Motivations behind regenerative agriculture: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Over the last few decades, regenerative agriculture has emerged as a promising approach to redefine sustainability in agricultural practices. It aims to restore ecosystems, improve soil health and enhance biodiversity while maintaining agricultural productivity. This review analyses the primary social, economic and environmental motivations behind the adoption of regenerative agriculture. Additionally, it examines the roles various stakeholders play in either adopting, accelerating or hindering the implementation of regenerative agricultural practices. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, 49 articles published between 2014 and 2025 were selected. The sustainability pillars (environmental, economic and social) were used to systematize the core findings. Key results indicate that environmental motivations are key drivers for adopting regenerative agriculture, though economic and social factors also play a role. Regenerative agriculture is identified as a significant contributor to sustainability; however, key challenges include the transition period, lack of incentives and inadequate regulations. These barriers are particularly challenging for farmers attempting to shift to regenerative practices. This review underscores the need for policy reforms, integration of regenerative agriculture into incentive and subsidy schemes and improved knowledge transfer to farmers about the long-term benefits of regenerative practices. Additionally, ensuring the replicability of regenerative agriculture models in countries where small- and medium-sized farming is predominant is crucial for enhancing the scalability of these practices.

Keywords

review regenerative agriculture motivations stakeholders sustainability

Introduction

Agriculture, nowadays, faces pressing demands: boosting food and fibre production, supporting bioenergy needs, fostering development in agriculture-reliant regions and adapting sustainably to climate change (Doering and Sorensen, 2018). Currently responsible for around 30% of greenhouse gas (GHG) (FAO, 2024), agrifood systems drive significant land-use change internationally (Lambin et al., 2000). With global food needs set to rise due to increasing population and per capita consumption (Berners-Lee et al., 2018), stakeholders are seeking more sustainable food production methods while ensuring the responsible use of natural resources (Garcia-Gonzalez and Eakin, 2019).

Several agriculture frameworks, such as climate-smart agriculture (Lipper et al., 2017), sustainable intensification (Cassman and Grassini, 2020) and smart sustainable agriculture (Alreshidi, 2019), aim to improve sustainability by relying on technological advancement to mitigate the effects of both climate change and production systems and limit associated environmental externalities. However, such framing decouples environmental concerns from socioeconomic concerns when treating sustainability (Karlsson et al., 2018; Taylor, 2018). This separation risks overlooking the interconnected nature of environmental and social dimensions, potentially limiting the holistic effectiveness of these frameworks.

Considering this, regenerative agriculture (RA) has been suggested as an alternative means of producing food that might have lower or even net positive environmental and/or social impacts (Luján Soto et al., 2020). Compared to other forms of sustainable agriculture, RA is less political and more focused on real benefits, including social ones, and more market-oriented (Tittonell et al., 2022). Yet there is a lack of consensus around a common definition to draw a clear distinction between regenerative, organic and other ‘alternative’ agricultures and how it aligns with sustainability and agroecological practices (Newton et al., 2020b).

Multiple assertions claim the potential of RA to improve the sustainability of the agrifood scene, including the idea that it may be adopted as a strategy to reverse climate change by improving yields and restoring degraded lands (Khangura et al., 2023), satisfying people's needs and sustaining farmers’ livelihoods (Al-Kaisi and Lal, 2020; Timsina et al., 2022). Most importantly, the outcomes and targets set at COP28 can be furthered through RA practices (Ozdemir, 2024).

Recent reviews by Donoghue et al. (2022), Gordon et al. (2022), Jayasinghe et al. (2023), Khangura et al. (2023), Rai et al. (2025) and Rehberger et al. (2023) investigated RA definitions, practices and their impacts. In Rehberger et al. (2023), 28 studies were included to analyse soil organic carbon (SOC) levels, soil health and biodiversity. Results show a preference for certain practices over others and the promotion of their impacts without adequate consideration of contextual elements. While this review provides guidance for agronomists interested in effectively engaging with RA, it did not highlight the importance of contextual elements related to different agriculture settings across the globe that might impact RA adoption. Meanwhile, Giller et al. (2021) highlighted the variability in the success of different RA practices, suggesting that while some practices show promise, their impact depends on specific environmental conditions. Gordon et al. (2022) reviewed a total of 267 publications and reports and identified six themes reflecting how RA is understood, practised and discussed: (i) regenerative agricultural work is conducted within nested, complex living systems; (ii) farms are relational, with co-evolution occurring among humans and other landscape biota; (iii) the innate potential of living systems is place-sourced; (iv) openness to alternative thinking and practice is transformative; (v) multiple regenerative cultures are necessary for deeply engaging with RA; and (vi) regenerative approaches depart from industrialism to varying degrees. Results also indicate that RA operates better when economic, political and social systems in which it is embedded are also regenerative. This review can be extended to examine critically the role and impact of stakeholders in the uptake and adaptation of RA, alongside the contextual elements outlined. O’Donoghue et al. (2022) identified 189 relevant sources to investigate the intentions behind the adoption of RA. Results compared conventional versus regenerative farming practices, existing certification schemes and ecosystem service markets. The study also identified five dimensions of RA and potential indicator targets for application within the farmscape function framework and the intentions–principles–practices–indicators mechanism. This review can be extended to assess the economic motivations and impacts of RA practices. Khangura et al. (2023) identified key principles, practices, benefits and microbial mechanisms that enhance soil carbon buildup and improve soil health but did not address the economic pros and cons of transitioning from conventional to regenerative farming. Lastly, Rai et al. (2025) reviewed 71 articles and explored RA practices, principles, benefits and outcomes. Results showed the need for further research to determine farmers’ interest for RA over conventional farming methods and did not search for motivations behind the adoption of RA practices.

Although the motivations behind the adoption of a practice are often defined based on the impact that practice can have, motivations remain a multidimensional construct, driven by a series of intrinsic, social, psychological, cultural and contextual factors. Self-determination theory defines human behaviour as being driven by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, linked to both psychological and economic factors, both of which are important in determining individuals’ choices (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Sutherland et al., 2012). With regard to the agricultural sector, Triste et al. (2018) highlighted that farmers’ behaviour is due both to the productive performance they can achieve and to their own self-satisfaction. This review examines both the benefits and motivations that facilitate or hinder the adoption of RA practices.

The current study aims to fill the gap in global understanding of how RA contributes to sustainability and what might hinder its transition. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method (Tricco et al., 2018), we synthesize recent literature to identify the primary motivations and benefits driving the adoption of RA over the past decade. This review addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the motivations behind the transition towards RA?

RQ2: What roles do stakeholders have in the transition towards RA?

The review is organized as follows: the ‘Methodology’ section is where we present the review strategy, data extraction and tabulation, and article characterization. In the ‘Results’ section, the findings from the selected publications are reported. Finally, in the ‘Conclusions’ section, the main conclusions are drawn.

Methodology

Review strategy

The search for articles has been performed using two online databases: Web of Science and Scopus (Bramer et al., 2017). They both feature high-quality, peer-reviewed journal publications as well as contributions to scientific conferences. The review focused only on peer-reviewed articles. The possibility of extending the review to publications from other sources has also been explored; yet it was deemed that these publications would not meet the scientific requirements of this review due to a lack of an independent revision process.

The following algorithm has been applied: (“regenerative” AND “conservative”) AND “agriculture” AND (“environment*” OR “economic*” OR “soci*” OR “sustain*” OR “ develop*” OR “ecosystem services”). An asterisk (*) has been attached to most word stems to find all articles which include terms starting with that word stem. The search was limited to the title, abstract and keywords and constrained to publications from 2014 to 2025. The entire search and analysis process was undertaken following the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Cronin, 2011; Liberati et al., 2009) and thus the 27-item checklist structure (Moher et al., 2009).

As there is no common definition for RA, in this study, we based our selection criteria on the definitions provided by Newton et al. (2020a) and Schreefel et al. (2020). All evidence from studies dealing with RA and its contribution to social, environmental and economic development has been collected and catalogued in Table A1 of the Appendix. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria have been set following the research questions, to strictly define the eligibility of the articles to be included in the database. In detail, the inclusion criteria were as follows:

Papers published in the last 11 years (from 2014 to 2025). The literature search was concluded on the 30 June 2025.

Papers written in English.

Papers published on peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Papers that focus only on RA motivations and practices, excluding studies focusing only on biological effects.

