The study rests on a well-established theoretical foundation: the social model of disability. Unlike older frameworks that locate disability within an individual’s body, the social model argues that people are disabled by society—by attitudinal, environmental, and organisational barriers that could otherwise be removed or mitigated. Ngobeni and Malema applied this lens deductively across three social domains: environmental, attitudinal, and organisational. The choice is deliberate. Despite national policy instruments such as South Africa’s White Paper on Sport and Recreation and the National Sport and Recreation Plan, introduced in 2011 and 2012 respectively, most communities have yet to see those commitments translated into accessible facilities on the ground. The social model also carries a warning the researchers take seriously: removing physical barriers alone does not automatically produce participation, because attitudes and institutional practices must change alongside ramps and doorways.

Methodologically, the study adopted an interpretive paradigm with an exploratory qualitative design. From a registered population of 125 people with physical disabilities at identified centres, the researchers used purposive sampling to recruit five recreation service providers—including sport promotion officers, a director of sport and recreation, a sport development officer, and a community sport liaison—and twelve young people with physical disabilities aged 18 to 31. Their conditions ranged from spinal cord injuries caused by car accidents and gunshot wounds, to strokes and congenital disabilities. Data were collected through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews lasting 30 to 50 minutes, audio-recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. The researchers then applied Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis, coding the transcripts in ATLAS.ti 9 and cross-coding themes across all interviews until consensus was reached on five overarching themes.

The study’s rigour procedures were notably thorough for a small-scale qualitative project. The researchers triangulated findings across participant groups and against the existing literature, conducted member-checking by returning transcripts to participants for verification, and maintained a reflexive journal to manage potential bias—particularly relevant because the first author is a resident of Phalaborwa and personally familiar with the centres where data were collected. Ethical approval came from the University of the Western Cape’s Human Social Science Research Ethics Committee, with informed consent forms translated into Xitsonga for participants who did not speak English. Transcripts and recordings were stored in encrypted, password-protected files, and participation was voluntary with the right to withdraw at any time.

The five themes that emerged—Inclusion Practice, Service Providers’ Headaches, Frustrations in Recreation Engagement, Availability of Facilities, and Recommendations to Bridge the Gap—paint a picture of good intentions colliding with structural neglect. On the provider side, there is genuine evidence of adaptive thinking. One service provider described adjusting table heights for wheelchair users and supplying lighter rackets; another explained the rules of Para volleyball, a modified version of the sport designed for players with limb differences or wheelchair users. A third described how goalball, a sport played by rolling a ball containing a ringing bell toward a goal, is adapted locally using a size-five ball with a ring inside. These accounts demonstrate that some providers possess real technical knowledge of inclusive practice and are actively trying to implement it.

Yet the youth participants told a starkly different story. Several reported that community-initiated recreational programs required participants to buy their own equipment, effectively pricing out those with the fewest resources. One young man stated that organizers consistently overlooked the need to involve persons with disabilities in sport because they were deemed unfit to participate due to their physical conditions. Others described being marginalised from activities entirely, watching only people without disabilities take part, and noted that when local municipalities plan community recreational programs, people living with physical disabilities are not included during the planning phases. Under the social model, these accounts map directly onto the attitudinal barrier domain: the obstacle is not the impairment itself but the community’s assumption that participation is neither desired nor possible.

The environmental and organisational barriers were equally concrete. Providers admitted they own no facilities of their own and must outsource halls from the municipality, checking in advance whether wheelchair ramps exist—meaning accessible venues are available only sporadically, typically during tournaments. One provider recounted a demoralising incident in which wheelchair users could not enter a facility because it had no ramps and had to remain outside. From the user side, a young woman who loves chess described a venue full of staircases with non-adjustable tables and chairs, forcing her to struggle into her seat alone, and noted that bystanders were not always willing to help—a cumulative experience she said left her disheartened and discouraged from pursuing her passion. Buildings designed with nondisabled users in mind, narrow sidewalks, inadequate lighting, and inaccessible doorknobs all compound the problem.

The stakes of this exclusion extend well beyond fairness. The study situates recreational participation within a public health framework, noting that physical inactivity carries a 20 to 30 percent higher risk of death compared with more active people, and raises the likelihood of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, weaker bones, and several cancers. People with physical disabilities already face elevated health-related risks, and inactivity can lead to fatigue, depression, and increased dependence on others. Conversely, participation in recreation builds psychological well-being, friendships, self-identity, and a sense of meaning and purpose. The researchers argue that recreation is routinely misunderstood as a luxury, when the evidence positions it as a determinant of health and quality of life—one that people with disabilities are systematically denied in rural South Africa.

