Introduction

Modern agriculture has increased yields (Harwood 2019) but degraded socio-ecological systems all over the world (Horrigan et al. 2002). It is contributing to climate change, biodiversity loss, water pollution, deforestation, and desertification (Campbell et al. 2017). Advocates of regenerative agriculture (RA) aim to restore farm ecology and transform food systems (Massy 2018) through a shift in agricultural practices and/or mindsets (Gordon et al. 2022). Newton et al. (2020) divide RA into process-based definitions (concerned with practices/principles, e.g., integrating livestock), outcomes-based definitions (concerned with results, e.g., carbon sequestration), or a combination of both. They offer the possibility that relational values (RVs) form a subset of process-based definitions. This means RA farmers may favour certain processes due to, “a values relationship with the natural world rather than a belief that they [the processes] will necessarily lead to a particular outcome” (Newton et al. 2020, p. 7).

RVs disassemble the binary framing of nature’s value as intrinsic (nature is attributed inherent moral value) or instrumental (nature has value because it benefits humans) (Chan et al. 2016; Himes and Muraca 2018). Instead, RVs are “values of meaningful and often reciprocal human relationships – beyond means to an end – with nature (often specified as a particular landscape, place, species, forest etc.) and among people through nature” (Himes et al. 2024, p. 6). Sustaining RVs requires undertaking routine practices in certain places with certain people and/or non-humans (Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2023), e.g., the routine of regularly moving livestock could create conditions for RVs. Whilst ‘nature’ is used in this article, the term can perpetuate a perceived separation between people and their environments that does not exist in many relational paradigms (Reed et al. 2024; West et al. 2020).

Scholarship on both RA and RVs has independently grown since 2016/17 (Gordon et al. 2022; Pratson et al. 2023). RVs literature has contributed to the ‘relational turn’ in sustainability science (West et al. 2020) since the publication of Chan et al. (2016). This literature also touches on environmental ethics, environmental psychology, and ecosystem service valuation (Stålhammar and Thorén 2019). Recently empirical studies have explored RVs in agricultural contexts (Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2023). But RVs are rarely discussed in RA literature despite having implications for its transformative potential (Frankel-Goldwater et al. 2024).

Transformative potential

For the purposes of this article, transformation is defined as a radical shift in social and cultural structures (Linnér and Wibeck 2020), which can be facilitated by a change in values emphasis (Chan et al. 2020). The livelihoods and knowledge systems of over 476 million Indigenous Peoples, in at least 90 countries, are based around RVs (Zent and Zent 2022). Yet RVs are often dismissed by those in Western value systems (Sands et al. 2023) who protest that they detract from ‘real’ and measurable conservation (Chan et al. 2016). Seymour and Connelly (2023) suggest that defining RA solely through the Newton et al. (2020) processes and/or outcomes ignores the transformative mindset amongst RA farmers. Those working towards transforming agriculture should seriously consider how RVs are facilitating change (Gordon et al. 2024). RVs are sometimes latent in people (Chan et al. 2020) but could support transformation if barriers to acting upon them were removed (Himes and Dues 2024). Barriers can include structural challenges inhibiting RA’s transformative potential (Bless et al. 2023) such as unfit or non-existent institutions (Chan et al. 2017). Cultivating latent RVs that support positive human-nature relationships could regenerate Western epistemologies (Sands et al. 2023) and inspire significant mindset shifts that consequently change processes and outcomes (Chan et al. 2020; Frankel-Goldwater et al. 2024).

We undertook a systematic literature review to better understand the connection between RVs and RA. This review was guided by our research question: to what extent have RVs been implicitly or explicitly examined across the RA literature? A sub-research question was also developed: what implications might RVs have for the transformative potential of RA? Consequently, the discussion explores a distinction between productivist framings of RA that primarily emphasise instrumental values and relational framings of RA where RVs are more central. We include checking questions for RA advocates to reflexively assess whether key actors are engaged in relational RA at a discursive level. This shift in values emphasis could support the flourishing of already-held RVs, which are a leverage point for transformative change (Chan et al. 2020).

Conceptual framework: salient articulations of RVs

Himes et al. (2024) present results from a literature review for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature (Anderson et al. 2022). The most frequently recurring meanings of RVs are identified – referred to as ‘salient articulations.’ There are 6 salient articulations of RVs, which reflect a range of ways the term is used in the literature. These act as operational definitions and we used them as deductive codes for identifying RVs in the RA literature (Table 1). Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp (2023) suggest RVs may have intrinsic and instrumental elements. These value types can overlap, and in some cases, RVs may be difficult to fully distinguish from intrinsic and instrumental values. Drawing on Himes et al. (2024), we added ‘fuzzy boundaries’ as an indicator for these instances of overlap between value types in RA.

Table 1 Salient articulations of RVs adapted from Himes et al. (2024)
Full size table

Methods

We systematically searched peer-reviewed records using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 framework (Page et al. 2021). An annotated copy of the PRISMA checklist is supplied in supplementary materials. We followed the approach of Schreefel et al. (2020), building a search query using the terms regenerative and farming. Regenerative was used as a consistent label. Farming was replaced by different synonyms to broaden the search. These were agriculture, agronomy, food systems, ranching, and grazing. Including wildcards (*) meant that different forms of each term could be picked up in the search – e.g., regenerative, regenerate, regeneration. The final search query was: [regenera* farm*] OR [regenera* agri*] OR [regenera* agro*] OR [regenera* food system] OR [regenera* ranch*] OR [regenera* graz*].

