Author
Listed:
- Vitalija Simonaitytė
(Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)
- Erika Ribašauskienė
(Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)
Abstract
Therapy farms are increasingly recognized as social innovations that respond to exclusion, mental health challenges, and youth disconnection, particularly in rural areas. While often praised for their inclusive and rehabilitative potential, their broader impact on structural social transformation remains under-examined. This study explores the House of Educational Experiences, a therapeutic farm in rural Lithuania, to critically assess how such initiatives function as both agents of inclusion and stabilizers of existing socio-economic arrangements. Drawing on a qualitative case study approach, the research analyses in-depth interview data through the lens of the social innovation cycle, focusing on novelty, process, heterogeneity, impact, scalability, and transformative potential. Our findings reveal that the therapeutic farm generates significant individual and community benefits, particularly in psychosocial well-being, social skills, and pathways back into education and employment. However, the initiative also operates within institutional constraints, relying on project-based funding and reproducing aspects of conventional care systems. As such, its transformative capacity appears limited by structural dependencies and policy fragmentation. The study concludes that therapy farms represent an ambivalent form of social innovation: capable of creating inclusive, localized change, but often constrained in their ability to catalyze systemic transformation. Policy recommendations emphasize the need for long-term funding, institutional integration, and cross-sector collaboration.
Suggested Citation
Vitalija Simonaitytė & Erika Ribašauskienė, 2026.
"Therapy Farms as Social Innovations Shaping Social Transformations in Rural Areas: Case Study Analysis,"
Societies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, January.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:16:y:2026:i:1:p:13-:d:1830970
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:16:y:2026:i:1:p:13-:d:1830970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.