Irish-based farmers’ experience of facilitating social farming

Social farming is, “the use of commercial farms and agricultural landscapes to promote mental and physical health through ordinary farming activities” for service users (Hine et al., 2008 in Fieldhouse and Sempik, 2014, p. 312). It is an occupation which is built on the idea of multifunctional agriculture, combining various aspects of agriculture with healthcare services in the community (Borgi et al., 2020; Stock and Brickell, 2013). Research across the disciplines has shown benefits of social farming for a range of service users, including those with mental health difficulties, intellectual disabilities, autism and older adults (Elsey et al., 2016; Leck et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2019). Service users go on placements to social farms for a fixed amount of time with activities facilitated by the farmers, including animal care and horticulture. Elsey et al. (2016) outlined the potential value of social farming in the mental health sector as an intervention for service users and, internationally, social farming has been encouraged as a means to outsource mental health services in the community and develop collaborative models of care (Borgi et al., 2020; García-Llorente et al., 2018; Iancu et al., 2014).

Much of the literature on social farming has focused on service users’ experience of social farming, highlighting that engagement in social farming benefits service users. The authentic farm environment that farmers provide was shown to be a valued aspect from the service users perspective (Borgi et al., 2020; Murray et al., 2019; Pedersen et al., 2015b), with contact with nature identified as calming (Hassink et al., 2010; Murray et al., 2019; Pedersen et al., 2015a; Westre et al., 2015). Service users appreciated that activities performed were purposeful (Pedersen et al., 2015a; Sudmann, 2018), and within an established routine developed by the farmer (Iancu et al., 2014; Kaley et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2019) where work tasks were adapted to the service user’s ability (Hassink et al., 2010; Iancu et al., 2015). Through engagement in meaningful work, the service user’s mental health was generally shown to be positively impacted through a decrease in depression, anxiety and stress (Elsey et al., 2016; Iancu et al., 2015; Leck et al., 2015; Pedersen et al., 2015b), as well as an increase in mental well-being (Rotheram et al., 2017). The farmer is embedded in facilitating these benefits for the service users through social interaction and teaching new skills (Pedersen et al., 2015b).

Engaging in social farming can lead to the formation of a social community as the relationship between the farmer and the service users can be meaningful and foster a sense of connection and belonging (Ellingsen-Dalskau et al., 2016; Kaley et al., 2019; Pedersen et al., 2015b). Sudmann (2018) and Hassink et al. (2010) identified that service users valued the farmers’ non-judgemental approach and being seen as a person rather than a patient. Indeed, Anderson et al. (2017) and Iancu et al. (2015) showed that service users felt so welcomed that they felt like part of the farmers’ family. Farmers are fundamental in facilitating social farming and the surrounding environments, demonstrating a caring and supportive nature in their facilitation (Hassink et al., 2010; Leck et al., 2015).

While service users are the primary focus of social farming research, their presence on the farm can impact the lives of the facilitating farmers. Some studies suggest that farmers can benefit from engaging in social farming through an additional source of income (Leck et al., 2014), increased farmer integration into the community (Borgi et al., 2020) and an improved quality of life (Ihlebæk et al., 2016); important aspects as, traditionally, farmers in rural areas can experience elevated stress and an associated decline in mental well-being (Borgi et al., 2020; Leck et al., 2014). However, farmers may also experience stress through their facilitation due to a lack of support when working with service users, and a difficulty in separating their professional role of social farmer and being an informal caregiver (Ihlebæk et al., 2016; Knapik, 2020).

Despite an uptake in social farming in Ireland (Social Farming Ireland, 2019), research concerning farmers’ experiences of facilitating social farming in the Irish context or in an occupational science or occupational therapy context is lacking (Fieldhouse and Sempik, 2014); therefore, this study focuses solely on the farmers’ perspective. The aims of the study were to explore the farmers’ experience of facilitating social farming as an occupation in an Irish context and uncover the associated values and meaning.

A qualitative descriptive approach was chosen to explore the form, function and meaning of the occupation of facilitating social farming through examining the meanings participants ascribe to it. Individual semi-structured interviews were employed and conducted over a two-month period from February – March 2021.

Inclusion criteria for the study required that participants had been social farming for over one year, were at least 18 years of age and were living in Ireland. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling (Carpenter and Suto, 2008), which involved using Social Farming Ireland as a gatekeeper for recruitment. The organisation distributed an information flyer to potential participants and ten eligible social farmers expressed interest (Table 1). An information letter and consent form were emailed to participants prior to the interviews. Participant anonymity was maintained through the use of pseudonyms and removal of unique identifiers.

An interview guide was developed, informed by literature and the research aims. A pilot interview was conducted, prior to data collection, with an experienced qualitative researcher. Questions were refined based on feedback, and data from the pilot interview was excluded from subsequent analysis. Data collection consisted of ten interviews via either Microsoft Teams or telephone. Interviews were conducted with two researchers present, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview duration ranged from 30 to 45 min per interview.

