Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Food Security

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gfs

Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base

L. Schreefel a, b, c, *, R.P.O. Schulte b, I.J.M. de Boer c, A. Pas Schrijver b, H.H.E. van Zanten c
a
TiFN, P.O. Box 557, 6700, AN, Wageningen, the Netherlands
b
Farming Systems Ecology Group, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 430, 6700, AK, Wageningen, the Netherlands
c
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Regenerative agriculture (RA) is proposed as a solution towards sustainable food systems. A variety of actors
Regenerative agriculture perceive RA differently, and a clear scientific definition is lacking. We reviewed 28 studies to find convergence
Circular agriculture and divergence between objectives and activities that define RA. Our results show convergence related to ob­
Organic agriculture
jectives that enhance the environment and stress the importance of socio-economic dimensions that contribute to
Soil health
Literature review
food security. The objectives of RA in relation to socio-economic dimensions, however, are general and lack a
Cultural domain analysis framework for implementation. From our analysis, we propose a provisional definition of RA as an approach to
farming that uses soil conservation as the entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple ecosystem services.

1. Introduction Commission, 2019; Tilman and Clark, 2014). Building on both the
production and consumption-oriented approaches for example Van
The global food system currently releases about 25% of annual Zanten et al. (2018) argues that production and consumption-oriented
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, causes about one-third approaches are needed together and should be in balance with their
of terrestrial acidification and is responsible for the majority of global ecological environment. Their narrative takes a food systems perspec­
eutrophication of surface waters (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). If our food tive and aims at safeguarding natural resources by closing of nutrients
system continues with current practices, using synthetic pesticides, and carbon cycles in the food system as far as possible, also referred to as
artificial fertilizers, fossil fuels and producing food waste, the carrying a circular food system (de Boer and van Ittersum, 2018).
capacity of the planet is likely to be surpassed (Campbell et al., 2017). Farming approaches within these narratives often share similar de­
Therefore, the key challenge for humanity is to produce enough safe and sires to reach an objective, such as achieve global food security, reduced
nutritious food for a growing and wealthier population within the car­ use of external inputs and reduced environmental damage. Some of
rying capacity of the planet (Willett et al., 2019). The importance of these farming approaches have definitions that are comprehensively
producing food within the carrying capacity of the planet is also described in the scientific literature and regulated, for example, organic
increasingly acknowledged in policies - for example, the EU Circular agriculture (European Commission, 2019b; IFOAM - Organics Interna­
Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2015), the Paris Climate tional, 2019), climate-smart agriculture (FAO, 2018) and sustainable
Agreement (United Nations, 2015) and the Common Agricultural Policy intensification (FAO, 2013), while others remain yet as theoretical and
(European Commission, 2019a). mainly scientific concepts such as circular agriculture. An approach that
This challenge has led to new narratives for sustainable agriculture. recently gained attention in the literature as a solution for a sustainable
Some of these narratives are production-oriented and find their solutions food system is regenerative agriculture (RA) (LaCanne and Lundgren,
in approaches such as sustainable intensification, which explores 2018; Shelef et al., 2017). Currently, RA does not have a comprehen­
increased production yields to reduce the environmental impact (Cole sively described scientific definition (Elevitch et al., 2018).
and McCoskey, 2013; Garnett et al., 2013). Another narrative argues In absence of such a scientific definition, a variety of researchers may
that the production-oriented approach is not sufficient to deal with the foster diverging perceptions of RA. For example, Malik and Verma
key challenge for humanity and that consumption patterns should be (2014) describe RA as dynamically advanced modified technique
adjusted for the global food system to function within the boundaries of involving the use of organic farming methods, while Elevitch et al.
our planet (Garnett et al., 2013; Stehfest et al., 2009; The Eat-Lancet (2018) describe RA as a farming approach that has the capacity for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Schreefel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404
Received 19 March 2020; Received in revised form 17 June 2020; Accepted 29 June 2020
Available online 6 August 2020
2211-9124/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

