Abstract
Accessibility for individuals with disabilities has been a growing concern for years across multiple domains of public living. The United Nations, as well as professionals in the field of occupational therapy, write that while having a disability is not an inherently negative attribute, navigating everyday life can be difficult in a world not built nor modified for the needs of everyone. However, in recent years, this inequity has begun to be addressed and recognized as an issue that plagues disabled communities worldwide (“Accessibility and Development,” n.d.; Ferri, 2024). Since 1990, when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was federally enacted, accessibility has improved as a result of this legislation. It is believed by some that the ADA is doing a sufficient job at placing all citizens on an equal footing, no matter their ability; however, others believe that these laws and regulations still have a long way to go. Disabled communities are essential to the progression society makes as a whole, which is why examining civic life through a disabled lens is necessary to ensure accessibility and inclusion are present (“Positive Impact,” 2023). Disabled at Disney: An In-Depth Examination on Accessibility for those with Motor, Sensory, and Cognitive Differences in Amusement Parks Across the US is a step in furthering accessibility in recreation/play, social participation, and leisure, which are important occupations in the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020). Exclusion of these occupations deters occupational balance, a concept that connects the direct link between occupational participation and health outcomes. With sectors of participation missing, it is likely one will experience negative health impacts in all other areas of wellness (Hitch & Pepin, 2021). By examining accessibility within selected amusement parks using current legislation, qualitative data will be used to acknowledge potential gaps in inclusive tourism. This will comprise background information, interviews, and field observations to make sound judgment. Interviews will be conducted with disabled park guests and employees, with the interview questions being derived from gaps found in the literature. Further, field observations will be conducted based on two in-person visits to American amusement parks. Overall, findings from Disabled at Disney will be applied to the accessibility of amusement parks and recreation as a whole; it will additionally be sent to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice in an effort to report on current findings, progress, and any areas that may be lacking.
Introduction
In recent years, disability rights have been taken into consideration more than ever before, marking a positive turning point in improving the lives and happiness of citizens with disabilities and health conditions. This is believed to mainly be attributed to technological advancements in both healthcare and everyday life by improving access to resources, communication, and efficiency (Hacker, 2010). However, it does not necessarily change stigmata when comparing those with disabilities to able-bodied individuals, often being marked by improper verbiage, microaggressions, or implicit discrimination. It is oftentimes easier to ignore societal issues that are considered taboo; however, these small acts of omission can have enormous negative effects on disabled communities. It has been shown that glossing over inequities in how the ideally able-bodied society was constructed, as well as how it currently functions based on this ideal, hinders the US as a whole and prevents the country from moving forward with all citizens in tow (Babik & Garder, 2021). Society cannot progress until certain issues are addressed and fixed, especially regarding the disabled community, accounting for over 28.7% of citizens nationwide (“Disability Impacts,” n.d.).
This project will focus on three major categories, including sensory, cognitive, and motor disabilities, each with conditions that can overlap categories based on characteristics. Motor disabilities affect one’s ability to properly move a certain part(s) of their body or impair the coordination of movement. These can also be referred to as physical disabilities, as they affect physical structures of the body, such as muscle groups, bone integrity, innervation, or entire limbs. Cognitive disabilities refer to impairments in thought processes, communication, learning, attention, discernment, and problem-solving. This type of difference is also known as intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) or learning disabilities, and can often look like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or other neurological conditions. Lastly, sensory differences refer to an impairment in one or more of the seven senses, including hearing, vision, touch, taste, smell, proprioception, and vestibulation. Sensory disabilities most often appear as blindness or deafness, which both impact how an individual interacts with the world around them. It should also be noted that disabilities are not limited to one category, as many conditions have traits across multiple sectors. For example, cerebral palsy and Down syndrome are both conditions that affect physical and cognitive abilities. However, no disability is the same for two individuals- one person’s experiences as a disabled individual do not equate to another’s, even if they were diagnosed with the same condition(s).
Under Title 42 of the United States Code, Chapter 126, entitled ‘Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities,’ lists Congress’s findings that laid the foundation for why disabled people need legal protection in the first place. Within these discoveries, Congress finds that:
“Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem. Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services.” (“Americans with Disabilities Act,” 2008).
This research will subsequently examine whether the ADA’s reach needs to be further extended and have tighter regulations on the safety, inclusivity, and non-discrimination of disabled individuals in amusement parks. Background information will cover the groundwork by examining current literature regarding accessibility within tourism and recreational spaces for guests with cognitive, motor, and sensory impairments. Using this information and the gaps in the literature, questions will be derived to be used in interviews with current guests, past guests, and employees of amusement parks to collect recent qualitative data from disabled viewpoints.