Thematic data analysis was used to analyse the transcripts and was followed in a systematic approach as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). The transcripts were checked for accuracy and re-read. Line-by-line coding was conducted and important sections of text were assigned labels (Nowell et al., 2017). Researcher triangulation was used to ensure credibility, involving the researchers completing coding separately and then comparing codes. Themes were formed by grouping codes that complemented one another. Theme refinement was completed by reviewing the coded data and determining whether themes accurately represented the meanings evident in the data set (Nowell et al., 2017). Furthermore, member checking was applied by e-mailing the preliminary findings to participants to ensure an accurate interpretation of their experiences (Bryman, 2016). An audit trail was maintained throughout the study, involving keeping records of research design, data collection decisions, interview transcripts, data analysis coding and research meetings.

Ethical approval was granted from the university’s Social Research Ethics Committee (approval number: CT-SREC-2020-23). Participation in the study was voluntary and written consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.

Four broad themes, which were referred to by the participants both directly and indirectly, were identified during data analysis. Findings are supported by direct quotes from participants.

Participants described the form of facilitating social farming and outlined why they decided to engage in the occupation and the traits necessary to be a social farmer. This theme is divided into three sub-themes.

The participants typically facilitate 12-week placements, whereby one to four service users attend their farm, for one day a week. Participants noted the advantage of having small-scale, mixed farms with both horticultural and livestock elements. Three participants felt that social farming would not be suited to larger scale farms such as intensive dairy farms, due to their demanding nature. Instead, an important element of small-scale farms is the relaxed environment and less pressure to complete tasks. Therefore, emphasis can be placed on enjoying “the craic” and “the banter” while doing the activities:

Collaborative decision making was employed between the farmers and service users when planning the activities for social farming. Each service user had different skills and interests, and the activities depended on this. It emerged that each day facilitating social farming is different:

Intrinsic motivations for facilitating social farming varied with each participant. Some participants described being enticed due to previous experience of working in the disability sector. Participants also described extrinsic motivations such as wanting to develop the farm and to enhance their finances:

Some participants described that agricultural skills alone may not be sufficient to successfully facilitate social farming. Participants described the value of having an open and non-judgemental nature. Patience was highlighted by most participants as important, along with practical skills such as organisation, safety awareness and creativity to overcome challenges. Harry and Sam described social farmers as having a particular personality:

Conversely, two participants emphasised that no specific skills were necessary to start social farming, and skills were developed through experience. Instead, a willingness to learn and an ability to build rapport with service users were important:

Through engagement in the farm environment, connections are developed between the farmer, the service user and the community on the farm. This theme is divided into two sub-themes.

The participants placed an emphasis on sharing their home and family environment with service users. Mealtimes were important elements of the day, and service users were invited to share meals in the home kitchen:

Participants highlighted the importance of facilitating an environment that contrasted the healthcare environments that the service users regularly attend, with engagement in activities that they may not experience regularly:

Participants described the development of a social network through engagement in social farming. Bonds develop between the farmers and the service users through doing activities together on the farm:

A theme echoed by three participants was the sense that their work has increased meaning and purpose due to their connection with the service users. Facilitating social farming gave participants the opportunity to positively impact another’s life and service users often left in a good mood following a day on the farm:

Service users also develop connections with different generations of the participants’ family and other members of the community, with four participants noting the connections between their children and the service users. These connections were often developed around the kitchen table, learning from each other through conversation:

Participants also described developing stronger relationships within the family through sharing in the daily activities of life on the farm. Five participants explained that social farming was something that they engaged in as a family:

Connections that developed between the individuals resulted in mutually beneficial farming, impacting the farmer, service user and the farm environment itself. This theme is divided into three sub-themes.

It emerged that participants felt that facilitating social farming brought life back to the farm and reinvigorated the environment. James compared it to the “meitheal culture” because he sees a community gathering to work together:

Participants recognised that facilitating social farming contributed to the opportunity to do projects and make improvements to the farm that otherwise would not have occurred:

The participant’s narratives described that social farming renewed their own passion in farming and allowed them to appreciate aspects of farm life that they had previously taken for granted. This led to increased motivation in engaging in farm work and realising the value of slowing down and taking time to have “fun”:

Participants overall described a change in perspective and learning about oneself. All ten participants noted being on a constant learning curve and being challenged through different perspectives:

Seamus noted that facilitating social farming created a meaningful sense of achievement, having built rapport with service users that he initially found difficult to connect with. All participants felt that facilitating social farming enabled them to “make a real difference” to service users:

All participants described social farming as meaningful work that gave service users a sense of purpose. Service users gained skills and became “more confident and competent.” Harry described one service user coming out of her shell, explaining that her family expressed awe seeing “a different girl then the one they were used to” at the end of the placement.

A common experience noted by participants was increased independence skills and reduced challenging behaviours among service users on the farm:

Participants also highlighted challenges encountered. The theme is divided into two sub-themes.

