IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p15261-d975635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different Stakeholders’ Conceptualizations and Perspectives of Regenerative Agriculture Reveals More Consensus Than Discord

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly R. Wilson

    (Center for Regenerative Agriculture, College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA)

  • Robert L. Myers

    (Center for Regenerative Agriculture, College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA)

  • Mary K. Hendrickson

    (Division of Applied Social Sciences (DASS), College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA)

  • Emily A. Heaton

    (Department of Crop Sciences, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61801, USA)

Abstract

A range of content analyses have recently sought to define the term “regenerative agriculture”, which has gained a surge of attention in the last few years. However, these studies have not incorporated the voices of those using the term to define their work: the farmers, private companies, researchers, and NGOs giving energy to the movement. In this study, we conducted qualitative interviews with 19 stakeholders from across the United States. Key points of consensus were that regenerative agriculture moves beyond sustainability, is outcomes-based, and, as such, is context-specific: focusing on outcomes provides opportunities to be adaptive to a specific context and that, depending on one’s context, different practices may be used to achieve target outcomes. We identified three categories of outcomes: climate adaptation and mitigation, socio-economic benefits, and integrated systems. We also found several opportunities within the energy of the movement. First, regenerative agriculture remains a “big tent” that is still accessible to a broad range of farmers. Participants also underscore the need to move toward systems-based research as opposed to reductionist research. Finally, we present participants’ mixed perspectives on the role of government, the private sector, and third parties in moving regenerative agriculture forward.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15261-:d:975635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15261/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15261/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Jaffee & Philip Howard, 2010. "Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 387-399, December.
    2. Corey Lesk & Pedram Rowhani & Navin Ramankutty, 2016. "Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production," Nature, Nature, vol. 529(7584), pages 84-87, January.
    3. F. Kuchler & M. Bowman & M. Sweitzer & C. Greene, 2020. "Evidence from Retail Food Markets That Consumers Are Confused by Natural and Organic Food Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 379-395, June.
    4. Vaclav Smil, 1999. "Detonator of the population explosion," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6743), pages 415-415, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Craig R. Elevitch & D. Niki Mazaroli & Diane Ragone, 2018. "Agroforestry Standards for Regenerative Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    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. Ethan Gordon & Matías Hargreaves-Méndez & Ada P. Smith & Hannah Gosnell & Jennifer Hodbod & Austin Himes & Morgan Mathisonslee & Henry Pitts & Jonathan Vivas, 2025. "Relational values in regenerative agriculture: a systematic review and checklist for transformative potential," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 42(3), pages 2297-2316, September.

    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. Jaime J. Coon & Mary Jo Easley & Jennifer L. Williams & Gene Hambrick, 2025. "Farmer perceptions of regenerative agriculture in the Corn Belt: exploring motivations and barriers to adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 42(3), pages 1847-1864, September.
    2. Uzair Jamil & Joshua M. Pearce, 2025. "Regenerative Agrivoltaics: Integrating Photovoltaics and Regenerative Agriculture for Sustainable Food and Energy Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-16, May.
    3. He, Liuyue & Xu, Zhenci & Wang, Sufen & Bao, Jianxia & Fan, Yunfei & Daccache, Andre, 2022. "Optimal crop planting pattern can be harmful to reach carbon neutrality: Evidence from food-energy-water-carbon nexus perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    4. El-Saied E. Metwaly & Hatim M. Al-Yasi & Esmat F. Ali & Hamada A. Farouk & Saad Farouk, 2022. "Deteriorating Harmful Effects of Drought in Cucumber by Spraying Glycinebetaine," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. repec:ags:aaea22:335489 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Teerachai Amnuaylojaroen & Pavinee Chanvichit, 2024. "Historical Analysis of the Effects of Drought on Rice and Maize Yields in Southeast Asia," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. André Eduardo Biscaia Lacerda & Ana Lúcia Hanisch & Evelyn Roberta Nimmo, 2020. "Leveraging Traditional Agroforestry Practices to Support Sustainable and Agrobiodiverse Landscapes in Southern Brazil," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Liu, Zhipeng & Jiao, Xiyun & Zhu, Chengli & Katul, Gabriel G. & Ma, Junyong & Guo, Weihua, 2021. "Micro-climatic and crop responses to micro-sprinkler irrigation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    9. Teresa Armada Brás & Jonas Jägermeyr & Júlia Seixas, 2019. "Exposure of the EU-28 food imports to extreme weather disasters in exporting countries," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(6), pages 1373-1393, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Sini Forssell & Leena Lankoski, 2015. "The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through “alternative” characteristics," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(1), pages 63-75, March.
    12. Yusifzada, Tural, 2022. "Response of Inflation to the Climate Stress: Evidence from Azerbaijan," MPRA Paper 116522, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Sep 2022.
    13. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Balázs Varga & Zsuzsanna Farkas & Emese Varga-László & Gyula Vida & Ottó Veisz, 2022. "Elevated Atmospheric CO 2 Concentration Influences the Rooting Habits of Winter-Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    15. repec:ags:ijag24:345263 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dong Chen & Kangning Xiong & Juan Zhang, 2022. "Progress on the Integrity Protection in the Natural World Heritage Site and Agroforestry Development in the Buffer Zone: An Implications for the World Heritage Karst," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Qimeng Pan & Lysa Porth & Hong Li, 2022. "Assessing the Effectiveness of the Actuaries Climate Index for Estimating the Impact of Extreme Weather on Crop Yield and Insurance Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, June.
    18. Alejandro del Pozo & Nidia Brunel-Saldias & Alejandra Engler & Samuel Ortega-Farias & Cesar Acevedo-Opazo & Gustavo A. Lobos & Roberto Jara-Rojas & Marco A. Molina-Montenegro, 2019. "Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Strategies of Agriculture in Mediterranean-Climate Regions (MCRs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, May.
    19. Lindsay Naylor, 2014. "“Some are more fair than others”: fair trade certification, development, and North–South subjects," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 273-284, June.
    20. Daniel Jaffee, 2010. "Fair Trade Standards, Corporate Participation, and Social Movement Responses in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 267-285, April.
    21. Angelica Melone & Leah L. Bremer & Susan E. Crow & Zoe Hastings & Kawika B. Winter & Tamara Ticktin & Yoshimi M. Rii & Maile Wong & Kānekoa Kukea-Shultz & Sheree J. Watson & Clay Trauernicht, 2021. "Assessing Baseline Carbon Stocks for Forest Transitions: A Case Study of Agroforestry Restoration from Hawaiʻi," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    22. Shahzad, Muhammad Faisal & Abdulai, Awudu, 2020. "Adaptation to extreme weather conditions and farm performance in rural Pakistan," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:22:p:15261-:d:975635. 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.