To gain firsthand insight, field notes will be taken by the researcher at Disneyland in Anaheim, CA and Six Flags St. Louis in Eureka, MO. After the project has been analyzed, the findings and discussion will then be sent to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice to communicate the results to a larger audience. If the collected data suggests that further research and accommodations are needed to reinforce equitable experiences, this will also be communicated in the letter.
Statement of the Problem
Concern for the disabled community has been on the rise as political tensions increase and public funding decreases, fearing that not enough attention has been given to marginalized individuals (Diament, 2025). Under the Trump administration, several threats have been made to cut funding for public services and education, both of which have major impacts on the disabled community (Ives-Rublee & Doherty, 2025). A large number of individuals are dependent on public services that are at risk of being defunded, as journalist and founder of the nation’s leading source for news surrounding developmental disabilities, Michelle Diament, reports. She writes that “protection and advocacy agencies, state councils on developmental disabilities, the lifespan respite program, university centers on developmental disabilities, among other programs, advocates say.” In recent months, Diament has also reported that Disability Rights New Jersey, Disability Rights Mississippi, and Disability Rights Arkansas have had to cut portions of their programs because they have been impacted by a significant decrease in federal funding. These programs are all federally protected; however, they are still experiencing negative consequences of the administration’s actions that they will continue to be impacted by for years to come (2025). Additionally, under President Trump’s recent proposal entitled the ‘Skinny Budget,’ over 163 billion dollars will be cut from the administration’s budget. The proposal itself stated that the 2025 fiscal year budget was:
“Found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life” (Vought, 2025).
While this remark displays a small portion of the administration’s behavior towards people of minority groups, there are many who are in support of the Skinny Budget, as it may allocate federal tax dollars towards national defense, reducing the nation’s debt, or infrastructure. The Trump administration has shown support of the disabled community through the creation of Achieving a Better Life (ABLE) accounts, which aim to promote financial independence of individuals (Internal Revenue Service, 2026). Many are in support of this, but others recognize this campaign as one of the only positive deeds the administration has enacted, sparking debate regarding whether the administration is actively supporting the disabled community.
The ADA’s creation back in 1990 was groundbreaking by creating legislation that protects disabled individuals in common areas of life, such as employment, accommodations, and public services. However, as major sources of governmental funding are currently being withdrawn from public life, it should be recognized that the disabled community must continue to be supported socially and financially under the ADA (“ADA Prohibits Disability Discrimination,” n.d.). By looking into this through researching sectors of public life and occupation, data will reflect whether federal regulations are operating at the capacity necessary to provide public accommodations and services for the disabled community.
Purpose of the Research
The primary objectives of this research project are to promote occupational justice, inclusivity, and equity in accessibility within recreation, leisure, and social participation. There are many features in daily life that are inclusive and accessible to those with disabilities, but there are also many that highlight the polar opposite. To examine this, studying one specific sector of public life using the ADA can later be translated and applied to other areas of society. This selected area of amusement parks in the US serve as common places to enjoy oneself and engage in recreational activities apart from normal life. Taking a break from the monotony of everyday life is essential for promoting relaxation, mental health, and overall well-being; however, when taking a break feels more exhausting than relaxing, this can completely defeat the purpose of taking a break (Rindfleisch, 2017). This is, of course, also relevant to disabled people, as some often find themselves struggling in a world that was not designed or built with equity in mind. To promote the importance of taking a break, leisurely and recreational activities must be inclusive of anyone who wishes to engage with them.
Furthermore, examining the area of amusement parks can be expanded into determining whether or not leisure activities in general are accessible to those with motor, cognitive, and sensory impairments. The results of this project will be sent in a letter to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice to provide accurate information on the current state of accessibility of amusement parks. Overall, analyzing whether amusement parks in the US are inclusive will promote accessibility within public life as a whole and improve attitudes towards the disabled community.
Research Question
Are amusement parks in the United States as accessible and inclusive as they could be under the federal regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or does the US Department of Justice require further regulations to ensure accessibility is being improved and maintained for those with motor, cognitive, and sensory disabilities?
Thesis Statement
Amusement parks have options for guests with motor, cognitive, and sensory disabilities, but are not maintaining and improving them as they should be according to federal legislation mandating certain accessibility procedures. This may require additional regulations from the US Department of Justice to make amusement parks more accessible or redesigns of areas, attractions, and experiences within the parks.
Limitations
Within this project, there are a few limitations that should be considered when discussing the research. These limitations include restrictions on accessibility and selection bias in data collection. These restrictions do not invalidate the data nor the results it yields, but should be mentioned prior to the background information, methodology report, and discussion of the findings.