We looked for these terms in the title of peer-reviewed records in Web of Science and Google Scholar. There were no limitations on the date of publication. In Google Scholar the ‘patents’ and ‘citations’ options were turned off. The search was repeated toward the end of the review to ensure that any recent eligible records had not been missed. Consequently, 19 records were added to the review. As of 05/09/24 Web of Science returned 859 records and Google Scholar 498. Once records were identified duplicates were manually removed.

The record’s citation, keywords, and abstract were downloaded to an Excel spreadsheet. As per Fig. 1, these were screened to determine suitability based on 3 predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria: (1) topically focussed on RA, (2) peer-reviewed, and (3) in a language spoken by our team (English, Spanish, French). Only 1 non-English article was included in the review (Duru et al. 2022). Articles were imported to Zotero and a second screening assessed their main body text. We did not include articles that rarely, if ever, used the search terms in the main body despite having them in the title, keywords, footnotes, or citations. Finally, the priority was to identify articles that discussed the human-social dimensions of RA as opposed to quantitative studies – e.g., computational models of soil carbon in RA. This is because the latter offers little relevance to our research questions. 104 articles were included in the review after screening.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Systematic review flow diagram for the identification and screening of records and articles. Adapted from PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021).

Full size image

A search using RA and RVs resulted in 1 eligible record after screening, which was already captured by the search query. This reflects how RVs are not theoretically integrated into RA literature. Due to the low number of articles explicitly mentioning RVs we focussed primarily on identifying implicit mentions. That is, any description that expressed the salient articulations of RVs. For example, El-Sayed and Cloutier (2022) do not explicitly mention RVs but do highlight values emerging from reciprocal human-nature relationships. For this reason, implicit and explicit mentions formed part of our research.

Articles were evenly distributed and reviewed amongst the research team who deductively coded them using a shared codebook based on the salient articulations of RVs (Table 1). The codes included descriptive content (to record those implicit mentions of RVs) and coding was undertaken as a form of qualitative content analysis. All authors recorded verbatim quotes, notes, and additional points of interest during the coding process. Authors also gathered information on the location of each study, location of the first author’s institution, and whether the report was empirical, review, or perspective. To ensure intercoder reliability, the definitions of all salient articulations were shared along with examples. Throughout the process we held meetings to align authors on the definitions, discuss any questions arising as a group, reflect on the process, and share insights. This safeguarded a shared understanding of the coding process and goals. Of the 104 reports, 70 contained content pertaining to RVs. Some reports included multiple salient articulations of RVs. Once reviews were complete, two authors independently undertook an interpretive analysis (Braun and Clarke 2022) of all notes and codes in MaxQDA to synthesise the results. The results of each analysis were shared, discussed, and integrated to further ensure reliability.

Some relevant records may have been missed by only searching for terms in the title of peer-reviewed records, which was a limiting factor. Ideally, we would have included antecedent concepts to ‘regenerative’ because RA literature is relatively new, e.g., sustainable agriculture, holistic management, agroecology, permaculture, organics, biodynamics etc. As Gordon et al. (2023) demonstrate, RA is genealogically connected to these approaches. It is possible key ideas were missed without that longer-term foundation. However, this returned an immense amount of literature, and it was important we had clear boundaries to define the sample. Since RVs is also a recent term, there was a low number of explicit mentions in the RA literature. Instances were rare despite the considerable number of implicit mentions. Consequently, the coding process was labour intensive because we undertook a form of qualitative content analysis to identify these implicit mentions. This reduced our capacity to review a larger body of literature. However, it gave us a deeper understanding of RVs in the reviewed literature. The prevalence of RVs in RA literature is likely an underrepresentation of how often RVs are tied to actual RA practices because of the relatively new development of RVs as a semantic field and apparent lack of integration with RA literature. In this way, a systematic review is limited in what it can achieve compared with empirical research. We deductively coded for the salient articulations of RVs, but a more inductive approach could reveal other RVs significant to RA’s transformative potential.

Results

The technical practices associated with RA (e.g., rotational grazing, intercropping etc.) are distinct from regeneration as a holistic framework based in a paradigm of care (Leitheiser et al. 2022; Seymour and Connelly 2023). In our sample, 34 articles were based on the technical practices of RA and did not include RVs. This does not indicate that farmers using RA practices without the holistic framework don’t hold RVs. However, these articles predominantly adopted a process/outcomes orientation and some explored incentivising farmers with top-down mechanisms (e.g., certification, government assistance, training, regulations). Of those articles that did contain RVs (70 per Figs. 1 and 2), most mentioned them passingly. The number of RA articles that mentioned relationality in some form was less than what the flow diagram in Fig. 1 and the geographic distribution of articles in Fig. 2 suggest. These articles numbered around 27 and came predominantly from North America (US/Canada) and Australia but also Finland, New Zealand, Spain, Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Geographic distribution of lead authors’ institutions on the 70 RA articles containing RVs. This mirrors the distribution of the full sample with scholarship emerging primarily from North America (US/Canada), Australia, and the United Kingdom

Full size image

Articles that contained RVs (Table 2) were more likely to discuss RA as an embodied practice, embedded in place, and/or a grassroots bottom-up movement. The bottom-up and top-down distinction reflects how different values determine the way RA advocates organise themselves. Gordon et al. (2023, p. 1837) argue that as farmers depart from the mainstream, “knowledge about how and why to regenerate is increasingly framed through the lens of relationality instead of productivity.” This values distinction is not neat. RA is neither entirely productivist (primarily focused on instrumental benefits) or relational but attempts to reconcile tensions between these positions over time (Beacham et al. 2023). This productivist-relational distinction is more prominent from a values perspective than the process-outcomes distinction proposed by Newton et al. (2020).