Papers that did not deal with the multidimensional benefits and trade-offs associated with RA practices were instead excluded.

A total of 3807 papers were identified at the first step: 1986 from Web of Science and 1821 from Scopus. Then, duplicates (n = 674) were removed from the dataset. Afterwards, studies that were not relevant to the specific research areas, timeline period, language, literature type and location were excluded (n = 1005). Notably, the time span from 2014 to 2025 has been chosen to investigate and offer an overview of the latest studies. It also included most of the relevant literature. Afterwards, a two-step screening procedure was applied: (i) articles were screened by reading the title and abstract and the core topic of the study; 1640 papers were excluded due their nonrelevance to the research questions; (ii) a total of 266 publications needed full-text reviewing. From these, 222 were excluded for (i) not focusing on stakeholders and motivations for adoption, (ii) being technical studies, (iii) being studies that did not focus on RA but dealt with it marginally. Five additional articles are identified from cross referencing, resulting in a final selection of 49 articles (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Article selection process.

Data extraction and tabulation

The 49 publications included in this review were summarized, and the essential data including article information (title, authors, year of publication), study characteristics (study design, sample size, category of participant(s), country of interest) and major findings were gathered (impact and role of stakeholders, relevance to social, economic and environmental motivations). The full list of articles is presented in Table A1.

Then, in this review, we categorized the insights based on the sustainability pillars defined by Brundtland (1987). Our objectives were twofold: first, to identify the social, economic and environmental motivations that drive farmers to adopt RA practices and standards; and second, the respective roles of diverse stakeholders engaged in the transition towards RA. Economic sustainability refers to practices that support long-term economic growth without negatively impacting social, environmental and cultural aspects of the community (Boar et al., 2020). Social sustainability encompasses the human rights, labour rights, social cohesion and inclusion and social justice issues that impact the quality of life. It includes providing fair access to resources, ensuring community participation and empowerment, and fostering healthy, just and resilient societies (Barron et al., 2021). Environmental sustainability is about the responsible interaction with the environment to avoid the depletion or degradation of natural resources and allow for long-term environmental quality, and it involves the maintenance of ecosystem integrity, natural resource management and the reduction of waste and pollution (Goodland, 1995).

Characterization of the selected articles

Insights were gathered from multidisciplinary studies, as the impacts of RA involve several disciplines. From the totality of the studies, 29% of the selected articles were part of the research area of social sciences; 84% were part of agriculture, plant sciences, environmental sciences and ecology, and geography research areas; and 23% were part of the research area of business and economics. No articles before 2016 were included. Of the selected articles, 8% were published from 2016 to 2021 (Figure 2) and 6% were published in 2021, followed by 14% in 2022, 41% in 2023, 16% in 2024 and 14% until June 2025.

Figure 2.

Publications per year.

Geographically, 29% of the included studies were conducted in North America (90% in the United States and 10% in Canada), 27% in Europe, including the United Kingdom (46% in the United Kingdom, 15% in Spain and 38% equally divided between Poland, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland and Finland). A smaller number of studies were conducted in Oceania (14%), Africa (4% concentrated in Kenya) and Asia (4% in China and India). The remaining 22% are studies with multi-territory analyses or no specific geographical reference (Figure 3). The concentration of research in North America is attributed to the intensive nature of agriculture based on high-energy inputs and monoculture cultivation, which have led to soil depletion and environmental degradation (Tello et al., 2023). Furthermore, farmers’ willingness to adopt conservation practices is positively correlated with farm size, averaging 187 hectares (Spangler et al., 2020). Additionally, US policy has shifted towards environmentally friendly farming practices, as the 2018 Farm Bill introduced new forms of payment for agricultural practices promoting carbon storage (Johnson and Mitchell-McCallister, 2025). While European Union (EU) countries have begun to embrace RA in recent years, they face significant challenges, particularly due to the smaller scale of their farming operations compared to those in North America and Oceania.

Figure 3.

Geographical distribution of studies.

Upon full-text eligibility screening, we identified the contributions that each article made to the social, economic and environmental spheres. Of the selected articles, 47% had information about RA's impact on the social sphere, and 37% described the possible economic impacts of RA on farm management, while 45% described the environmental impacts of RA. Lastly, 67% of the selected studies reported insights on stakeholders’ role on RA adoption (Figure 4). Only 8% reported all three types of impacts, highlighting lack of multidisciplinary research regarding RA.

Figure 4.

Distribution of articles by impacts.

Any RA practices covered and possible combination of them were identified. Table A2 contains a summary of the identified practices. Of the selected publications, 24 lack specific definitions or descriptions of RA practices, often failing to clearly explain the meaning or rationale behind the practices they mention. The variation in RA definitions and practices are shaped by the unique environmental and contextual needs of each rural territory and are adapted to the specific types of farming activities practised. While Khangura et al. (2023) have identified RA practices with common regenerative goals, the processes themselves remain unstandardized as RA practices are tailored to meet the needs of local stakeholders (Hackenbruch et al., 2017), which vary widely. In addition, the selection and combination of RA practices differed from study to study, often reflecting the underlying farming systems, which guide the gradual integration of practices to avoid major disruptions to existing product-specific value and supply chains.

Results

Social motivations

24 selected publications were relevant to social motivations behind the adoption of RA practices and how these practices contribute to social sustainability. Several studies demonstrated that the process of adopting regenerative practices is complex and multidimensional, driven by intrinsic, social, environmental and sociodemographic characteristics (Han and Niles, 2023; Pape et al., 2025; Sädeharju, 2025). A sense of inadequacy, combined with personal struggles stemming from the pollution caused by conventional farming and a sense of helplessness during natural disasters, has prompted farmers to protect the environment and fuelled their ecological consciousness (Beacham et al., 2023; Gosnell et al., 2019; Page and Witt, 2022;). In Canada, farmers who adopted RA practices such as rotational grazing demonstrated that their motivations stem from complex cognitive patterns linked to their ecosystems and the contest in which they operate (McWherter and Sherren, 2025). Furthermore, younger farmers were more inclined to spearhead sustainable transformations of their farms (Beacham et al., 2023; Jaworski et al., 2024). This generational shift highlights the potential of young farmers as catalysts for long-term sustainability, as they are more likely to embrace innovative approaches and prioritize ecological stewardship.

The adoption of regenerative practices has been linked to an increase in farmers’ self-efficacy, dedication and pleasure, which in turn has a beneficial effect on their mental health and quality of life, generated by the connection with nature and the wholesomeness of food (Brown et al., 2022; Frankel-Goldwater et al., 2023; Gordon et al., 2022; Heider et al., 2023; Jaworski et al., 2024). This connection between well-being and self-efficacy highlights how the adoption of RA practices not only fosters mental health but also empowers farmers to embrace sustainable change. For instance, Brown et al. (2022) demonstrated that RA fosters sustainable well-being co-benefits, highlighting how social factors like connectedness, social learning, and a sense of belonging are crucial for enhancing farmers’ confidence and self-efficacy. However, environmental challenges may undermine well-being when farmers feel less capable of effectively managing their resources. The increase in physical and mental well-being, along with a deep connection to the landscape, is perceived by farmers as both an ecological and personal regeneration (Gordon et al., 2022). An increased risk aversion is associated with a greater propensity to adopt new technologies and sustainable practices (Frankel-Goldwater et al., 2023; Han and Niles, 2023; Wojtynia et al., 2023). The increased risk aversion observed among non-adopters highlights the barriers to transitioning from conventional to regenerative practices, suggesting that risk perceptions must be addressed to facilitate broader adoption. Alexanderson et al. (2023) reported that farmers who do not adopt regenerative practices are 58% risk-averse, which is 22% more than farmers who do, and 15% less likely to adopt new technologies and practices, in line with findings from Wojtynia et al. (2023), indicating that farmers who perceive the change to be too radical and risky remain tied to conventional agriculture.

Previous studies have shown that knowledge exchange among actors using similar methodologies created collaborative training networks, facilitating change in rural communities through effective technical and scientific dissemination (Frankel-Goldwater et al., 2023; Jaworski et al., 2024; McWherter et al., 2025; Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023; Ntawuhiganayo et al., 2023; Soto et al., 2021). Beyond technical training, fostering the sense of community involvement is crucial for the long-term success of regenerative practices, as social support systems reinforce the adoption of new methodologies and practices. Soto et al. (2021) demonstrated that community learning processes, supported by the collaboration of local stakeholders, provide an incentive for the adoption of regenerative practices and facilitate the deployment and achievement of common outcomes. Lack of awareness and low levels of agronomic training negatively affect environmental consciousness and self-efficacy among approximately 6000 Iowa farmers (Upadhaya et al., 2023). These gaps in awareness and training underscore the importance of targeted knowledge exchange efforts, which can bridge the gap and enhance both environmental consciousness and self-efficacy.