The study’s recommendations converge on a central actor: the local municipality. Ngobeni and Malema call for municipal teams that include both people with and without disabilities from each community, so that inclusion is built in rather than bolted on, and so that people with disabilities are not isolated into separate provisions. They urge awareness campaigns about the rights and dignity of people with disabilities, training for recreation staff, caregivers, and participants, and improved maintenance of stadiums and community halls to ensure genuine accessibility. They also propose dedicated community sports units where people with disabilities can learn about upcoming tournaments and request equipment and training. Providers themselves recommended educating caregivers from the household level upward, while the youth participants asked for direct funding allocations to their centres, appropriate equipment, and facilities designed for wheelchair users from the outset.

Ultimately, the study’s most important finding may be the gap itself—the disconnect between providers who believe they are practising inclusion and young people who experience abandonment. The researchers frame this as the difference between formal equality, where identical facilities are nominally open to everyone, and substantive accessibility, where accessibility is systematically incorporated into the planning, design, and management of recreational environments. Meaningful participation, they conclude, requires collaboration between service providers and community members, particularly people with disabilities themselves. The authors acknowledge that the small sample limits generalisability, but the voices captured in Ba-Phalaborwa carry a message with resonance far beyond Limpopo: no amount of goodwill substitutes for consulting the people a program is meant to serve, and inclusive recreation begins with a seat at the planning table.

Subject of Research: Recreational program access and inclusion for youth with physical disabilities in Ba-Phalaborwa, South Africa

Article Title: Recreation providers' and end-users' twofold experiences: perception and knowledge about recreation programs in the Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality, South Africa

Article References: Ngobeni, T. B., & Malema, M. J. (2026). Recreation providers' and end-users' twofold experiences: perception and knowledge about recreation programs in the Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality, South Africa. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 8, Article 1713807. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2026.1713807

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2026.1713807

Keywords: disability inclusion, recreation programs, South Africa, rural communities, social model of disability, adaptive sports, accessibility, qualitative research, youth with disabilities, local municipalities, physical activity, Limpopo

The study is funded by a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and it brings together collaborators with expertise spanning nutrition, agricultural economics, and community health. Feng’s team includes Sean Cash, an associate professor at Tufts University; Abby Gold, a health and nutrition specialist at the University of Minnesota; Denise Holston, an associate professor and nutrition specialist at Louisiana State University; and Qingxiao Li, an assistant professor of agricultural economics and agribusiness at LSU. The geographic focus on Minnesota and Louisiana is deliberate, pairing a largely rural Upper Midwest context with a Southern state where food access challenges and diet-related disease burdens are well documented.

The scale of dollar store expansion is striking. According to the data service company Statista, there were more than 39,000 dollar stores in the United States in 2025, an increase of 4,700 stores since 2021. Dollar General alone accounted for the highest number of locations in 2025, with 20,959 stores, more than Dollar Tree and Family Dollar combined. Perhaps most telling for food researchers: groceries made up more than 80 percent of Dollar General’s sales in 2025. While many retail sectors contracted or stagnated during the economic disruptions of 2020 and 2021, dollar stores grew aggressively, often opening in communities that larger grocery chains had abandoned.

That growth has made dollar stores the fastest-growing food-retail channel in rural America. A 2023 study led by Feng and published in the American Journal of Public Health examined dollar stores and food access for rural households across the United States. It found that from 2008 to 2020, dollar stores increased their share of rural household food purchases by 102.9 percent. In communities where the nearest supermarket may be a long drive away, the local dollar store can function as a de facto grocery store, and in some places it may be the only storefront selling food at all. That dual identity, as both a lifeline and a potential nutritional liability, sits at the center of the new research.

The public health concern is straightforward. Dollar stores tend to stock shelf-stable, heavily processed items: sugar-sweetened beverages, salty snacks, canned goods, and breakfast cereals, alongside limited protein options and little or no fresh produce. When such stores become a household’s primary food source, the resulting diet can skew toward calories dense in added sugars and sodium but low in nutrients. Feng’s earlier work, published this past fall in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, analyzed the healthfulness of foods purchased at dollar stores and documented these patterns in detail. The new study builds on that foundation by shifting from description to intervention, exploring concrete opportunities for nutritional improvement.

Feng frames the issue with nuance rather than alarm. Some shoppers, she notes, find dollar stores a convenient and affordable place to get food, especially those living far from traditional grocery stores. Others worry the stores may cause harm because they do not offer the healthiest options. The research team wants to understand how consumers actually incorporate this emerging retail format into their household food purchasing strategies, rather than assuming a single story of either benefit or harm. That consumer-centered perspective shapes the study’s methodology, which combines qualitative and computational approaches.

