This paper examines the relationship between human well-being, spirituality and social farming from the perspective of social workers, social pedagogues, and social farmers. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines human health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being (World Health Organization, 1948). For a person to be considered healthy, their physical body should function optimally; they should be in good mental health, and they should maintain quality social relationships. As part of the changes in the perception of human health, the vertical dimension has also been emphasized as the need to relate to something above, behind, or beyond themselves (Gallus, 2023). Therefore, in 1999, at the 52nd WHO Assembly, a proposal was made to supplement the preamble to the Constitution and redefine how to perceive human health. The proposal states that “Health is a dynamic state of complete physical, mental, spiritual and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity (defect)” (World Health Organization, 1999, 4). Although this version was vetoed, the importance of the spiritual dimension of a person is increasingly being highlighted (Gray and Coates, 2013; Saad et al., 2017). Spirituality is an internal, individual matter specific to a particular person and has relationship and relatedness, whether to God or to whatever the person considers “ultimate” at its core, as Hodge (2001) states. He characterizes spirituality as a process of finding meaning in life, purpose, and morally satisfying relationships with oneself, others, the World around one, and what the person understands as the ultimate reality. Arrey et al. (2016) write that spirituality involves a personal quest for meaning in life. While religion is culture and historically specific, spirituality raises the search for a sense of purpose, moral principles and performs its universality for human beings (Hutchinson, 2013). Yet, Boynton and Vis (2020) view spirituality as an inner awareness that is universal, inclusive, experienced and attained and varies from person to person. This paper will examine social farming practice through the lens of John Fisher’s model (2010) on four spiritual dimensions: personal, communal, environmental, and transcendental. Social farming is one of the approaches to either social urban or social rural work, anchored in the fields of informal social care, social prevention, supported employment, community-based social work, as well as multifunctional agriculture or environmental sustainability (UNCED, 1992; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2003; Wilson, 2007). Two main perspectives dominate in the field, focusing either on participants or on providers of social farming (Moriggi et al., 2020). In a participant framework, the effectiveness in well-being and social reintegration for different target groups is observed, and as a tool for agricultural innovation and income diversification on the provider’s side. In both approaches, the interest comes “from a cross-section of disciplines like psychology, environmental health, environmental conservation, ecology, horticulture, landscape planning, urban design, leisure and recreation, public health policy, and medicine” (Bragg in Torquati et al., 2019, 11).

The following contribution aims to answer research questions, such as “How does participation in social farming foster the expression of spirituality and promote well-being and human health?” and focuses on the participant’s perspective. This interest stems from the lack of studies that encompass these thematic areas of human health, well-being, spirituality, and social farming. Thus, the text will proceed from the assumption that spiritual aspects form an essential component of humans and contribute to their full development. Spirituality will be described generally according to John Fisher’s four dimensions model (2010), which will later be used to examine the performance of spirituality on social farms through a qualitative content analysis of 45 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with social farmers, social pedagogues, and social workers. The validity of the research study results is supported by replication logic referring to a particular finding being tried for different sets of people (Hannes et al., 2010). Social farming and the approaches to social work that are based on human contact with nature in both urban and rural settings will be discussed. In the subsequent analysis, spirituality will be presented in the context of social farming and how it contributes to the overall health of the individual. Finally, the question of eco-spirituality, deep ecology and environmental justice will be raised. The theoretical part and discussion of the article are based on English-language indexed journals in the fields of religion, spirituality, social work, psychology and (multifunctional) agriculture. Relevant book publications are used. Some of the expert sources are of Czech origin.