Another driving aspect in the adoption of regenerative practices is the need for approval and a sense of community belonging, as people's negative judgement of pollution from farming practices can lead to the exclusion of farmers from social contexts (Wojtynia et al., 2023), while adherence to sustainable farming systems leads to community involvement in farming activities, increasing trust level between neighbours (Jaworski et al., 2024; Heider et al., 2023; Sherren et al., 2023). Galley et al. (2025) emphasized that the reasons for adopting RA are strongly situated and linked to the context in which farmers live and carry out their agricultural activities. Alexanderson et al. (2023) suggested, unlike studies by Sherren et al. (2023), Heider et al. (2023) and Jaworski et al. (2024), that a sense of social community has no effect on the adoption of sustainable practices.

Social justice also appears to deeply affect RA adoption, not only through adequate recognition for agricultural workers (equity theme¹) and recognition of the contribution of indigenous communities whose knowledge predates the regenerative movement (Wilson et al., 2022), but also through awareness of safeguarding the environment and ensuring food security for current generations (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023b; Strauser and Stewart, 2024) and future generations (Frankel-Goldwater et al., 2023; Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023). In contrast, Gordon et al. (2023) showed that RA may heighten racial tensions and be leveraged by large market actors for corporate greenwashing. In addition, Beacham et al. (2023), Gosnell et al. (2019), Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson (2023) and Page and Witt (2022) suggested that farmers transitioning to regenerative practices often face exclusion from traditional farmer groups in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom that remain committed to the productivism paradigm, rooted in the belief that regenerative systems cannot ensure food security.

Economic motivations

Key factors driving economic performance in RA are operating costs, net income, environmental premiums and farm system resilience (Al-Kaisi and Lal, 2020; Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023). These factors collectively determine the sustainability and scalability of RA, influencing both short-term decision-making and long-term adoption by farmers.

Al-Kaisi and Lal (2020), LaCanne and Lundgren (2018), Mogaka (2023) and Strauser and Stewart (2024) showed that those practising RA have lower costs than their conventional agriculture counterparts. LaCanne and Lundgren (2018) found that replacing fertilizers with legume-based cover crops, using untreated seeds, adopting no-tillage (NT) methods and grazing during fallow periods reduced maize cultivation costs in the United States by 20%. Al-Kaisi and Lal (2020) found that conventional wheat production systems in the United States require 48% more energy and more labour than regenerative system; Strauser and Stewart (2024) in the United States found that the use of livestock can reduce the costs of purchasing and using fertilizer machinery. In Africa, Mogaka (2023) found that intercropping and rotation with leguminous crops and on-farm grazing reduce initial input and labour costs.

However, the utilization of certain practices might result in elevated costs due to their inverse correlation with yield, consequently impacting farm income (Mogaka, 2023; Roberts et al., 2023). Mogaka (2023) pointed out that the use of reduced tillage causes a 7.8% decrease in yield, resulting in lower income. Roberts et al. (2023) found that although fertilizer and pesticide costs may decrease, they can also rise due to increased rotations during the transition period, leading to high expenses and lower yields. Thus, economic benefits are limited by yield reductions and infrastructure interventions, such as creating paddocks for rotational grazing, while environmental benefits remain insufficiently recognized by both policies and the market (Jordon et al., 2023; Wojtynia et al., 2023).

The profitability of many agricultural businesses relies on government subsidies and grants, which help offset production losses during the initial transition years, especially since access to product certification systems is not available during this period (Heider et al., 2023; Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023; Roberts et al., 2023). Without these financial safety nets, many farmers might struggle to adopt RA practices, particularly in regions where certification or premium-pricing mechanisms are underdeveloped. Heider et al. (2023) found that over 60% of surveyed farms in Spain relied on profitability from Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies, with most of these funds still directed towards large-scale conventional farms that negatively impact the environment. Studies in the United States (Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023) and in the United Kingdom (Roberts et al., 2023) indicated that the transition period can last up to six years, during which farms try to adopt as many regenerative practices as possible and that during this period, farms experienced lower gross margins and a worse cost–benefit ratio than under the conventional system.

Thus, profitability for regenerative systems must focus on gross profit maximization and remuneration of natural capital (Gosnell et al., 2019; LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018). LaCanne and Lundgren (2018) associated corn farm profitability more with soil organic matter (SOM) than yield, finding that regenerative farms had up to 1.7% higher organic matter and that farmers increased income by selling grain directly to consumers and using fields for additional revenue sources, such as grazing cover mixes with livestock. In Australia and the United States, Gosnell et al. (2019) found that farmers shifted their focus from yield to profit by considering that lower input costs could offset yield losses and giving up on the idea that environmentally friendly behaviours could not be profitable. No evidence was found of monetization or remuneration for the maintenance of natural capital. This gap in recognizing the economic value of natural capital highlights the need for policy frameworks and market mechanisms that incentivize sustainable practices.

Farm profitability can also be increased through access to the carbon credit market (Roberts et al., 2023). However, several companies in England found that introducing trees or shrubs on farms lead to uncultivated land, negatively impacting yields and making the associated costs of purchase and management disadvantageous (Jordon et al., 2023). Concerns have emerged that carbon markets could spur profit-driven restoration projects, allowing companies to greenwash by prioritizing financial gains over genuine environmental impact (Gordon et al., 2023). Other benefits for regenerative farmers could arise from the commercialization of ecosystem services beyond carbon, such as biodiversity, freshwater conservation and worker well-being (O’Donoghue et al., 2022).

The impact of regenerative practices on yield, cost and profitability is highly dependent on the economic and environmental contexts. There are tools for economic analysis that allow the calculation of farm profitability by analysing the context and practices used, also through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and big data (Jayasinghe et al., 2023). Heider et al. (2023) emphasized the challenges farmers encounter in marketing their products, such as a limited customer base, obstacles with online sales and customer expectations for low prices on agricultural items. Ntawuhiganayo et al. (2023) found that regenerative farmers in Kenya and Rwanda increased their income through crop diversification and improved their household food security. The size of a farm has an impact on its productivity: farms with a larger acreage tend to perform better, probably due to the availability of more space for experimentation (Mogaka, 2023); however, this also results in higher costs for implementing the practices (Jordon et al., 2023).

Enhancing productivity in regenerative farms can be achieved by evaluating economic returns and added value per unit of land (Al-Kaisi and Lal, 2020; Gosnell et al., 2019). This approach is particularly valuable for understanding farm resilience within food systems increasingly impacted by climate change.

The key benefits of RA lie in the creation of semi-closed systems that foster a circular economy, as Beacham et al. (2023) stated when interviewing farmers in the United Kingdom. Ntawuhiganayo et al. (2023), in their study of farming families in Kenya and Rwanda, stated that RA supports the concept of a circular economy, due to the integrated introduction of crops and livestock that limit waste production and allow agricultural by-products to be used to limit external inputs. Still, current global uncertainties and input price volatility are driving farmers towards these practices. Despite this shift, the long timeframes required for implementation are limiting broader industry adoption (Roberts et al., 2023).

Environmental motivations

Climate change negatively affects farming systems. Heider et al. (2023) in Spain found that 84% of farmers surveyed experienced production losses caused by events such as drought, heat waves and heavy rainfall. RA has been shown to have some positive impacts on soil properties, the biodiversity of agricultural systems and the environment in general (Roberts et al., 2023), but not on crop yields (LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018; Wacławowicz et al., 2023).

Al-Kaisi and Lal (2020), Avasiloaiei et al. (2023a), Gordon et al. (2022), Heider et al. (2023), Jordon S. et al. (2022a), Jordon W. et al. (2022b), Khangura et al. (2023), LaCanne and Lundgren (2018), Rehberger et al. (2023) and Teague et al. (2016) demonstrated how RA practices have the ability to store soil carbon content by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the United Kingdom, Jordon et al. (2022b) demonstrated that winter cover crops and a reduction in tillage intensity increased SOC by 20% over 30 years, resulting in physical and chemical soil improvement.