self-renewal and resiliency, contributes to soil health, increases water and ‘farming’ (see Fig. 1). These 279 articles were screened on their
percolation and retention, enhances and conserves biodiversity, and abstract and titles and narrowed down to 43 articles. The eligibility
sequesters carbon. Therefore, in this review, we assess the background criteria to narrow down articles based on their titles and abstracts were
and core themes of RA by examining the convergence and divergence to exclude: duplicates, unavailable articles within the selected data­
between definitions in peer-reviewed articles. An assessment of the bases, articles which were not peer-reviewed and articles unrelated to
background and core themes of RA allows the establishment of an agriculture. After excluding fifteen articles which did not contain a
evidence-based provisional definition. Such a definition forms a basis for definition of RA, 28 articles (Supplementary materials C) remained for
further discussion not only within science but also among a large group further synthesis. Reference checking using the snowballing technique
of actors (e.g. governmental agencies, sector organisations, industries (Jalali and Wohlin, 2012) did not yield more articles. No articles were
and farmers). This large group of actors may foster different definitions excluded based on the year of publication. The PRISMA workflow in the
dependent on their particular interests. A provisional definition is, supplementary materials D provides a more extensive overview of the
therefore, essential to establish a common definition in which more methodical process of inclusion and exclusion of articles.
views are included and indicators that enables actors to assess their We analysed the background (e.g. actor and scale to which the
performance towards a sustainable food system. Indicators, for example, definition applies) and different definitions of RA in the reviewed arti­
enables governments and industries to monitor their performance to­ cles using a cultural domain analysis and inductive coding. A cultural
wards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), it enables policy­ domain analysis (Borgatti, 1994) and inductive coding (Thomas, 2006)
makers to create supporting policies for actors in the field, it enables are both synthesis methods to cluster segments of text, based on their
researchers to have a scientific basis to accumulate knowledge and it coherence. Following these methods, the definitions were split-up into
enables farmers to assess which activities to adjust. To illustrate the text segments called issues (e.g. improve soil carbon, minimize tillage).
convergence between sustainable farming approaches we relate RA to These issues were categorised into objectives (e.g. improve soil carbon,
organic agriculture as an example of a regulated farming approach and interspecies equity) and activities (e.g. minimize tillage, use natural pest
circular agriculture which remains yet a theoretical concept. control). In this review, objectives capture the desire of researchers to
achieve a certain goal, whereas activities capture operationalizations,
2. Materials and methods for example, suggested farm practices. If these objectives or activities
were mentioned at least five times in the literature, then we grouped
We systematically studied peer-reviewed articles to find definitions them into themes (e.g. improve soil physical quality, improve human
of RA using the methodological framework PRISMA-P (Preferred health). The criterion to have at least five convergent objectives or ac­
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews) (Shamseer et al., 2015). A tivities to form a theme was based on a sensitivity analysis (see sup­
checklist of the suggested items reported in PRISMA-P is given in sup­ plementary materials B15c, in which different numbers (3 till 7) of
plementary materials A and a detailed overview of the review and convergent issues were assessed on their inclusiveness of specific
analytical process is presented in supplementary materials B. Five themes. The allocation process of issues was done by all co-authors
journal databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Agricola, CAB Abstracts and independently to reduce interpretation bias, and any disagreement on
Medline) were searched for definitions of RA in December 2019. Key­ the allocation of issues was solved by discussion. Supplementary mate­
words used to create a search string to find articles that include a defi­ rials E shows the allocation framework used. All the different themes
nition for RA build upon the words ‘regenerative’ and ‘farming’ (see together form the core of RA. The following four aspects were analysed
supplementary materials B10). For ‘farming’ different synonyms were to determine the themes of RA: i) the number of articles referring to the
used, including agriculture, agronomy and food system. Search terms themes, ii) the number of converging and diverging interpretations of
such as ‘agronomy’ and ‘food system’ were included to capture defini­ nomenclature within themes, iii) the classifications of themes among
tions for RA embedded in the transition towards a regenerative food objectives or activities and iv) the relation of themes with the three
system. dimensions of sustainability, i.e. people, planet and profit (Elkington,
The database search yielded 279 articles mentioning ‘regenerative’ 1997). Converging themes indicate that authors of different articles

Fig. 1. Illustration of the research methodology to analyse existing definitions of regenerative agriculture, in which ‘n’ represents the number of search records.

2
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

present similar objectives within their definitions. Diverging themes

present contradictions or issues which are unclear. The triple bottom
line approach (people, planet and profit) was used to categorize themes
among social (e.g. maintain cultural diversity), environmental (e.g.
improve soil structure) and economic (e.g. create long-term economic
sustainability) aspects (Elkington, 1997; Slingerland et al., 2003).
Furthermore, we analysed whether definitions were based on the ob­
jectives of researchers or farmers and to which scale (farm, regional or
systems-level) they relate. Fig. 1 illustrates the steps required to analyse
the existing definitions of RA.

3. Results and analysis

Fig. 2. The core themes of regenerative agriculture, in which ‘the number between brackets’ represents the number of search records.
3.1. The core themes of regenerative agriculture

In the 28 peer-reviewed articles we found that definitions addressed

different issues (e.g. soil health, climate change) and scales (e.g. farm,
food systems-level), resulting in different levels of implementation. Our
review yielded 214 objectives and 77 activities. The assessment of the
convergence among objectives and activities, which was based on the
underlying issues, resulted in thirteen themes for objectives and seven
themes for activities (Fig. 2).
These twenty themes referred mostly to the environmental dimen­
sion of sustainability (seventeen out of nineteen). Environmental issues
were addressed from farm to food systems-levels (Fig. 2). Of these, all
activities and four objectives specifically focussed on soil issues: enhance
and improve soil health, improve soil carbon, improve soil physical quality
and improve (soil) biodiversity. The multiple aggregation levels and
quantity of articles referring to environmental issues indicated that RA
focusses specifically on environmental issues, and in particular soil
issues.
We will first discuss the environmental themes that show most
convergence among definitions (see section 3.2), followed by themes
with divergence (see section 3.3). The specific issues among the themes
can be found in supplementary materials E.

3.2. Themes in RA showing convergence

All reviewed articles related RA with the environment (planet) and

mainly with improving environmental issues, which is referred to as
regenerate the system, reduce environmental externalities and improve the
ecosystem. Convergent objectives were mentioned regarding reducing
environmental externalities e.g. ‘reduce environmental damage’ (Tea­
gue, 2018, P.1520) and ‘reduce environmental pollution’ (Rhodes,
2012, P.345). Similarly, there was convergence about the improvement
of the ecosystem. A healthy agroecosystem was referred to as a resilient
ecosystem that enables the provision of ecosystems services, such as
provisioning, regulating, habitat and supporting services (e.g. Gosnell
et al., 2019; Rhodes, 2017; Teague, 2017). These three environmental
themes were further articulated by four themes that refer to the
improvement of the food system: enhance and improve soil health (n =
15), optimize resource management (n = 13), alleviate climate change (n =
8) and improve water quality and availability (n = 5).
The theme enhance and improve soil health received most attention;
seventeen of 28 articles explicitly mentioned improving soil quality in a
variety of synonymous objectives, such as ‘improve soil quality’ (Mahtab
and Karim, 1992, P.54), ‘contribute to soil fertility’ (Elevitch et al.,
2018, P.2), ‘enhance soil health’ (Sherwood and Uphoff, 2000, P.86) and
‘improve their soils’ (White and Andrew, 2019, P.2). A synthesis of the
issues among the objective to improve soil quality is that a healthy soil is
the basis for RA and therefore degraded agricultural soils should be
restored to healthy soils. This is expressed by, for example, Rhodes
(2012, P.380) who mentioned that RA ‘regenerates the soil’ and by Diop
(1999, P.296) who mentioned that RA ‘gives the soil as a resource the
first priority’.
Thirteen out of 28 studies mentioned objectives to optimize resource