Table 2 Articles containing the salient articulations of RVs
Full size table

RVs, general: sustaining conditions for RVs

This section explores general descriptions of RVs and the conditions that can help sustain them (Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2023). In Gosnell et al. (2019, p. 7) renewed farmer enthusiasm for their land was, “associated with a new way of ‘seeing’ the land,” which often created fertile or sustaining conditions for cultivating RVs. This way of seeing was linked to systems thinking (McWherter and Sherren 2024) and can involve spiritually reconnecting with other beings (Leitheiser et al. 2022). Whilst not a RV itself, seeing the land relationally can support the emergence of RVs. For example, farming ‘with’ nature (Burns 2021). Farmers in Seymour and Connelly (2023) shifted their focus from managing nature to managing their own interventions within a regenerating system. This rebalances the power dynamic between people and non-humans (Buckton et al. 2023; Dahlberg 1994).

Relational ways of seeing the land are common to Indigenous Peoples. El-Sayed and Cloutier (2022) correlated regeneration with Indigenous knowledges where all life is sacred (Gibbons 2020) and enmeshed in a web of relations that diverse beings co-inhabit (Kallio and LaFleur 2023). Burns (2021) referred to Te Taiao, a Māori phrase for the natural world containing us. Most RA farmers use language that animates nature or gives nature agency, e.g., nature having the ability to choose (Hill and Moffett 2022). This language creates sustaining conditions for RVs by building intimacy with the natural world (Gordon et al. 2022). In some instances, it is underpinned by animist views. For example, an Indigenous farmer in Gordon et al. (2023) described the earth as a family member whose wisdom he enjoys whilst bending his back for her care. This demonstrates a sense of kinship with non-human nature.

RA practices like rotational grazing, no-till, crop rotations, intercropping, agroforestry, silvopasture, soil amendments, cover crops, and biochar all have Indigenous origins and evolved alongside the RVs of Indigenous Peoples (Sands et al. 2023). Disconnecting these practices from RVs impacts their regenerative potential. For example, biochar and Amazonian dark earths (terra preta) share origins but reflect differences in Western and Indigenous ideas of human-nature relationships (Bezerra et al. 2019). As a result, biochar lends itself to industrialization and private markets whilst terra preta is embedded in RVs via cultural practices, rural livelihoods, local communities, and Indigenous rights (Sands et al. 2023). In this way, terra preta supports higher levels of biological and cultural diversity (henceforth biocultural diversity) (Diwan et al. 2021; Loring 2022).

If RA practices were reconnected to RVs, this could create a reciprocal feedback loop for both sustaining RVs in RA and sustaining RA practices through RVs. For example, James et al. (2021, p. 39) said, “to enact respect for the living world entails honouring the gifts of life.” When hunting bison all parts of the animal are used because wasting its life would mean disrespecting the gifts provided (James et al. 2021). In this way, the RV of honouring gifts sustains best practice, demonstrating the values-practice link. In Elevitch et al. (2018) Indigenous People cultivated breadfruit agroforests that were diverse multistorey polycultures, incorporating 120 useful species alongside 50 cultivars of breadfruit. RVs reinforced practices developed to work in synchrony with natural forest processes. By contrast, commercial breadfruit monocultures lacked these regenerative characteristics partly because those RVs were absent. Sands et al. (2023) similarly argued that Western RA definitions have generated lists of practices, principles, and outcomes that fall short because they do not include RVs like those fostered by Indigenous Peoples.

Identity through relationships

This section explores relationships with nature that are constituent parts of identity (Himes et al. 2024). Some farmers in Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024, p. 7) expressed a sense of place attachment, kinship, and identity as a part of nature. They said, “the land is part of who we are […] it’s our life” and “our agricultural community is part of nature.” Gordon et al. (2023) referred to a farmer’s ‘ecological self’ where ecosystems are integrated with human self-identity. James et al. (2021) demonstrated how Indigenous relationships to the non-human are interconnected with identity through responsibilities ascribed to individuals, families, and communities via naming and ancestral kinship systems that honour animal beings. A regenerative design framework called ‘Story of Place’ creates an evolving cultural narrative that “honours and celebrates habitats, communities, buildings, history, and heritage” (Buckton et al. 2023, p. 833) to express the uniqueness of people and places (Diwan et al. 2021). This framework is being used by graduates of the Regenesis Institute of Regenerative Practice to articulate the ‘essence’ (identity) and ‘regenerative potential’ (future identity) of bioregions (Gordon et al. 2022). As per these examples, both individual and collective identities are connected to specific places and their mutualistic human–nature relationships (Gibbons 2020).

RA farmers are also creating “a new story about what farming is, what it can be and what role farmers can play in the process of regeneration” (Leitheiser et al. 2022, p. 710). This story has renegotiated their ‘spoiled’ identity in public discourse (Burns 2020) and given farmers a fresh purpose, legitimacy, and earth steward identity connected to climate change solutions (Burns 2021). In Gosnell et al. (2019, p. 7) conventional farmers realised their actions didn’t align with their stewardship values, and RA better reflected “the kind of farmer[s] they wanted to be.” This stewardship identity has also allowed women to transcend the hegemonic masculinity that has historically dominated farming (Leitheiser et al. 2022). It is central to ideas of what it means to be a good farmer (Gosnell et al. 2019).