To begin, there are two main restrictions that are important to note on accessibility in public spaces: historic properties and specific medical conditions. Historic properties and buildings are exempt from certain ADA regulations, such as the reconstruction of the original structures. Because most historic properties are not built for those with disabilities and mobility impairments, features like staircases and small doorways cannot often be redesigned. However, ramps can still be added to buildings for wheelchair accessibility, as well as other features that make the space inclusive and enjoyable for all visitors (Uzeta, 2023). Most amusement parks are not considered to be historic properties according to the National Register of Historic Places, but may have certain buildings within the parks that are on the list (n.d.). Next, specific medical conditions should be discussed as well. These often include conditions or impairments that impose safety restrictions, such as pregnancy, epilepsy, cardiovascular conditions, concussions, obesity, traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, and more. All of these conditions and more have specific health risks that certain experiences, rides, or attractions could trigger. Because of this, safety must be prioritized over accessibility in specific circumstances.
Regarding the qualitative data collected, there is also a selection bias involved that should be mentioned before the data is presented. This bias stems from a couple of the interviews done by the researcher, which were conducted with disabled people the researcher knew, instead of being conducted entirely randomly. The process mainly involved randomization; however, the researcher also asked disabled park guests randomly if they would like to participate in the interview. In research, randomization yields the best and most accurate results by getting a better understanding of the population from the data.
Background Information
Purpose
Currently, there are accessible features and accommodations that are used by disabled people in everyday life; however, there are also plenty of features that can make facets of everyday life harder than they need to be (“Accessibility and Development,” n.d.). The purpose of obtaining background information is to examine both helpful and harmful features that can be seen in society and public life, as well as observe gaps in the information that will be used to create interview questions. There is no definite way to determine whether or not public life as a whole is completely accessible or inaccessible, but reviewing relevant sources will aid in applying knowledge to recreation, leisure, and social participation.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA was signed into law by former President George H.W. Bush in 1990, following decades of advocacy and protest for disability equality and disabled rights. Arlene Mayerson, Directing Attorney of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, states that the Disability Rights Movement both “raised consciousness and changed consciousness” about how society thought of disabled people (2025). Prior to gaining societal recognition, most people believed that those with disabilities would never go to school, obtain a job, or live on their own. For centuries, disabled people have historically been hidden from everyday life and seen as monsters, abominations, and most importantly, as different (Espinoza & Tenorio, 2022). Through movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Feminist Movement, and so many more, the term “different” became used in a positive light. This led to the disabled community joining in on these protests and fights, celebrating marginalized groups, and forming their own movement, known as the Disability Rights Movement (Mayerson, 2020). This slowly got the attention of communities in the US and created the mere thought that disabled people could have the same rights as non-disabled people. After decades of fighting, their efforts snowballed and gained the attention of media sources and congressmen, some of whom began to advocate for change for the disabled community.
Before the ADA was signed into law, an amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was completed under the creation of Section 504. This provision was modeled after Title VI and Title IX, which prevented racism, sexism, and discrimination against ethnicity (“Title IX Interplay,” 2024). This was one of the most important movements that made people start to think about how they see the disabled community and how they treat them. Because of Section 504, for the first time in American history, the two words “discrimination” and “disability” were ever put into the same sentence on a legal document. The rich history and foundations of the Disability Rights Movement, the ADA, and Section 504 created the start of a switch in society (Mayerson, 2020). These movements challenged people to re-categorize how disability was thought of by linking civil rights laws to the disabled community, as well as creating federal laws that protected disabled people from discrimination. Specifically, the ADA prevents discrimination within employment, state and local government, public accommodations, education, telecommunications, and other miscellaneous provisions (ADA National Network, n.d.). Furthermore, the ADA National Network also utilized the semantics of equal opportunity versus equality to say that equal treatment amongst non-disabled versus disabled communities was simply not enough, as disabilities vary, unlike race or gender (2020). This has continued to push employers, government officials, and US citizens to advocate and enforce equal opportunity rather than equality in order to make society more of a “level playing field.”
Common Accessibility
Generally, there are many common features of accessibility that are seen in public life if the spaces have been designed with disabilities in mind. Accommodating folks with physical or motoric disabilities is one of the most common examples of accessibility, as the Americans with Disabilities Act requires in order to comply with non-discrimination laws (U.S. Access Board, n.d.). For people with motor disabilities, entrances and exits to buildings often have adjustments that accommodate people in wheelchairs and those with limited mobility in their lower extremities. More common examples of this include ramps, elevators/lifts, automatic doors, wide doorways, and handrails. According to Section 206.2.1 of the ADA, federal requirements state that there must be at least one alternative route to the entrance/exit of a building (n.d.). For people with cognitive or sensory impairments, there are other options for accessible entrances or alternative routes. These can include walkways with clear, large signage, unobstructed paths, braille or tactile maps and signage, well-lit pathways, designated handicap parking spots, and colored curbs to distinguish a change in the height of the ground (“Establishing Accessible Housing,” 2024). There are infinitely more accommodations that create inclusive pathways in and out of buildings, making the overall space more accessible and abiding by ADA laws.
