It is estimated that more than 80 million people in Africa are living with some form of disability. This number constitutes between 10% and 20% of the general population of Africa (Disabled World 2022). Persons with disabilities often face inequality, exclusion, a lack of opportunities, unemployment and poverty. They are often relegated to the margins of society (Bjerkan & Øvstedal 2020; Tennakoon et al. 2020). Among the complex causes of inequality and exclusion related to disability are challenges regarding community mobility, which includes the use of public transport (Bekiaris et al. 2018; Mindell et al. 2025; Park, Chowdhury & Wilson 2020). Being able to negotiate public transport systems independently facilitates a feeling of belonging and dignity among persons with disabilities (Chapman et al. 2024).

Achieving many of the sustainable development goals, such as good health and well-being, quality education, decent work and economic growth as well as sustainable cities and communities, requires, among other things, investment in inclusive, sustainable, accessible and safe public transport (United Nations 2015). In addition, the right to health, education, employment and other basic human rights as ensconced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006) is dependent on access to transport. Community mobility opportunities must be created for all, especially for people considered most vulnerable such as women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons (United Nations 2015). However, Vanderschuren and Nene (2021) found that except for Ghana and South Africa, persons with disabilities are omitted from or superficially included in transport policies of African countries. International and South African policies and legislation such as the Disability Inclusive Public Transport brief (Frye 2019) supported by the United Kingdom Department for International Development and the Transformative Urban Mobility Initiative (TUMI) and the South African White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Department of Social Development [DoSD] 2016) advocate for inclusive public transport. Even with these policies, there is a general neglect of the barriers confronting persons with disabilities when wanting to access public transport (Fredericks, Visagie & Van Niekerk 2024a, 2025a, 2025b) across the globe (Mindell et al. 2025; Unsworth et al. 2021), but more so in middle- and low-income countries (Kett, Cole & Turner 2020), including Africa (Duri & Luke 2025; Fredericks et al. 2024a, 2025b; Lister & Dhunpath 2016; Ndebele 2020; Odame et al. 2023a).

Wheelchair users are a subgroup of persons with disabilities with unique transport needs. The impairments that necessitate the use of a wheelchair also hinder mobility and the physical ability to access various transport modes (Kett et al. 2020). The focus of this scoping review is specifically on the accessibility of minibus taxis for wheelchair users, a common mode of public transport in South Africa and other African countries (Neumann, Röder & Joubert 2015). Accessibility can be defined in various ways, but definitions usually recognise the interdependence of physical, political, economic and social factors (Antipova et al. 2020).

Wheelchair users face multiple, interrelated access barriers that impact the physical accessibility, affordability, safety and acceptability of minibus taxi services (Cawood & Visagie 2015; Lister & Dhunpath 2016; Vergunst et al. 2015; Visagie, Visagie & Fredericks 2023). Barriers affecting physical access include the height at the entrance to minibus taxis and the distance between the wheelchair and seat that prevents independent transfer to and from minibus taxis for most wheelchair users (Chiwandire & Vincent 2017; Gudwana 2019; Pretorius & Steadman 2018; Vanderschuren, Baufeldt & Phayane 2015; Visagie et al. 2023). While minibus taxi fares are relatively low, affordability is reduced when wheelchair users are charged additional fares for their caregivers and wheelchairs (Duri & Luke 2022c). The lack of seat belts, reckless driving, overloading and wheelchair users being unable to maintain their balance all cause a sense of feeling unsafe (Gudwana 2019; Kett et al. 2020; Lister & Dhunpath 2016). Some minibus taxi drivers have a negative attitude towards wheelchair users and do not always stop to pick them up or are impatient and rude when they do stop. The main reason for not picking up wheelchair users is because wheelchair users are slower to embark and disembark, leading to a loss of time and thus money (Lister & Dhunpath 2016).

Research have focused on wheelchair users’ access to minibus taxis, either as the primary focus of the study (Gudwana 2019; Lister & Dhunpath 2016) or as a theme that emerged when exploring access to services such as health care (Cawood, Visagie & Mji 2016; North & Visagie 2020; Vergunst et al. 2015). The aim of this scoping review was to identify research in the field and describe the barriers and facilitators experienced by wheelchair users in African countries when making use of minibus taxis. The review focused on the question: What are the barriers and facilitators wheelchair users in Africa experience when using minibus taxi services?

Table 1 shows that of the 20 articles, 19 reported on research and one was an opinion piece. Of the 19 research articles, 16 used a qualitive descriptive or explorative design. Two studies used a mixed methods design, and two used cross-sectional surveys. One of the surveys included an audit of a central business district (Owusu-Ansah, Baisie & Oduro-Ofori 2019). Most of the studies (n = 14) were conducted in South Africa, while four were conducted in Ghana and one in Sierra Leone. Of the South African studies, nine were conducted in metropolitan areas and five in rural areas. Participant groups included wheelchair users, their caregivers, minibus taxi drivers, healthcare service providers and other experts.