3
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

management. Reviewed articles highlight objectives towards recusing (Teague and Barnes, 2017, P.1527), ‘tendencies towards closed nutrient
waste and optimal nutrient availability. They indicated RA as a system loops’ (Mitchell et al., 2019, P.7) and ‘more on-farm recycling’ (Teague,
which has the objective to regenerate resources in an integrated manner 2015, P.5).
for sustained soil fertility and desired crop and animal productivity. In addition to objectives, most of the reviewed articles (20 of 28) also
They mentioned, for example, issues as ‘minimize waste’ (Teague, 2015, mentioned activities to define RA (Fig. 2). Activities showing conver­
P.5), ‘synergisms in different combinations and methods of manage­ gence in the literature are for example minimizing external inputs (e.g.
ment’ (Teague and Barnes, 2017, P.80), ‘regeneration of natural re­ Lockeretz, 1988; Rhodes, 2017), minimizing tillage (e.g. Francis et al.,
sources’ (Teague, 2015, P.5), ‘improve nutrient retention and 1986; LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018), using mixed farming (Diop, 1999;
availability’ (Diop, 1999, P.295) and ‘encompass solid-waste manage­ LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018), improving crop rotations (e.g. Francis
ment’ (Mahtab and Karim, 1992, P.54). et al., 1986; Rhodes, 2012), and using manure and compost (Diop, 1999;
Themes alleviate climate change and improve water quality and avail­ Rhodes, 2017). These activities direct towards a food system that builds
ability received less attention compared to other themes with objectives. on its ecological cycles and as a co-benefit reduces environmental ex­
Moreover, eight of 28 articles have the objective to alleviate climate ternalities. The suggested activities promote the integration of
change. Studies mentioned for example to ‘reduce GHG emissions’ crop-livestock operations (e.g. Dahlberg, 1994; Diop, 1999), in which
(Teague, 2018, P.1520), ‘invert carbon emissions of our current agri­ animals are primarily valued for their capabilities to build soil, besides
culture’ (Elevitch et al., 2018, P.2) and ‘mitigate climate change’ their role in producing food and fibre (Teague et al., 2016). Livestock
(Rhodes, 2012, P.434). Similarly, five of the 28 studies mentioned issues breeds are, therefore, chosen for their compatibility with their local
supporting the theme of improve water quality and availability. For environment (Gosnell et al., 2019; Steenwerth et al., 2014). The sug­
example, to ‘improve water quality’ (Elevitch et al., 2018, P.4), ‘achieve gested activities also shift from single to multi-cropping systems (e.g.
clean and safe water runoff’ (Elevitch et al., 2018, P.2), ‘reduce water Francis et al., 1986), in which the use of perennials is favoured over
shortages’ (Rhodes, 2012, P.380) and ‘protect freshwater supply’ annuals (e.g. Elevitch et al., 2018; LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018),
(Rhodes, 2017, P.95). Other studies did not mention such objectives because perennials have more extensive and deeper root systems and
about the alleviation of climate change or the improvement of water don’t leave fields fallow in between growing seasons. Therefore, pe­
quality and availability. rennials are more resilient to weather extremes (LaCanne and Lundgren,
The objectives enhance and improve soil health that received most 2018), reduce soil erosion (Pimentel et al., 1997), reduce nutrient runoff
attention were further articulated by more specific objectives which (Teague, 2018), improve water conservation (Glover et al., 2010) and
include improve (soil) biodiversity (n = 17), improvement of soil carbon (n carbon sequestration (Elevitch et al., 2018). Relying on ecological cycles
= 13) and soil physical quality (n = 11). An objective frequently also resulted in a preference for animal manures over artificial fertilizers
mentioned (13 out of 28) is to improve (soil) biodiversity for improved soil (e.g. Pearson, 2007), and for the use of natural pest control over syn­
functioning, which relates to above and below ground biodiversity. The thetic pesticides (e.g. Rhodes, 2017). Minimizing tillage is a specific crop
issues among this theme showed convergence, although different issues management technique valued to reduce soil disturbance, due to the
are mentioned in the reviewed articles: the improvement of soil biodi­ absence of heavy tillage machinery, allowing earthworms to aerate the
versity by ‘promoting soil biology’ (LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018, P.7) soil and increase nutrient distribution (Shah et al., 2017). Activities
or more general statements such as ‘increase the biodiversity’ (de Haas among the theme ‘other soil conservation practices’ did not necessarily
et al., 2019, P.548). Although biodiversity is clearly an important theme, represent divergence, however they presented various activities that
it remains unspecified what is meant with the improvement of biodi­ were not clustered as a separate theme, such as the use of windbreaks
versity (below or above-ground biodiversity, to which scale does it (Diop, 1999), silvopasture (Elevitch et al., 2018), and managed grazing
relate). Most studies expect or assume, however, that RA will improve (Provenza et al., 2019). These activities are in line with the objectives of
biodiversity, which in general is seen as a precondition for a sustainable RA, without being clustered into separate themes.
food system.
Another objective which shows convergence and is frequently 3.3. Themes in RA showing divergence
mentioned (13 out of 28) is to improve soil carbon, articulated in the
reviewed article as for example ‘build soil organic matter’ (e.g. Diop, Although the reviewed articles may show convergence upon most of
1999, P.290; Rhodes, 2017, P.100), and ‘increasing carbon sequestra­ the themes, we can discern three themes showing a degree of diver­
tion’ (e.g. Elevitch et al., 2018, P.2; Provenza et al., 2019, P.3; Sambell gence: regenerate the system, improve human health and improve economic
et al., 2019, P.3). The improvement of soil carbon is considered a prosperity. These themes show divergence because they embrace a sum
cross-cutting issue across the three spheres of soil science (soil chemis­ of issues which do not meet the requirement of at least five convergent
try, soil physics and soil biology) since it affects all three aspects (Ontl, issues to form a separate theme.
2018). Improving soil carbon levels affects, for example, soil structure One of the key objectives of RA is that it is part of a regenerative
and porosity; water infiltration rate and moisture holding capacity of system. A large number of articles (15 out of 28) referred to environ­
soils; biodiversity and activity of soil organisms; and plant nutrient mental objectives regarding the theme regenerate the system. A total of
availability (Bot and Benites, 2005). fourteen environmental objectives showed that RA is aimed towards
The last objective related to enhance and improve soil health is to productive agriculture that focusses on the health of nature through the
improve soil physical quality. Similarly, to the previous theme, eleven of regeneration of the resources the system requires (e.g. energy, water,
28 articles mentioned improving soil physical characteristics and nutrients and carbon). The objectives within this theme remain rather
reducing threats to soil quality. Examples of improvements in soil vague because the reviewed articles did not define what is meant by
physical characteristics include ‘improvement of water infiltration’ objectives such as RA: should be able to ‘restore earth’ (Shelef et al.,
(Teague, 2017, P.348), ‘improvement of water holding capacity’ (Diop, 2017, P.2), ‘regenerates the natural system’ (Dahlberg, 1994, P.173) and
1999, P.290) and ‘improvement of soil aeration’ (Teague, 2018, creates a ‘long-term rehabilitative strategy’ (Diop, 1999, P.296). Such
P.1528). Mitigation of soil threats included ‘minimizing erosion’ objectives may require a more elaborate description of, for example, the
(Francis et al., 1986, P.70), ‘improving soil structure’ (Rhodes, 2017, capture of socio-economic aspects and how such objectives can be
P.123) and ‘reducing soil degradation’ (Rhodes, 2012, P.345). implemented.
An underlying theme of optimize resource management is to improve The theme improve human health relates to the objectives to provide
nutrient cycling. Twelve out of 28 articles mentioned convergent issues goods and services for human health to ensure global food security
regarding nutrient cycling and these articles share the ambition to work through RA. The quantity of studies (13 out of 28) mentioning social
towards closed nutrient loops. Examples are ‘improve nutrient cycling’ issues is large, however, no themes could be formed with lower levels of