Avasiloaiei et al. (2023a) found that regenerative systems can store up to about 1.13 tonnes of carbon per hectare through the adoption of different practices; for example, with annual crops, up to 560 kg C/ha/year can be stored in the topsoil in different forms of carbon, increasing SOM by at least four times. In Texas (United States), regenerative grazing accumulated about 3 tons C/ha/year in the first 90 cm of soil (Teague et al., 2016); in Spain, grazing had a significant effect in the top 10 cm of soil, but the same was not found in Australia, where no change was recorded, and this result may depend on the climate since in temperate climates, such as Australia, regenerative practices have less of an effect (Jordon et al., 2022b). Ogungbuyi et al. (2023) in Australia compared the productivity of paddocks under regenerative and conventional management and showed that climate has a favourable impact under both conditions, confounding the results of the two management comparisons and limiting the ability to measure the effects of regenerative farming practices. In Italy, a recent study in Sicilian citrus orchards highlighted that regenerative practices, such as leaving pruning residues in the field, can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by −0.61 Mg CO₂-eq/ha/year compared to conventional systems (Cammarata et al., 2025).

In Australia, Khangura et al. (2023) found that the combined use of NT, grazing and inclusion of leguminous crops improved the process of soil carbon storage. NT increased carbon in the top 30 cm of soil by 4.6 Mg/ha over 10 years, but no change was observed along the profile. Other combinations of practices, such as NT and stubble, do not directly contribute to carbon increase but limit carbon degradation by protecting the soil from erosion.

Rehberger et al. (2023) suggested that the effects on soil carbon depend on climatic conditions, soil type and duration of practice: NT practice increased carbon in the first 30 cm of soil by 10% in dry temperate climates, 16% in humid temperate climates, 17% in dry tropical climates and 23% in humid tropical climates; among practices, NT increased carbon by 0.57 Mg C/ha/year, cover crops by 0.56 Mg C/ha/year, rotations by 0.2 Mg C/ha/year and perennials (agroforestry) by 0.87 Mg C/ha/year. The capacity to store carbon also depends on the initial soil conditions; degraded soils have a greater capacity compared to fertile soils, which may be closer to their saturation potential (Giller et al., 2021). Differences in the amount of carbon absorbed by the soil may also result from the type of carbon measurement used, as shown by Khangura et al. (2023), who, using the gas exchange method on a two-year maize/soybean rotation, found no variation in carbon sequestration. For the assessment of the actual impacts of RA, Jayasinghe et al. (2023) proposed 52 machine learning algorithms, including biophysical models such as APSIM, EPIC, STICS, RothC and others capable of simulating crop processes, evaluating SOC turnover and providing insights into nutrient cycling in agricultural systems.

Regenerative fields enhanced biodiversity, boosted beneficial fauna and improved soil microbiological activity (Giller et al., 2021; Heider et al., 2023; Jordon et al., 2022a; Teague et al., 2016). The switch to RA in Canada has increased field biodiversity by 19% (Rehberger et al., 2023). NT techniques increased the proliferation of fungal hyphae that improve nutrient cycling, such as biological nitrogen fixation, while the use of cover crops increases ecosystem services by attracting beneficial insects, such as pollinators (Khangura et al., 2023). Plant diversity, practised through rotations and cover crops, allows for approaches such as integrated pest and disease management (IPM) (Giller et al., 2021). In the United States, LaCanne and Lundgren (2018) found 10 times lower pest presence in regenerative fields due to the strength of the biological network due to high animal and plant biodiversity. Jordon et al. (2023) in the United Kingdom and Strauser and Stewart (2024) in the United States found that the inclusion of perennial crops increased shelter for livestock, creating an ecosystem service for wildlife. The inclusion of perennial crops has positive effects on the internal regulation of natural processes, increasing the resilience of agricultural systems and limiting dependence on external inputs (Al-Kaisi and Lal, 2020; Rehberger et al., 2023).

For biodiversity, soil type and environmental conditions can also vary the impact of regenerative practices. Liu et al. (2024) found variation in population densities of Collembola and mites depending on environmental conditions and soil texture, stating that NT practices have more effect in environments with higher annual rainfall and silty soils for Collembola but better in clay and sandy soils for mites.

RA practices also had positive effects on farming system circularity, such as through on-farm livestock inclusion, which limits the use of external inputs by reintroducing animal manure as soil fertilizer, or through the use of cover crops as fodder for animals and organic soil conditioners (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023a; Ntawuhiganayo et al., 2023). Avasiloaiei et al. (2023b) demonstrated that the RA crops are richer in nutrients compared to conventional crops, with up to 46% more vitamin K, up to 60% more B vitamins and up to 70% more phenolic content. Regenerative practices have improved forage quality, pasture recovery and also positive effects on livestock performance (Jordon et al., 2023).

The adoption of regenerative systems has varying effects on crop yields (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023b; Jordon et al., 2023; Khangura et al., 2023; LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018; Rehberger et al., 2023; Wacławowicz et al., 2023). In Spain, farms practising NT, cover crops and agroforestry perform better, or the yield decreases were smaller compared to the increases in system efficiency (Rehberger et al., 2023). LaCanne and Lundgren (2018) found that maize grain yields can decrease by up to 29%, while Khangura et al. (2023) found that maize yields can increase by 2% in tropical regions and up to 47% in arid and subtropical environments. In China, Sadiq et al. (2021) reported a 33% increase in wheat yields under RA practices compared to conventional systems. Rotational grazing has been proven beneficial for boosting dry matter productivity and grass growth rates (Jordon et al., 2023). However, careful management is essential to prevent issues such as weed establishment, which could reduce its effectiveness. Giller et al. (2021) noted that while legumes and perennial grains reduce soil erosion and nutrient leaching, they often have lower yields than annual crops and pose challenges in controlling pests and weeds. In Poland, NT and cover crops can increase weed pressure due to the presence of seeds on soil surface, necessitating the use of canopy chemicals for weed control (Wacławowicz et al., 2023). In contrast, practices such as mulching have been shown to reduce weed pressure by 63% (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023a).

Regenerative practices, such as cover crops, help mitigate consequences of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods (Gosnell et al., 2019; Strauser and Stewart, 2024). Al-Kaisi and Lal (2020) found that NT, crop rotations and crop residue retention improve physiological and hydrological soil characteristics, such as aggregate stability, density and porosity. NT helps maintain soil structure stability, limits evapotranspiration by improving moisture retention and increases water content, especially in arid environments (Liu et al., 2024). These regenerative practices have a positive effect on reducing soil erosion, nutrient leaching and GHG emissions (Heider et al., 2023; Khangura et al., 2023; Roberts et al., 2023).

The positive impact on atmospheric emissions includes a reduction in nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions by up to 0.203 Mg CO₂-eq/ha/year (Al-Kaisi and Lal, 2020; Rehberger et al., 2023). Jordon et al. (2022b) demonstrated that adding cover crops to perennial cropping systems could reduce GHGs by up to 6.48 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents per year, about 16% of the United Kingdom's agricultural emissions.

Khangura et al. (2023) found that regenerative practices have the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 27% within 30 years in the United Kingdom. Avasiloaiei et al. (2023b) argued that RA could reduce up to 70% of the GHG emissions of global agriculture, with 41% of this reduction attributable to cover crops. However, they noted that this process would have a maximum time interval of 20 years, beyond which N₂O emissions to the atmosphere could increase. Organic fertilizers, while increasing SOM, result in higher nutrient losses and cause a 32% increase in N₂O emissions compared to mineral fertilizers (Giller et al., 2021).

Stakeholders’ role in transitioning to RA

To understand how RA is spreading and how systems are addressing the transition, it is important to identify the major stakeholders that emerge in the literature and identify their role in relation to the transition. The analysis highlight that the transition to regenerative systems involves multiple actors and actions (Köhler et al., 2019), identifying farmers, politicians, public institutions, communities, research and private sector companies as the main stakeholders.