Technically, the project proceeds in three integrated phases. First, researchers will conduct interviews and focus groups with dollar store shoppers and community stakeholders in Minnesota and Louisiana, probing their perceptions and motivations as they work to fulfill their households’ dietary requirements. Second, the team will apply machine learning cluster analysis to food purchase data, a technique that groups households with statistically similar buying patterns and allows researchers to characterize distinct types of food purchase behavior. Each cluster can then be evaluated for healthfulness, and the strategies that consumers within healthier clusters use to maintain a nutritious diet with dollar store food can be identified and studied. Third, the team will translate those findings into educational resources designed to help low-income Americans achieve food and nutrition security and sustain better health over time.

The intervention phase will put those tools to the test. The researchers plan a pilot initiative using the educational resource toolkit with shoppers and other stakeholders in two communities in Minnesota and two in Louisiana. The toolkit is intended to improve understanding of nutrition, food affordability, and healthy shopping strategies, and the pilot may include workshops, community outreach programs, and cooking demonstrations, all carried out in collaboration with local organizations. This community-driven design reflects a deliberate choice: rather than prescribing solutions from outside, the team aims to build approaches that fit the real constraints and habits of dollar store shoppers, including tight budgets, limited transportation, and the practical realities of what is on the shelves.

The communities most affected by dollar store proliferation are also those with the least food retail choice. Feng notes that dollar store shopper demographics skew toward rural households, People of Color, and lower-income households, and that the data collected should help provide a well-rounded understanding of the dollar store phenomenon. Dollar stores have added a new dimension to food systems in all communities, but rural areas and lower-income communities with racial and ethnic minority households are especially impacted, both as customers and as sites of rapid store expansion. Understanding how these households navigate the trade-off between convenience, cost, and nutritional quality is essential for any policy or program that hopes to reduce diet-related health disparities.

The stakes extend beyond individual shopping carts. If dollar stores are now a structural pillar of food access for vulnerable populations, then improving what those stores sell, and how shoppers use them, could move the needle on nutrition insecurity at population scale. Feng’s goal, as she describes it, is to create a holistic and community-driven approach that helps dollar store shoppers fulfill their households’ need for healthy foods, make healthier choices, and ultimately contribute to reducing or eliminating nutrition insecurity. With insights gained through data collection and direct conversations with consumers, the team will develop tools to help shoppers stretch their food budget while using dollar stores as food retailers. If there is knowledge to be gained that promotes healthy eating with limited resources, Feng says, the team wants to share it. The three-year study promises to turn one of American retail’s most rapid expansions into one of its most closely examined public health experiments.

Subject of Research: The impact of dollar store food retail on household food purchases and nutrition security in rural and low-income American communities

Article Title: Assessing the fastest-growing food retailers—dollar stores

Article References: Assessing the fastest-growing food retailers—dollar stores. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: dollar stores, food retail, nutrition security, food access, rural communities, public health, USDA, Dollar General, diet quality, low-income households, machine learning, grocery shopping

The study examines why opposition to solar energy on land is so persistent and why it often breaks along political lines. In many regions, attitudes toward large solar installations have become entangled with broader ideological identities, so that questions about a specific project quickly become questions about values, trust, and belonging. Residents who might otherwise support renewable energy in the abstract can mobilize against a concrete project when they perceive it as an industrial intrusion that displaces farming. This dynamic produces a familiar pattern: national polls show broad public support for renewables, while local permitting hearings become battlegrounds where solar proposals stall or fail.

Agrivoltaics changes this calculus by altering what a solar project is perceived to be. Rather than converting farmland into an industrial site, agrivoltaic projects maintain active agricultural production, pairing photovoltaic arrays with crops such as forage, vegetables, or row crops, or with grazing livestock like sheep. From the perspective of a farming community, this reframing matters enormously. The land remains in agriculture, farmers may receive lease income that stabilizes farm finances, and the visual and symbolic character of the landscape is preserved to a greater degree than under conventional ground-mounted solar. The research indicates that this reframing can reduce the perception that solar development and farming are fundamentally at odds.

Technically, agrivoltaic systems come in several configurations. Elevated or stilt-mounted arrays raise panels several meters above the ground with widened spacing between rows, allowing machinery access and sufficient light for understory crops. Interspersed or widened-row designs modify panel spacing within standard racking, trading some generating capacity for improved light distribution. In pastoral systems, sheep graze beneath conventional or elevated arrays, controlling vegetation while benefiting from shade during hot periods. Each configuration involves trade-offs among electricity yield, crop productivity, construction cost, and operational complexity, and the optimal design depends on climate, crop type, and market context.