For two participants, it emerged that facilitating social farming could be a demanding experience in terms of time and energy. They indicated that health and safety aspects were stressful, particularly when service users displayed challenging behaviours:

Four participants suggested that a lack of experience in the disability sector posed as a barrier initially when facilitating social farming:

All participants highlighted financial challenges experienced while facilitating social farming. Concerns were expressed about the lack of funding in the sector. Participants felt that there needs to be a commercial element for the farmer for it to be financially viable:

Some participants also mentioned a lack of awareness about social farming amongst the wider community. This contributes to difficulty in obtaining funding for the placements, as well as challenges getting healthcare organisations involved and, thus, service users engaged:

Another concern expressed by participants was placement duration. Most placements lasted 12 weeks; however, participants felt that service users would benefit from engaging long-term:

Social farming is an occupation for the farmer, the service user and the community on the farm, and the findings show that social farming has the potential to positively impact well-being. Farmers as a population are at high risk of mental health difficulties (Borgi et al., 2020; Ihlebæk et al., 2016), partly attributed to the lack of social occupations (Leck et al., 2014). Leck et al. (2014) indicated that facilitating social farming can stimulate change, and this study elucidates on this with the emergent theme of “Connection” as a catalyst for this change. Consistent with Ellingsen-Dalskau et al. (2016), participants noted an increase in social occupations as a “meitheal culture” was developed on the farm which encompasses the idea of community spirit built through working side-by-side. These connections led to a sense of occupational rejuvenation in farming and life on the farm as participants experienced a renewed passion and appreciation for farming, their farm and their family relationships when sharing occupations embedded in farm life with the service users. They also rediscovered the value of taking time to enjoy the often overlooked, mundane occupations centred around farm life, such as having lunch together in the family kitchen. Social farming was noted to positively impact the farmer, reflecting Ihlebæk et al. (2016) who found that 80% of interviewed social farmers agreed that social farming had increased their quality of life. Therefore, facilitating social farming may be beneficial for farmers’ overall well-being.

Internationally, social farming service users are reported to value the non-care context and authentic farm environment (Borgi et al., 2020; Hassink et al., 2010) and Anderson et al. (2017) highlighted the family-like environment that is created. Participants in this study explicitly stated that the farm environment includes not merely the occupations associated with farming itself, but interactive occupations embedded in life on the farm such as interacting with the farmer’s family. Rather than just providing a non-care context, a sense of home and family is shared and the cross-generational element of the occupation of farming in the family was evident. An appreciation of the bonds developed between children on the farm and the service users was highlighted and supports the idea of mutual benefits between the service users, farmers and the farmer’s family.

Different participant opinions emerged regarding whether social farming was more suited to particular personality traits. Two participants expressed that farmers do not require specialised skills for engagement; however, consistent with the literature (Leck et al., 2014), the remaining participants noted that certain skills including patience, organisation, safety awareness and creativity are necessary. It also emerged that participants learned additional skills to overcome challenges within social farming, notably, successfully interacting with service users with communication difficulties. Farmers had to adapt their communication approach to establish connection, leading to satisfaction for the participants and an increased meaning of social farming for them. Despite overcoming some challenges, several participants still reported difficulties, although few previous studies have addressed this. Ihlebæk et al. (2016) and Knapik (2020) suggested that facilitating social farming may be stressful for the farmers. Some participants in this study found facilitating social farming emotionally intense due to the time, energy and health and safety considerations required for engagement, considerations which require further scrutiny to tailor supports for facilitating farmers.

The findings of this study may be somewhat limited by the fact that recruitment was conducted through one organisation that oversees social farming in Ireland. It is also important to consider possible bias in these responses, as many of the participants were or had been involved in healthcare, or research related to social farming and, therefore, are invested in social farming. Participants were actively social farming so collecting experiences of farmers who have ceased social farming may help further explore the nuances of associated challenges. Furthermore, due to COVID-19, interviews took place remotely and participants were required to have access to technology.

Social farming is a growing concept; however, further research on the topic is still required (García-Llorente et al., 2018; Leck et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2019). Depth of knowledge about social farming from a healthcare perspective was frustrating for the participants who noted feeling that the positive impact of social farming was not universally understood by healthcare providers; however, with the emergence of a pilot programme in Ireland between Social Farming Ireland and HSE-based mental health services (Deegan et al., 2023), this may provide enhanced knowledge transfer. Leck et al. (2014) expressed that financial support for facilitating social farming is crucial, but organisations are often resistant or unable to provide the necessary finance. Using an occupational science perspective, the findings, while preliminary, reveal the nuance complexities embedded in the occupation that can have benefits for the farmer, their families and the service users. To overcome the barriers associated with social farming, it is crucial to further explore and communicate its extended benefits to healthcare professionals and policymakers who are positioned to further influence society, increase funding and establish training activities for enhancement of skillsets which could benefit farmers in their facilitation of social farming (Nazzaro et al., 2021).

The authors would like to thank Social Farming Ireland, and the social farmers who participated in the study.

Data availability statement: Due to the limited participant population, the data that support the study findings may be made available from the corresponding author, [Au1], upon reasonable request.

Author contributions: All authors conceptualised the study, developed the research protocol and applied for ethical approval. [Au2] and [Au3] organised data collection and completed the analysis. All authors interpreted the findings and were involved in preparing the manuscript.