Transition Management and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: Lessons from Social Farming

Iacovo, Francesco Paolo Di; Moruzzo, Roberta; Rossignoli, Cristiano; Scarpellini, Paola

doi:10.1080/1389224x.2014.887761

Cited by 72 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this regard, since 2004, we have explored and studied SF in several areas while investigating the pathway development of SF in various Italian and European regions [28,30,31]. During this time, the method that we most often used was based on participatory action [32], focusing on social services and SF in rural areas.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The organization of such civic markets could increase the income opportunities for SF farms as well as for the people involved in the working activities. This relation with urban centres can therefore have a positive impact by supporting social and economic activities in rural areas [28].…”

Section: Target Stakeholders In Sf Experiences: Towards Social Inclusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, the direct beneficiaries of these practices are disadvantaged people who could be integrated into a living context where their personal capabilities are valued and enhanced. Through SF, it is possible to support a range of less-empowered or marginalized people, including those with intellectual, physical or sensory disabilities, people with mental health issues, those with a history of addiction, prisoners and ex-prisoners, women, young people, the elderly, those experiencing social disadvantages, immigrants and ethnic groups, HIV-positive people and others [28]. This is a crucial aspect in all SF practices and is particularly evident in the case of L'Olivera Cooperative ( Table 2, case four).…”

Section: Target Stakeholders In Sf Experiences: Towards Social Inclusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this light, social farming (SF; also called care farming or green care) could be considered an example of transition management and social innovation in rural and periurban areas [28]. SF emerged over the last decade from social and health sciences in the search for a synergy between promoting landscape multi-functionality (maintaining extensive agriculture in rural landscapes) and community-based social and health care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Social Farming in the Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Rural areas are facing a spectrum of landscape changes and vulnerability as a consequence of financial and environmental crises. Innovative approaches are required to maintain the provision of social services and manage ecosystem services in these areas. We explore the capacity of social farming to create viable and sustainable rural and periurban areas according to a social-ecological perspective. We use the key elements of social-ecological systems under social farming practices to analyse (1) the role of local communities and non-formal institutions; (2) the involvement of target stakeholders; and (3) the explicit connection between agroecosystems and human wellbeing. To do so, we selected and described four cases of local social farming initiatives in terms of the key elements of social-ecological systems and conducted a literature review to provide an overview of the explicit impact of social farming on the quality of life. We found that social farming illustrates hybrid governance solutions beyond market instruments that could be applied for the governance of agroecosystems. It can also provide a range of other wellbeing and cultural ecosystem services to rural and urban inhabitants. Greater cooperation between social farming and ecosystem service science could rebound in rural landscape sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Target Stakeholders In Sf Experiences: Towards Social Inclusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Target Stakeholders In Sf Experiences: Towards Social Inclusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social Farming in the Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Land-use change motivated by economic gains and market services, such as intensive agriculture, also needs to consider the diversity of other ecosystem services and their associated values (Bateman et al 2013). Changing the focus of agricultural management from the maximization of food production to the production of food combined with other ecosystem services could help increase social-ecological resilience (Gordon et al 2010) and the viability of rural areas through the diversification of the services provided (Power 2010, Di Iacovo et al 2014. We found that land-use intensification, focused on the overexploitation of one unique provisioning ecosystem service (intensive agriculture), has increased the economic growth in the region (Aznar-Sánchez et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds

García‐Llorente¹,

Iniesta-Arandia²,

Willaarts³

et al. 2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Martín-López. 2015. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. ABSTRACT. Biophysical and social systems are linked to form social-ecological systems whose sustainability depends on their capacity to absorb uncertainty and cope with disturbances. In this study, we explored the key biophysical and socio-cultural factors underlying ecosystem service supply in two semiarid watersheds of southern Spain. These included variables associated with the role that freshwater flows and biodiversity play in securing the system's capacity to sustain essential ecosystem services and their relationship with social demand for services, local water governance, and land-use intensification. Our results reveal the importance of considering the invisible dimensions of water and biodiversity, i.e. green freshwater flows and trait-based indicators, because of their relevance to the supply of ecosystem services. Furthermore, they uncover the importance of traditional irrigation canals, a local water governance system, in maintaining the ecosystems' capacity to supply services. The study also highlights the complex trade-offs that occur because of the spatial mismatch between ecosystem service supply (upstream) and ecosystem service demand (downstream) in watersheds. Finally, we found that land-use intensification generally resulted in losses of the biophysical factors that underpin the supply of some ecosystem services, increases in social demand for less diversified services, and the abandonment of local governance practices. Attempts to manage social-ecological systems toward sustainability at the local scale should identify the key biophysical and socio-cultural factors that are essential for maintaining ecosystem services and should recognize existing interrelationships between them. Land-use management should also take into account ecosystem service trade-offs and the consequences resulting from land-use intensification.

show abstract

The impact of care farms on quality of life, depression and anxiety among different population groups: A systematic review

Murray

Wickramasekera

Elings³

et al. 2019

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Care farming (also called social farming) is the therapeutic use of agricultural and farming practices. Service users and communities supported through care farming include people with learning disabilities, mental and physical health problems, substance misuse, adult offenders, disaffected youth, socially isolated older people and the long term unemployed. Care farming is growing in popularity, especially around Europe. This review aimed to understand the impact of care farming on quality of life, depression and anxiety, on a range of service user groups. It also aimed to explore and explain the way in which care farming might work for different groups. By reviewing interview studies we found that people valued, among other things, being in contact with each other, and feeling a sense of achievement, fulfilment and belonging. Some groups seemed to appreciate different things indicating that different groups may benefit in different ways but, it is unclear if this is due to a difference in the types of activities or the way in which people take different things from the same activity. We found no evidence that care farms improved people's quality of life and some evidence that they might improve depression and anxiety. Larger studies involving single service user groups and fully validated outcome measures are needed to prove more conclusive evidence about the benefits of care farming.

show abstract

Transition Management and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: Lessons from Social Farming

Cited by 72 publications

References 18 publications

Social Farming in the Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas

Social Farming in the Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas

Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds

The impact of care farms on quality of life, depression and anxiety among different population groups: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About