Other than entrances and exits, buildings themselves must be accessible, as well. Accommodations can vary depending on the place and its purpose; for example, it would not be common for a grocery store to have a quiet room, but a concert stadium might due to the loud noises and volume of people. In general, some accessible features can include sensory rooms, seating, water fountains at a wheelchair-level height, large stalls in bathrooms, audio descriptions, closed captioning on videos, wide doorways, elevators, and so much more. Even small accommodations go a long way in creating an accessible space that ensures the inclusion and promotion of diversity. Additionally, a majority of accessible features are extremely creative and are not always thought of when creating a space. However, by making slight accommodations or adjustments, disabled citizens will have an easier time maintaining their independence and completing everyday activities.
Some accommodations aren’t as commonly seen, but are just as important in their role. These can include free wheelchair rentals, an accommodating menu for dietary restrictions and allergies, adult-size changing tables, drinking straws, adjustable lighting, fidget toys, and more.
Each disability is not like another and impacts people in very different ways, so having access to certain accommodations is a huge way to include disabled people in the implementation, design, and purpose of a space in public life.
Common Inaccessibility
Along with accessible features, there are also many inaccessible features in public spaces that prevent the disabled community from being involved with their community. The CDC defines several types of limitations that may hinder individuals with disabilities beyond solely physical barriers, which are usually what is addressed when discussing accessibility. These include (but are not limited to) attitudinal, communicative, political, programmatic, social, and transportational barriers, which are all described as physical and nonphysical obstacles to inclusion (2025). These can be seen through a lack of the aforementioned means of accessibility, but are most often seen by a lack of willingness to accommodate disabled people in general. In a research series written by the Job Accommodation Network, it was found that money and stereotypes were two of the main reasons behind business owners not wanting to accommodate their disabled employees or customers. Even though it only costs an average of $500 to implement certain accommodations, business owners are still fearful of the cost and are simply not willing to spend the money (2020). This, of course, does not account for all businesses in the United States, but it does show that some are more concerned about money than others.
Additionally, it was found that 56% of accommodations do not cost employers anything at all, and negative stereotypes regarding the disabled community were still at the forefront of the issue (“Accommodation and Compliance Series,” 2020). This continues to show that despite the little to no cost of accommodations for employees, guests, or customers with disabilities, prejudice and even discrimination may prevent these conversations from ever being brought up in the first place (Gould et al., 2019). With negative attitudes towards the disabled community, as well as the unwillingness to spend money, there are significant challenges presented to disabled people in everyday life. This further prevents disabled folks from feeling welcome in a space that was not designed with them in mind, and therefore places divisions between those who are disabled and those who are not.
Independence and Quality of Life in Fulfilling Occupations
Independence is a major pillar of the disabled community, as it is something that instills confidence and self-sufficiency. Independence is also something that is sought after constantly, from taking the training wheels off a bicycle to getting a driver’s license. It’s a great feeling, but the antithesis of it destroys the confidence that was previously built. When someone is not able to complete a task or activity, often referred to as an occupation, they may feel like a burden because of their reliance on others. This can cause complex psychological responses that can take a toll on a person, such as a loss of identity, well-being, and self-image, even if they have no other choice but to rely on another individual (“How to Heal,” n.d.). Additionally, occupational participation promotes the quality of life of a person, which is directly related to how a disabled person can engage with those activities and occupations (Carl, 2020). This is why independence is promoted so much within the disabled community and in society as a whole, as it provides the confidence necessary to grow as a person.
Application of Amusement Parks
All of the aforementioned information regarding public life in general can be applied to spaces within amusement and theme parks, which also must be accessible under ADA regulations (U.S. Access Board, n.d.). Former President Bush, who signed the ADA into law, even said:
“Whenever any barrier stands between you and the full rights and dignity of citizenship, we must work to remove it, in the name of simple decency and justice. The promise of the ADA…has enabled people with disabilities to enjoy much greater access to a wide range of affordable travel, recreational opportunities, and life-enriching services” (2001).
In many ways, amusement parks do follow the requirements of the ADA and other civil rights laws that protect the disabled community; however, in recent years, members of the community have spoken out via social media and news platforms to share the weakening accessibility services in amusement parks. Especially within the Disney Parks franchise, disabled people have seen their previously utilized accommodations be terminated, and many more state that parks across the US have never been allies of the disabled community to begin with.
