EARTH4ALL: DEEP-DIVE PAPER 13 February 2023

Regenerative agriculture for food

security and ecological resilience:
illustrating global biophysical
and social spreading potentials

Jannes Breier* Dieter Gerten

Research associate, Potsdam Institute for Research group leader, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany

Luana Schwarz* Johan Rockström

Research associate, Potsdam Institute Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate
for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany and
Germany and Institute of Environmental Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm
Systems Research, University of University, Stockholm, Sweden
Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

Jonathan F. Donges
Research group leader, Potsdam Institute
for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam,
Germany and Stockholm Resilience Centre,
Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

DOI: 10.48485/pik.2023.001
 Abbreviations:
CA Conservation agriculture RA Regenerative agriculture
CF Conventional farming SES Social–ecological system
CoP Community of practice SI Sustainable intensification
PBs Planetary boundaries

Introduction
Agriculture has been closely interwoven with human development for centuries and is now
a core issue of the Anthropocene. The Neolithic (first agricultural) Revolution, and later the
Green Revolution, transformed nature into a cultivated landscape and decisively shaped social
landscapes, thus creating the basis for our modern society.

The Green Revolution in the 1950s and 1960s led to a significant increase in productivity
through modern machinery, artificial fertilisers and highly bred crop varieties (Evenson &
Gollin, 2003). At the same time, the impact on the environment, including on soils, water quality
and biodiversity, has often been neglected. As the world’s population and the demand for
agricultural products is growing further, the environmental impacts are not only becoming more
acute, but also have long-term implications for food security itself. Global food systems will
remain highly dependent on ecosystem services and abiotic factors, some of which are also
changing for the worse, most notably climate (Foley et al., 2005; Wheeler & von Braun, 2013).

The planetary boundaries (PBs) framework (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) provides
a coherent global-scale reference system to quantify the overall influence of these environmental
impacts on the Earth system and on human societies. It defines boundaries for nine Earth system
processes – among them climate change, freshwater use, land-system change and changes in
biogeochemical flows such as nitrogen and biosphere integrity – which together demarcate a
Holocene-like Earth status. The underlying normative, precautionary principle of the framework
is that the PBs should not be transgressed. Otherwise, we threaten the safe operating space for
humanity, and risk tipping the Earth onto a trajectory that departs significantly from Holocene
conditions (which have enabled the emergence and sustenance of a human civilisation with
billions of people) to minimise the risk of large-scale disruptions and destabilisation of our planet.

Modern practices of conventional farming (CF) are placing increasing pressure on many of
the PBs; indeed, agriculture is the main driver of current PB transgressions (Campbell et
al., 2017; Gerten et al., 2020). For example, CF practices compromise the integrity of the
(terrestrial) biosphere through the cultivation of large monocultures and invasive tillage.
Degradation of soils and other resources, such as freshwater influenced by nutrient leaching,
leads to changes in the natural flow regime of rivers. Processes such as water extraction
for irrigation of agricultural land have serious consequences for the aquatic and adjacent
terrestrial ecosystems (Gerten et al., 2013), and represent transgressions of the freshwater

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 2
 PB. Agricultural practices can also adversely affect the status of the freshwater PB through
changes in soil moisture. Tillage and soil degradation lead to a constant reduction in soil water-
holding capacity and net losses in root-zone soil moisture (Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2022).

Moreover, the widespread introduction of artificial fertilisers

into a previously balanced nutrient cycle has greatly changed
It is essential to cultural and natural landscapes, with negative consequences for
biodiversity, the climate (contributing to climate change through
increase productivity greenhouse gas emissions) and soil and water quality (Baessler &
on the already existing Klotz, 2006; Foley et al., 2005).

agricultural land – to A further terrestrial PB directly affected by agricultural practices

is land-system change, via conversion of natural areas into
ensure food security arable land at the cost of large contiguous ecosystems that are
important for many functions of the Earth system. To stay within
while not putting Earth this and the other PBs, and to potentially reverse its current
stability at further risk transgression, it is essential to increase productivity on the
already existing agricultural land – to ensure food security while
not putting Earth stability at further risk (Campbell et al., 2017).

In this article, we provide a preliminary analysis of the potential effects on soil ecology and
crop yield of a global-scale transition to regenerative agriculture. Previous analyses have
only focused on the biophysical potential of resource-efficient measures for increasing global
agricultural production (Gerten et al., 2020; Springmann et al., 2018). Here, we quantitatively
and conceptually advance the field by also considering potential social spreading dynamics
that actually determine whether – and to what extent – farmers would adopt such practices.
Although 11% of the world’s population are farmers, agriculture does not provide a good/stable
livelihood for many. Economically, farmers are often dependent on government subsidies and
have fluctuating incomes. This is due to numerous factors, such as the high cost of fertilisers,
dependence on certain types of grains and unstable markets for their produce. In some
regions, changing climatic conditions are altering the farmers’ environment to the extent that
they must abandon their land because the soils are no longer fertile enough to be viable.

Sustainable agriculture
To overcome the negative consequences of conventional farming, alternative approaches have
arisen in recent decades. These are often subsumed under the term sustainable agriculture,
defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as “ ... the management and
conservation of the natural resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional
change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human
needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development ... conserves land,
water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically
appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable” (FAO, 1989, p. 65).