The biophysical rationale for co-location rests on microclimate effects. Partial shading from panels can reduce heat stress and evapotranspiration in water-limited environments, sometimes improving crop water-use efficiency. In hot climates, shade-tolerant crops such as leafy greens, forage grasses, and certain vegetables have shown maintained or even enhanced yields under modest shading, alongside reduced irrigation demand. Conversely, crops benefit panels as well: transpiration from vegetation cools the air around the modules, and cooler photovoltaic cells operate more efficiently, since the power output of crystalline silicon panels declines with rising temperature. This bidirectional coupling—panels shaping the crop microclimate and vegetation cooling the panels—is what distinguishes genuine agrivoltaic integration from simple land-sharing on paper.

But the new research shifts attention from these engineering questions to a social and political one: does agrivoltaics change how people feel about solar development in their communities? The findings suggest that it can. Where residents understand a proposed project as an agricultural arrangement rather than a land conversion, opposition weakens, and the partisan framing that often dominates energy debates loses some of its force. The mechanism is straightforward in principle: many political disagreements over energy infrastructure are less about technology than about identity and threat. When a project threatens a community’s agricultural identity, resistance becomes a defense of place and livelihood, and it aligns readily with existing ideological divisions. When the project reinforces that identity by keeping land in production and income in farming families, the threat diminishes and the polarization associated with it declines with it.

This has practical implications for how solar projects are planned and permitted. The research implies that developers and policymakers should treat community engagement not as a public-relations exercise but as a design parameter. Projects that genuinely incorporate local farmers—as leaseholders, operators, or partners—rather than merely compensating them, are more likely to earn durable social acceptance. Transparent benefit-sharing arrangements, long-term agricultural commitments written into project agreements, and demonstration sites where residents can see functioning agrivoltaic systems all help convert abstract proposals into tangible, assessable realities. Permitting frameworks could likewise reward co-location designs, streamlining review for projects that demonstrably maintain agricultural output.

The findings also speak to a broader tension in the energy transition. Decarbonizing electricity systems at the pace climate targets require will demand very large areas of land for solar and wind, and that land is unevenly distributed across politically diverse rural regions. If renewable deployment becomes a partisan identity issue, the transition stalls regardless of economic merit. Tools that de-couple clean energy from ideological conflict—by anchoring it in locally valued practices like farming—are therefore strategically important, not merely aesthetically pleasing. Agrivoltaics, in this view, functions as a form of conflict engineering: a design choice that changes the social meaning of infrastructure.

None of this means agrivoltaics is a frictionless solution. Elevated racking is more expensive than conventional ground-mount systems, and added construction cost must be justified by agricultural revenue, lease terms, or policy incentives such as dual-use tariffs or preferential permitting. Not every crop tolerates shading, and the agronomic performance of many crop-panel combinations remains under active field investigation across climates and seasons. Grid connection, land ownership structures, and interconnection queues present their own constraints that no design choice can eliminate. There is also a risk of symbolic adoption, in which projects are marketed as agrivoltaic while grazing token flocks or planting marginal areas, undermining the trust that genuine dual-use systems can build.

Nevertheless, the central lesson is significant: the social acceptance of solar energy is not fixed, and it can be improved by design. By keeping land in production, keeping farmers on the land, and keeping local communities at the center of project benefits, agrivoltaic systems reduce the perception of loss that fuels opposition, and in doing so they weaken the partisan alignment that has made solar siting an increasingly polarized contest. As governments seek to scale renewable generation rapidly, the study suggests that the cheapest way to unlock land for solar may not be legal reform alone, but a redesign of solar itself—so that the panels arrive not as replacements for agriculture, but as its newest, brightest crop.

Subject of Research: The role of agrivoltaics in reducing political polarization and local opposition to utility-scale solar energy on agricultural land.

Article Title: Agrivoltaics can reduce political polarization and local opposition to solar energy on land

Article References: Fesenfeld, L., Sistek, L., Montfort, S., Anderegg, D., Rohrer, J., & Schmidt, T. (2026). Agrivoltaics can reduce political polarization and local opposition to solar energy on land. Nature Communications, 17(1), Article 10263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-77141-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-77141-8

Keywords: agrivoltaics, solar energy, political polarization, local opposition, renewable energy, social acceptance, agriculture, land use, energy transition, photovoltaics, rural communities, Nature Communications