Farmers

Farmers are at the centre of transition to RA, but to do so, they must abandon the productionist paradigm by sacrificing immediate economic benefits for environmentally friendly production systems (Al-Kaisi and Lal, 2020; Giller et al., 2021; LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018). Strauser and Stewart (2024) in the United States found that farmers feel a sense of frustration because they are singled out as major polluters, given the impacts of conventional agriculture, and would like to change their production systems. Farmers transitioning to RA undergo an ethical and mental shift, embracing new norms and redefining their identity to align with RA practices (Gosnell et al., 2019; Wojtynia et al., 2023). Farmers who begin the transition experience a shift from dependence on chemical inputs to a form of ‘natural consciousness’, going through a detoxification phase and a process of moralization (Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023). Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2023) in the United States found that those who adhered to RA experience better life quality, had tools that enabled them to cope with the challenges of climate change and achieved better personal goals. In Australia, Brown et al. (2022) found that the application of RA practices for landscape regeneration purposes had great effects on the psychological well-being of practitioners.

Farmers’ success in RA is also associated with their participation within communities (Gosnell et al., 2019; Wojtynia et al., 2023). Farmers who adopted RA were the primary spokespersons for the practices, offering support to other farmers and creating a network of mutual aid, collaboration and information exchange (Han and Niles, 2023; Soto et al., 2021; Strauser and Stewart, 2024). In the United States, Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson (2023) found that farmers who switched to RA actively participated in conferences and other outreach events to promote its awareness and adoption. In the United Kingdom, farmer-led networks were crucial in increasing awareness and adoption rates of RA, as those who feel less connected feel less involved in system transformation (Jaworski et al., 2024). Gordon et al. (2022) suggested that the spread of regenerative practices could transform communities of practice into communities of place, acting harmoniously to adapt to local circumstances, utilize local resources and nourish local populations. In this sense, RA is seen as a social innovation, consisting of cultural and relational processes in which farmers constitute the agency in rural contexts capable of redefining visions, norms and practices (Bless et al., 2025).

Many farmers expressed discontent, especially in the early years of the transition, originating from high costs of adopting RA practices and a lack of financial support from governments (Heider et al., 2023; Jordon et al., 2023; McCarthy and Rushforth, 2025; Roberts et al., 2023). Yield and production losses have pushed adopters to seek non-farm income (Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023). Additionally, farmers operate within diverse agricultural systems, and short-term losses, particularly for small farmers struggling with high transition costs, can significantly impact their willingness to continue practising RA (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023b; Roberts et al., 2023).

Policymakers and governmental institutions

Governments and insurance schemes are still pushing farmers to continue with conventional systems and remain on the treadmill of agricultural productivism (Heider et al., 2023; Strauser and Stewart, 2024). Jordon et al. (2023) showed that high costs in Europe represented barriers to the adoption of leguminous crops in arable rotations and that capital subsidies for the infrastructure costs of some practices, such as rotational grazing, would increase the adoption of regenerative practices by limiting the constraint of capital outlay. In South America, a study on barriers to RA adoption found that poor technical support and unequal farmers’ rights make it difficult to adopt the practices. Furthermore, insurance and production-oriented innovations helped reinforce productivist thinking based on yield increases (Strauser and Stewart, 2024). McCarthy and Rushforth (2025) highlighted that structural inequalities and inequalities regarding resource supply rights in the United States also hinder the adoption of RA.

The CAP in Europe has started to finance farmers for the public goods they produce through the establishment of eco-schemes, but the difficulty lies in recognizing what these goods are, making the programmes difficult to manage (Beacham et al., 2023). Farmers in Spain and the United Kingdom have expressed frustration with the excessive bureaucracy required to access these programmes (Heider et al., 2023; Jordon et al., 2023). In the United States, government programmes like the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Stewardship (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the COVER Act supported farmers adopting RA practices by offering incentives such as insurance premium discounts (Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023). However, farmers have called on governmental institutions to organize the fragmented carbon market credit (Wilson et al., 2022), emphasizing the need to stabilize the price levels and establish a methodology for credit allocation (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023b).

Regarding training, Al-Kaisi and Lal (2020) and Gosnell et al. (2019) suggested that both national and global policies should focus on implementing continuous support and training programmes for farmers for regenerative and generally sustainable practices, focusing not only on those who have not made the transition but also on those who already adopted regenerative practices (Han and Niles, 2023). For instance, regenerative farmers can be used as disseminators of the results that can be achieved through RA, and consumers can also be sensitized on the environmental impact of their choices (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023a; Strauser and Stewart, 2024). To ensure the success and spread of RA, policies must recognize and institutionalize it by formally incorporating it into territorial governance practices.

Research institutions, private sector, NGOs and community

Scientific interest in RA peaked in the 1980s, but from 2000 to 2015, the topic saw little to no attention in academic discourse (Giller et al., 2021). Research institutions are sceptical about the beneficial effects of RA practices, especially for livestock practices, which contributes to farmers’ reluctance to adopt them (Gosnell et al., 2019). Still, Jaworski et al. (2024), Soto et al. (2021), Wilson et al. (2022) and Wojtynia et al. (2023) showed that several institutions have used participatory processes tailored to local contexts to engage farmers in knowledge exchange and support the science–practice interface, thereby facilitating the adoption of sustainable practices. Universities in Australia have established new degree programmes and expanded tertiary education in collaboration with the private sector, such as the NSW Riverina Institute of TAFE, to train agriculture professionals specializing in sustainable transformation processes (Gosnell et al., 2019). Robotics and AI are proving to be a new frontier for research that, together, can reduce the initial costs of adopting RA practices and provide data for monitoring (Al-Amin et al., 2025; Sharma et al., 2024).

Private companies can accelerate the adoption of RA practices through various strategies (Frankel-Goldwater et al., 2023; Jaworski et al., 2024; Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023; Wilson et al., 2022). Wilson et al. (2022) found that the private sector is supporting farmers by developing programmes that offer to farmers monitoring, advice and certification, helping them to obtain a premium for their environmental commitment. In the United States, General Mills, Cargill, Patagonia, Wrangler, Bayer Monsanto and BASF funded programmes that encouraged the adoption of RA and supported policies to find workable standards for farmers (Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023; O’donoghue et al., 2022). In Australia, the Harris Farm supermarket chain has begun marketing certified regenerative products, catering to consumption specifically for RA and providing a means to directly reward farmers (O’donoghue et al., 2022). Unfortunately, however, some large private sector companies are misusing RA, using it as a branding tool without making any changes to their industrial production systems, thereby fuelling the phenomenon of greenwashing (Wilson et al., 2025).

Non-profit organizations such as Mad Agriculture² also supported those involved in the transition and included communities and science to fund regenerative projects (Frankel-Goldwater et al., 2023). In the United Kingdom, small networks such as BASE-UK,³ BASIS and Farmer Cluster are involved in supporting farmers in the transition dividing farmers into groups according to their characteristics (Jaworski et al., 2024). Other examples of NGOs include Terra Genesis International,⁴ Regeneration International,⁵ The Real Organic Project⁶ and Carbon Underground⁷, which participated in a feature film available on the Netflix streaming platform titled Kiss the Ground to enhance the promotion of RA (O’Donoghue et al., 2022).

Consumers and communities have contributed significantly to the transformation of agricultural landscapes (Avasiloaiei et al., 2023a). Indeed, increased consumer demand for sustainable products can significantly impact market dynamics by enhancing the environmental responsibilities of all stakeholders and promoting regenerative systems (Giller et al., 2021). Strauser and Stewart (2024) found that regenerative farming practices contributed to the development of rural communities facing depopulation through land and community revitalization, where young people played a key role in innovation.

Conclusion

Climate change and population growth are ongoing challenges that put increased strain on agri-food businesses in terms of productivity and sustainability. Identifying production systems that contribute to effective natural resource management has become an increasingly challenging mission. While efforts are under way to promote sustainable farming systems such as organic or fair-trade agriculture (Gamage et al., 2023; Makita, 2016), there is often overlap among these approaches, leading to ambiguity over their distinct contributions to responsible use of available natural resources.

RA is sometimes conflated with these systems, although it has unique principles aimed at restoring soil health, enhancing biodiversity and improving water use efficiency (White, 2020). RA has become more prominent in regions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, where large-scale farming dominates the agricultural landscape, unlike regions such as Europe and Africa, where small- and medium-scale farming is more prevalent (Guarín et al., 2020; Jayne et al., 2016). The scalability and adaptability of RA to smaller farm sizes and diverse agroecological contexts require the need for region-specific strategies and policies to ensure RA can effectively address global sustainability challenges.

The elements highlighted in this review emphasize the importance of the natural, economic and cultural contexts in transitions. In order to address today's challenges, we must consider the resilience and transformative capacity of places, people and institutions (Folke et al., 2010; Smith and Stirling, 2010).