These kinds of custodial identities are not new but have been held for generations by Indigenous Peoples (Hes and Rose 2019). In Elevitch (2018) careful observation of agroforestry over generations became part of local Indigenous identities because people had established specific relationships with the forest through deep time. Agricultural regeneration and stewardship were also framed as essential to Christian discipleship and identity (Briola 2022). In Briola (2022, p. 6) living the “Christian vocation” included protecting God’s handiwork. As such, a religious identity could also be a motivator for adopting RA.

Good life

This section explores relationships with nature that are constituent elements for living a good and meaningful life (Himes et al. 2024). Buckton et al. (2023, p. 1) said regeneration must revitalise “diverse local and Indigenous ways of knowing that include ‘good living’ philosophies.” They used the example of Māori and Quechua good living approaches, which embrace relational aspects of wellbeing and give people agency to live meaningful lives. In Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024) doing no harm, caring for relationships, and regenerating ecosystems were all part of the eudaimonic good life. Beacham et al. (2023, p. 5) referred to working with nature to do “what we think is right” for achieving “regenerative happiness.” A sense of right livelihood amongst RA farmers was also noted by Gosnell et al. (2019). Some RA farmers articulated a holistic context based on their deeply held values (Gosnell et al. 2020), i.e., a ‘good life’ vision statement. Gosnell et al. (2019) explained that this good life vision often aligned stewardship values and practices. Success was not measured by profitability or productivity alone, but by stewardship and time spent recreationally or nurturing community and family (Gosnell et al. 2019). Briola (2022) referred to living a Christian life of virtue through RA by repenting the ways sin fractures relationships and undermines creation. For some farmers, RA contributed to a meaningful life because they viewed it as a vocation and public good that left a legacy of environmental stewardship to the wider community (Beacham et al. 2023; Massy 2020).

Sense of place

This section explores RVs associated with a sense of place and/or cultural and sacred landscapes (Himes et al. 2024). Farmers in Wilson et al. (2022, p. 5) said, “you can’t prescribe regenerative agriculture. It is a very place-based practice.” Adaptability to local geography, climate, soil, and history are all relevant to determining what RA looks like in each location (Hill and Moffett 2022; Serrano-Zulueta et al. 2023). Dahlberg (1994, p. 172) said, “historically, crucial areas of biodiversity were seen to be sacred by indigenous peoples.” However, these relationships were violently severed by colonial agriculture (Hes and Rose 2019). Buckton et al. (2023, p. 6) said, “a system arguably cannot be regenerative if it is not emancipatory and fails to right such injustice (e.g., if it exists on stolen land) or does not enable resource sovereignty.” Addressing this is central to multiple RA discourses including First Nations, Regenerative Cultures, and Agroecology and Food Sovereignty (Gordon et al. 2023). As such, working regeneratively requires considering the biocultural history of a place (Gordon et al. 2022), restoring those relationships (Gibbons 2020), and ensuring humans have a positive impact as a keystone species (Leitheiser et al. 2022).

A major contributor to having a sense of place through RA was ongoing embodied learning that persists via positive feedbacks, reinforcing farmer confidence (Gordon et al. 2022; Gosnell et al. 2019). This type of learning could include walking the fields (Beacham et al. 2023) or listening to the land (Wilson et al. 2022) as a means of routine reflexivity (Briola 2022). Such feedbacks support latent or emerging sense of place RVs by activating biophilic emotions that reconnect people with nature (Gosnell 2022). For example, listening to the land, “fosters a reformed sense of connectivity to nature […] and a renewed sense of partnership with the land” (Gosnell et al. 2019, p. 6). In Beacham et al. (2023, p. 8) farmers combined scientific monitoring with multi-sensory observation, “you’ve got to get your hands in the ground and feel it to understand it.” Farmers in Soto et al. (2020) also used local indicators for soil quality that included parameters easy to assess by touch, sight, and smell. This highlights RA’s potential for regenerating human-nature relationships through multi-sensory observation (Krzywoszynska 2024; Loring 2022). Indigenous Peoples also undertake embodied observations in place and across time (El-Sayed and Cloutier 2022; James et al. 2021). In Elevitch et al. (2018) ongoing forest observation led to intergenerational relationships between Indigenous People and nature.

Care

This section explores RVs associated with care and responsibility between specific landscapes, places, humans, and non-humans (Himes et al. 2024). Most conventional farmers already feel a responsibility to care for land and RA becomes a pathway for acting on that (Gosnell et al. 2019). RA farmers in Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024) loved nature and felt accountable to taking action. For others, RA was a form of redemption via environmental care (Beacham et al. 2023; Briola 2022). In this way, RA allows farmers to, “accept and meet responsibility through practices rather than only through ideology” (Seymour and Connelly 2023, p. 238). It is a starting point for reimagining human-nature relationships and implementing these as an ongoing practice (Leitheiser et al. 2022). This is supported by attentive interactions with a place, which create possibilities for regeneration by noticing the need for care and acting on it (Seymour and Connelly 2023). For example, an Indigenous RA farmer in Gordon et al. (2023, p. 1843) said, “I do a greeting to the sun every morning and it reminds me of, not just who I am, but what my responsibilities are [to the earth].” Briola (2022) said attentiveness was a reminder that people are adamah’ (of the earth). James et al. (2021, p. 40) further emphasised this RV saying, “in practice, responsibility towards the land and its inhabitants requires direct action through relationship.”

