Abstract

Evaluation of Ergonomic Approaches and Their Impacts on Agricultural Labor Productivity of Farmers in Rural Areas : A Study Carried out in the Territory of Kipushi in Democratic Republic of Congo

KILONDA NZAZI Jean Marie, KAPEND MWAMB Jean Luc, KALONJI MULUMBA Nathan

Volume: 16 Issue: 3 2026

Abstract:

This article evaluates the impact of ergonomic approaches on agricultural productivity of farmers in rural areas, in the Kipushi territory, Haut-Katanga province, Democratic Republic of Congo. This study adopts a multidisciplinary perspective, at the intersection of work psychology, ergonomics, agronomic sciences, and food sociology. The main objective is to determine the impact of ergonomic approaches on agricultural productivity. The methodology is based on a mixed survey of 130 farmers, supplemented by semi-structured interviews. Results reveal a predominance of artisanal tools (52.3%), with marked disparities between peasants (manual tools) and industrial farmers (intensive mechanization). Major constraints identified include: lack of training (23.85%), absence of processing capacity (76.92%), and lack of transport (50.77%). Physical hardship is high, characterized by constrained postures and musculoskeletal disorders (31.53%). The study proposes an agro-ergo-therapeutic model integrating three dimensions: agronomic (cropping techniques, diversification), ergonomic (workstation design, prevention), and therapeutic (training, professionalization).

Back Download

References

• Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to new competition: Their character and consequences in manufacturing industries. Harvard University Press.
• Banque mondiale. (2008). Agriculture for development. World Bank.
• Barbier, J. M. (2004). Activité, compétence et formation. Presses Universitaires de France.
• Béguin, P., & Rabardel, P. (2000). Concevoir pour les activités instrumentées. Revue d'intelligence artificielle, 14(1– 2), 35–54.
• Blanchet, A., & Gotman, A. (2024). L'entretien en sciences sociales. Dunod.
• Clot, Y. (2008). Travail et pouvoir d'agir. Presses Universitaires de France.
• Couzy, C., & Dockès, A.-C. (2005). Multiplicité des métiers, diversité des modèles de référence : Un éclairage sur les transformations des métiers des agriculteurs. Économie rurale, 289–290, 78–95.
• Food and Agriculture Organization. (2020). La situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture. FAO.
• Garrigou, A., & Mohammed-Brahim, B. (2011). L'ergotoxicologie : Un domaine de l'ergonomie pour la prévention des risques chimiques. Le Travail Humain, 74(1), 25–46.
• Giannelloni, J.-L., & Vernette, É. (2019). Études de marché. Vuibert.
• Kabambi, N. (2010). Psychologie du travail et des organisations. UPN
• Leplat, J. (2000). L'analyse du travail. Presses Universitaires de France.
• Mason, E. S. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Review.
• Perrette, P., et al. (2022). Le travail agricole dans les circuits courts. Économie rurale, 381–382, 45–68.
• Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement. (2022). Rapport sur le développement humain en RDC. PNUD.
• Quivy, R., & Van Campenhoudt, L. (2006). Manuel de recherche en sciences sociales. Dunod.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students. Pearson Education
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal.
• Theureau, J. (2000). Le cours d'action : Analyse sémio-éthologique des situations de travail. Octarès.
• Wittorski, R. (2007). La professionnalisation : Un enjeu pour la formation des adultes. L'Harmattan.