In recent years, there has been a need for a shared methodology for evaluating social farming (SF) practices to verify not only their effectiveness but also their social and economic sustainability. The evaluation of SF has been highlighted using the methodology of the social return on investment (SROI) due to the potential of such approach regarding the quantification of social impact. The main purpose of this study is to provide an overview, through a systematic review, of the application of SROI to SF experiences to check the results comparability, both in terms of outcomes standardization and comparisons between SROI ratios. The results first show some similarities on the construction of outcomes that allow for the initial comparability of the results. Secondly, all the indicators calculated in the articles report a social return value of social farming projects that varies approximately from EUR 2 to EUR 3 per euro invested. Critical issues remain regarding the application of this methodology to SF practices, regarding the number of the applications of SROI to SF, the process of stakeholder engagement and the construction of outcome. There is a need for more studies that apply SROI to SF experiences in order to standardize the process of analysis.
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.