RA farmers in Gosnell et al. (2019) and Seymour and Connelly (2023) actively reformed negative relationships with nature (e.g., monocultural production) into intimate relationships of care. Leitheiser et al. (2022, p. 709) said, “the relationship of humans to natural systems is not inherently extractive or harmful but can be generative in a symbiotic sense.” Enacting this requires relinquishing control over nature and trusting that ecosystems can renew themselves back to healthy functioning (Fischer et al. 2024). Burns (2020, p. 202) referred to this as, “a radical idea of empowering and not controlling nature.” Consequently, RA farmers respect and seek to work in harmony with nature (Cusworth et al. 2021; Hill and Moffett 2022; Loring 2022). This maintains positive reciprocal cycles of wellbeing between them (Buckton et al. 2023). For example, James et al. (2021, p. 40) said, “to consume fish means to be in relationship with the water.” They explained that in this relationship, reciprocity requires care for water through research, policy, advocacy, and by guaranteeing communities’ access in perpetuity. In Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024, p. 9) people and ecosystems were, “mutually-dependent in a context of non-domination.”

Buckton et al. (2023) referred to regenerative cultures of care that emerge from the context of bioregions (Gordon et al. 2023) and include place-based rituals and celebrations (Gibbons 2020). These revitalise local economies and preserve traditional knowledges (Diwan et al. 2021). For example, Loring (2022) discussed the recovery of cattle winterage traditions in the Burren region of Ireland. Cattle grazing higher areas through winter improved local biodiversity and water quality whilst also revitalising heritage. This shows the mutualism between cattle, biodiversity, and RVs associated with cultural traditions. Buckton et al. (2023, p. 833) said, “inculcating a culture of care is grounding regeneration in local contexts and communities, from which wider responsibility can be developed.” This aligns with Hill and Moffett (2022) who suggested that care includes avoiding inputs detrimental elsewhere in the world. There is also a temporal component where care means honouring past generations and providing for future ones (Frankel-Goldwater et al. 2024). For example, the Indigenous principle of seven generations prioritises ancestral, present, and future generations in decision-making (James et al. 2021).

Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024) described animal welfare as an extension of farmer’s RVs because care for animals is interconnected with living a meaningful life as a farmer. RA can support animal welfare by meeting the biological, ethological, and affective needs of cattle, e.g., through training farmers in low-stress livestock handling (Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel 2023). This allows farmers to enjoy a different relationship with their animals that reduces the need for force (Gosnell et al. 2020), resulting in lower herd stress and less physical injuries (Spratt et al. 2021). Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel (2023) say that low stress livestock handling in RA is grounded in the assumption that it improves human-animal relations (and thus, RVs). Gosnell (2022) shows how RA farmers report increased feelings of connection with animals, plants, and microorganisms. Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel (2023) say this reflects a potential openness amongst RA farmers to exploring better livestock care and enhancing their relations to non-human animals.

Human connections through nature

This section explores RVs as points of connection among people (Himes et al. 2024). A good example of this is RA farmers seeking out community at local and global levels (Cusworth et al. 2021) to engage in citizen science and social learning around nature (Gibbons 2020). In Soto et al. (2020) participatory monitoring stimulated social learning and knowledge sharing that led to empowerment, trust, and confidence in RA adoption. Gosnell et al. (2019) referred to microscope clubs where RA farmers share soil samples over wine. This deepens RVs by encouraging social cohesion through the non-human (Frankel-Goldwater et al. 2024). Sands et al. (2023, p. 1708) said, “the growing of traditional crops is central to enhancing social relations among the Shona people.” Supportive relationships are key to positive feedbacks that sustain motivations for RA (Burns 2020; Hes and Rose 2019; Serrano-Zulueta et al. 2023). A farmer in Leitheiser et al. (2022) felt connected to the movement via WhatsApp, email, and local catch ups to exchange knowledge, support peers, share stories, and politically advocate. Buckton et al. (2023, p. 147) said, “enabling agency in regenerative systems requires greater trust in the inherent cooperative tendencies of human communities when given opportunities to self-organize.”

Another example is the regeneration of farming livelihoods (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre 2021) and rural communities (Schulte et al. 2022; Sherwood and Uphoff 2000) after the socially extractive activities of industrial agriculture (Spratt et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2022). This includes local food sovereignty (Buckton et al. 2023). An RA farmer in Gordon et al. (2023, p. 1841) said, “if we don’t have ‘people care’ in this system, is it truly regenerative?” Olsson et al. (2022) discussed regeneration as a means of respecting traditional and Indigenous practices in India. In Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024) 41.9% of farmers mentioned the importance of justice connected to their RVs. Spratt et al. (2021, p. 15) said, “the forced expulsion of Native Americans from the land and systematic subjugation and marginalization of African Americans in the formal agricultural economy have profoundly shaped today’s agricultural landscape.” Such compounding historic injustices mean that agriculture cannot be regenerative without an explicit focus on relationships that are equitable and restorative – especially for Indigenous, Black, and Brown peoples (Wilson et al. 2022). As such, RVs between people make regeneration socially responsible not just economically and ecologically sound (Spratt et al. 2021).

Fuzzy boundaries

This section explores instances where intrinsic and/or instrumental values overlap with RVs. As already stated, Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp (2023) say some conditions need to be ensured to sustain a RV (e.g., physical, socioeconomic, political). As such, fuzzy boundaries include valuing these sustaining or supporting conditions for RVs that may emerge from these other value types, i.e., instrumental (nature has value because it benefits humans) and/or intrinsic (nature has inherent moral value) (Himes et al. 2024). For example, economic stability and profitability help maintain the good life (Frankel-Goldwater et al. 2024) and the eudaimonic perception of a life worth living (Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel 2023). Instrumentally valuing profitability can therefore create stable conditions for RVs to emerge. Life satisfaction can also be a sustaining condition for positive human and non-human relationships (Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel 2023). In Holistic Management, livestock are primarily valued instrumentally for their soil building capabilities (Lal 2020). However, attributing intrinsic value to animals and/or morally considering their sentience can shape human and non-human relationships (Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel 2023), potentially reinforcing RVs associated with animal welfare.

