Social farming and work inclusion initiatives for adults with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study

Abstract

In recent years, an increasing number of social farming initiatives have involved adults with autism spectrum disorders, both to improve their life conditions and promote their work inclusion. Several studies have assessed these experiences, showing that the participants derive important benefits from being part of a social community, working in the countryside, and establishing a good relationship with the farmer.This paper aims to assess the ability of 9 adults with autism spectrum disorderswho attend an adult day care centre in the Umbria region of Italyto carry out agricultural and animal husbandry activities. Results from panel data analysis show that the activity of olive grove, indoor cleaning, and tidying at the agritourism farms has a considerable positive effect on the performances of the adults with autism spectrum disorders.Moreover, the adults studied prefer the activities in a greenhouse over those occurring inside (e.g., agritourism farm or the warehouse) and outside (e.g., vegetable, olive, and grape production). Further, the higher the precision level required to perform an action, the lower is their observed performance.Generally, the tasks that receive the highest evaluations are those in which the autistic person can relate with other people and/or animals. These findings confirm the role of social farming in developing working and relational skills in adults with autism spectrum disorders.

Social Farming Evolutionary Web: from Public Intervention to Value Co-Production

“…During the last few years, a growing number of authors have illustrated emerging social farming features in diverse countries [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], as well as growing networks and platforms [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and possible applications and related outcomes in social farming initiatives [35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. In most cases, social farming practices are locally grounded and emerge according to specific cultural and regulatory scenarios, the most relevant being welfare system organization at the national level.…”

Animal Assisted Interventions in the Green Care Framework: A Literature Review

“…In detail, in six of these studies, Green Care with animals programs were compared to other approaches (with the same users’ category) to highlight their benefits [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. In three records, the main focus was the evaluation of the efficacy of the Green Care with animals programs, but experimental designs lack of control groups [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Other 13 records analysed the benefits of Green Care with animals for users by means of qualitative methods [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].…”

“…Other eight records did not even specify the animal species involved, even if the users interacted directly with them [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 31 , 42 ]. Finally, nine records reported specifically the animal species involved in their activities: in four cases two or three species were mentioned: goats, cattle and pigs [ 37 ], chickens and pigs [ 47 ], chickens and rabbits [ 21 ] or cattle, hens and alpacas [ 33 ]. In five records, authors referred only to one species: horses [ 27 , 35 , 39 ] or dairy cows [ 28 , 40 ].…”

“…Only 40% of selected records specified that the users’ category involved psychiatric patients [ 25 , 30 , 51 ], people with autism spectrum disorders [ 33 , 49 ], elderly people with dementia [ 12 , 15 , 16 , 26 ], non-clinical population [ 27 , 31 ], drug users [ 23 , 35 ], depressed people [ 28 , 40 ], detainees [ 19 ] and long term unemployed [ 46 ]. In the remaining records (60%) the characteristics of the users involved were not described in detail.…”

“…Regarding users’ age, it is not possible to identify a real distribution because in the 48% of the records there is not a unique category of users or the age is not even considered. For the remaining records (52%), users are defined generically as adults ( n = 12) [ 18 , 19 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 46 ], adolescents/young people ( n = 4) [ 27 , 39 , 43 , 45 ], elderly ( n = 4) [ 15 , 26 , 29 , 31 ] and children ( n = 2) [ 34 , 48 ].…”