Disneyland and Disney World changed their accessibility services multiple times within the last couple of decades, altering accommodations that many park guests relied on when visiting. For instance, before 2013, the Disney Parks in California and Florida practiced a policy that allowed people with disabilities or medical needs to skip the ride lines if they were not able to wait in line (Mintz, 2021). Common reasons for this include mobility limitations, temperature dysregulation conditions, or even ASD, which can make a person less in control of their behavioral regulation abilities when waiting for prolonged periods. If a person wanted to utilize this accommodation, they would first secure it through Disney Accessibility Services (DAS). Then, they would go to the specific ride they wanted to skip the line to and receive a return time slot for later on. When they returned, the person and their party would enter through a different queue that provided direct access to the ride (Mintz, 2021). However, in 2013, Disney Parks abolished this accommodation because able-bodied people overused and exploited this accommodation meant for disabled people (Izzo, 2023). Taking this away entirely, rather than reforming it, also took away opportunities from disabled people who relied on that accommodation to go on rides without their medical issues getting in the way. It further led to backlash and lawsuits from multiple families of children with ASD who benefited from this service. In one of these lawsuits against Disney, the plaintiff’s mother stated, “He pushes toward people and gets extremely frustrated when others touch him. Mothers were pushing their children away from him as if he were contagious. People were pointing and laughing. People were calling him ‘retard’” (McCoy, 2013).
The parks then shifted their accessibility services again in 2024 to solely focus on park guests with developmental disabilities, mainly including ASD. The website states, “DAS is intended to accommodate those guests who, due to a developmental disability like autism or similar, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period” (“Big Impact,” 2025). However, this completely stripped accommodations for those with physical disabilities who also could not stand in a queue for longer amounts of time. TikTok creator Sarah Todd Hammer has made numerous posts online about her recent experiences getting denied DAS accommodations in the parks, despite the fact that she was previously granted them. Hammer was diagnosed with acute faucid myelitis, a neurological condition caused by a virus that attacks and severely damages the spinal cord. Due to this, she has difficulty walking and standing for long periods as a result of her partial paralysis from the neck down. Hammer’s condition also causes heat intolerance, which can be dangerous if she has to stand in the heat for too long. As an avid Disneyland visitor, DAS accommodations previously provided equal opportunities to Hammer; however, she and numerous others are now being denied access to these services (2024).
Although some amusement parks seem to be reeling back on their accessibility services, others aim to continuously improve theirs. Morgan’s Wonderland in San Antonio, Texas was created in 2010 by Gordon Hartman, the father of a child with cognitive/developmental and physical disabilities. He saw the dire need for “fully accessible outdoor recreational activities” after decades of not being able to find any for his daughter to experience (Hartman, 2022). Morgan’s Wonderland is the world’s most accessible amusement park with a goal of being enjoyed by anyone who visits, no matter their ability. The park even offers free admission to guests with disabilities, free wheelchair rentals, and has hundreds of various accommodations for visitors all free of charge (“Park Policies,” n.d.). All of the attractions, experiences, and even their newly founded waterpark are completely accessible, but they still continue to improve their accessibility services and accommodations by listening to their disabled park guests. YouTuber Molly Burke recently took a visit to Morgan’s Wonderland to experience the park as a blind person. She felt that the blind community is frequently forgotten about, especially when it comes to amusement parks and recreation (2024). Burke was pleasantly surprised by all of the accommodating features of the parks, from the rides to the employees to the free admission and more. Near the end of her video, she takes the audience to a recently built attraction: a rollercoaster meant for people with disabilities, specifically those in wheelchairs. This attraction is a 4-D rollercoaster simulator that has tilting chairs, whooshes of air, water sprays, and more to make the ride feel like a rollercoaster. When reviewing her overall experience of Morgan’s Wonderland afterwards, Burke stated:
“When something is universally designed to make sure that everybody’s needs are being met and they can all experience the same thing, that allows you to become the butterfly that you already are. I don’t think it has anything to do with us changing as disabled people, but everything to do with the environment around us, accommodating us” (2024).
She, along with thousands of other disabled people, wishes that all amusement parks could be as accessible as Morgan’s Wonderland. Noting that most of the accommodations within the parks would not cost much to recreate within other parks, she invites companies to rethink the designs of their attractions and experiences that were not built with the disabled community in mind.
Other features that can be seen at various theme parks include versions of backpacks or bags that include articles such as headphones, fidget toys, visual cue cards, sunglasses, weighted lap pads, and more. These are designed for people with invisible disabilities, like ASD, ADHD, or post-traumatic stress disorder. A company that utilizes backpacks like these across the US is KultureCity, which recognizes the need for accessibility in spaces that can be overwhelming (KultureCity, n.d.). The company openly states that one in four people has a sensory need or an invisible disability, making up a huge portion of the population that could benefit from accommodations like these (Kavanaugh, 2024). Although no amusement parks currently use KultureCity, some may have their own version of this for guests with invisible or cognitive disabilities.