The study draws on data obtained between 2021 and 2022 from the international SoFarTEAM project¹, in which the research team investigated the benefits of staying and working on social farms for people who were experiencing a range of difficulties in their lives, including situations of migration and other forcible displacement, physical disability, addictive behavior, mental health problems; advanced in years, situation of young people not in education employment or training; people with reduced intellectual. To diminish the validity threats the appropriateness of the research design, the procedure of data collection, data analysis, the reporting of the findings, the context of research, ethics and the implications of the research were considered (Hannes et al., 2010). The data set comprised 45 interviews with social workers, social educators and farmers working on selected social farms to see a variety of perspectives to gain a deep understanding of the perceived processes within a specific context. 13 interviews were conducted in the Czech Republic (CZ), 13 interviews in Germany (GE), 9 interviews in Ireland (IR), and 10 interviews the Netherlands (NL). A purposive sampling approach and a qualitative research design were employed to select participants based on their expertise in the social farming sector (Murray et al., 2019). A social farm was defined as an agricultural entity that contributes to social integration in a local context with a focus on workplaces, social services and rehabilitation, or education in accordance with the above theory. The main selection criterion for a purposive sample was the identification of the business entity as a social farm with a history of activity from 5 to 30 years. Criteria such as age and gender were not included, because in such a small sample and qualitatively conceived survey they would not bring a representative answer. Only the length of experience in the field and direct work with participants on social farms were considered. Informed consent was obtained from each communication partner, and the ethical level of the research was addressed. The research team modeled the questionnaire protocol for in-depth interviews, which included both closed and open questions and were conducted via Zoom or in person, lasting from 1 to 2 h. A unified structure was chosen because the interviews were conducted in individual project countries and by different researchers over a more extended period. In this way, deviation from the topic was minimized, as was the interviewer’s influence on the interviewer’s quality. The questionnaire protocol provided a uniform method for recording data, replicability of research strategy, and subsequent analysis and comparison of the content of the responses (Hendl, 2005; Hannes et al., 2010; Lune and Berg, 2017). The interview protocol consisted of several parts (e.g., motivation for establishing a social farm; the biography of the social farmer/social worker/social educator, the prevailing model of the social farm, the required support for participants on social farms; relations between workers and farm leaders; conflict prevention; educational goals; technical adaptation of the farm environment). The key questions for this paper are as “What elements of a social farm are important for the spirituality of supported participants? Do participants experience, for example, friendship, good relationships, a relationship to something higher – God, nature or something else?” Although the research was conducted in four European countries, spirituality was perceived as a universal category and a common ground without any connection to religion, understood as the individual’s capacity to experience a transcendent relationship among people, the non-human environment and, for some, God (Canda, 1988). The interviews were transcribed into the native languages of the researchers, who employed an open-coding strategy. The partially processed data were then translated into English, coded collaboratively and associated into thematic frames. The responses were not classified according to the country of origin, as spirituality is understood as a general category, and the work experience with participants on social farms was predominant. The following section presents the findings from the analysis, which applies Fischer’s SHALOM model of spiritual well-being, supplemented by spiritual needs from Frankl and Maslow. The primary method of analysis is based on deductive procedures (Lune and Berg, 2017). To increase the interpretative validity, the citations and verbatim interview excerpts laying out the participants’ view, perceptions, or experiences are displayed in the following section.

The appearance of social farms in urban and rural areas represents a piece of greenery that combines productive, therapeutic and socially inclusive aims. It is designed to give attention to vulnerable groups of people, enabling them to work with nature and significantly change the place where participants benefiting from social services usually spend their time. The following paragraphs utilize analytical frames derived from Fisher’s model, which allows for a detailed picture of the various dimensions of spiritual well-being and spiritual needs, approached in basic lines by Maslow and Frankl on social frameworks. Rural and urban social farms are complementary tools for other types of therapies and interventions in social work, which aim to support the social functioning of participants. It is not universal, and the individuality of the recipients must always be considered. On the other hand, nature-based approaches distinctly support spirituality.

This study aimed to investigate the expression of spirituality and the promotion of well-being and human health through participation in social farming. Health is not understood here as the absence of disease or defect but as the dynamic state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being. Spirituality, with its diverse forms, was presented through the four dimensions model of John Fisher because other models of spirituality (e.g., Arrey et al., 2016) did not include an environmental stance. The results show that contact with nature on a farm raises questions about how people relate to their inner World and how farm settings, but generally purposive contact with nature, can moderate this process. Worlds such as self-confidence, empowerment, and raising competencies through care for animals appeared many times in the narratives. The findings, which address the personal level, align with the higher needs and the meaning emphasized by Frankl and Maslow. The meaning of life enhanced by contact with nature on farms, as reported in Joschko et al. (2023), is notable. They recall, in this regard, the concept of “salutogenesis,” which was raised by Antonovsky (2002) when discussing stress management. The key point of “salutogenesis” is the enhancement of inner peace and meaning in life, as well as a sense of connectedness with nature and a feeling of acceptance from others. Similarly, self-awareness and a sense of a place, relaxation and meditation allow for a slowdown that is healing.

