The importance of social farming (SF) is known in the literature, yet there is a lack of suitable tools for evaluating and monitoring these practices. Moreover, there is also a lack of data and information about the outcomes of the experiences and the impact they have on various stakeholders. Consequently, it is difficult to understand the extent to which SF can contribute to the achievement of sustainability and rural development goals. This study proposes an integrated framework to evaluate social farming practices, combining different methodologies such as SWOT analysis, Business Model Canvas (BMC), Social Return on Investment (SROI), and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The research evaluated a regional initiative in Lazio Region (Italy), aimed at the socio-occupational integration of disadvantaged individuals through SF networks. Data collection involved 127 stakeholders through interviews and focus groups. Through the integration of SWOT analysis and BMC, the strong influence of the local contexts and project leaders on the impacts of SF is shown. In addition, the integration of AHP with SROI highlights how to address the limitations in quantifying social, economic, and environmental benefits, thus improving the accuracy of impact assessments. Finally, the results underline the need for policies that ensure the continuity and scalability of SF projects, highlighting the central role of the farm in sustainable socio-occupational inclusion. The study contributes to the advancement of SF evaluation methodologies and informs future policy development.

Over the past few decades, social agriculture, a component of multifunctional agriculture, has grown in popularity due to its numerous benefits for a variety of people, including those with learning and intellectual disabilities. A survey was conducted to assess social agricultural courses or modules offered by tertiary institutions. The study found that Italy and The Netherlands have the highest number of education and training programs that offer a full curriculum and/or individual social agriculture courses. In Norway, continuing and further education courses are frequently used to teach social agriculture. The Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, and the United Kingdom also have prominent social agriculture degree programs. The findings of this survey reveal a disconnect between the agricultural and therapeutic aspects of social agriculture educational programs. Most programs have well-tailored agriculture modules, while others have excellent therapeutic modules to the detriment of the other. Thus, social agriculture programs that focus on all aspects must be developed. Additionally, accreditation bodies are also needed.