Another source of fuzzy boundaries is life support values. These place importance on life supporting processes and emerge through all three value types – intrinsic, instrumental, and relational (Himes et al. 2024). As such, authors rationalise the regeneration of those things that make life possible – air, water, biodiversity (Gordon et al. 2023) and carbon (Cusworth et al. 2022) – by drawing on all three value types. For example, Anderson and Rivera-Ferre (2021, p. 20) considered the intrinsic life support value of nature remarking that it comprised, “systems of intrinsic value with which humans are interdependent for our existence.” Meanwhile, White (2020) stressed the instrumental life support value of soil and Bonifacio et al. (2022) said all life depends on plants’ abilities to collect and store solar energy. Hes and Rose (2019) drew on relational life support values to show how mutually beneficial human-nature relationships bring systems to life, e.g., by creating social cohesion and culture. Life supporting processes can be maintained through relational components such as spiritual meaning connected to nature (Buckton et al. 2023).

The health of life supporting processes was a key theme in the RA literature. Frankel-Goldwater et al. (2024) said ecological and social health were central to the good life and motivating RA adoption. Wilson et al. (2022) said the health of soil relationships had cascading impacts for the health of the broader system. The “health of soil, plants, animals, and humans is one and indivisible” (Lal 2020, p. 1). Ecosystem care is completely interrelated with human wellbeing (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre 2021; Olsson et al. 2022) because life depends on healthy soils, food, and people (Beacham et al. 2023; Gosnell 2022). Hence the need to heal land through regeneration (Schreefel et al. 2020). Dahlberg (1994) said RA should use the health of biocultural systems over time as an evaluative criteria for success, not economic productivity.

It was difficult to adequately represent the multiple ways RVs expressed themselves in the literature using the Himes et al. (2024) salient articulations framework. For example, ‘good life’ and ‘identity through relationships’ were useful categories but often expressions of the good life had implications for identity and vice versa. Such instances of overlap allowed us to reflect on how the salient articulations fit together. The Himes et al. (2024) salient articulations framework was a useful way of organising RVs, but consideration of how specific values might manifest across, or outside of, the salient articulations was also necessary. To explain these linkages and instances of overlap we have listed them in Table 3. Figure 3 is an accompaniment to this table and shows more clearly where these instances of interconnection between the salient articulations occurred.

Table 3 Linkages and instances of overlap between the salient articulations of RVs in RA. Each description is represented by a colour that connects it with the visualisation of these linkages in Fig. 3
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Linkages and instances of overlap between the salient articulations of RVs in RA. Lines represent these linkages and their colour connects them to the relevant description in Table 3

Full size image

Discussion: a productivist-relational distinction in RA

Our findings highlight an important values distinction between productivist framings of RA that primarily emphasise instrumental values and relational framings of RA in which RVs are more central. Martini et al. (2023, p. 1) remark that a paradigm shift is necessary in agriculture from, “a top-down approach dominated by instrumental values to achieve the primary goal of increasing yields, to a more site-specific relational and participatory approach that induces locally adaptive use of sustainable agricultural practices.” This articulates well the productivist and relational distinction. Productivist RA remains primarily embedded in instrumental values that leave it open to greenwashing by multi-national corporations (Bless 2024). It is succinctly captured by the ‘Restoration for Profit’ discourse in Gordon et al. (2023) where RA advocates restore soils to increase productivity. As reflected in our results, relational RA foregrounds the regeneration of reciprocal human-human and human-nature relationships, predominantly taking a grassroots bottom-up approach to transformation.

As evident in ‘fuzzy boundaries,’ this productivist-relational distinction is not binary. ‘Fuzzy boundaries’ show that instrumental values can help create the sustaining conditions for RVs. Similarly, both value types (instrumental and relational) can converge to protect life supporting processes. For example, protecting nature because ecosystem services improve production (instrumental) and because stewarding the land is central to farmer identity and place attachment (relational). The instrumental and RVs that underpin the productivist-relational distinction often co-exist (Himes et al. 2024). Per value pluralism, people value nature in diverse and overlapping ways (IPBES 2022), i.e., for both productivist and relational reasons. Therefore, the distinction is defined by which values are prioritised (Chan et al. 2020); e.g., foregrounding RVs over those that are exclusively production-oriented. For example, Martini et al. (2023) found that strengthening ‘human connections through nature’ and ‘sense of place’ supported farmer to farmer extension and agricultural innovations better suited to local context. In this sense, a relational lens could improve production resilience by ensuring practices are not copy-pasted from elsewhere. However, our findings suggest that many productivist framings of RA over emphasise instrumental values and neglect RVs. In contrast, relational RA foregrounds RVs but also embraces value pluralism (and therefore still includes instrumental values). As such, relational RA more fully embodies the ‘relational turn’ also occurring in sustainability science (West et al. 2020). We propose that this productivist-relational distinction is more critical to RAs transformative potential than the widely cited process-outcomes distinction (Newton et al. 2020).