The connectedness with a physical place was often mentioned in the domain of environmental spirituality. In narratives, terms such as magic, beauty, and amazement, along with radically different settings, were pronounced. Working and staying on farms with plants, animals, and other people fosters a connection and a sense of responsibility to nature. When compared to Hassing’s model (Elings, 2012), spirituality would fit into the group of “green environments,” which motivates participants to calm down and stretch into one’s inner Self. Additionally, the “useful and diverse activities” from Hassing’s perspective provide meaning and offer a way to strengthen creativity, making the individual, who would usually be invisible, significant. Thus, categories are not strictly defined but mixed and overlapping. Environmental spirituality, recalled similarly in the research by Bock (2024) and the responsibility for nature may serve as a barrier to the anthropocentric approach and reaction to consumerism, unsustainable economic growth, and materialism, as represented by the “deep ecology” movement. The deep ecology conceptual framework was articulated most notably by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in the 1970s (Naess, 1993; Binka, 2008). It challenges the dualism between humanity and the natural World. Instead, deep ecology posits a “relational self”–an extended ecological self that sees all living beings as interconnected within a unified whole. This ethical stance demands humility, respect, and care not only for other humans but for all beings (Naess, 1993). In the context of social farming, this perspective resonates strongly, as participants often report a sense of reconnection with nature that transcends its functional use and instead nurtures a sense of belonging and responsibility. By erasing the duality between humans and the rest of the World, the reification of nature and living beings, which tempts people to destruction, exploitation and use, may be prevented. Analogous findings come from non-Western spiritual observations about one family with all interconnected beings (Ramanathan et al., 2025). In social farming, the interconnectedness of people with the surrounding World is instructive. It becomes apparent even to those who have not yet had the opportunity, due to their disability or living space, to consider the ecological dependencies between individual organisms. On a social farm torn from their previous environment, people with disabilities often have the first chance to perceive these connections and contribute to their protection. From the perspective of deep ecology, it is appropriate for the practice of social work to transfer primary care and responsibility for the environment in which humans live. The environment is not a static space and is not there solely for the benefit of people but is dynamic and requires active advocacy for its needs. Working on a social farm provides a guiding and practical insight, allowing one to defend the interests of animals and plants. Next to deep ecology thoughts, the interest can be found in (feminists) ethics of care, where caring includes more-than-human subjects and non-human objects. Moriggi et al. (2020) focused on Tronto’s five-stage model of caring, where caring about and caring for nature were revealed as the most pertinent in Green Care practices (e.g., social farming). Care for trains the responsibility, interconnectedness and willingness to engage with the betterment of the World.

They also emphasized the importance of care as a process based on reciprocity, mutual deliberation, and learning, which enables more active participation as a care recipient. Care with goes together with Hassink’s social environment (Elings, 2012), facilitation of social networking and connectivity (Pretty et al., 2011), but primarily with Fisher’s communal domain of spirituality as shown in the results from the interviews. The farm environment fosters learning and imitation more naturally. The individual relies on cooperation and a collective working atmosphere. Such an attitude fosters sensitivity to others and their needs, promoting mutual responsibility and respect, as well as ethics and care for the sick, the poor, and the suffering (Dudley, 2016; Ramanathan et al., 2025). This reciprocal relationship with another person can be expressed through the need to belong, to be loved, and to be involved, which Maslow (2014) describes as the upper rungs of his pyramid. Hemingway et al. (2016) wrote about facilitating connections, being, belonging, and joy on social farms. The results of this research demonstrate the importance of camaraderie and teamwork. Fun and camaraderie are not tangible; they can be felt. They can be perceived as something that transcends individuals, leading to a unique and new experience often associated with spirituality. Camaraderie encompasses kindness, forgiveness, trust, and respect toward others. Additionally, friendship and openness to new encounters can help diminish social exclusion as people from diverse settings and backgrounds come together in one place and make a community together (Borgi et al., 2019).