4
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

aggregation due to a lack of studies mentioning convergent issues. This could allow further refinement of the proposed definition. Although for
theme, therefore, showed high variability between issues. A total example, Diop (1999) and LaCanne and Lundgren (2018) based their
number of 27 issues was related to this theme and based on the issues we study on farmers perception in relation to RA, we used peer-reviewed
can express that RA aims for sustainable food production which should articles including opinion, review and research articles mainly
be in balance with both environmental and social issues. The reviewed focusing on environmental aspects of RA. These peer-reviewed articles
articles highlight the quality of human life emphasizing the need to articulated insights of natural scientists rather than other actors such as
invest in ‘regenerating the social system’ (Dahlberg, 1994, P.173), farmers and policy makers.
‘restoring human health’ (Shelef et al., 2017, P.2), ‘interspecies equity’ Related to this description, we will further discuss 1) the core themes
(Dahlberg, 1994, P.173), ‘social justice’ (Dahlberg, 1994, P.173), of RA, 2) the relation of RA with circular and organic agriculture to show
‘regenerating farm families’ (Dahlberg, 1991, P.2), ‘supporting local their convergence and 3) the next step in fostering the transition towards
populations’ (Teague, 2017, P.348), ‘sustainable food supply’ (Francis RA.
et al., 1986, P.68) and ‘reducing food shortages’ (Rhodes, 2012, P.345).
Other issues mentioned were fitting social costs (Dahlberg, 1994, P.174), i) The core themes of RA
‘improvements in animal welfare’ (Colleya et al., 2019, P.3), ‘cultural
re-appreciation’ (van den Berg et al., 2018, P.314) and ‘social diversity, In this study we reviewed 28 peer-reviewed articles which enabled us
with a variety of knowledge and diverse economies’ (Zazo-Moratalla to describe themes that together characterize RA. These peer-reviewed
et al., 2019, P.16). This theme presents different issues in which we can articles mentioned in general convergent objectives related to environ­
discriminate human health and wellbeing issues relating to different mental themes such as resource management, water quality and avail­
scales (e.g. farm families, local populations). For example, some articles ability, alleviate climate change, with a strong focus on improving soil
mentioned human health issues (e.g. physical conditions) and other quality (Fig. 2). This shows that the soil is the base of RA and that RA
human wellbeing issues (e.g. happiness of the farmer). An issue which is strongly focusses on the environmental dimension of sustainability.
recognized by only one author is that RA values spirituality in their Although socio-economic objectives are mentioned in reviewed articles,
holistic approach of farming (Dahlberg, 1994). the issues raised did not result in underlying themes (issues needed to be
The theme of improve economic prosperity refers to the economic mentioned five times to become a theme).
sustainability of farmers: twelve out of 28 studies mentioned a total The themes are, however, sensitive to the amount of convergent is­
number of fifteen issues regarding economic prosperity. Issues among sues appropriate to form a theme. From the sensitivity analysis, we
this theme showed some divergence but lacked operationalisation. learnt that, had we chosen three convergent issues to form a theme, then
Studies presenting economic issues mentioned that regenerative agri­ cultural diversity would have been underlying to the theme improve
culture creates e.g. ‘long-term economic sustainability’ (Teague and human health. In addition, eight other themes could then have been
Barnes, 2017, P.83), ‘improves crop yields’ (Rhodes, 2017, P.80), ‘im­ formed as well, which include minimize waste underlying to optimize
proves soil productivity’ (Francis et al., 1986, P.68) and ‘political-­ resource management; minimize erosion, improve water holding capacity and
economic repositioning’ (van den Berg et al., 2018, P.315). Although improve water infiltration underlying to improve soil physical quality;
these issues present various diverging objectives, they all reflect that intercropping, the use of windbreaks, forest farming, riparian buffers, silvo­
regenerative economics work towards a sustained farm income pasture and managed grazing in addition to minimize fertilizer and pesticide
providing goods and services that contribute to human well-being and use among activities.
global food security. From the objectives within this theme, it remains
unclear what activities are involved to reach for example long-term ii) The relation of RA with circular and organic agriculture
economic sustainability.
In order to illustrate the convergence between sustainable farming
4. General discussion approaches, we relate the themes of RA to circular agriculture (CA)
which remains yet a theoretical concept and organic agriculture (OA) as
This study is the first to systematically review the background and an example of a regulated farming approach.
core themes of RA based on peer-reviewed articles. Analysis of the 28 CA originates from a much broader concept than RA, the circular
included articles showed that there is currently no uniform scientific economy (CE) using the 4R-framework (reuse, repair, refurbish and
definition. Instead, multiple combinations and variations of objectives recycle) as a base-line (Fan et al., 2020; Jurgilevich et al., 2016). CA uses
and activities together define RA. The convergence within these defi­ the themes of industrial ecology as it promotes the circular utilization of
nitions resulted in the core themes of RA. These core themes are agricultural resources and waste products (Fan et al., 2020; Kusano
compatible with the ecosystem services described by TEEB (2010). et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2019). The entry point in CA is, therefore, to keep
Themes such as enhance and improve soil health, optimize resource man­ flows of mass and energy of products at their highest utility through a
agement, alleviate climate change and water quality and availability are positive developing cycle (Blau et al., 2018; Van Zanten et al., 2018). RA
contributing to multiple provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. has a different entry point namely healthy soils and environmental is­
These provisioning and regulating ecosystem services described by TEEB sues which should be in balance with social values (e.g. Diop, 1999).
(2010) contribute to food security and relate to the core themes of RA by While, RA and CA may have different entry points in their approaches,
for example regulating climate, soil erosion and water purification to both rely strongly on the environmental dimension of sustainability,
provide i.e. food, feed and fuel. Themes such as improve soil physical since they share similar objectives regarding e.g. reducing environ­
quality and improve nutrient cycling are aspects that come back as sup­ mental externalities and optimizing resource management. Neverthe­
porting ecosystem services. The socio-economic dimension we found in less, RA also shows to relate to a social dimension. By contrast, it is
RA, improve human health and improve economic prosperity relates, unclear to which extent CA also relates to this social dimension, since the
furthermore, to some components of cultural ecosystems services. From current reviewed articles about CA did not mentioned social issues
our review we, therefore, propose a provisional definition in which RA is within their definitions. The different entry points of RA and CA may
defined as: an approach to farming that uses soil conservation as the entry lead to a different focus in their farming approach, in which CA focuses
point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning, regulating on topics such as avoidance of waste and the reuse of resources.
ecosystem and supporting ecosystem services, with the objective that this will Recently, this 4R framework from CE is translated to themes related to
enhance not only the environmental, but also the social and economic di­ circularity in agricultural production – referred to as circular food sys­
mensions of sustainable food production. We acknowledge that RA is a tems (de Boer and van Ittersum, 2018; Van Zanten et al., 2019). The
rapidly evolving farming approach in which more views and studies themes of circular food systems go beyond agriculture production and

5
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

also take into account consumption, therefore circular food systems identify specific indicators which allow for a generic assessment of RA.
work on a larger scale compared to RA and also includes issues such as Other research, however, shows a wide range of indicators are already
reuse of by-products and feed-food competition (Van Zanten et al., available for sustainability assessments (De Olde et al., 2016) which can
2019). be related to each of the themes underpinning RA. Having derived a
OA is an example of a farming approach that has a comprehensively clear provisional definition, our next step is to link these indicators to
described scientific definition and is regulated by different authorities the themes of RA described in this paper, in order to facilitate a
worldwide, e.g. European Commission (2019) and USDA (2019). The comprehensive assessment of RA and potentially refine the definition.
timeline of organic agriculture is described by Arbenz et al. (2016) in
which OA started very similar to RA, with a pioneering phase (known as 5. Conclusion
Organic 1.0). In this pioneering phase objectives where used to define
OA as a farming approach that contribute to sustainable global food This review has systematically assessed definitions of RA in 28 peer-
security while respecting all dimensions of sustainability. RA, as shown reviewed articles. Our analysis has shown that such definitions are based
in this paper, is currently in this pioneering phase and the regenerative on several combinations and variations of recurring objectives and ac­
themes defined in this paper are to varying extents convergent with tivities from scientists. The convergence within these definitions
aspects mentioned in OA as IFOAM – Organics International (2019) allowed us to formulate core themes of RA. Our findings show that RA
focuses on the health of soils, ecosystems, people and their management focuses strongly on the environmental dimension of sustainability,
which relies on ecological processes (e.g. nutrient cycling, biodiversity). which includes themes such as enhance and improve soil health, optimize
The objectives in the pioneering phase, evolved into Organic 2.0 in resource management, alleviate climate change, improve nutrient cycling and
which OA was regulated by certification of standards (Arbenz et al., water quality and availability, articulated by both objectives (e.g. improve
2016). These standards presented as a set of technical checklists (e.g. soil quality) and activities (e.g. use perennials). These themes enhance
USDA, 2019), described mostly what ‘not to do’, for example, ‘Do not food security by contributing to provisioning (e.g. food, feed and fibre),
use synthetic pesticides’. Synthetic pesticides are replaced by ‘natural regulating (e.g. climate regulation, soil erosion and water purification)
inputs’ such as organic pesticides (zinc and copper oxide) which, how­ and supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling and soil formation) ecosystem
ever, still have a damaging effect on the environment (e.g. loss of services. We also found a socio-economic dimension in RA, improve
biodiversity) (Kuehne et al., 2017). These standards, therefore, often fail human health and improve economic prosperity, which relate to aspects of
to entirely capture the aspects that are at the core of the organic phi­ cultural ecosystem services. This socio-economic dimension, however,
losophy (Arbenz et al., 2016) and it may be that some organic farmers relies currently on divergent objectives and lacks a framework for­
are ‘locked’ into organic regulations to guarantee the delivery of prod­ implementation. Therefore, we propose a provisional definition which
ucts that conform to organic standards. The Organic 3.0 strategy rec­ defines RA as an approach to farming that uses soil conservation as the
ognizes this and aims to change this by becoming less prescriptive and entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning,
more descriptive, working towards the replacement of the list of ‘do’s regulating and supporting services, with the objective that this will
and don’ts’, with a mode of outcome-based regulations which should enhance not only the environmental, but also the social and economic
continuously be adaptable to local contexts (Arbenz et al., 2016). This dimensions of sustainable food production. To foster the transition to­
requires a systemic shift towards an integrative farming approach like wards RA, this review contributes to establishing a uniform definition;
RA (LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018). Such an integrative farming subsequently, indicators and benchmarks should be created to assess
approach does not focus on individual (pre-decided) sustainable activ­ RA.
ities, but on improving ecological and social processes and observable
outcomes which enable a larger solution space for implementing sus­ Declaration of competing interest
tainable activities. Some authors, therefore, mention that regenerative
activities are organic, however, other reviewed articles showed that not The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
all organic activities are regenerative (e.g. Pearson, 2007; Rhodes, 2017) interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
for example the use of organic pesticides and raw minerals. Not all ob­ the work reported in this paper.
jectives of OA however are centre-stage in RA, with one difference being
the objective to promote animal welfare (European Commission, Acknowledgements
2019b). Improvement of animal welfare is mentioned in one
peer-reviewed article defining RA, although certification frameworks for The work presented in this paper is part of TiFN’s Regenerative
RA such as Regenerative Organic Certification do put animal welfare Farming project, a public - private partnership on precompetitive
centre-stage. As RA is currently in the pioneering phase, there is merit in research in food and nutrition. The authors have declared that no
building on the learnings from the evaluation of OA through the last competing interests exist in the writing of this publication. Funding for
hundred years, to avoid and leapfrog similar pitfalls that may arise. this research was obtained from FrieslandCampina, Cosun, BO Akker­
bouw, TKI Agri & Food and TiFN.
iii) The next step in fostering the transition towards RA
Appendix A. Supplementary data
This review showed the core themes of RA from the many definitions
that are presented in peer-reviewed articles. These core themes of RA, Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
enable to define indicators to allow actors to regulate and control their org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404.
activities to foster the transition towards RA. The reviewed articles do
show indicators on some specific practices of RA, for example, Elevitch References
et al. (2018) provide regenerative agroforestry standards. They present a
measure which should increase biodiversity throughout the life of the Arbenz, M., Gould, D., Stopes, C., 2016. Organic 3.0 – for Truly Sustainable Farming and
agroforest: at least eight plant families, genera, species, and/or varieties Consumption (Bonn).
Blau, M., Luz, F., Panagopoulos, T., 2018. Urban river recovery inspired by nature-based
of woody perennials per 100 m2. It is, however, unclear if this measure solutions and biophilic design in Albufeira. Portugal. Land 7, 141. https://doi.org/
refers to each category (e.g. families, genera, species) individually or 10.3390/land7040141.
whether it refers to the sum of the individual categories. Furthermore, Borgatti, S.P., 1994. Cultural domain analysis. J. Quant. Anthropol. 4, 261–278.
Bot, A., Benites, J., 2005. The Importance of Soil Organic Matter. FAO, Rome.
the applicability of these standards to other farming practices is limited. Campbell, B.M., Beare, D.J., Bennett, E.M., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Ingram, J.S.I.,
Based on the current reviewed articles we were therefore unable to Jaramillo, F., Ortiz, R., Ramankutty, N., Sayer, J.A., Shindell, D., 2017. Agriculture

6
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Malik, P., Verma, M., 2014. Organic agricultural crop nutrient. Res. J. Chem. Sci. 4,
Ecol. Soc. 22 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408. 94–98.
Cole, J.R., McCoskey, S., 2013. Does global meat consumption follow an environmental Mitchell, J.P., Reicosky, D.C., Kueneman, E.A., Fisher, J., Beck, D., 2019. Conservation
Kuznets curve? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 9, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/ agriculture systems. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 14
15487733.2013.11908112. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201914001.
Colleya, T.A., Olsena, S.I., Birkved, M., Hauschilda, M.Z., 2019. Delta LCA of Ontl, T., 2018. Soil carbon storage. Soil carbon storage. https://doi.org/10.1016/c2016-
regenerative agriculture in a sheep farming system. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 0-03949-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4238, 0–3. Pearson, C.J., 2007. Regenerative, semiclosed systems: a priority for twenty-first-century
Dahlberg, K.A., 1994. A transition from agriculture to regenerative food systems. Futures agriculture. Bioscience 57, 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570506.
26, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(94)90106-6. Pimentel, D., Wilson, C., McCullum, C., Huang, R., Dwen, P., Flack, J., Tran, Q.,
Dahlberg, K.A., 1991. Sustainable agriculture - fad or harbinger? Bioscience 41, Saltman, T., Cliff, B., 1997. Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity.
337–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311588. Bioscience 47, 747–757. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313097.
de Boer, I.J.M., van Ittersum, M.K., 2018. Circularity in agricultural production. Poore, J., Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers
Mansholt Lect 1–74. and consumers. Science 360, 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.
de Haas, B.R., Hoekstra, N.J., van der Schoot, J.R., Visser, E.J.W., de Kroon, H., van Provenza, F.D., Kronberg, S.L., Gregorini, P., 2019. Is grassfed meat and dairy better for
Eekeren, N., 2019. Combining agro-ecological functions in grass-clover mixtures. human and environmental health? Front. Nutr. 6 https://doi.org/10.3389/
AIMS Agric. Food 4, 547–567. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.547. fnut.2019.00026.
De Olde, E.M., Oudshoorn, F.W., Sørensen, C.A.G., Bokkers, E.A.M., De Boer, I.J.M., Rhodes, C.J., 2017. The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Sci. Prog. 100, 80–129.
2016. Assessing sustainability at farm-level: lessons learned from a comparison of https://doi.org/10.3184/003685017X14876775256165.
tools in practice. Ecol. Indicat. 66, 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rhodes, C.J., 2012. Feeding and healing the world: through regenerative agriculture and
ecolind.2016.01.047. permaculture. Sci. Prog. 95, 345–446. https://doi.org/10.3184/
Diop, A.M., 1999. Sustainable agriculture: new paradigms and old practices? Increased 003685012X13504990668392.
production with management of organic inputs in Senegal. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1, Sambell, R., Andrew, L., Godrich, S., Wolfgang, J., Vandenbroeck, D., Stubley, K.,
285–296. Rose, N., Newman, L., Horwitz, P., Devine, A., 2019. Local challenges and successes
Elevitch, C.R., Mazaroli, D.N., Ragone, D., 2018. Agroforestry standards for regenerative associated with transitioning to sustainable food system practices for a west
agriculture. Sustain 10, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093337. Australian context: multi-sector stakeholder perceptions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Health 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112051.
Business. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. Shah, A.N., Tanveer, M., Shahzad, B., Yang, G., Fahad, S., Ali, S., Bukhari, M.A., Tung, S.
European Commission, 2019a. The Common Agricultural Policy: Separating Fact from A., Hafeez, A., Souliyanonh, B., 2017. Soil compaction effects on soil health and
Fiction. cropproductivity: an overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 10056–10067. https://
European Commission, 2019b. Organic at a glance [WWW Document]. Eur. Comm. URL. doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8421-y.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/organic-farming/organi Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P.,
cs-glance. accessed 6.25.19. Stewart, L.A., Group, P., 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and
European Commission, 2015. Closing the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation 7647, 1-25.
Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647.
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Shelef, O., Weisberg, P.J., Provenza, F.D., 2017. The value of native plants and local
Regions. Com 614 final, p. 21. production in an era of global agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 2069. https://doi.org/
Fan, W., Dong, X., Wei, H., Weng, B., Liang, L., 2020. Is it true that the longer the 10.3389/fpls.2017.02069.
extended industrial chain , the better the circular agriculture ? A case study of Sherwood, S., Uphoff, N., 2000. Soil health: research, practice and policy for a more
circular agriculture industry company in Fuqing. Fujian 189, 718–728. https://doi. regenerative agriculture. Appl. Soil Ecol. 15, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.119. S0929-1393(00)00074-3.
FAO, 2018. Climate-smart Agriculture Case Studies 2018. Successful Approaches from Slingerland, M., Klijn, J., Jongman, R.H.G., van der Schans, J.W., 2003. The Unifying
Different Regions (Rome). Power of Sustainable Development; towards Balanced Choices between People,
FAO, 2013. Policy Support Guidelines for the Promotion of Sustainable Production Planet and Profit in Agricultural Production Chains and Rural Land Use: the Role of
Intensification and Ecosystem Services (Rome). Science (Wageningen).
Francis, C.A., Harwood, R.R., Parr, J.F., 1986. The potential for regenerative agriculture Steenwerth, K.L., Hodson, A.K., Bloom, A.J., Carter, M.R., Cattaneo, A., Chartres, C.J.,
in the developing world. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 1, 65–74. https://doi.org/ Hatfield, J.L., Henry, K., Hopmans, J.W., Horwath, W.R., Jenkins, B.M., Kebreab, E.,
10.1017/S0889189300000904. Leemans, R., Lipper, L., Lubell, M.N., Msangi, S., Prabhu, R., Reynolds, M.P., Solis, S.
Garnett, A.T., Appleby, M.C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I.J., Benton, T.G., Burlingame, B., S., Sischo, W.M., Springborn, M., Tittonell, P., Wheeler, S.M., Vermeulen, S.J.,
Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., Herrero, M., Hoffmann, I., Thornton, P.K., Wollenberg, E.K., Jarvis, L.S., Jackson, L.E., 2014. Climate-smart agriculture global
Toulmin, C., Vermeulen, S.J., Godfrey, H.C.J., 2013. Sustainable intensification in research agenda: scientific basis for action. Agric. Food Secur. 3, 1–39, 2014.
agriculture : premises and policies. Science 341, 33–34. Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J., Eickhout, B., Kabat, P.,
Glover, J.D., Reganold, J.P., Bell, L.W., Borevitz, J., Brummer, E.C., Buckler, E.S., Cox, C. 2009. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83–102. https://doi.
M., Cox, T.S., Crews, T.E., Culman, S.W., DeHaan, L.R., Eriksson, D., Gill, B.S., org/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.
Holland, J., Hu, F., Hulke, B.S., Ibrahim, A.M.H., Jackson, W., Jones, S.S., Murray, S. Teague, R., Barnes, M., 2017. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function
C., Peterson, A.H., Ploschuk, E., Sacks, E.J., Snapp, S., Tao, D., Van Tassel, D.L., and grazingland livelihoods. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 34, 77–86. https://doi.org/
Wade, L.J., Wyse, D.L., Xu, Y., 2010. Increased food and ecosystem security via 10.2989/10220119.2017.1334706.
perennial grains. Science 328, 1638–1639. https://doi.org/10.1126/ Teague, W.R., 2018. Forages and pastures symposium: cover crops in livestock
science.1188761. production: whole-system approach: managing grazing to restore soil health and
Gosnell, H., Gill, N., Voyer, M., 2019. Transformational adaptation on the farm: farm livelihoods. J. Anim. Sci. 96, 1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx060.
processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative Teague, W.R., 2017. Bridging the research management gap to restore ecosystem
agriculture. Global Environ. Change 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. function and social resilience. Prog. soil Sci. 341–350.
gloenvcha.2019.101965, 101965. Teague, W.R., 2015. Toward restoration of ecosystem function and livelihoods on grazed
IFOAM - Organics International, 2019. Definition of organic agriculture [WWW agroecosystems. Crop Sci. 55, 2550–2556. https://doi.org/10.2135/
Document]. IFOAM - Org. Int. URL. https://www.ifoam.bio/en/organic-land cropsci2015.06.0372.
marks/definition-organic-agriculture. accessed 10.2.19. Teague, W.R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U.P., Rowntree, J., Davies, C.A.,
Jalali, S., Wohlin, C., 2012. Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. Backward Conser, R., 2016. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in
snowballing. In: 6th Int. Symp. Empir. Softw. Eng. Meas., pp. 29–38. https://doi. North America, 71, 156–164. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.2.156.
org/10.1145/2372251.2372257. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Economic and Ecological
Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikäinen, J., Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington.
Saikku, L., Schösler, H., 2016. Transition towards circular economy in the food The Eat-Lancet Commission, 2019. Healthy diets from planet. Food Planet Health 32.
system. Sustain 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010069. Thomas, D.R., 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation
Kuehne, S., Roßberg, D., Röhrig, P., Von Mehring, F., Weihrauch, F., Kanthak, S., data. Am. J. Eval. 27, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748.
Kienzle, J., Patzwahl, W., Reiners, E., Gitzel, J., 2017. The use of copper pesticides in Tilman, D., Clark, M., 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human
Germany and the search for minimization and replacement strategies. Org. Farming health. Nature 515, 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959.
3. https://doi.org/10.12924/of2017.03010066. United Nations, 2015. Convention on climate change: climate agreement of Paris, 1–27.
Kusano, E., Yin, C., Chien, H., 2019. Fertilizer-use efficiency of farmers using manure in https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020782900004253.
Liaozhong County. China 53, 127–133. USDA, 2019. USDA organic regulations, title 7: agriculture, part 205 - national organic
LaCanne, C.E., Lundgren, J.G., 2018. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and program, subpart C - organic production and handling requirements. §205.206 Crop
natural resource conservation profitably. Peer J. 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.7717/ pest, weed, and disease management practice standard. [WWW Document]. URL. htt
peerj.4428. ps://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=58c3968b394f3c5590a2f4aefe7f817a
Lockeretz, W., 1988. Open questions in sustainable agriculture. Am. J. Alternative Agric. &mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8. accessed 10.22.19.
3, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300002460. van den Berg, L., Roep, D., Hebinck, P., Teixeira, H.M., van den Berg, L., Roep, D.,
Mahtab, F.U., Karim, Z., 1992. Population and agricultural land use: towards a Hebinck, P., Teixeira, H.M., 2018. Reassembling nature and culture: resourceful
sustainable food production system in Bangladesh. Ambio 21, 50–55. farming in Araponga, Brazil. J. Rural Stud. 61, 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2018.01.008.

7
L. Schreefel et al. Global Food Security 26 (2020) 100404

Van Zanten, H.H.E., Herrero, M., Van Hal, O., Röös, E., Muller, A., Garnett, T., Gerber, P. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S.,
J., Schader, C., De Boer, I.J.M., 2018. Defining a land boundary for sustainable Garnett, T., Tilman, D., Declerck, F., 2019. The lancet commissions food in the
livestock consumption. Global Change Biol. 24, 4185–4194. https://doi.org/ anthropocene: the EAT – lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food
10.1111/gcb.14321. systems 6736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.
Van Zanten, H.H.E., Van Ittersum, M.K., De Boer, I.J.M., 2019. The role of farm animals Zazo-Moratalla, A., Troncoso-González, I., Moreira-Muñoz, A., 2019. Regenerative food
in a circular food system. Glob. Food Sec. 21, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. systems to restore urban-rural relationships: insights from the concepción
gfs.2019.06.003. metropolitan area foodshed (Chile). Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/
White, R.E., Andrew, M., 2019. Orthodox soil science versus alternative philosophies: a su11102892.
clash of cultures in a modern context. Sustain 11, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Zhu, Q., Jia, R., Lin, X., 2019. Building sustainable circular agriculture in China :
su11102919. economic viability and entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2018-
0639.