d)
    None of the above
  • e)
    N/A, no curb cuts/no sidewalk or path

Comments:

• 4. If there are stairs at the main entrance, is there a ramp, lift, or separate accessible entrance? (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Ramp
  • b)
    Separate accessible entrance
  • c)
    Platform Lift
  • d)
    Signage to an accessible entrance
  • e)
    None of the above
  • f)
    N/A, no stairs at the main entrance

Comments:

• 5. The site entrance has the following features: (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Power assist or automatic door
  • b)
    Minimal force required to open doors
  • c)
    Door handles operable with a closed fist without pinching, grasping, or twisting the wrist
  • d)
    Door opening is at least wide enough for a wheelchair
  • e)
    Door threshold is flush with the ground or only slightly raised
  • f)
    N/A, the site does not have an entrance
  • g)
    None of the above

Comments:

Programs and staff

• 6. The facility has the following: (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Has a front desk or information desk that can be reached by someone in a wheelchair
  • b)
    Staff trained to work with people with a mobility impairment
  • c)
    Contact person for accessibility accommodations
  • d)
    At least some inclusive programs designed for people with a mobility impairment
  • e)
    At least some adapted programs designed for people with a mobility impairment
  • f)
    None of the above
  • g)
    N/A, no programs or personnel at this site

Comments:

Restrooms

• 7. The restroom entrance has the following features: (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Power assist or automatic door
  • b)
    Open corridor entrance (no door)
  • c)
    Requires minimal force to open door
  • d)
    Door handles can be operated with closed fists without pinching, grasping, or twisting the wrist
  • e)
    Door opening is at least wide enough for a wheelchair
  • f)
    Door threshold is flush with the ground or only slightly raised
  • g)
    N/A, this site does not have restrooms
  • h)
    None of the above

Comments:

• 8. The bathroom stall has the following: (check all that apply)

• • a)
    Door handles and latches that can be operated with closed fist without pinching, grasping, or twisting -the wrist
  • b)
    Grab bars
  • c)
    Enough space for mobility devices to maneuver
  • d)
    Wheelchair accessible toilets
  • e)
    Inside or outside the stall, the restroom has a wheelchair accessible sink
  • f)
    Inside or outside the stall, restroom has accessible faucet handles
  • g)
    N/A, this site does not have restrooms
  • h)
    None of the above

Comments:

Activity

• 9. Please indicate the following characteristics present when going from the entrance to the activity spaces.

• • a)
    Elevator
  • b)
    Ramp
  • c)
    Lift
  • d)
    All activities on one level
  • e)
    Surface is firm pavement/concrete

    • i.
      Dirt/grass
    • ii.
      Gravel/rocks
  • f)
    Entry ways are at least wide enough for a wheelchair
  • g)
    Free of barriers or obstacles
  • h)
    None of the above

Comments:

Appendix 2. CAS Tier Definitions

Level	Dimension	Criteria
5. Excellent	Staff	Facility has a contact person for accessibility accommodations. Staff trained to work with people with disabilities.
	Activity	The facility has a front desk that can be reached by a person in a wheelchair. Site offers either inclusive or adapted programs designed for people with disabilities.
	Parking and entrance	The parking area has designated and marked spaces for people with disabilities. Parking and paths have a firm surface of pavement or concrete. There are no curbs or stairs between the parking area and main entrance. If curbs or slopes are present, there are curb cuts and ramps to navigate both with wheeled mobility. It has designated Van accessible parking spaces.
	Restrooms	The restroom area is available and is located on the same level as activity or is available by elevator. Entrance is wide enough for wheeled mobility and has no door or automatic door, or door opens with minimal force. Stalls provide enough space for wheeled mobility.
4. Good	Staff	The facility has a contact person for accessibility accommodations.
	Activity	The facility has a front or information desk that can be reached by a person in a wheelchair. The site offers adapted programs designed for people with disabilities.
	Parking and entrance	The parking area has designated and marked spaces for people with disabilities. Parking and paths have a firm surface of pavement or concrete. There are no curbs or stairs between the parking area and main entrance. If curbs or slopes are present, there are curb cuts and ramps to navigate both with wheeled mobility. It has designated Van accessible parking spaces.
	Restrooms	The restroom area is available and is located on the same level as the activity or is available by elevator. The restroom entrance is wide enough for wheeled mobility and has no door or automatic door, or door opens with minimal force. The Restroom stall provides enough space for wheeled mobility.
3. Moderate	Activity	Facility has a front or information desk that can be reached by a person in a wheelchair.
	Parking and entrance	The parking area has designated and marked spaces for people with disabilities. Parking and paths have a surface firmer than gravel (grass, dirt, pavement, concrete). There are no curbs or stairs between the parking area and main entrance. If curbs or slopes are present, there are curb cuts and ramps to navigate with wheeled mobility. It has designated Van accessible parking spaces.
	Restrooms	The restroom area is available and is located on the same level as activity or is available by elevator. The restroom entrance is wide enough for wheeled mobility and has no door or automatic door or door opens with minimal force. The Restroom stall provides enough space for wheeled mobility.
2. Minimal	Parking and entrance	The parking area has designated and marked spaces for people with disabilities. There are no curbs or stairs between the parking area and main entrance.
	Restrooms	The restroom area is available and is located on the same level as activity or is available by elevator.
1. Not accessible	Parking and entrance	Parking area does not meet minimal criteria. Entrance area does not meet minimal criteria.
	Restrooms	The restroom area is available; however, the restroom does not meet minimal criteria.