Inclusion in Agriculture: Nigerian Researchers Lead the Way

Congratulations to Jamal Abioye Adio and his co-authors, Rasheed Adekunle Abilu and Rafiu Olasunkanmi Bello, on the publication of their research on barriers to people with visual impairment in agriculture in Oyo State, Nigeria. This study makes a literature contribution on factors that may exclude people with disabilities from participation, which can inform vocational policies both in Nigeria and internationally.

Agriculture remains the backbone of Nigeria's economy as the primary source of livelihood for millions. However, agricultural work has traditionally been designed around the assumption that farmers possess full visual capacity. Navigating farmland, identifying crops and pests, operating machinery, and accessing markets all presume the use of sight. This may be challenging for people with visual impairment.

A theoretical foundation

The authors discuss the Social Model of Disability, by Oliver (1990), who argues that disability impacts through societal structures that do not accommodate human diversity. Rather than viewing visual impairment as a problem, this model suggests attention to inaccessible tools, exclusionary policies, and discriminatory perceptions as sources of limitation. According to Bandura's (1997) Self-Efficacy Theory, people's confidence in their ability to perform tasks shapes their willingness to engage in those activities. When people with visual impairment do not have access to training, resources, and support, they are less likely to participate.

The study

Abilu and colleagues (2025) used a survey design with 120 respondents selected across three towns in Oyo State known for agricultural work. The participants included 67% men and 33% women, with a mean age of 37 years. 60% of respondents had partial visual impairment while 40% had total blindness, allowing the researchers to examine differences based on level of impairment.

What the findings show

The findings suggest that people with visual impairment engage in various agricultural activities. Livestock rearing showed the highest participation at 62%, followed by poultry production at 48%, fish farming at 35%, and crop farming at 21%. Visual impairment does not limit people for agricultural jobs. The question is whether the environment supports their involvement.

Financial problems affected 70% of respondents. Lack of assistive tools affected 67%, while 64% reported little access to technical information. Only 32% of respondents had access to farm inputs, 28% had access to training, and just 19% had access to extension services. Mobility and safety concerns were also significant factors. Approximately 74% of respondents said difficulty navigating farm terrain, and 69% reported safety hazards and injuries as concerns.

The recommendations

The authors recommend assistive farming technologies designed for non-visual use, specialised training programs incorporating tactile methods and hands-on demonstrations, disability-sensitive extension services, financial support through low-interest loans or grants, and inclusive greenhouse systems for people with visual impairment.

These recommendations align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, specifically focusing on poverty eradication, zero hunger, and reduced inequalities. Vocational support systems should include people with all abilities. When we redesign agricultural training, funding mechanisms, and extension services with inclusion as a guiding principle, we expand inclusion and strengthen communities.

Policymakers, researchers, advocates, and agricultural professionals may consider how these findings can improve vocational policies. Congratulations again to Jamal Adio, Rasheed Abilu, and Rafiu Bello for this much-needed work.