IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p5815-d813158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regenerative Agriculture and Its Potential to Improve Farmscape Function

Author

Listed:
  • Tom O’Donoghue

    (Sydney Institute of Agriculture, The University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia)

  • Budiman Minasny

    (Sydney Institute of Agriculture, The University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia)

  • Alex McBratney

    (Sydney Institute of Agriculture, The University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia)

Abstract

Recent reviews have identified major themes within regenerative agriculture—soil health, biodiversity, and socioeconomic disparities—but have so far been unable to clarify a definition based on practice and/or outcomes. In recent years, the concept has seen a rapid increase in farming, popular, and corporate interest, the scope of which now sees regenerative agriculture best viewed as a movement. To define and guide further practical and academic work in this respect, the authors have returned to the literature to explore the movement’s origins, intentions, and potential through three phases of work: early academic, current popular, and current academic. A consistent intention from early to current supporters sees the regeneration, or rebuilding, of agricultural resources, soil, water, biota, human, and energy as necessary to achieve a sustainable agriculture. This intention aligns well with international impetus to improve ecosystem function. The yet to be confirmed definition, an intention for iterative design, and emerging consumer and ecosystem service markets present several potential avenues to deliver these intentions. To assist, the authors propose the Farmscape Function framework, to monitor the impact of change in our agricultural resources over time, and a mechanism to support further data-based innovation. These tools and the movement’s intentions position regenerative agriculture as a state for rather than type of agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom O’Donoghue & Budiman Minasny & Alex McBratney, 2022. "Regenerative Agriculture and Its Potential to Improve Farmscape Function," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-25, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5815-:d:813158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5815/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5815/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Courtney White, 2020. "Why Regenerative Agriculture?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 79(3), pages 799-812, May.
    3. Diane Pearson & Julian Gorman & Richard Aspinall, 2022. "Multiple Roles for Landscape Ecology in Future Farming Systems: An Editorial Overview," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-5, February.
    4. Luján Soto, Raquel & Cuéllar Padilla, Mamen & de Vente, Joris, 2020. "Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Eva-Marie Meemken & Matin Qaim, 2018. "Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 39-63, October.
    6. Beddington, Sir John, 2011. "The future of food and farming," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 1(2), pages 1-5.
    7. de Ponti, Tomek & Rijk, Bert & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2012. "The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    9. Julius Krebs & Sonja Bach, 2018. "Permaculture—Scientific Evidence of Principles for the Agroecological Design of Farming Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Robert E White & Martin Andrew, 2019. "Orthodox Soil Science versus Alternative Philosophies: A Clash of Cultures in a Modern Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-6, May.
    11. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    12. Jules N. Pretty, 1997. "The sustainable intensification of agriculture," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 21(4), pages 247-256, November.
    13. Benjamin Leon Bodirsky & Susanne Rolinski & Anne Biewald & Isabelle Weindl & Alexander Popp & Hermann Lotze-Campen, 2015. "Global Food Demand Scenarios for the 21st Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    14. Craig R. Elevitch & D. Niki Mazaroli & Diane Ragone, 2018. "Agroforestry Standards for Regenerative Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Cameron M. Pittelkow & Xinqiang Liang & Bruce A. Linquist & Kees Jan van Groenigen & Juhwan Lee & Mark E. Lundy & Natasja van Gestel & Johan Six & Rodney T. Venterea & Chris van Kessel, 2015. "Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 517(7534), pages 365-368, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly R. Wilson & Robert L. Myers & Mary K. Hendrickson & Emily A. Heaton, 2022. "Different Stakeholders’ Conceptualizations and Perspectives of Regenerative Agriculture Reveals More Consensus Than Discord," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Io Carydi & Athanasios Koutsianas & Marios Desyllas, 2023. "People, Crops, and Bee Farming: Landscape Models for a Symbiotic Network in Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Phoebe Koundouri & Anthony Cox & Arunima Malik & Ben Groom & Brian O'Callaghan & Cameron Hepburn & Catherine Kilelu & Christine Lins & Dale Squires & E. Somanathan & Heba Handoussa & Ian Bateman & Ism, 2023. "The Recovery from the Covid-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity for a Sustainable and Resilient World," DEOS Working Papers 2311, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    4. Małgorzata Holka & Jolanta Kowalska & Magdalena Jakubowska, 2022. "Reducing Carbon Footprint of Agriculture—Can Organic Farming Help to Mitigate Climate Change?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Martin Dědina & Petr Jevič & Pavel Čermák & Jan Moudrý & Chisenga Emmanuel Mukosha & Tomáš Lošák & Tadeáš Hrušovský & Elizaveta Watzlová, 2024. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Silage Maize in Relation to Regenerative Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Sadeeka L. Jayasinghe & Dean T. Thomas & Jonathan P. Anderson & Chao Chen & Ben C. T. Macdonald, 2023. "Global Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review of Definitions and Assessment Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-49, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbieri, Pietro & Starck, Thomas & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Nesme, Thomas, 2023. "Biological nitrogen fixation of legumes crops under organic farming as driven by cropping management: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    2. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    3. Qingping Hu & Chunyan Lu & Tingting Chen & Wanting Chen & Huimei Yuan & Mengxing Zhou & Zijing Qiu & Lingxin Bao, 2023. "Evaluation and Analysis of the Gross Ecosystem Product towards the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Fujian Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    5. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    7. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    8. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    9. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    10. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.
    11. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Shuping Zhang & Xuehui Sun & Kun Zhang & Xiaozheng Zhang & Renqing Wang & Jian Liu & Shuping Zhang, 2021. "An Attempt To Identify Cultural Ecosystem Services And Related Land Use Types In Rural Areas Under Urbanization," Environment & Ecosystem Science (EES), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 121-128, September.
    13. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    14. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    16. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    19. María del Pilar García Pachón, 2016. "Instrumentos Económicos Y Financieros Para La Gestión Ambiental," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 853, October.
    20. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5815-:d:813158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.