Relational RA also necessitates a mindset shift in how society values nature and agroecosystems (Seymour and Connelly 2023), which is not a prerequisite for productivist RA. This mindset shift is reflected in ‘RVs, general’ where seeing the land differently is akin to adopting a relational paradigm that does not presuppose nature-culture binaries (Walsh et al. 2021). This mindset has been identified as a leverage point for sustainability transformations (O’Brien et al. 2023; West et al. 2020). It is supported by salient articulations of RVs in this review including ‘identity through relationships,’ ‘good life,’ ‘sense of place,’ ‘human connections through nature’ and ‘care.’ These RVs can reinforce intellectual understandings of interconnectedness such as systems thinking (McWherter and Sherren 2024) and deep holism (Gordon et al. 2023), which in turn can reinforce the RVs. However, Marshall et al. (2012) show that whilst ‘sense of place’ and ‘identity through relationships’ may positively contribute to change by attracting necessary resources, e.g., local networks, knowledge, and social capital; they could also act as barriers, e.g., if relocation is required or a farmer’s occupational identity is threatened (Chapman et al. 2019). As such, the context of specific RVs is an important factor in their transformative potential.

A relational mindset can either be sustained or impeded by RA discourse (Gordon et al. 2022). This is evident in ‘RVs, general’ where language that animates and gives agency to nature is identified as a sustaining condition for RVs. Mattijssen et al. (2020) suggest that the uptake of relational language in policy discourse can support RVs being integrated into policies and practices of nature conservation. However, corporations that have been key actors in developing extractive food systems are now positioning themselves as leaders in RA, capitalising on definitional ambiguity and publishing their preferred definitions (Bless 2024). This risks co-optation, where non-adherents to RA appropriate, dilute and reinterpret it for their own political purposes (de Jong and Kimm 2017). Co-optation has implications for how power is distributed in RA and could impact its transformative potential via public perception, certification and labelling, the ability of farmers to adopt, and the cost of RA products and implementation. The productivist-relational distinction can support RA advocates defending against co-optation by highlighting the importance of a relational mindset and subsequent shift in values emphasis. If conceptualisations of RA reflect this shift, they may support the flourishing of actual RVs and contribute to sustainability transformations. Consequently, we have combined our results with transformations and RVs literature to better identify how relational interpretations of RA can be supported.

Checking questions for a more relational and transformative RA

We have developed checking questions (Table 4) for RA advocates to reflexively assess whether key actors are engaged in relational RA. This may include corporations, non-profits, community groups, farmers, governments, academics, and the reader themselves. These questions are intended as a useful tool for considering how RA is being conceptualised and discussed, which has implications for definitions. The first checking question asks: is the interpretation of RA foregrounding reciprocal relationships? This ensures the discourse comes from a relational mindset key to sustainability transformations (O’Brien et al. 2023).

Table 4 Checking questions for the transformative potential of RA
Full size table

Second, is the interpretation of RA reconnecting RVs with regenerative processes? Processes include practices and principles, which Newton et al. (2020) suggest may have a link to RVs. In ‘RVs, general,’ Sands et al. (2023) extend this by demonstrating how Indigenous approaches comprise entangled RVs and regenerative processes. However, even in sustainable agriculture movements these processes have been dismembered from their original cultural values (Layman and Civita 2022). Re-linking regenerative processes with RVs such as ‘care,’ ‘identity through relationship,’ ‘sense of place,’ ‘good life,’ and ‘human connections through nature’ contributes to positive feedbacks that can sustain behaviour change (Gosnell 2022). For example, if most farmers feel a responsibility to care about their land, stewardship practices could contribute to them reimagining the ‘good life,’ thereby activating latent RVs (Chan et al. 2018). Equitable transformations are more likely if actions are connected to values that reinforce the responsibilities involved in human and non-human relationships (Gram-Hanssen et al. 2022).

Third, is the interpretation of RA adaptable to different places and processes? Cusworth et al. (2022) refer to the McDonaldisation of RA – mainstreaming, scaling up, and globalising a single and replicable model of RA. They suggest this risks undermining other transformative approaches that already exist, e.g., agroecology and local food sovereignty initiatives. Since RVs are sustained through actual relationships on the ground (Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp 2023), they should ensure that RA is place-sourced and complementary to other values-aligned movements like agroecology (Leitheiser et al. 2022). Per the salient articulations ‘identity through relationships’ and ‘sense of place,’ relational RA considers outcomes (e.g., carbon sequestration, water infiltration, food sovereignty) that emerge from the unique potential of specific places (Gordon et al. 2022).

Fourth, is the interpretation of RA empowering Indigenous Peoples and acknowledging their contributions? The salient articulation ‘human connections through nature’ demonstrates that regeneration is not apolitical (Buckton et al. 2023). Indigenous Peoples founded many RA processes that are used in settler-colonial landscapes (Sands et al. 2023). RA adherents should consider how Indigenous Peoples benefit from the widespread application of their knowledges and processes, e.g., the repatriation of Indigenous lands and livelihoods (Tuck and Yang 2012). RVs support culturally inclusive policymaking (Himes et al. 2024) and can help transform institutional structures (Gordon et al. 2024; Himes and Dues 2024). This includes reforming colonial policies to enable Indigenous owned and led RA initiatives (Chesnais et al. 2024).