The adoption of RA practices reinforces community social dynamics, notably improved mental health and increased self-efficacy, while also reflecting broader sociological factors, as highlighted by Gosnell et al. (2019), that move beyond individual motivations to include collective and structural influences on adoption. Yet its adoption is impeded by risk perception, social exclusion and insufficient knowledge dissemination. Hence, policymakers must put in place financial and technical support mechanisms to address farmers’ risk aversion, with subsidies for crop insurance and targeted incentives for younger, innovative farmers more inclined to embrace sustainable practices. Moreover, policies must facilitate knowledge sharing throughout adaptation of the agricultural knowledge and innovation system model to territorial contexts, thereby promoting peer learning and reducing resistance to change. Incorporating traditional knowledge systems alongside modern techniques also can create a hybrid approach, addressing the needs of diverse communities and preventing greenwashing by large corporations (Mirra et al., 2020). Most importantly, policies should focus on boosting inclusion in farming communities by tackling the stigma associated with sustainable practices through digital platforms where conventional and regenerative farmers can engage, reducing polarization and enabling more seamless transition to sustainable food production systems.

While RA practices often reduce input costs and enhance farm resilience over time, the transition period raises several challenges, including reduced yields and increased labour and infrastructure costs. Profitability calls for a paradigm shift from yield-centric measures to broader considerations, such as maximizing gross profit and remunerating natural capital. As such, incentives for investment in infrastructure, such as paddock establishment, water supply systems for rotational grazing and machinery for NT practices, should be separate from general agricultural subsidies, to ensure direct support for practices specific to subsistence farming. It is also crucial to incorporate RA parameters that assess farm resilience and the preservation of natural capital, rather than focusing on yield as is usually the case. In addition, providing tax breaks or subsidies to farms that reduce waste, minimize dependence on external inputs and actively regenerate soil health would recognize and support farmers who prioritize sustainability, even at the expense of short-term productivity.

RA plays a pivotal role in advancing environmental sustainability by enhancing soil health, promoting biodiversity and significantly reducing GHG emissions. Practices such as NT, cover cropping and rotational grazing not only sequester carbon but also bolster resilience to climate variability and mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events. These benefits provide policymakers with a compelling framework to support sustainable farming through tailored incentives and grants that align with regional ecological needs. Furthermore, the integration of RA practices into national agricultural strategies can drive systemic change by fostering circularity, reducing reliance on external inputs and minimizing agricultural waste. The implications of this transition extend beyond immediate environmental benefits, offering pathways to meet global climate targets, improve food system resilience and ensure long-term agricultural viability. Policymakers can leverage these insights to prioritize funding for RA research, facilitate knowledge-sharing platforms and design metrics that evaluate environmental performance, creating a more sustainable and adaptive agricultural landscape.

Several implications for policymakers to promote sustainable agriculture while addressing resource depletion, rural resilience and food security challenges could be drawn. Policies must prioritize sustainable resource use by offering incentives for practices such as soil restoration, efficient water management and reduced chemical inputs. Programmes like the FAO's Global Soil Partnership and Kenya's Regreening Africa Initiative demonstrate how degraded lands can be restored through community-driven tree planting and agroforestry practices (Regreening Africa, 2022). Additionally, integrating regenerative principles into existing frameworks can draw inspiration from the Sustainable Rice Platform, which has proven successful in implementing eco-friendly practices without compromising yields, showing that sustainability and productivity can coexist. Rural resilience can be strengthened by fostering cooperative farming practices, like the Territorial Approach to Rural Development in Latin America (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2007). Such approaches encourage resource sharing and collective decision-making, reducing the vulnerabilities associated with individualistic farming. The industrial sector provides a parallel with cooperative models like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, which emphasizes community-focused innovation and resource management. By applying similar principles to RA, rural communities can build robust networks to withstand climate and economic shocks. A hybrid model combining high-yield practices with regenerative techniques, like France's agroecological transition (Beudou et al., 2017), could help balance restoration efforts and food production. This dual approach allows heavily degraded areas to focus on regeneration while more fertile regions maintain productivity, ensuring that food security is not compromised. Lessons can also be drawn from the renewable energy sector, where hybrid systems like solar–agriculture partnerships allow the dual use of land for energy generation and farming, maximizing resource efficiency (Hankin, 2023).

Stakeholder engagement in policy reforms is essential to promote acceptance and adoption of new practices. Policymakers must recognize the range of actors involved in the regenerative transition and the varying contexts in which it occurs, emphasizing the need for customized approaches and a holistic mapping of those involved within RA transition (Wojtynia et al., 2023). The leader programme in the EU demonstrated how participatory initiatives involving farmers, researchers and local authorities can lead to context-sensitive and effective policies. Beyond agriculture, the living labs approach used in urban and rural planning brings stakeholders together to co-create solutions tailored to specific community needs (Omayio, 2024).

Broader adoption of RA practices requires viewing it as a complementary strategy rather than a replacement for existing systems. Policymakers can adapt successful models from sectors like forestry (e.g. community-based forest management in Nepal) and fisheries (e.g. the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership) to create adaptable systems that integrate regenerative principles and ensure both ecological sustainability and global food security (Ghimire and Lamichhane, 2020; Zimmermann, 2017).

This review reveals several key areas that need further exploration. First, there is a need for more multicentric studies that focus on the specific practices underpinning RA, as much of the current research tends to approach RA as a broad concept without sufficient focus on its individual components. Additionally, future studies should examine the combined social, economic and environmental impacts of RA practices to provide a comprehensive perspective on their overall viability within agricultural systems. Investigating these effects across diverse stakeholder groups would also help to better assess RA's contributions to the pillars of sustainability. Lastly, comparative research across multiple countries is crucial to understanding how the same practices can yield varying outcomes in different contexts, shedding light on the adaptability and global relevance of RA.

This review has several limitations. It relied on only two scientific databases, and despite using a broad search string, some relevant studies may have been missed. The inclusion criteria were restricted to studies and reviews published between 2014 and 2024. As with most systematic reviews, there is potential publication bias favouring positive or expected results, and differences in data collection and statistical methods complicate cross-study comparisons. Additionally, many papers lacked detailed summaries of their findings, and sample sizes varied widely, ranging from 10 to 6006. Although the rapid adoption of RA by major food companies is an important phenomenon (Wilson et al., 2023), there is a lack of peer-reviewed studies examining this corporate dimension. As a result, this aspect falls outside the scope of the current systematic review, but it is acknowledged as an important area for future research.

This systematic review discusses how RA can attract new actors and motivate farmers towards a paradigm shift in production, based not only on environmental benefits but also highlighting the economic and social benefits that accompany the transition. Understanding these elements is essential in guiding policies, practices and future narratives towards real sustainable transformation. While RA can facilitate greenwashing practices and be subject to market logic, it also represents a social and community opportunity to rethink agriculture. Our work contributes to the debate on RA and the sustainability of the agricultural sector by offering an overview of motivations and agency. Future research should increase the focus on the social and political dimensions of RA adoption.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-oag-10.1177_00307270251391440 - Supplemental material for Motivations behind regenerative agriculture: A systematic literature review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-oag-10.1177_00307270251391440 for Motivations behind regenerative agriculture: A systematic literature review by Eleonora Caruso, Ahmed Saidi, Yari Vecchio, Felice Adinolfi and Teresa Del Giudice in Outlook on Agriculture

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (e.g. technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, are named in the Acknowledgements and have given us their written permission to be named. If we have not included an Acknowledgements, then that indicates that we have not received substantial contributions from non-authors.

ORCID iDs

Eleonora Caruso

Ahmed Saidi

Yari Vecchio

Felice Adinolfi

Teresa Del Giudice

Funding

This work was supported by the SMARTIES project, part of the PRIN (Research Projects of National Relevance Interest), funded by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR) under the 2020 Call. Project code: CUP E77G22000120001.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available upon request.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Al-Amin

AKMA

Lowenberg-DeBoer

Franklin

, et al. (2025) Autonomous regenerative agriculture: Swarm robotics to change farm economics. Smart Agricultural Technology 11: 101005–101016. 10.1016/j.atech.2025.101005. Elsevier B.V.

Alexanderson

Luke

Lloyd

, et al. (2023) Regenerative farming as climate action. Journal of Environmental Management 347: 119063–119071. Academic Press.