Methodology
Approach
A qualitative approach was used in this research project to determine whether the US Department of Justice needs to have tighter regulations on amusement parks, or if they are being maintained and improved as they should be. Under the ADA, public spaces are required to provide protections for the disabled community to prevent discrimination by providing public accommodations (U.S. Access Board, n.d.). The methodology for this project involves several steps, including interviews with disabled park guests, field observations from in-person visits to two amusement parks, and data analysis.
Interviews
Using information gathered from the background research and the gaps found in the literature, six interview questions were created to ask disabled park guests about their most recent experience in an amusement park. Interviews were conducted with the main goal of hearing directly from disabled voices about the positive and negative aspects of their experiences. For the sake of anonymity, all names and identities of the interviewees will remain unknown and will be addressed using gender-neutral pronouns. All participants gave informed consent and agreed to have their answers discussed and analyzed.
The interview questions, cited in Appendix A, included questions regarding the person’s specific disability, when they last visited an amusement park, whether they received accessibility services, and if their experience was as accessible as it could be. Eight participants were interviewed, including one Disneyland employee, one Six Flags St. Louis employee, and six park guests. These park guests had either recently visited an amusement park or were currently visiting one when presented with the opportunity to participate in an interview for research purposes. All participants were asked the same six questions, and all reported responses to each question presented.
Field Observations
To gather first-hand information on the accessibility of amusement parks in the US, two parks were visited by the researcher, including Disneyland in Anaheim, California and Six Flags St. Louis in Eureka, Missouri. Thorough field notes were taken on various aspects and experiences observed as either accessible or inaccessible with motor, cognitive, and sensory disabilities in mind. All field notes from Downtown Disneyland, Disneyland Park and Disney California Adventure, and Six Flags St. Louis are cited in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
A qualitative data analysis was conducted to identify patterns and similarities of both accessible and inaccessible features in amusement parks that could either help or hinder a disabled person’s experience. This will be formulated by analyzing the interviews with disabled park guests, the field observations, and the background information. This aims to combine primary and secondary analyses to identify common experiences and themes regarding the accessibility of amusement parks. Results of the interviews and field observations are reported and analyzed in the Findings and Discussion section of the project.
Sharing the Findings
To expand the knowledge of the current means of accessibility in amusement parks, as well as how this may improve or decrease a disabled person’s quality of life, a composite will be written and sent to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. The goal of this is to share the findings from the research and provide updated information on the effectiveness of ADA regulations in recreational activities such as these.
Findings and Discussion
In the interviews and field observations, various amusement parks were mentioned, all of which had similar experiences and patterns. Eight interviews were conducted in total, with one participant’s most recent experience being the Jefferson County Fair (Hillsboro, MO), three participants’ being Six Flags St. Louis (Eureka, MO), and four participants’ being Disneyland (Anaheim, CA). The two main amusement parks, Six Flags St. Louis and Disneyland, will be discussed more than the Jefferson County Fair. This is because the researcher did not attend the Jefferson County Fair and, therefore, cannot provide any firsthand information on the accessibility of the experience. The information gathered from the participants’ interviews is followed by a summation of the field observations from each of the parks visited.
Jefferson County Fair (Hillsboro, MO)
Some of the interview questions were completed by the interviewee, and others by their daughter. The participant who attended the Jefferson County Fair last went in July of 2025 to experience the atmosphere of the fair, see live music, and purchase food from the food trucks available. They disclosed their disability as a condition that affects them physically and cognitively, which requires them to have the assistance of another individual to fulfill most of their daily occupations. The participant stated that their experience was somewhat accessible with the help of another person, as they utilize a manual wheelchair when in public for longer periods. Especially when maneuvering across the fairgrounds, which are on gravel and grass, they would not have been able to travel across the grounds without the help of someone else. The participant stated that they do not enjoy rides and attractions, but they do enjoy watching live performers and tasting the food sold at the fair. Similarly, without the help of another person, the interviewee would have had struggles communicating, paying, and receiving food. This is because the food trucks are much higher than the height of a wheelchair, requiring assistance to complete the transaction. One additional aspect the participant mentioned was the bathrooms, which were portable toilets placed at the entrance of the fairgrounds. There were no wheelchair-accessible bathrooms, which has posed an issue for them in the past. The interviewee was aware of this previously, however, which led them to decide to wear adult diapers to the fair to avoid this issue.
Disneyland Park and Disney California Adventure Park (Anaheim, CA)
Four participants stated their most recent experience in an amusement park was Disneyland in July of 2025, including three park guests and one employee. All of these interviewees had visible physical disabilities, with one participant having additional cognitive and sensory impairments. The three participants with only physical disabilities consisted of one Disneyland employee and two park visitors. The employee was a full-time manual wheelchair user who stated that their overall experience in the Disneyland Parks has been fairly accessible, including their experiences being employed in the park. The other two participants with only physical disabilities reported similar experiences of accessibility, with one of these participants using a rented electric wheelchair and the other using a walker. When asked about their experiences, all three interviewees brought up issues in the park that involve their functional mobility limitations and the accommodations they use for their disabilities.
The most common complaint was a lack of clear signage of where accessible queues for rides are located. Most attractions in the parks are accessible, with some having narrow walkways, sharp turns, steps, or moving walkways in the queues. While queues are not regulated under ADA legislation, the accessibility standards state that there must be clear signage indicating the location of accessible or alternative pathways so that “riders can avoid unnecessary backtracking” (U.S. Access Board, n.d). These standards state that there must also be signage at the entrance or within the queue as to what type of access this attraction offers, such as wheelchair transfer, darkness, loudness, rides with wheelchair spaces, and any other relevant safety and accessibility information (n.d.). According to the participant using a walker, there are accommodations for these via alternate routes that have either a ramp or an elevator for most attractions and experiences, but aren’t always easy to find due to a lack of apparent signage. This participant, as well as another, also stated that although there are alternative routes, they require an abnormally large amount of planning. Known as the “Return Time” service, disabled guests are able to skip past the queue if they have a physical disability or mobility issue. However, this is only for certain rides (fewer than half) within the park, and they are not seen anywhere in Disney California Adventure, which takes up half of the Disneyland property (“Location Return Time,” n.d.). Additionally, return times cannot be requested online; they require the person to go to the start of the queue to speak to a cast member about a return time, which is often about an hour from that time. In the meantime, there is not much else to do while waiting for their return time window. The multiple interviewees who reported this felt very frustrated that this was the only way to bypass the queue, as they felt there were other experiences they missed out on within the parks.
The participant with motor, cognitive, and sensory impairments provided an additional perspective on the accessibility of Disneyland. The interviewee was completely blind and born with cerebral palsy, which can cause both physical and intellectual disabilities. The interviewee stated that there are a good number of helpful accommodations that help them experience the park as a blind person. The main features utilized by the participant included audio description devices and tactile maps. Disneyland offers both stationary and portable tactile maps, which are helpful in knowing the layout of the parks. Audio description devices can also be used on some attractions and experiences, including parades. The interviewee reported that these devices helped them experience their surroundings, as well as using braille menus at select restaurants. However, according to the participant and the Disneyland services website, there are only nine restaurants that have braille menus out of the 136 dining options in the parks and the Downtown Disneyland area (“Dining,” n.d.). The participant also stated that even though these accommodations are useful, they are mildly inaccessible in their design. Especially since very few restaurants and dining carts have braille menus, they are not able to order food independently most of the time.
From the field observations, similar features were also noticed regarding the varying accessibility in the parks. There are aspects that are accessible and function effectively; however, there are others that are either missing or flawed in their design. Examples of this include high costs for renting wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, strollers, braille guide maps, and more. Requiring hefty fees for mobility devices can turn disabled people away from visiting the parks or make their time at the parks financially harder. Another example of partially effective accessibility includes the signage in the park, and specifically near the attractions. Large and clear signage is abundant throughout the park, which is accessible for those with limited vision; however, there is little to no signage regarding accessible entrances, despite ADA regulations. This requires disabled park guests to ask for permission to enter via an alternative route every time they want to go on a ride, instead of maintaining independence by entering the alternative queue on their own. In combination with the flawed Return Time service, there can be experiences that are a lot harder than they need to be, even if the parks consider them to be accessible.
Another feature noted in the field notes that is worth mentioning is the number of water fountains, restrooms, and benches throughout the park. For people with disabilities, it can be rather difficult to find a water fountain or a restroom, as they are often hidden in the park. This is to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the park, but by having little signage indicating nearby restrooms and fountains, it puts disabled people at risk of overheating, dehydration, and other negative health consequences. There are also benches and seating areas throughout the park, but they are almost always completely taken up. A simple solution to this is to add rest stops with disabled-only signage throughout the park, and to add benches to the queues of rides. The new Star Wars attraction, Rise of the Resistance, does have benches built into the queue itself. Park guests, disabled and able-bodied, are constantly seen sitting on these while waiting for the line to move, providing rest from standing for extended periods. Park visitors also do this in various other rides that have rails within the queue; although they are not meant for resting, guests continue to sit on these rails for rest and comfort purposes. These examples, along with several others, demonstrate how there are attempts at accessibility within the parks, but they are not carried out effectively. These lead to disabled guests having different and potentially negative experiences in comparison to non-disabled guests, indicating that certain redesigns would be optimal for the parks.
Six Flags St. Louis (Eureka, MO)
Three participants stated that they most recently visited Six Flags St. Louis in July of 2025, including one guest with a cognitive disability, one with a physical disability, and one with a cognitive and sensory disability. The park visitor with a physical disability (an ambulatory wheelchair user) reported that their time was mostly accessible because they were able to get out of their wheelchair when needed. The visitor utilized the alternative routes provided at the exits of most attractions in the park, but stated that all rides and attractions required a transfer, meaning the person must get out of their wheelchair to get into the ride. For them specifically, the experience was accessible, but they reported that someone who is not able to transfer would have a much harder time and would not have a similar experience at Six Flags, as there are no rides at the park that can accommodate wheelchairs. The guest with the cognitive impairment stated that they often had difficulty understanding someone without them having to repeat or simplify their words. Because of this, they found it difficult to understand the safety information given to them on the attractions, which can pose a risk to the safety and health of the individual. The guest has come to the park numerous times and was not concerned about their own safety specifically, but raised the concern for others who have the same cognitive disability. Lastly, the park guest with cognitive and sensory disabilities reported their time as largely accessible. The accommodation they most often utilized was the low sensory room in the park, which has dim lights and interactive tactile experiences to regulate with. This provided a break from the rest of the park, which can be crowded, loud, and extremely hot at times; however, the sensory area is in the same room as the first aid, often being louder than expected.
From the field observations, Six Flags St. Louis certainly had accessible features and aspects meant for disabled guests; however, similarly to Disneyland, some of these features were either inherently flawed in their design or executed improperly. The main example of this was seen consistently in the park, where the queues to attractions were extremely narrow, had sharp turns, and were wheelchair-transfer only. There were no rides observed that could provide access to full-time wheelchair users, which can create vastly different experiences for disabled guests wishing to go on rides with mobility issues. Once again, certain redesigns would likely be the best option to make the queues and the overall park much more accessible to those with disabilities.
Conclusions and Future Steps
Amusement parks are fantastic places to engage in occupations like leisure, play/recreation, and social participation, but they can be much more challenging than relaxing for people with various types of disabilities. From researching background information, as well as conducting interviews, field observations, and qualitative data analysis, it is evident that amusement parks across the country are mildly accessible places. Most follow ADA regulations and provide services that prevent discrimination against disabled people; however, several of these services are either inherently flawed in their design or are not efficiently operating to serve the disabled community. This leads to disabled park visitors having vastly different and possibly negative experiences when visiting amusement parks, furthermore requiring tighter governmental regulations to ensure that public spaces are both accessible and functional. It has been discussed that the main reasons behind inaccessibility are not only financial means, but more so unwillingness to accommodate those with disabilities in the public eye (“Workplace Accommodations: Low Cost, High Impact,” 2020). This needs to be addressed on a federal level in order to accommodate the largest number of people possible. Expanding beyond amusement parks, it is clear that public spaces need to have greater, more attainable, and more efficient accessibility. This will be communicated through a letter sent via e-mail to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice to provide updates on the present, yet inefficient, means of accessibility within amusement parks and public spaces in general. The thesis statement has been supported by the data collected in this research project, leading to further requirements and regulations under the ADA of 1990 in order to make public life more accessible to those with motor, cognitive, and sensory disabilities. As of August 2026, no response has been received despite numerous attempts to communicate with the department. Alternative solutions are currently being explored in an effort to implement efficient accessibility in amusement parks and recreational spaces.
Appendix A (Interview Questions)
(These questions are to be completed by the person with a disability/disabilities, unless they are not able to answer the questions themselves. In this case, another person who attended the park with the participant may supplement answers. Any information not asked directly in the questions below was also used, with the consent of the participant.)
- What is the last amusement park you visited? When was it?
- Would you categorize your disability as something that affects you physically, cognitively, sensorily, or multiple?
- Did you obtain disability/accessibility services?
- If so, were they easy or more difficult to obtain?
- Was your personal experience in the space as accessible as you believe it could be?
- Why or why not?
- Did you feel that the park was designed/redesigned with disabilities in mind?
- Were there any rides, interactions, experiences, dining options, stores, shows, or other areas that you were not able to participate in?
- If so, why?
- Do you feel that a redesign of this inaccessible feature of the park would be beneficial for others, as well?
Appendix B (Field Observations)
Appendix C (Letter)