Finally, the respondents from the qualitative study highlighted their relation to spirituality and God in using this term. In literature, the intersection of social farming and spirituality, as a relationship to transcendence, is merely mentioned. The beauty, magic of nature, and fairy tales of greenery that allude to something beyond, behind, or above humans emerge in narratives that assure the transcendent thoughts in humans’ lives. Admiration for nature brings us back to a sense of responsibility and the ethic of care, as well as to what is often referred to as ecological spirituality (eco-spirituality), which stems from a deep respect for nature (Bock, 2024). The starting point of this framework is the romantic-spiritual attitude toward nature, which is described, for example, as “a strong respect for nature (which can also take the form of worship of Mother Nature). People are part of nature, which gives them many of its gifts, and man should limit his needs so as not to damage the natural world” (Krajhanzl, 2014, 100). There is a subtle connection to Christian eco-spirituality, illustrated through the symbolism of natural elements revealed in the Bible: The Promised Land of the Israelites, full of life and fruit; Jesus, who marvels at the beauty of nature, and man as a good steward. “Christian ecological spirituality provides the key to understanding oneself as “dust from the earth” (Genesis 2:7). Man is made up of the elements of the Earth (and the universe), breathes its oxygen and drinks the planet’s waters” (Sládek, 2019, 67). Therefore, in Christianity, it is impossible to relate to God without being aware of humanity’s physical side, which is composed of the dust of the Earth and is, in this sense, closely related to the considerations of deep ecology. Another context brings catholic theologian Michael Rosenberger, who develops the primary connection with the Earth through gratitude for “the gift of creation, fear as a retreat from the miracle of creation, maintaining moderation by the needs of other creatures, willingness to sacrifice for the good of creation as a whole, mercy, or compassion for suffering creatures, and finally humility as recognition of one’s finitude and fragility as a creature” (Rosenberger, 2017, 128). Christian eco-spirituality conceived in this way returns man to his defenselessness, fragility, and fundamental dependence on nature. The situation is thus reversed. Not nature on humans, but humans are entirely dependent on nature, and this awareness is still shallow in society.

All levels of spirituality can be encountered on a social farm, as respondents shared in their answers. Spirituality thus appears in various forms, and farm environments in both urban and rural areas can be one of the contexts that support the development of all dimensions of a person, serving to promote well-being and health. Spirituality is not only manifested in a vertical relationship but can be seen in relationships with others, with nature, and with the Self.

This study offers fundamental insights into the topic of spirituality experienced on a social farm, which contributes to a good state of well-being and health. It is a pilot study without a control group where validity was supported by theory triangulation and frank methodological process. Its focus was on examining different variants of spirituality and how a social farm can foster their development. The study was based on 45 qualitative interviews with farmers, social workers and social educators. It is, therefore, about their perspective and how they view the issue. The interview was not conducted with the participants in the activities on social farms themselves and their perceptions, thoughts and feelings cannot be thus part of interpretation. The interviews were with workers in four European countries. In Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany social farming represents a relatively strong sector in the framework of social work but still, generalizability is limited. Spirituality is understood as a general category. It is not possible to distinguish whether it is perceived differently in Western or Central European countries. The experiences of different target groups of participants were not examined, nor was it determined whether spirituality differs on social farms focused on education, community work, work integration, or rehabilitation. The issue of gender of age were also not taken into consideration. The ethics of care generally concern women more, but this is not specified in the article. There is considerable room for further research in this area. The interviews as research techniques could be supplemented by long-term observations and other ethnographic research methods to allay concerns about descriptive validity of the accounts. Nevertheless, the topic raises other questions and relationships that have not been explored so far.

This study has explored the multifaceted role of social farming in fostering spiritual well-being and enhancing human health. Drawing on Fisher’s four-domain model of spiritual well-being, the findings illustrate how social farms serve as unique environments where individuals can reconnect with themselves, others, nature, and transcendent realities. The spiritual dimension is revealed gradually, often implicitly, and is frequently discerned between the lines. Spirituality is supported by reflexivity, which can be fostered by natural and agricultural environments and their associated elements. These informal, non-judgmental settings offer a unique space for introspection. Animals do not judge; farmers focus on individuals’ capabilities and strengths, particularly those of people with disadvantages. Such environments allow space for existential questions–about life’s meaning, belonging to a greater whole, and relationships with others–thus contributing to the fullness of human health and being.

The integration of spirituality into social work practice through nature-based interventions highlights the potential of social farming as a complementary approach to conventional care models. While the study offers valuable insights, it also underscores the need for further research, particularly involving the direct voices of participants, exploring diverse cultural and gender perspectives, and employing longitudinal or ethnographic methods. Future studies could deepen our understanding of how spiritual experiences on social farms contribute to long-term well-being, help overcome crises or natural disasters, and support and social resilience.