Al-Kaisi

Lal

(2020) Aligning science and policy of regenerative agriculture. Soil Science Society of America Journal 84(6): 1808–1820.

Alreshidi

(2019) Smart Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) Solution Underpinned by Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 10 (5): 93–102. doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0100513. Available at: www.ijacsa.thesai.org.

Avasiloaiei

Calara

Brezeanu

, et al. (2023a) Review on the sustainability of some regenerative agriculture practices for organic vegetable growing. Horticulture 67(2): 307–319. Print ISSN 2285-5653.

Avasiloaiei

Calara

Brezeanu

, et al. (2023b) The evaluation of carbon farming strategies in organic vegetable cultivation. Agronomy 13(9): 2406.

Barron

Skyllerstedt

Giordano

, et al. (2021) Building climate resilience in rainfed landscapes needs more than good will. Frontiers in Climate 3: 735880–735892. Frontiers Media S.A..

Beacham

Jackson

Jaworski

, et al. (2023) Contextualising farmer perspectives on regenerative agriculture: A post-productivist future? Journal of Rural Studies 102. Elsevier Ltd: 103100.

Berners-Lee

Kennelly

Watson

, et al. (2018) Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elem Sci Anth 6. University of California Press: 52.

10.

Beudou

Martin

Ryschawy

(2017) Cultural and territorial vitality services play a key role in livestock agroecological transition in France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37(4): 36. 10.1007/s13593-017-0436-8. Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

11.

Bless

Davila

Plant

(2025) Commodification and co-benefits: Neoliberalism and the growth of regenerative agriculture in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 118. Elsevier Ltd: 103692.

12.

Boar

Bastida

Marimon

(2020) A systematic literature review. Relationships between the sharing economy, sustainability and sustainable development goals. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(17): 6744. 10.3390/su12176744.

13.

Bramer

Rethlefsen

Kleijnen

, et al. (2017) Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews 6(1). BioMed Central Ltd.: 245.

14.

Brown

Schirmer

Upton

(2022) Can regenerative agriculture support successful adaptation to climate change and improved landscape health through building farmer self-efficacy and wellbeing? Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 4. Elsevier B.V.: 100170.

15.

Brundtland

(1987) Our common future (‘the Brundtland report’): World Commission on Environment and Development. In: The Top 50 Sustainability Books. UK: Oxford University Press, 52–55.

16.

Cammarata

Tadiello

Scuderi

, et al. (2025) Regenerative practices can lead to carbon-negative orange groves in Sicily. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 19. Elsevier B.V.: 101615.

17.

Cassman

Grassini

(2020) A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nature Sustainability 3(4). Nature Research: 262–268.

18.

Cronin

(2011) Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Evaluation & Research in Education 24(3): 219–221.

19.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.

20.

de Janvry

Sadoulet

(2007) Toward a territorial approach to rural development. Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics 4(1): 66–98.

21.

Doering

Sorensen

(2018) The land that shapes and sustains us. In: Eise

Foster

(eds) How to Feed the World. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 46–58.

22.

Donoghue

Minasny

Mcbratney

(2022) Regenerative agriculture and its potential to improve farmscape function. Sustainability 14(10): 5815. Epub ahead of print 2022.

23.

FAO. (2024) Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems. Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2022 FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 94 FAOSTAT AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS EMISSIONS BACKGROUND. Epub ahead of print 2024.

24.

Folke

Carpenter

Walker

, et al. (2010) Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 1–9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268226.

25.

Frankel-Goldwater

Wojtynia

Dueñas-Ocampo

(2023) Healthy people, soils, and ecosystems: Uncovering primary drivers in the adoption of regenerative agriculture by US farmers and ranchers. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7. Frontiers Media SA: 1070518.

26.

Galley

Saleh

Bottazzi

(2025) Benefit perceptions and their influence on the willingness to join community supported agriculture (CSA). Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 17, Elsevier Ltd: 100263.

27.

Gamage

Gangahagedara

Gamage

, et al. (2023) Role of organic farming for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Farming System 1(1). Elsevier Ltd: 100005.

28.

Garcia-Gonzalez

Eakin

(2019) What can be: Stakeholder perspectives for a sustainable food system. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 8(4). Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems: 61–82.

29.

Ghimire

Lamichhane

(2020) Community based forest management in Nepal: Current status, successes and challenges. Grassroots Journal of Natural Resources 3(2): 16–29.

30.

Giller Ken

Hijbeek

Andersson

, et al. (2021) Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agriculture 50(1): 13–25.

31.

Goodland

(1995) The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 26. Annual Reviews: 1–24.

32.

Gordon

Davila

Riedy

, et al. (2022) Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 39(2). Springer Netherlands: 809–826.

33.

Gordon

Davila

Riedy

(2023) Regenerative agriculture: A potentially transformative storyline shared by nine discourses. Sustainability Science 18(4). Springer: 1833–1849.

34.

Gosnell

Gill

Voyer

(2019) Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture. Global Environmental Change 59. Elsevier Ltd: 101965.

35.

Guarín

Rivera

Pinto-Correia

, et al. (2020) A new typology of small farms in Europe. Global Food Security 26(October 2019): 100389.

36.

Hackenbruch

Kunz-Plapp

Müller

, et al. (2017) Tailoring climate parameters to information needs for local adaptation to climate change. Climate 5(2): 25. MDPI AG.

37.

Han

Niles

(2023) An adoption spectrum for sustainable agriculture practices: A new framework applied to cover crop adoption. Agricultural Systems 212: 103771. Elsevier Ltd.

38.

Hankin

(2023) Food and fuel : Investigating expert perspectives on the intersection of solar development and farmland in Maine. Epub ahead of print 2023.

39.

Heider

Rodriguez Lopez

Bischoff

, et al. (2023) Toward climate-resilient and biodiverse agriculture in the Mediterranean region: Experiences and perceptions of farmers engaged in sustainable food production. Organic Agriculture 13(4). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 513–529.

40.

Jaworski

Krzywoszynska

Leake

, et al. (2024) Sustainable soil management in the United Kingdom: A survey of current practices and how they relate to the principles of regenerative agriculture. Soil Use and Management 40(1): 12908. 10.1111/sum.12908. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

41.

Jayasinghe

Thomas

Anderson

, et al. (2023) Global application of regenerative agriculture. A review of definitions and assessment approaches. Sustainability (Switzerland) 15(22): 15941.

42.

Jayne

Chamberlin

Traub

, et al. (2016) Africa’s changing farm size distribution patterns: The rise of medium-scale farms. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom) 47: 197–214.

43.

Johnson

Mitchell-McCallister

(2025) Agricultural carbon sequestration: Incentives, contracts, and impacts on water resources in the Texas high plains. Journal of Natural Resources and Agricultural Ecosystems 3(2): 53–68. doi: 10.13031/jnrae.16207.

44.

Jordon

Smith

Long

, et al. (2022a) Can regenerative agriculture increase national soil carbon stocks? Simulated country-scale adoption of reduced tillage, cover cropping, and ley-arable integration using RothC. Science of the Total Environment 825: 153955. Elsevier B.V.

45.

Jordon

Willis

Bürkner

, et al. (2022b) Rotational grazing and multispecies herbal leys increase productivity in temperate pastoral systems – A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 337: 108075. Elsevier B.V.

46.

Jordon

Winter

Petrokofsky

(2023) Advantages, disadvantages, and reasons for non-adoption of rotational grazing, herbal leys, trees on farms and ley-arable rotations on English livestock farms. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 47(3). Taylor and Francis Ltd.: 330–354.

47.

Karlsson

Naess

Nightingale

, et al. (2018) ‘Triple wins’ or ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on climate-smart agriculture (CSA). Journal of Peasant Studies 45(1). Routledge: 150–174.

48.

Khangura

Ferris

Wagg

, et al. (2023) Regenerative agriculture—A literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health. Sustainability (Switzerland) 15(3): 1–43.

49.

Köhler

Geels

Kern

, et al. (2019) An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31. Elsevier B.V.: 1–32.

50.

LaCanne

Lundgren

(2018) Regenerative agriculture: Merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 2018(2): 4428. PeerJ Inc.

51.

Lambin

Rounsevell

Geist

(2000) Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82(1–3): 321–331.

52.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6(7): 339.

53.

Lipper

McCarthy

Zilberman

, et al. (2017) Climate Smart Agriculture: Building Resilience to Climate Change. Switzerland: Springer Nature, 630.