Fifth, is the interpretation of RA empowering local communities? The salient articulation ‘human connections through nature’ demonstrates the role of community empowerment through social cohesion and learning, often via translocal networks (Avelino et al. 2020; Loorbach et al. 2020). Complete corporate control of the food system threatens the resilience of local communities (McKeon 2015). RVs can be strengthened by grassroots movements and the empowerment of these communities (Riechers et al. 2024). For example, giving local people democratic decision-making power in the food system via community supported agriculture (Chaifetz and Jagger 2014). Agroecology foregrounds food sovereignty as a political framework for redistributing power to local communities (Tittonell et al. 2022) and transforming food systems (Mechri et al. 2023). Hes and Rose (2019) demonstrate that RVs were central to the agroecological revolution in Latin America because it was motivated by Indigenous and relational understandings of the world. If lead actors in RA become Global North corporations, this could reduce the transformative potential of RA by drowning out Global South voices reflected in agroecology (Bless et al. 2023).

Sixth, is the interpretation of RA empowering the non-human? As reflected in the salient articulation ‘care,’ a central tenet of regeneration is allowing nature to do the work by returning agency to the ecosystem (Massy 2018). Regeneration includes cycles by which social-ecological systems self-organise and revive themselves after disturbance (Fischer et al. 2024). Life supporting processes (see ‘fuzzy boundaries’) are iteratively renewed through positive reinforcing cycles (Buckton et al. 2023). The salient articulation ‘care’ shows that empowering the non-human is not only relevant to the ecosystem broadly, but also the individual animals in the system. This means promoting good animal welfare, e.g., healthy biological functioning, positive affective states, and highly motivated behaviours (Hargreaves-Méndez and Hötzel 2023). Per ‘fuzzy boundaries,’ including non-human animals in the moral community could facilitate meaningful relationships and RVs.

Applying the checking questions

In Table 5 we briefly assess definitions as one entry point for reflexive consideration of RA. This is an example of how the checking questions could be used, but they are not limited to considering definitions alone. Since productivist framings of RA over emphasise instrumental values, this activity aims to see that multiple types of values are accounted for in RA, not to initiate an either/or dichotomy, e.g., definitions that are relational vs. ones that are productivist. Therefore, this is a “yes, and” activity, e.g., “yes production is important, and so is adaptability to context.” Checking questions have limitations and should not be held too tightly, but they are a useful tool to support reflexive thinking.

Table 5 Review of RA definitions using the checking questions
Full size table

Conclusion

In this review we explored salient articulations of RVs that predominantly exist implicitly in the RA literature. These included (1) Identity through relationships: where RA identities were place-sourced and regeneration inspired a ‘good farmer’ stewardship identity. (2) Good life: where a eudaimonic sense of right livelihood defined RA farmer’s perceptions of the good life. (3) Sense of place: where place reciprocity, embodied knowledge, and multi-sensory observation created a sense of place for RA farmers. (4) Care: where RA farmers felt a responsibility to act on their stewardship values, conceded control over nature to create more reciprocal relationships, contributed to caring cultures, and practiced good animal husbandry. (5) Human connections through nature: where farmer networks encouraged social learning about nature and RVs between people made RA socially responsible.

These salient articulations of RVs had multiple sustaining conditions. Firstly, they may be sustained by a relational mindset and discourse. Secondly, if RVs and RA practices were reconnected, this could create a reciprocal feedback loop for both sustaining RVs in RA and sustaining RA practices through RVs. We also identified the important role of valuing the sustaining conditions for RVs that may be based on intrinsic or instrumental values, e.g., profitability. Similarly, life supporting processes can be valued relationally, instrumentally, and/or intrinsically through RA. All these value types are important avenues for generating transformative change towards sustainability. As such, our findings support calls for value pluralism.

The discussion explored a productivist-relational distinction in RA, which became evident in the literature we reviewed. Both framings include aspects beyond values but productivist RA is associated primarily with instrumental values whereas relational RA foregrounds RVs but embraces value pluralism. As such, relational RA more fully embodies the ‘relational turn’ also occurring in sustainability science. We propose this distinction is more significant to RA’s transformative potential than the process-outcomes distinction. It highlights whether instrumental values are being prioritised to the exclusion of other value types or RVs are being foregrounded as part of a pluralistic recognition of diverse values. We suggest that conceptualisations of RA are more likely to contribute to sustainability transformations if they mobilise the (often latently held) RVs evident in the RA literature. As such, we argue that emphasising relationality at the discursive level might support the emergence and flourishing of actual RVs, which are a leverage point for transformative change. To support this, we developed checking questions for RA advocates to reflexively assess whether key actors are engaged in relational RA (Table 4).

This review can act as a foundation for future empirical studies in this area. The prevalence of RVs in RA literature is likely under representative of how often RVs are tied to actual RA practices. As such, more empirical research on RVs in RA is required. Future research could explore how RVs evolve through time – or how they might change for someone transitioning to RA. There are no studies that compare how RVs in RA differ or align with values held by conventional farmers. It is possible that similar values exist for many farmers, but the ability to act on those values differs, e.g., more institutional barriers exist in conventional agriculture. Finally, the expression of RVs and relational mindsets in institutional and policy settings is vitally important to understanding the transformative potential of RA at a systems level.

We believe RA has potential to inspire a transformative shift in global agriculture but adhering to a relational mindset and RVs empowers that transformative potential. Through RVs, RA can become a path for re-evaluating what it means to be human in systems of agricultural production and environmental stewardship. The meaningful relationships with nature that this inspires is the foundation for a bioculturally diverse and productive agriculture, which can help overcome the converging crises faced today. Thus, it is critically important that RA avoid co-optation that strips away the importance of its relationality. We call on RA academics to keep researching RVs and finding ways to convert that research into real-world shifts in human-nature relations.