The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe the barriers and facilitators experienced by wheelchair users in Africa when making use of minibus taxis. While the use of minibus taxis for public transport seems to be rather unique to the African context, the barriers experienced by current participants are echoed in studies and reviews that focus on public transport (bus, train, taxi, ferry, streetcar) access for persons with mobility impairments or wheelchair users from around the world (Chapman et al. 2024; Hernandez & Rodriguez 2024; Liu et al. 2023; Miller et al. 2025; Park et al. 2023; Unsworth et al. 2021). What was heartening was the sentiment shared by Unsworth et al. (2021) that despite numerous barriers, public transport access for people using wheeled mobility devices is constantly improving worldwide. However, Africa was notably missing from the world regions mentioned by them.

Current results showed that wheelchair users’ difficulties started when leaving their homes with structural barriers in what Park et al. (2023:189) call the ‘out of vehicle environment’, preventing them from reaching and manoeuvring around minibus taxi pick-up points. Infrastructure barriers such as the absence of or poorly maintained sidewalks and inaccessible stations limited access to public transport for wheelchair users globally (Liu et al. 2023; Mindell et al. 2025; Unsworth et al. 2021). As structural barriers are often human-made (Duman & Asilsoy 2022), they are avoidable and should not occur in equitable societies. Barriers like potholes, occupied pavements and no bridges over rivers are a few of the visible consequences of deep-rooted inequality and disregard for vulnerable members of society. In their systematic review study on pavement accessibility, Soares Müller et al. (2023) highlighted that the entire segment of a sidewalk must be free of barriers for it to be considered accessible for persons with disabilities. One obstacle along the way can prevent access to the entire route. They argue that the importance of accessible sidewalks is not always acknowledged in Global South countries, as could be seen in this study as well. For safe wheelchair use, sidewalks must be wide enough, not overly sloped, well maintained and free of obstacles with regular kerb cuts (Soares Müller et al. 2023).

Structural barriers link closely to institutional barriers, which explains why legalisation and policies are not being implemented (Duri & Luke 2022b; Kett et al. 2020; Lister & Dhunpath 2016). Limited financial resources are often blamed for poor policy implementation in African settings (Hoeyi & Makgari 2021; Mhazo & Maponga 2022). However, insufficient recognition is given to contributing factors, such as a lack of political will, other priorities, widespread corruption and disregard for vulnerable persons that are endemic in South Africa. In addition, seeking the input of persons with disabilities during planning and development of transport infrastructure is a necessity if they are to use the infrastructure autonomously and safely (Hernandez & Rodrigues 2024; Soares Müller et al. 2023). However, they are not always consulted in the development and implementation of community mobility planning (Hernandez & Rodrigues 2024; Soares Müller et al. 2023).

Disregard can be driven by unfamiliarity and a lack of understanding of the other’s position. In the context of the current review, decision-makers might have little knowledge and understanding of the ground-level pressures and expectations of drivers, fellow commuters and wheelchair users. Thus, awareness-raising and education are called for. At the same time, participative processes of planning and action are essential (Duri & Luke 2022a; Kett et al. 2020; Lister & Dhunpath 2016; Savill et al. 2003; Vanderschuren & Nnene 2021). The transformative power of participatory processes in which taxi drivers and persons with disability shared experiences and planned together has been illustrated (Fredericks et al. 2024b). Should government fail in this responsibility, private enterprise and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can take it up, as was done by Shonaquip Social Enterprises with the development of the Let’s Talk mobile application for parents (Trafford et al. 2020), which provides an opportunity for parents of children with disabilities to help monitor implementation of the White Paper on the inclusion of persons with disabilities (DoSD 2016).

The identified barriers often revolved around the attitudes and actions of taxi drivers. They were seen as disrespectful, rude, unwilling to stop, unwilling to help, in a hurry and focused on making money. Chapman et al. (2024) found that being treated with disrespect and as a burden negatively impacted the self-worth of wheelchair users in Australia. A systematic review by Park et al. (2023) confirms that negative attitudes and negative encounters with service providers and fellow commuters reduce self-confidence and increase anxiety among persons with disabilities when using public transport. However, current results also acknowledged the predicament minibus taxi drivers face in safeguarding their incomes and/or businesses. It was suggested that taxi drivers be trained on communicating with wheelchair users and assisting them into and out of the taxi (Duri & Luke 2022c; Lister & Dhunpath 2016). Unsworth et al. (2021) also recommended training of transport vehicle operators. Familiarity and understanding foster empathy and break down fear and anxiety, which means that training might also change taxi drivers’ attitudes towards wheelchair users (Savill et al. 2003). However, the recommendation is difficult to enact as minibus taxi drivers are not required to complete a formal training course (Department of Transport 2020). Such courses would have provided an opportunity for training on assisting wheelchair users. Even so, it remains an important possible facilitator that needs further exploration.

Persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users, often live in poverty. Because of little income and competing needs, wheelchair users struggle to afford minibus taxi fees even while it is the cheapest form of public transport (Aenishänslin et al. 2020; Duri & Luke 2022c; Fredericks et al. 2024; Magaqa et al. 2021; Ndebele 2020; North & Visagie 2020; Odame et al. 2023a; Vergunst et al. 2015; Visagie et al. 2023). Transport cost as a barrier to access and a reason for cutting down on travelling was found around the globe for different types of transport, such as trains and buses (Fredericks et al. 2024a; Park et al. 2023); (Fredericks et al. 2025b; Mindell et al. 2025). Wheelchair users do not get special rates when using minibus taxis (Odame et al. 2023b). They also do not receive financial support to specifically compensate for minibus taxi costs. The money must come from the social grant that also pays for food, medication and other costs of living. In addition, having to pay for caregivers and wheelchairs means they might pay three times the going rate per trip (Fredericks et al. 2024a).

The financial burden on wheelchair users can be alleviated through subsidies, coupons or contracts facilitated by local government. By providing taxi drivers with contracts to transport wheelchair users, the government will be able to stipulate agreements regarding routes, accessibility of vehicles and training of minibus taxi drivers on interacting with persons with disabilities and assisting wheelchair users safely into and out of minibus taxis. Wheelchair users must have a voice in the planning and budget allocation of such services to ensure that their needs are met (Morta-Andrews 2018).

As in this study, inaccessibility of public transit vehicles was also described by Liu et al (2023) referring to buses in the United States, and Park et al. (2023) in a systematic review. Minibuses became taxis by default and were never designed with the needs of wheelchair users in mind (Duri & Luke 2022a, 2022b). They are manufactured in bulk on assembly lines; thus, individual modifications are costly. Changing their design or retrofitting vehicles currently in use will also be expensive and not easy to do (Park & Chowdhury 2022). Unsworth et al. (2021) indicated that further research is necessary to determine optional vehicle design to facilitate access for persons with mobility impairments. The use of ramps for boarding and research on optimal ramp design was also mentioned by Unsworth et al. (2021). In the meantime, stakeholders can engage with minibus taxi designers regarding the position of design features such as grab handles. The number of grab handles can be increased, and they should be placed where they can be of maximum benefit to wheelchair users. Adding more grab handles at strategic places inside the minibus taxis will assist wheelchair users and the general public alike.

Most of the other mechanical barriers can only be addressed through costly changes, such as modifying individual vehicles or reducing the passenger-carrying capacity. Odame et al.’s (2023b) suggestion for a dedicated seat with priority access given to vulnerable commuters is strongly supported as a starting point.

That way, if a wheelchair user is transported, they get that seat, but if not, other commuters can use it. Other commuters know that should a wheelchair user be picked up, they must vacate the seat if it is in use.

Across African countries, similar barriers impacted the accessibility of minibus taxi services and wheelchair users’ experiences to such an extent that their combined effect made it difficult for most, and impossible for some, to use the services. International authors concur that if the identified barriers are not mediated, wheelchair users’ freedom of movement will remain restricted, and they will continue to be excluded from community participation (Bjerkan & Øvstedal 2020; Cepeda, Galilea & Raveau 2018; Tennakoon et al. 2020). At societal level, many sustainable development goals (SDGs), such as no poverty, good health and wellbeing, quality education, sustainable economic growth and productive employment, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities will not be achieved (United Nations 2015).

Universal design principles have been in existence since the 1960s and should underpin the development and maintenance of manmade spaces. Current application of universal design principles is often inconsistent (Chapman et al. 2024). Unsworth et al. (2021) recommended that universal design principles be promoted in the public transport sector. However, social and occupational injustice will prevail when the political and communal will to implement mitigating strategies is lacking, as was shown in this review and supported by Zallio and Clarkson (2021) as well as Stafford and Volz (2016).

Minibuses were not designed to be used as taxis or as a means of transport for wheelchair users. Their versatility, the dire transport needs in South Africa and other African countries and entrepreneurship have meant they evolved into taxis. Non-disabled commuters can get in and out, tolerate the cramped space and even take the safety risks – often because alternatives are limited and minibus taxis offer cheap and convenient services. Conversely, wheelchair users are excluded from what would be, for many, their only form of public transport because they are hampered getting in and out, need more room to manoeuvre, are faced with rudeness and disrespect and lose the advantage of the fare being low, as they must pay double or triple fares. The question that remains for future investigation is: ‘How can transport services offered by minibus taxis be reconfigured to be accessible for wheelchair users?’