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 3
 Various approaches have been developed and implemented to achieve this transformation (Oberč
& Arroyo Schnell, 2020). One established approach is conservation agriculture (CA), which has
its roots in conservation tillage as a solution that emerged from the “Dust Bowl” that affected US
and Canadian prairies in the 1930s (Hobbs, 2007). In the 1970s and 1980s, this approach was
complemented by the practice of intercropping and crop rotations and has been employed widely
under the label CA since the 1990s. The FAO highlights three key principles of CA:

ƒ Minimisation of soil disturbances

ƒ Enhancement or maintenance of a protective organic cover
ƒ Cultivation of a wide range of plant species (FAO, 2011).
Over the years, CA has proved capable of halting and even reversing soil degradation, thus
regenerating soil quality. Due to its historical origins in North and South America, CA is already
widespread in these regions, while in Europe it is still mainly a niche activity. Part of the reason for
this are the high upfront costs: converting land to CA is expensive, so are the required machines,
so it must be possible to amortise the investment accordingly. In addition, yields are sometimes
lower in the first few years and will only improve if certain conditions are available (Pittelkow et al.,
2015). For decades, subsidies have helped farmers in the United States to implement CA.

Nevertheless, CA has a number of advantages, such as the reduction of machinery use with
savings especially in fuel consumption, the reduced use of expensive artificial fertiliser, and the
higher resilience of CA to anthropogenic climate change compared with CF (Michler et al., 2019).
An intelligent application of CA’s three core principles can also reduce the use of pesticides and
herbicides; in particular, the right choice of cover and crop rotations plays a decisive role (Nichols
et al., 2015; Pretty et al., 2006). Through these positive effects, CA can potentially reduce the
strains on different PBs, especially those for freshwater and biogeochemical flows.

CA forms a basis for many other sustainable agriculture approaches, as does regenerative
agriculture (RA), which was developed in the 1980s and shares CA’s principles for soil health.
For instance, RA is also strict about the use of pesticides and herbicides, both of which are
kept to a minimum. Where RA diverges is its broader focus on increasing biodiversity in general
and creating a closed nutrient cycle in combination with livestock management at farm level. It
includes additional approaches such as manure composting, rotational grazing and silvopasture
in grassland management (Smith et al., 2021). In practice, RA and CA involve similar cropping
systems and the terms are often used interchangeably. Some scholars and practitioners
additionally ascribe a social dimension to RA (Müller, 2020). Some of the more holistic
regenerative approaches transcend soil regeneration and additionally aim at “regenerating”
the social aspects related to agriculture. For example, in terms of good livelihoods, social
relationships and stable incomes (LaCanne & Lundgren, 2018), future perspectives, and (re)
building human–nature relationships (E. Gordon et al., 2022; Hes & Rose, 2019).

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 4
 Social mechanisms of a land-use transformation
Agricultural systems are intrinsically social–ecological (L. J. Gordon et al., 2017; Meyfroidt,
2013). That is why a transformation towards agricultural systems respecting PBs while
supporting livelihoods cannot be understood and enabled without considering the deeper
societal processes driving the change. Developments in the emerging and transdisciplinary
field of “transition studies” address the question of how such profound change can come into
being (Holtz et al., 2015; Olsson & Galaz, 2012; Walker et al., 2004). Within the sub-field of
land system transitions, scholars have highlighted the broad variety of drivers in additional to
economic dynamics (Burton et al., 2020; Dessart et al., 2019; Maybery et al., 2005). While
economic elements are certainly important, we focus on social contagion, social learning
and social tipping points. We deem this to be a relevant lens for understanding diverse
characteristics of transformative change (Conley & Christopher, 2001; Schneider et al., 2009).

Social contagion is a concept that helps to understand the phenomenon of novel practices,
behaviours, opinions or ideas spreading in social networks (Lehmann & Ahn, 2018; Tsvetkova
& Macy, 2014). It originates in the “theory of diffusion of innovations” postulated by Everett
Rogers (1962), and in modern applications encompasses diverse forms of interaction-based
contagion processes (Peres et al., 2010). Rogers described the agents picking up a novel trait
in early stages as the system’s “innovators” and “early adopters”. During a social contagion
process, a certain trait, for example regenerative farming behaviour, is passed from these “early
acting agents” to another agent in one’s social network (to a certain probability, depending on
their susceptibility). Scholars distinguish between simple and complex contagion; while both
can be helpful for understanding such processes, the adoption of RA cannot be expected to
spread like a virus or a piece of information, as a simple contagion process would suggest
(Centola & Macy, 2007). The adoption of novel opinions and behaviour is better understood
as complex contagion, implying the necessity of several interactions with novel practices for
behavioural change (Kitzmann et al., 2022), such as via continuous interactions with one’s
social environment, or in social learning contexts.

There is ample evidence that individuals tend to coordinate with others or to conform to the social
norms that are prevalent in the social groups and networks they are associated with (Bicchieri,
2016; Centola et al., 2018; Farrow et al., 2017; Nyborg et al., 2016). Conformity to social norms
has many underlying mechanisms. It may be driven by fear of sanctions or a desire to do what
is socially acceptable, perceived benefits to coordinating with others, and information implicit in
social norms about what works or what is appropriate in certain contexts.

Social learning describes a class of related mechanisms that can be seen as the foundation of
social contagion processes (Reed et al., 2010). For example, imitation of a successful strategy
or practice can be classified as a form of “single-loop learning”: a process of behavioural change
and improvement of action strategies with the aim to reach better outcomes, without necessarily
challenging underlying assumptions, concepts, theories or value systems on the basis of which
a given decision was made (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). In the context of RA, this could manifest as
the adoption of RA practices to increase farm profitability through carbon capture credits or
payments for ecosystem services. In contrast, behavioural changes driven by changes more
deeply anchored in individual value systems can be conceptualised as double- and triple-loop
learning processes (Gupta, 2016).

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 5
 Double-loop learning involves questioning variables, such as underlying goals, assumptions,
problem framing, and individual priorities. For instance, this could be an action taken by a farmer
who has asked themselves: do I want my agricultural practices geared towards maximising yields,
or building up humus for healthier soils? In a triple-loop learning process, a learner proceeds one
step further and additionally questions values and normative beliefs underlying those factors,
which in turn can lead to an adjustment of one’s world views (Tosey et al., 2012). Therefore,
triple-loop learning has the potential to alter human–nature relationships at a deep level, as
well as reshape the “reference framework” considered when laying out an action strategy. A
sense of deeper connectedness with one’s land, as sketched in the concept of “environmental
stewardship”, can be regarded as an outcome of a triple-loop learning process and act as a
foundation for novel land-use decisions. Individually held values regarding a given farming
practice have been found to impact land-use style (Dessart et al., 2019; Gosnell et al., 2019).
Value shifts can be facilitated through networks and group contexts, such as farmer communities
of practice (CoPs) like Costa Rica Regenerativa or the Climate Farmers.

Learning processes can take place locally and non-locally. Direct exposure to a novel farming
system (e.g., by means of a neighbouring farm) can be the decisive factor (Schneider et al.,
2009), but geographical proximity is not a necessary precondition for learning to take place. For
example, CoPs can act as social networks connecting farmers and thereby providing learning
spaces non-locally (Conley & Christopher, 2001; Morgan, 2011; Wenger, 1998). Another example
is the influence that family members living abroad can have on a farmer’s decisions, which is
observed in Laos where Laotian relatives living in the diaspora had a decisive impact on rubber
tree adoption in their original homeland (Junquera et al., 2020). Social learning processes have
the potential to shape the learning environment, and could consequently have an impact on the
social fabric of institutions, practices and norms. In turn, this deep impact could be an important
accelerator for social tipping points.

Social tipping points can be critical levers within a social system as, when systematically targeted
through certain interventions, they could trigger rapid social transitions (Otto et al., 2020;
Winkelmann et al., 2022). On the one hand, purely social or socioeconomic tipping points can be
identified (Doyle et al., 2016); same-sex marriage acceptance or the condemnation of smoking
in public places are examples (Nyborg et al., 2016). On the other hand, within social–ecological
systems research, there is the additional criterion of social shifts being linked to change in the
ecological system (Milkoreit et al., 2018). Climate change mitigation has to date been at the
centre of social tipping point research (Otto et al., 2020); however, the concept has also been
applied to agricultural transitions (Smith et al., 2021).

Taken together, the concepts of social contagion, social learning and social tipping processes
create a perspective of well-documented and well-investigated societal transition dynamics.
They offer new ways of thinking about how agricultural systems could be transformed to more
sustainable and regenerative approaches – at individual, societal and even global levels. Such
concepts complement the purely biophysical aspects of transitions, by considering the social
dynamics that could drive their implementation in the real world.

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 6
 Simulating a giant leap in agriculture
Following Earth4All’s overall transformative Giant Leap scenario (Dixson-Decleve et al., 2022),
rapid change is needed, especially in agriculture, to transform the current mostly conventional
farming systems into sustainable ones. To restore soil health and maintain food security in a
rapidly changing global climate, measures such as those described in that scenario must be
implemented quickly. Dietary habits can adapt comparatively quickly following changing social
norms, while equilibrium processes in the biosphere, especially plant–soil interactions, can take
comparatively long periods of time as a result of changes in agricultural management (Herzfeld et
al., 2021a). Here, we simulate an idealised global transition, analogously referred to as the Giant
Leap, parameterised as a step change within one year (2022) from CF to RA, assuming that RA
practices are applied worldwide immediately (see Table 1). Our study uses the dynamic global
vegetation and crop model LPJmL (Schaphoff et al., 2018; von Bloh et al., 2018). This preliminary
analysis aims to roughly indicate the biophysical potential of a transition to RA in reducing the
anthropogenic pressure on the terrestrial PBs that are being transgressed due to widespread
conventional agricultural practices. The study extends an earlier analysis (involving a previous
version of LPJmL) that showed how efforts to sustainably intensify agriculture can feed a global
population of 10 billion within the PBs (Gerten et al., 2020). New features and management
options enable us to focus attention on soil health and its wider implications for ecosystem
resilience and food security (Lutz et al., 2019; Porwollik et al., 2021). Table 1 summarises the
options relating to tillage, residue removal and crop covering within the Too Little Too Late and
Giant Leap scenarios. Future climate change is not considered; instead, the last 10 years of
climate inputs up to 2019 are repeated until 2035, as additional climate change would amplify
several impacts and include additional feedbacks, making it difficult to assign to the underlying
problem in each case (Herzfeld et al., 2021b).

Scenario Timespan Tillage Crop residue Cover Climate

(years) management cropping scenario

Too Little 1901–2035 Conventional Residue No cover No additional

Too Late tillage removal cropping future climate
forcing

Giant 2022–2035 No tillage No residue Cover No additional

Leap removal cropping future climate
forcing

Table 1. The Too Little Too Late and Giant Leap scenarios simulated by LPJmL, with the Giant Leap diverting from
Too Little Too Late in 2022 with a global transition to RA with the listed measures.

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 7
 Biophysical effects of regenerative agriculture
One effect seen in the model is that soil evaporation quickly decreases when soil cover by
plant litter increases after harvest. Soils contain higher moisture levels, including root-zone soil
moisture – making more water available to the plants. Transpiration also increases in many areas
as a result of water uptake, and the rates are even higher when crops are cultivated in given
areas. The net impact on soil moisture therefore varies depending on the prevailing conditions
in any given region, though most regions do see higher plant-available soil moisture. On a
global scale we find a net increase in root-zone soil moisture of about 4.3% on all land in the
Giant Leap compared with Too Little Too Late. This makes conservation agriculture a suitable
countermeasure in regions where transgressions in the Green Water PB in terms of dry baseline
departures can be observed (Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2022).

Figure 1. Evaporation and transpiration flux changes (in %) and corresponding

difference in the root-zone soil moisture on agricultural land of the Giant Leap over
Too Little Too Late for simulation year 2035, simulated by LPJmL.

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 8
 In addition to water fluxes, carbon fluxes are also simulated to change considerably. The
assumed constant soil cover and absence of any soil turnover leaves soil less exposed to the
atmosphere, whereby less carbon is oxidised and thus emitted as CO2. The additional crop
residue/litter biomass shifts the balance of soil carbon processes in favour of a temporary
accumulation of soil organic carbon.

As a result, the soil carbon stocks start to increase already in the first years after the simulated
global transition to RA compared with Too Little Too Late. Increases are especially pronounced
in the tropics as well as in presently intensively farmed areas such as the eastern United States,
India or Eastern China as shown for the year 2035 (with constant climate) in Figure 2. Already
by 2035, after 13 simulation years in our stylised experiment, cumulative carbon sequestration
would thus reach a global total of about 26 GtC in the Giant Leap scenario.

Figure 2. Soil carbon increase on agricultural land of the Giant Leap over Too Little Too Late for the year 2035.

An increase in the amount of soil carbon has several effects on the soil. It is an indicator for the
increase of micro- and macro-organisms in the soil, and for the general increase of the water-
holding capacity (as an additional benefit for a net increase in root-zone soil moisture) and the
fertility of the soil (Stockmann et al., 2013). Soil biodiversity increases thanks to the undisturbed
natural soil structure and the long-term naturally grown soil organic matter under no-till
conditions (Palm et al., 2014). Ecological resilience increases via the interplay of these factors,
especially in the face of climate change (Michler et al., 2019).

Boosting soil fertility is a key to compensating for the negative yield effects of not tilling the soil,
especially within the first years and in humid regions. Figure 3 shows that high yield increases are
simulated to occur mainly in drier regions where water is scarce and therefore reducing evaporation
has a great benefit. Even though these simulations do not take into account the far-reaching
impacts of climate change, it can be expected that a more resilient land-use system will perform
better under more extreme climate conditions (Herzfeld et al., 2021b; Jägermeyr et al., 2016).

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 9
 In the Giant Leap some tropical regions show a negative effect on the yield where water-saving
effects play a minor role and fertilisation is historically low, which is also in line with findings in
other studies (Cusser et al., 2020). Cover crops in LPJmL are currently parameterised only as
catch crops, that rather take up nitrogen instead of fixing additional nitrogen and passing it on
to the main crops in mineralised form during decomposition, which is why positive effects from
green manure might be underestimated in the simulations. Positive effects could be achieved by
fixing additional atmospheric nitrogen and making it plant available in the beginning of the main
season, which the current cover crop implementation does not simulate. Nevertheless, the overall
global effect is positive with a net yield increase of about 5%, mainly due to the increases in dry
areas such as the western United States, Spain or South Africa indicating that RA has a higher
resilience to drought stresses potentially triggered by climate change.

Figure 3. Simulated yield changes in the Giant Leap compared with Too Little Too Late for 2035.

Social spreading dynamics – conceptualising how a

turnaround to regenerative agriculture could unfold
The above spatially detailed – if highly hypothetic – modelling results draw a promising picture
of the large potential that could be unlocked with a widespread transformation of existing,
conventional agricultural practices towards RA systems. However, as in many previous scenarios
without explicit representation of social dynamics, they assume an immediate, worldwide “Giant
Leap switch” whereby every farmer in the world would adopt RA practices irrespective of their
current technological, economic, social and political setting. In reality, these transformations
would be driven by social-cultural-political-economic dynamics, which evolve over time. They can
be partly conceptualised (and eventually quantified) by the concepts of social contagion, learning
and tipping points described above.

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 10
 There are certain world regions, mainly in the Americas, where CA as a practice is already
widely accepted as a social norm in agriculture (see Figure 4). These regions, depicted in light
green, can act as seeds of change, i.e. as pioneering places of social contagion and diffusion of
innovation, from which RA can spread to other regions and farmers.

Areas with CA-favourable conditions CA current spread

Figure 4. The yellow colours show areas in which the conditions for RA are favourable, and that have
therefore been assessed as having a high likelihood for RA adoption. These conditions are based both
on biophysical (humidity, crop types, water erosion) and social-ecological (farmer field size and income)
factors. Spatial information of the conditions illustrated here stem from Porwollik et al. (2021).

Figure 5. Adjacent areas of CA-dominated localities that have a high likelihood of CA adoption
through local learning processes (purple, with curved arrows), areas potentially subject to CA
adoption through to non-local spreading processes (pink, with dashed arrows). Both trends for
illustrative purposes only. The arrows indicate the direction of spread for selected examples.

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 11
 The purple areas in Figure 5 depict neighbouring regions of current RA-dominated areas with
supportive conditions for RA (i.e. yellow-zone regions that have borders with green zones).
These purple-coloured areas are candidates for the adoption of RA through local spreading
and contagion processes, such as social norm compliance-driven imitation or experimental
social learning, for example by visiting neighbouring farms and witnessing the feasibility and
advantages of RA first hand.

The pink colour in Figure 5 highlights that such spreading processes are not only limited to
happening locally between neighbouring farms, but can also take place in a region or over even
larger scales. They highlight examples of where RA could spread through non-local processes
and social networks. International organisations and social farmer networks/CoPs provide non-
locally bound spaces for exchange and social learning, and therefore non-local spreading of
RA. Both purple and pink areas are illustrations of possible spreading outcomes through local
and non-local mechanisms. They are not underpinned by spatially resolved empirical data but
illustrate the spreading potential based on case studies and the theories of change introduced
above.

One example for both local and regional spreading processes is seen in West Africa, facilitated by
Warc, an organisation with agricultural production and consulting services. Beginning operations
of RA in Sierra Leone, the Warc group quickly won over more smallholder farmers in the region
through extension programmes. Now, they operate over 5,000 ha in Sierra Leone and Ghana in
cooperation with over 1,000 smallholder farmers. The success of the system strengthens their
appeal: in Sierra Leone, they managed to sustain productive farming seasons without irrigation,
using mainly crop-rotations and minimal soil disturbance. Other comparable organisations
are the Rodale Institute and the Savory Institute (2022), which
have worldwide regional hubs and offer training, workshops and
extensionist services. Networks such as the Climate Farmers and
If the system is ripe for Costa Rica Regenerativa have a similar approach, but put a special
emphasis on connecting regenerative farmers and farms that
change, the regenerative already exist.

agriculture movement The concepts introduced in this article can help RA to spread
through a variety of processes. To gain momentum over a larger
can potentially reach scale, the transition also requires support from the surrounding
a social tipping point, conditions. For instance, it depends on the farmers’ political and
institutional embeddedness, public opinion and the economic
which could accelerate situation, and it might also be triggered by landscape-level system
widespread system shocks such as the aforementioned Dust Bowl. If the system is
ripe for change, the RA movement can potentially reach a social
change in agriculture tipping point, which could accelerate widespread system change in
agriculture – even beyond that provisionally illustrated in Figures 4
and 5 (Smith/Donges et al., in prep).

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 12
 We aim to represent these different spreading processes using a model that links LPJmL
(simulating biophysical changes and potentials as shown above) to an agent-based model of
farmer social dynamics using the copan:CORE framework (Donges et al., 2020). Within the
model, farmers are the agents of change, with an option of practising RA or CF, based on
observing their neighbours’ strategies, interacting with them and learning from them according to
the different (alternative) spreading principles presented above. LPJmL subsequently calculates
how harvests and biophysical conditions will change at each site, and whether and to what
extent farmers’ choices will help to maintain local and global planetary boundaries. These
results finally inform farmers’ decision-making simulated in the agent-based model. This coupled
modelling investigates spreading and adoption dynamics of RA beyond theoretical and qualitative
foundations, and will complement the pure biophysical assessments of hypothetical potentials
found in earlier global simulation studies (Gerten et al., 2020). Such assessments are central to
operationalising knowledge about the benefits of RA systems and applying it to the real world.

Conclusion
In this deep dive, we have illustrated the potential of RA to address some of
the most urgent challenges of our time in social–ecological land systems.
Restoring and conserving healthy soils and creating resilient farming systems
to provide food security, while adapting to climate change impacts such as
droughts and extreme weather events, are central to a global food systems
turnaround. Extending from the biophysical analysis, we also highlight the
importance of social dynamics relating to the adoption of RA, and we lay out
the potential of social contagion, social learning and social tipping points for
a widespread land-use transformation. Finally, we stress the need to provide
enabling conditions for RA practices to spread effectively.
In reality, the surrounding factors and conditions can also prove to be
obstacles to such transformations: elements such as economic, institutional
and political constraints, and distorted power structures manifested, for
example, in a strong lobby of large conventional agri-food corporations, can
hinder far-reaching transformative change. The potential of social diffusion
processes thus depends on the institutional, political and economic climate
in which they unfold. For this reason, the drivers of change are clearly not
limited to farmers and their individual learning processes, but are distributed
across individual actors and larger structures, which consequently also bear
significant responsibility for supporting such transition processes.

Regenerative agriculture for food security and ecological resilience: illustrating global biophysical and social spreading potentials / earth4all.life / 13
References
Baessler, C., & Klotz, S. (2006). Donges, J. F., Heitzig, J., Barfuss, W., Gordon, E., Davila, F., & Riedy, C.
Effects of changes in agricultural Wiedermann, M., Kassel, J. A., Kittel, T., (2022). Transforming landscapes and
land-use on landscape structure and Kolb, J. J., Kolster, T., Müller-Hansen, mindscapes through regenerative
arable weed vegetation over the last F., Otto, I. M., Zimmerer, K. B., & Lucht, agriculture. Agriculture and Human
50 years. Agriculture, Ecosystems & W. (2020). Earth system modeling Values, 39(2), 809–826. https://doi.
Environment, 115(1), 43–50. https://doi. with endogenous and dynamic human org/10.1007/s10460-021-10276-0
org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.12.007 societies: The copan:CORE open
World–Earth modeling framework. Gordon, L. J., Bignet, V., Crona, B.,
Bicchieri, C. (2016). Norms in the Earth System Dynamics, 11(2), 395– Henriksson, P. J. G., Holt, T. V., Jonell,
Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, 413. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11- M., Lindahl, T., Troell, M., Barthel,
and Change Social Norms. Oxford 395-2020 S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., Haider,
University Press. L. J., Rockström, J., & Queiroz, C.
Doyle, C., Sreenivasan, S., Szymanski, (2017). Rewiring food systems to
Burton, R. J. F., Forney, J., Stock, P., B. K., & Korniss, G. (2016). Social enhance human health and biosphere
& Sutherland, L.-A. (2020). The Good consensus and tipping points with stewardship. Environmental Research
Farmer: Culture and Identity in Food opinion inertia. Physica A: Statistical Letters, 12(10), 100201. https://doi.
and Agriculture. Routledge. https://doi. Mechanics and Its Applications, 443, org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa81dc
org/10.4324/9781315190655 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
physa.2015.09.081 Gosnell, H., Gill, N., & Voyer, M.
Campbell, B. M., Beare, D. J., Bennett, (2019). Transformational adaptation
E. M., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Ingram, J. S. Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). on the farm: Processes of change and
I., Jaramillo, F., Ortiz, R., Ramankutty, Assessing the impact of the Green persistence in transitions to ‘climate-
N., Sayer, J. A., & Shindell, D. (2017). Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, smart’ regenerative agriculture.
Agriculture production as a major 300(5620), 758–762. https://doi. Global Environmental Change, 59,
driver of the Earth system exceeding org/10.1126/science.1078710 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
planetary boundaries. Ecology and gloenvcha.2019.101965
Society, 22(4). https://www.jstor.org/ FAO. (1989). The State of Food and
stable/26798991 Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Gupta, J. (2016). Climate change
Organization of the United Nations. governance: History, future, and triple-
Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & https://www.fao.org/3/t0162e/t01 loop learning? WIREs Climate Change,
Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental 62e.pdf 7(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/
evidence for tipping points in social wcc.388
convention. Science (New York, N.Y.), FAO. (2011). Save and Grow. A
360(6393), 1116–1119. https://doi. Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Herzfeld, T., Heinke, J., Rolinski, S., &
org/10.1126/science.aas8827 Intensification of Smallholder Crop Müller, C. (2021a). Soil organic carbon
Production. Rome (Italy) FAO. dynamics from agricultural management
Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2215e/ practices under climate change. Earth
Complex contagions and the weakness i2215e00.htm System Dynamics, 12(4), 1037–1055.
of long ties. American Journal of https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1037-
Sociology, 113(3), 702–734. Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1086/521848 L. (2017). Social norms and pro-
environmental behavior: A review of Herzfeld, T., Heinke, J., Rolinski, S., &
Conley, T., & Christopher, U. (2001). the evidence. Ecological Economics, Müller, C. (2021b). Soil organic carbon
Social learning through networks: 140, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dynamics from agricultural management
The adoption of new agricultural ecolecon.2017.04.017 practices under climate change. Earth
technologies in Ghana. American System Dynamics, 12(4), 1037–1055.
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1037-
83(3), 668–673. https://doi. Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., 2021
org/10.1111/0002-9092.00188 Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C.,
Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, Hes, D., & Rose, N. (2019). Shifting
Cusser, S., Bahlai, C., Swinton, S. T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., from farming to tending the
M., Robertson, G. P., & Haddad, N. M. Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C., earth: A discussion paper. 21.
(2020). Long-term research avoids Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. K. (2005). https://www.researchgate.net/
spurious and misleading trends in Global consequences of land use. publication/335441282_Shifting_from_
sustainability attributes of no-till. Global Science, 309(5734), 570–574. farming_to_tending_the_earth_A_
Change Biology, 26(6), 3715–3725. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 discussion_paper
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15080
Gerten, D., Heck, V., Jägermeyr, J., Hobbs, P. R. (2007). Conservation
Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & van Bodirsky, B. L., Fetzer, I., Jalava, M., agriculture: What is it and why is it
Bavel, R. (2019). Behavioural factors Kummu, M., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., important for future sustainable food
affecting the adoption of sustainable Schaphoff, S., & Schellnhuber, H. J. production? The Journal of Agricultural
farming practices: A policy-oriented (2020). Feeding ten billion people is Science, 145(2), 127. https://doi.
review. European Review of Agricultural possible within four terrestrial planetary org/10.1017/S0021859607006892
Economics, 46(3), 417–471. boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 3(3),
https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Holtz, G., Alkemade, F., de Haan, F.,
s41893-019-0465-1 Köhler, J., Trutnevyte, E., Luthe, T.,
Dixson-Decleve, S., Gaffney, O., Halbe, J., Papachristos, G., Chappin,
Ghosh, J., Randers, J., Rockstrom, J., Gerten, D., Hoff, H., Rockström, J., E., Kwakkel, J., & Ruutu, S. (2015).
& Stoknes, P. E. (2022). Earth for All: Jägermeyr, J., Kummu, M., & Pastor, Prospects of modelling societal
A Survival Guide for Humanity. New A. V. (2013). Towards a revised transitions: Position paper of an
Society Publishers. planetary boundary for consumptive emerging community. Environmental
freshwater use: Role of environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
flow requirements. Current Opinion 17, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), eist.2015.05.006
551–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.11.001
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, Milkoreit, M., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J., Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H.,
S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W., & Rockström, Benessaiah, K., Calderón-Contreras, R., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L., & Grace,
J. (2016). Integrated crop water Donges, J. F., Mathias, J.-D., Rocha, J. P. (2014). Conservation agriculture
management might sustainably halve C., Schoon, M., & Werners, S. E. (2018). and ecosystem services: An
the global food gap. Environmental Defining tipping points for social- overview. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Research Letters, 11(2), 025002. ecological systems scholarship—An Environment, 187, 87–105. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- interdisciplinary literature review. org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010
9326/11/2/025002 Environmental Research Letters, 13(3),
033005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- Peres, R., Muller, E., & Mahajan, V.
Junquera, V., Meyfroidt, P., Sun, Z., 9326/aaaa75 (2010). Innovation diffusion and new
Latthachack, P., & Grêt-Regamey, A. product growth models: A critical review
(2020). From global drivers to local Morgan, S. L. (2011). Social learning and research directions. International
land-use change: Understanding among organic farmers and the Journal of Research in Marketing,
the northern Laos rubber boom. application of the Communities of 27(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environmental Science & Policy, 109, Practice Framework. The Journal of ijresmar.2009.12.012
103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Agricultural Education and Extension,
envsci.2020.04.013 17(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 Pittelkow, C. M., Linquist, B. A., Lundy,
389224X.2011.536362 M. E., Liang, X., van Groenigen, K. J.,
Kitzmann, N. H., Romanczuk, P., Lee, J., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea,
Wunderling, N., & Donges, J. F. (2022). Müller, E. (2020). Regenerative R. T., & van Kessel, C. (2015). When
Detecting contagious spreading of development as natural solution for does no-till yield more? A global meta-
urban innovations on the global city sustainability. The Elgar Companion analysis. Field Crops Research, 183,
network. The European Physical to Geography, Transdisciplinarity and 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal Special Topics, 231(9), 1609– Sustainability, 201–218. https://doi. fcr.2015.07.020
1624. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/ org/10.4337/9781786430106.00021
s11734-022-00470-4 Porwollik, V., Rolinski, S., Heinke, J.,
Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R., & von Bloh, W., Schaphoff, S., & Müller,
LaCanne, C. E., & Lundgren, J. G. Govaerts, B. (2015). Weed dynamics C. (2021). The role of cover crops
(2018). Regenerative agriculture: and conservation agriculture principles: for cropland soil carbon, nitrogen
Merging farming and natural resource A review. Field Crops Research, 183, leaching, and agricultural yields – A
conservation profitably. PeerJ, 6, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. global simulation study with LPJmL
e4428. https://doi.org/10.7717/ fcr.2015.07.012 (V. 5.0-tillage-cc). Biogeosciences
peerj.4428 Discussions, 1–24.
Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-215
Lehmann, S., & Ahn, Y.Y. (2018). Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C.,
Complex Spreading Phenomena in Schlüter, M., Adger, W. N., Arrow, K. Pretty, J. N., Noble, A. D., Bossio, D.,
Social Systems. Springer. https://link. J., Barrett, S., Carpenter, S., Chapin, Dixon, J., Hine, R. E., Penning de Vries,
springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3- F. S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, F. W. T., & Morison, J. I. L. (2006).
319-77332-2 P., Folke, C., Jager, W., Kautsky, N., Resource-conserving agriculture
Levin, S. A., Madsen, O. J., … de Zeeuw, increases yields in developing
Lutz, F., Herzfeld, T., Heinke, J., A. (2016). Social norms as solutions. countries. Environmental Science &
Rolinski, S., Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Science, 354(6308), 42–43. Technology, 40(4), 1114–1119.
Stoorvogel, J. J., & Müller, C. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8317 https://doi.org/10.1021/es051670d
Simulating the effect of tillage practices
with the global ecosystem model LPJmL Oberč, B. P., & Arroyo Schnell, A. Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G.,
(version 5.0-tillage). Geoscientific (2020). Approaches to Sustainable Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig,
Model Development, 12(6), 2419–2440. Agriculture. IUCN. https://doi. J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C.,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2419- org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.07.en & Stringer, L. C. (2010). What is social
2019 learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Olsson, P., & Galaz, V. (2012). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268235
Maybery, D., Crase, L., & Gullifer, C. Social-Ecological Innovation and
(2005). Categorising farming values as Transformation. In A. Nicholls & A. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K.,
economic, conservation and lifestyle. Murdock (Eds.), Social Innovation: Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E.
Journal of Economic Psychology, Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke,
26(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Markets (pp. 223–247). Palgrave C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de
joep.2003.10.001 Macmillan UK. https://doi. Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw,
org/10.1057/9780230367098_10 S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K.,
Meyfroidt, P. (2013). Environmental Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J.
cognitions, land change, and social– Otto, I. M., Donges, J. F., Cremades, A. (2009). A safe operating space for
ecological feedbacks: An overview. R., Bhowmik, A., Hewitt, R. J., Lucht, humanity. Nature, 461(7263), Article
Journal of Land Use Science, 8(3), W., Rockström, J., Allerberger, F., 7263. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
341–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474 McCaffrey, M., Doe, S. S. P., Lenferna,
23X.2012.667452 A., Morán, N., van Vuuren, D. P., & Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of
Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Social Innovations, 5th Edition (2003).
Michler, J. D., Baylis, K., Arends- tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s Simon and Schuster. https://www.
Kuenning, M., & Mazvimavi, K. (2019). climate by 2050. Proceedings of the simonandschuster.com/books/
Conservation agriculture and climate National Academy of Sciences, 117(5), Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/
resilience. Journal of Environmental 2354–2365. https://doi.org/10.1073/ Everett-M-Rogers/9780743258234
Economics and Management, 93, pnas.1900577117
148–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Savory Institute. (2022). Savory
jeem.2018.11.008 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual Institute - Support Holistic Management
framework for analysing adaptive & Regenerative Agriculture.
capacity and multi-level learning https://savory.global/
processes in resource governance
regimes. Global Environmental
Change, 19(3), 354–365. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Rammig, Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter,
A., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience,
M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, adaptability and transformability in
J., Knauer, J., Langerwisch, F., Lucht, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, social–ecological systems. Ecology and
W., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., & Waha, K. D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, Society, 9(2). https://www.jstor.org/
(2018). LPJmL4 – a dynamic global L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & stable/26267673
vegetation model with managed land – Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries:
Part 1: Model description. Geoscientific Guiding human development on a Wang-Erlandsson, L., Tobian, A., van
Model Development, 11(4), 1343–1375. changing planet. Science, 347(6223), der Ent, R. J., Fetzer, I., te Wierik, S.,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343- 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/ Porkka, M., Staal, A., Jaramillo, F.,
2018 science.1259855 Dahlmann, H., Singh, C., Greve, P.,
Gerten, D., Keys, P. W., Gleeson, T.,
Schneider, F., Fry, P., Ledermann, Stockmann, U., Adams, M. A., Crawford, Cornell, S. E., Steffen, W., Bai, X., &
T., & Rist, S. (2009). Social learning J. W., Field, D. J., Henakaarchchi, N., Rockström, J. (2022). A planetary
processes in Swiss soil protection— Jenkins, M., Minasny, B., McBratney, boundary for green water. Nature
The ‘From Farmer—To Farmer’ project. A. B., Courcelles, V. de R. de, Singh, Reviews Earth & Environment, 3,
Human Ecology, 37(4), 475–489. K., Wheeler, I., Abbott, L., Angers, D. 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1038/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009- A., Baldock, J., Bird, M., Brookes, P. s43017-022-00287-8
9262-1 C., Chenu, C., Jastrow, J. D., Lal, R., …
Zimmermann, M. (2013). The knowns, Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of
Smith, T., Benson, S., Ewer, T., Lanel, known unknowns and unknowns Practice: Learning, Meaning, and
V., Petykowski, E., Lenton, T., Powell, of sequestration of soil organic Identity (pp. xv, 318). Cambridge
T., & Abrams, J. (2021). Accelerating carbon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & University Press. https://doi.
the 10 critical transitions: Positive Environment, 164, 80–99. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
tipping points for food and land use org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.10.001
systems transformation. The Food Wheeler, T., & von Braun, J. (2013).
and Land Use Coalition. https:// Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, Climate change impacts on global
www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/ M. N. (2012). The origins and food security. Science, 341(6145),
accelerating-the-10-critical-transitions- conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ 508–513. https://doi.org/10.1126/
positive-tipping-points-for-food-and- learning: A critical review. Management science.1239402
land-use-systems-transformation/ Learning, 43(3), 291–307. https://doi.
Winkelmann, R., Donges, J. F., Smith,
org/10.1177/1350507611426239
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason- E. K., Milkoreit, M., Eder, C., Heitzig,
D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Tsvetkova, M., & Macy, M. W. (2014). J., Katsanidou, A., Wiedermann,
Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, The social contagion of generosity. M., Wunderling, N., & Lenton, T. M.
S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell, PLOS ONE, 9(2), e87275. https://doi. (2022). Social tipping processes
M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087275 towards climate action: A conceptual
J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, framework. Ecological Economics,
M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., … Willett, W. von Bloh, W., Schaphoff, S., Müller, 192, 107242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2018). Options for keeping the food C., Rolinski, S., Waha, K., & Zaehle, S. ecolecon.2021.107242
system within environmental limits. (2018). Implementing the nitrogen cycle
Nature, 562(7728), 519–525. https:// into the dynamic global vegetation,
doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0 hydrology, and crop growth model
LPJmL (version 5.0). Geoscientific Model
Development, 11(7), 2789–2812. https://
doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2789-2018

Earth4All is an international initiative to accelerate the systems changes we need for an equitable
future on a finite planet. Combining the best available science with new economic thinking,
Earth4All was designed to identify the transformations we need to create prosperity for all.
Earth4All was initiated by The Club of Rome, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School. It builds on the legacies
of The Limits to Growth and the planetary boundaries frameworks.

www.earth4all.life

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licence.