54.

Liu

Song

, et al. (2024) No tillage increases soil microarthropod (Acari and Collembola) abundance at the global scale. Soil Ecology Letters 6(2). Higher Education Press Limited Company: 230208.

55.

Luján Soto

Cuéllar Padilla

de Vente

(2020) Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 45: 101157. Elsevier B.V.

56.

Makita

(2016) A role of fair trade certification for environmental sustainability. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29(2). Springer Netherlands: 185–201.

57.

McCarthy

Rushforth

(2025) Identifying barriers to implementation of regenerative agricultural solutions through convergence research. Land 14(3). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI): 446.

58.

McWherter

Sherren

(2025) Exploring mental systems within regenerative agriculture: Systems thinking and rotational grazing adoption among Canadian livestock producers. Agriculture and Human Values 42(1). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 213–226.

59.

McWherter

Sherren

Arora

(2025) From learner to leader: Exploring learning, motivations, and roles of regenerative grazing mentors. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 49(6). Taylor and Francis Ltd.: 860–883.

60.

Miller-Klugesherz

Sanderson

(2023) Good for the soil, but good for the farmer? Addiction and recovery in transitions to regenerative agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 103. Elsevier Ltd: 103123.

61.

Mirra

Caputo

Gandolfi

, et al. (2020) The agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) in Campania region: The challenges facing the first implementation of experimental model. Journal of Agricultural Policy 3(2): 35–44.

62.

Mogaka

(2023) Effects of regenerative agriculture technologies on the productivity of cowpea in the drylands of Embu county, Kenya. Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences 11(1). Editorial board of Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences: 190–198.

63.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7): 339.

64.

Newton

Civita

Frankel-Goldwater

, et al. (2020a) What is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar and practitioner definitions based on processes and outcomes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 577723. Frontiers Media S.A.

65.

Newton

Civita

Frankel-Goldwater

, et al. (2020b) What is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar and practitioner definitions based on processes and outcomes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4(October): 1–11.

66.

Ntawuhiganayo

Nijman-Ross

Geme

, et al. (2023) Assessing the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices in Eastern Africa. Frontiers in Sustainability 4: 1105846. Frontiers Media SA.

67.

O’Donoghue

Minasny

McBratney

(2022) Regenerative agriculture and its potential to improve farmscape function. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14(10). MDPI: 5815.

68.

Ogungbuyi

Guerschman

Fischer

, et al. (2023) Enabling regenerative agriculture using remote sensing and machine learning. Land 12(6). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI): 1142.

69.

Omayio

(2024) Living laboratory: A model for co-creation and sharing knowledge and skills in building resilient food systems. Africa Journal of Technical and Vocational Education and Training 9(1): 75–83.

70.

Ozdemir

(2024) Reconsidering agricultural credits and agricultural production nexus from a global perspective. Food and Energy Security 13(1):e504. doi: 10.1002/fes3.504.

71.

Page

Witt

(2022) A leap of faith: Regenerative agriculture as a contested worldview rather than as a practice change issue. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14(22): 14803. MDPI.

72.

Pape

Meredith

Sandahl

, et al. (2025) Understanding the values that inform regenerative ranching in the northern U.S. Great Plains. Agriculture and Human Values 42(2). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 997–1008.

73.

Rai

Godfrey

Storer

, et al. (2025) Unravelling regenerative agriculture’s sustainability benefits and outcomes: A scoping review. Sustainability (Switzerland) 17(3), Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI): 981.

74.

Regreening Africa. (2022) Regreening Africa. Kenya Country Overview.: 18.

75.

Rehberger

West Paul

Spillane

, et al. (2023) What climate and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture practices? An evidence review. Environmental Research Communications 5(5). Institute of Physics: 052001.

76.

Roberts

Hawes

Young

(2023) Environmental management on agricultural land: Cost benefit analysis of an integrated cropping system for provision of environmental public goods. Journal of Environmental Management 331: 117306. Academic Press.

77.

Sädeharju

(2025) The elements of intuition in decision-making: A multidimensional framework based on Finnish regenerative farmers’ experiences. Journal of Rural Studies 117: 103656. Elsevier Ltd.

78.

Sadiq

Rahim

, et al. (2021) Effect of conservation tillage on yield of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and soil mineral nitrogen and carbon content. International Agrophysics 35(1). Polska Akademia Nauk: 83–95.

79.

Schreefel

Schulte

RPO

de Boer

IJM

, et al. (2020) Regenerative agriculture – The soil is the base. Global Food Security 26: 100404. Elsevier B.V.

80.

Sharma

Pathak

Kumar

, et al. (2024) Sustainable regenerative agriculture allied with digital agri-technologies and future perspectives for transforming Indian agriculture. Environment, Development and Sustainability 26(12). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 30409–30444.

81.

Sherren

Rahman

HMT

McWherter

, et al. (2023) Are fencelines sites of engagement or avoidance in farmer adoption of alternative practices? Agriculture and Human Values 40(3). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 1359–1365.

82.

Smith

Stirling

(2010) The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society 15(1): 1–13.

83.

Soto

Padilla

Méndez

, et al. (2021) Participatory monitoring and evaluation to enable social learning, adoption, and out-scaling of regenerative agriculture. Ecology and Society 26(4): 29. Resilience Alliance.

84.

Spangler

Burchfield

Schumacher

(2020) Past and Current Dynamics of U.S. Agricultural Land Use and Policy. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 2. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00098.

85.

Strauser

Stewart

(2024) Moving beyond production: Community narratives for good farming. Agriculture and Human Values 41(3). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 1195–1210.

86.

Sutherland

Burton

RJF

Ingram

, et al. (2012) Triggering change: Towards a conceptualisation of major change processes in farm decision-making. Journal of Environmental Management 104. Academic Press: 142–151.

87.

Taylor

(2018) Climate-smart agriculture: What is it good for? Journal of Peasant Studies 45(1). Routledge: 89–107.

88.

Teague

Apfelbaum

Lal

, et al. (2016) The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 71(2). Soil Conservation Society of America: 156–164.

89.

Tello

Sacristán

Olarieta

, et al. (2023) Assessing the energy trap of industrial agriculture in North America and Europe: 82 balances from 1830 to 2012. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 43(6): 75. doi: 10.1007/s13593-023-00925-5.

90.

Timsina

Maraseni

Gauchan

, et al. (2022) Regenerative Agriculture for Sustainable Food Security and Livelihoods in Nepal: A Proposal for Multi-Scalar Planning Framework .

91.

Tittonell

El Mujitar

Felix

, et al. (2022) Regenerative agriculture—Agroecology without politics? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6: 467–473.

92.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473. American College of Physicians.

93.

Triste

Vandenabeele

van Winsen

, et al. (2018) Exploring participation in a sustainable farming initiative with self-determination theory. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16(1). Taylor and Francis Ltd.: 106–123.

94.

Upadhaya

Arbuckle

Schulte

(2023) Individual- and county-level factors associated with farmers’ use of 4R plus nutrient management practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 78(5). Soil and Water Conservation Society: 412–429.

95.

Wacławowicz

Giemza

Pytlarz

, et al. (2023) The impact of cultivation systems on weed suppression and the canopy architecture of spring barley. Agriculture (Switzerland) 13(9). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI): 1747.

96.

White

(2020) Why regenerative agriculture? American Journal of Economics and Sociology 79(3): 799–812.

97.

Wilson

Mercier

Myers

(2023) Encouraging farmer adoption of regenerative agriculture practices in the United States. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs 1: 1–20. (August). Epub ahead of print 2023.

98.

Wilson

Hendrickson

Myers

(2025) A buzzword, a “win-win”, or a signal towards the future of agriculture? A critical analysis of regenerative agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 42(1). Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: 257–269.

99.

Wilson

Myers

Hendrickson

, et al. (2022) Different Stakeholders’ conceptualizations and perspectives of regenerative agriculture reveals more consensus than discord. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14(22): 15261. MDPI.

100.

Wojtynia

van Dijk

Derks

, et al. (2023) Spheres of transformation: Exploring personal, political and practical drivers of farmer agency and behaviour change in The Netherlands. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 49: 100776. Elsevier B.V.

101.

Zimmermann

(2017) Balancing sustainability and commerce in international negotiation: The EU and its fisheries partnership agreements. Journal of European Public Policy 24(1). Routledge: 135–155.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB