Unravelling Regenerative Agriculture’s Sustainability Benefits and Outcomes: A Scoping Review

Pradeep Rai (), Sosheel S. Godfrey, Christine E. Storer, Karl Behrendt, Ryan H. L. Ip and Thomas L. Nordblom
Additional contact information
Pradeep Rai: School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2658, Australia
Sosheel S. Godfrey: School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2658, Australia
Christine E. Storer: School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2658, Australia
Karl Behrendt: Gulbali Institute, Agriculture, Water and Environment, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
Ryan H. L. Ip: Department of Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
Thomas L. Nordblom: School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2658, Australia

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 3, 1-19

Abstract: Regenerative Agriculture (RA) has emerged as an environment-centric agriculture that prioritises reducing synthetic inputs, emphasising holistic management focussed on sustainability. However, evidence linking RA practices to desired sustainable outcomes remains inconclusive, and today’s modern conventional agriculture (MCA) prioritises similar aspects. This scoping review explores RA’s origins and how its proponents perceive sustainable outcomes. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, our review searched peer-reviewed articles from Scopus and Web of Science, along with a Google Scholar snowball search, up to July 2024. Of the 71 articles reviewed in detail, 46 explicitly discussed RA, and 25 addressed sustainability or holistic management relevant to RA. Key research gaps identified include: (1) Despite varying definitions and uncertain outcomes, growing interest in RA warrants further research into farmers’ preferences for RA over MCA. (2) There is insufficient evidence on how farmers balance the interconnected elements in the economic, social, and environmental domains for sustainable outcomes. (3) RA practices are often unclear and overlap with other production methods, necessitating clearer definitions of input systems and strategies used to comprehend RA’s biophysical and economic outcomes. A conceptual framework is proposed to guide future research and inform agricultural sustainability programmes.

Keywords: sustainable; biodiversity; farming practices; motivation and values; farmers (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/981/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/981/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:981-:d:1576814

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().