Circular Agriculture Models: A Systematic Review of Academic Contributions

Abstract

This study contributes to scientific theory by analyzing the models proposed within the framework of circular agriculture to determine how the three dimensions of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social—are integrated into their implementation. A systematic review was conducted on articles published between 2016 and 2025, indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, as well as the relevant grey literature. The methodology employed an extensive content analysis designed to minimize bias, applying filters related to specific knowledge areas to delimitate the search scope and enhance the precision of the research. The findings reveal that the research on circular agriculture models is predominantly grounded in the principles of the circular economy and its associated indicators. Moreover, these models tend to focus on environmental metrics, often neglecting a comprehensive exploration of the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development. It can be concluded that a significant gap persists in the literature regarding the circularity of agriculture and its socio-economic impacts and the role of regulatory frameworks, aspects that future research must address in order to achieve sustainability in circular agriculture.

1. Introduction

Global environmental concern began during the 1970s and 1980s due to events such as the revelation of the ozone layer hole [1], the publication of the document Silent Spring, which highlighted the environmental degradation caused by pesticides [2], and scientific warnings regarding increasing environmental and water pollution [3,4,5,6,7]. During this period, a collective awareness emerged aimed at optimizing and controlling waste management practices [8].

The ongoing degradation of ecosystems, depletion of natural resources, and the increasing, unsustainable accumulation of waste have highlighted the urgent need to develop alternative economic models that integrate production with environmental resilience [9]. In response to these systematic challenges, the concept of the circular economy has emerged as a transformative framework. In 1970, the Swiss architect and economist Walter R. Stahel popularized the concept of the circular economy by introducing the idea of “Cradle to Cradle”, emphasizing the importance of designing products that can be reused and recycled, thereby avoiding waste generation. Stahel [10] advocates for a radical shift from traditional economic production systems toward an economy that reintegrates waste into new productive processes to maximize its useful life. This approach not only optimizes the use of natural resources but also reduces production costs and generates local employment [11,12].

Initially, the concept of the circular economy had a limited presence in scientific discussions for several years [13] and was often treated as part of sustainable development studies [14]. During the 1990s, as global interest in sustainability and environmental management grew exponentially, the circular economy gradually gained worldwide attention.

According to the EMF [15,16], the circular economy is a system in which waste is reintegrated into production cycles and nature is allowed to regenerate. This approach aims to decouple economic growth from resource depletion [17] by promoting efficient material circulation [18] and minimizing losses through closed-loop systems [19].

A closed-loop circular system seeks to maintain the quality and value of materials over time [20], while operating systems based on renewable energy sources [17,21]. The circular economy aims to replace the traditional “end-of-life” waste management system through the reuse, recycling, and material recovery [22], optimizing resource use and redesigning processes to minimize waste and pollution [23,24]. However, Schroeder et al. [25] highlighted that there is no single, universally accepted definition of the circular economy, and that its conceptualization depends largely on the specific research field. In agriculture, for example, the shift towards a circular food system requires not only technological innovation and knowledge but also supportive policies and the willingness of farmers to incorporate these practices into food production [26].

The circular economy counters the linear model, which begins with resource extraction and ends with disposal, without considering any recovery processes [27,28,29,30]. The linear model prioritizes economic gains over environmental impacts and the costs associated with the internalization of externalities produced by polluting processes [17,20,31,32].

The circular economy approach is based on three principles, according to the EMF [15,16] and Aznar-Sánchez et al. [22]: (i) eliminate waste and pollution from the design phase of systems; (ii) keep products, materials, and resources in use for as long as possible through reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling; and (iii) regenerate natural systems through practices such as regenerative agriculture, ecosystem restoration, and the use of biodegradable materials. When applied to agriculture, these principles translate into maintaining healthy soils, replacing artificial fertilizers with animal mature, using residual biomass as animal feed, adopting environmentally beneficial production methods, and promoting collaboration across agricultural networks [26].

The EMF [33] asserts that the circular economy can address climate change by focusing on five key sectors: aluminum, plastics, cement, iron, and food, through the implementation of waste elimination design, prolonged material usage, and the regeneration of agricultural land [17]. The regeneration of agricultural land is closely linked to food production capacity, a strategic factor for many countries’ economies as it can determine the difference between food security and insecurity [19,31,34]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization [35], food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. This definition is based on four fundamental dimensions: (i) the availability of sufficient food, (ii) physical and economic access to food, (iii) stability of food supply over time, and (iv) proper biological utilization of food. Conversely, food insecurity arises when one or more of these conditions are at risk, often due to low agricultural productivity, economic constraints, environmental degradation, or the impact of climate change [36,37].

Agriculture is both a major driver of environmental degradation and climate change [38], responsible for nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions [39] and significant biodiversity loss, and a critical sector for ensuring global food supply. Faced with growing challenges, the sector must adopt sustainable technological innovations that enhance productivity, support environmental stewardship, and ensure food security for future generations [40].

In this context, climate change and its profound global repercussions highlight the need for transformative shifts in production and consumption systems [41,42]. Circular agriculture offers a promising approach, incorporating practices such as crop rotation, composting of organic waste, and the integration of agroforestry systems to close nutrient cycles and reduce dependency on external inputs [43,44].

Circular agriculture models focus on valorizing agricultural by-products, integrating crops and livestock, and promoting commercialization in local markets to reduce the transportation footprint. These practices aim to maximize the use of local resources and enhance community resilience. Circular agriculture emerges as a strategy to promote the sustainability of agricultural systems and is even considered within the framework of the SDG12 under the approach of “responsible consumption and production” [45]. This trend is primarily guided by principles aimed at waste reduction and resource optimization through reuse, recycling, and the use of renewable energy sources, with the ultimate goal of minimizing environmental impacts and fostering regenerative economic development, which is reflected in comprehensive social well-being [46].

To reverse this trend and address climate change, it is essential to incorporate biodiversity into agricultural farms by applying strategies such as circular agriculture design taking into account elements of agrarian circular economy. The goal of this circular design is to produce high-quality food while simultaneously contributing to sustainability [47]. Agricultural producers can influence consumption patterns by creating goods that incorporate the principles of the circular economy at every stage of production. According to Jun and Xiang [24], these principles applied to agriculture are as follows:

(a)

Reduction in the volume of inputs from non-renewable resources and materials;

(b)

Setting production and consumption targets to reduce waste throughout the life cycle of agricultural products;

(c)

Recycling products to avoid generating additional waste;

(d)

Promoting the adaptation of agriculture to the local environment to enhance biological coexistence, maximize green coverage, and prevent soil loss;

(e)

Improving the allocation and use of economic resources through an efficient economic structure;

(f)

Establishing strategic partnerships between farmers and industry to generate social, economic, and environmental benefits, as well as comprehensive management for all stakeholders involved;

(g)

Incorporating clean production and eco-technological systems to achieve greater pollution control throughout the production process and after the consumption of products.

The focus on food redesign includes key actions that promote a sustainable system through products that regenerate nature and encourage collaboration among farmers [26]. Likewise, this leads to the reduction of chemical products; nutrient recirculation; the use of precision agriculture and techniques, such as crop rotation and cover crops [47]; the reincorporation of common metrics and definitions into agricultural practices [48]; and policies that support a regenerative food system [20,39,49].

Although incorporating sustainability into agricultural production through circular agriculture models may seem straightforward, it is necessary to standardize these models or, at least, define a set of indicators [17,22,34,50] to measure circularity in food production, since individual efforts—such as organic waste recycling—may not be sufficient to achieve a sustainable agricultural approach and realize the benefits these environmental practices provide in regenerating agricultural land [21,51].

Based on the gaps identified in the literature, we propose the following research questions of the systematic review:

• What circular agriculture models are proposed in the literature, and what elements are these models based on?
• Does the discussion on circular agriculture address all three dimensions of sustainability, or does it emphasize one over the others?

The literature extensively discusses the concept of the circular economy, yet it offers little analysis of circular agriculture from an economic or social perspective, focusing primarily on chemical or biological analysis. This research seeks to reduce that gap by identifying circular agriculture models and their relationship to the three dimensions of sustainability. We aim to expand the existing scientific knowledge on circularity in agriculture and its proposed measurement tools for comparative and scalability purposes. The results would contribute to the design of public policy supporting various SDGs and the strengthening of food security and sovereignty [52].

The justification for this research lies in the pressing challenges faced by the agricultural sector, especially rural communities, with issues like inadequate waste management, dependence on external inputs, and the degradation of natural resources. Circular agriculture models offer solutions by lowering costs through recycling and material reuse, enhancing soil and water quality, creating local employment opportunities through the valorization of agricultural by-products, and strengthening both food and energy autonomy. Nevertheless, the effective implementation of these models is hindered by significant barriers such as insufficient infrastructure, limited technical expertise, and restricted market access due to high transportation costs.

2. Materials and Methods

The literature review was conducted following the methodology suggested by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), taking into account the expanded checklist to incorporate the recommendations into the manuscript, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and PRISMA flow diagrams [53].

Moreover, we incorporated the suggestions from Linares-Espinós et al. [54], which outline four steps designed to minimize bias in research and prevent the inclusion of irrelevant or low-quality evidence. The first step involves the proper formulation of the research question. In this regard, we identified notable gaps in the literature concerning the limited literature about circular agriculture models or experiences about its implementation; therefore, this review seeks to reduce those gaps. The second step focuses on developing a search protocol. To implement this, we applied a series of filters to systematically exclude sources with limited relevance or contribution. For the third step—conducting a comprehensive and thorough search—we utilized major databases known for their extensive coverage of social sciences topics: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). The fourth step entailed a detailed review, beginning with the abstracts and followed by full-text analysis of selected articles. Finally, a synthesis matrix was created to consolidate key information and highlight the main findings relevant to addressing the research questions.

Treatment of Scopus and Web of Science Databases

The databases exploration followed the methodology suggested by Kozar and Sulich [55], who adopted the structured literature review variation with queries method to assess the current relevance and interest in a specific topic. The databases Scopus and WoS were analyzed using the search string “circular agriculture”. In Scopus, the study period was set from 2016 to 2025, as no articles were published on this issue in 2015 and there were few scientific contributions on this theme in previous years. Since 2016, research in this field has grown exponentially. A total of 249 documents were retrieved in these databases. In WoS, the same period of analysis was applied, yielding 170 articles related to circular agriculture. The literature mapping was conducted using the search mentioned before, deliberately excluding “circular economy” due to the extensive existing literature on that topic across various fields. It was necessary to delimit the research focus specifically to circularity in productive land. Other authors [17,56,57] have also employed keyword-based search strategies.

Subsequent filters applied included the search string “circular agriculture” in the article title, the abstracts, or keywords; and publications written only in English. Using this search strategy, 206 articles were obtained from Scopus and 98 from WoS. As of the time of the research in 2025, there were already fifteen publications in Scopus and six in WoS, highlighting the growing importance of this theme in the scientific community.

To further focus the literature on circular agriculture, sustainable development, and social studies, a third filter was applied to exclude technical knowledge areas such as engineering, computer science, medicine, chemistry, psychology, and microbiology. Additionally, document types such as editorials and notes were excluded, and only final articles were considered. As a result, 151 documents were retained in Scopus and 70 in WoS.

In the next step, the countries with the highest number of publications, along with all Latin American countries were considered in order to assess how much the topic was discussed in the region. In Scopus, these countries included China, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, Italy, India, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. Initially, the idea was to limit the analysis to Latin America due to the interest of the authors about regional agricultural policies or initiatives. However, research output from the region on circular agriculture remains limited, yielding only 11 articles—most of which came from Chile and Brazil. As a result of this selection process, 67 references were obtained from Scopus. In the case of WoS, the leading publishing countries were China, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, Italy, and India with Latin American representation from the same countries as Scopus. After applying this new set of filters, a total of 68 articles were identified in WoS (Figure 1).

Next, in accordance with the researchers’ areas of expertise in the social, environmental, and economic fields, articles related to chemistry and biological processes were excluded from the search through a keyword filter in Scopus to avoid misinterpretation due to a lack of in-depth knowledge on these topics. The final result was 35 documents. In the WoS database, the last selection criteria involved identifying articles by the most prominent authors in terms of publications, citations, and references, yielding a total of 42 articles for further analysis using the same matrix developed for Scopus, with specific fields, as shown in

Table 1. Analysis matrix of documents retrieved from Scoups and WoS Databases.

Author (s)	Main Variable Analyzed	Geographic Scope (Local, National, Regional, Global)	Applied Methodology	Discussion Categories	Dimension (Social Environmental, Economic)	Circular Agriculture Model

. This group of documents was divided among the four members of the research team for a more detailed analysis to reduce the possibility of bias in the interpretation of data.

To complement the analysis, the search was expanded to include grey literature in order to incorporate high-quality publications that may not be indexed in Scopus or WoS, may be published in languages other than English, and may originate from Latin America. A free web search engine using two strings was used: the first, “circular agriculture” + models, applying the same time frame as before (2016–2025), and the second “agriculture circular”, in Spanish.

A total of 120 articles were retrieved. Articles already reviewed in other databases, those related to chemical or biological processes, low-quality academic papers, and theses from university repositories, were excluded. The final result was the inclusion of 23 grey literature articles into the matrix detailed above. Finally, 62 articles were analyzed in detail, while 38 were discarded due to access limitations or because the content was not aligned to the research objective. Figure 2 outlines the research process and the filtering criteria employed to identify the relevant literature on circular agriculture.

3. Results

This section is organized into three parts. The first addresses the research question concerning the models of circular agriculture and their defining characteristics. The second part explores the sustainability dimensions discussed in the reviewed literature, thereby responding to the second research question. The final part highlights the challenges associated with implementing circular agriculture models in low- and middle-income countries, with particular emphasis on the need for technological investment at both public and private levels, as well as the role of supportive public policies.

3.1. Circular Agriculture Models Referenced in the Scientific Literature

In the reviewed literature, although many article titles refer to “circular agriculture” or “circular economy in agriculture” [11,18,21,22,24,45,46], the latter are not part of our search string—only 50% of the documents explicitly describe the implementation of a circular agriculture model within their research [17,19,20,31,42,47].

Most of the identified models pertain to agricultural practices on small rural farms primarily aimed at family consumption. However, no unified definition of circular agriculture was found, nor was there a standard technical approach consistently applied. While several studies reference the conceptual contribution of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, only one article specifically incorporated the Butterfly Model [39] into its theoretical framework.

The matrix analysis of the selected articles reveals that circular agriculture models are highly context-dependent and adapted to local needs [31,45]. These range from industrial approaches aimed at optimizing resource use and reducing environmental impact, to the application of mathematical tools designed to enhance performance through efficiency and sustainability. Other models focus on strengthening agro-food chains to improve production and distribution, blending household recycling practices with community-based circular agriculture [6,8,20]. In Latin American studies, particular emphasis is placed on the use of agricultural residues, the integration of new productive flows, and the discussion about the role of public and private institutions in supporting implementation [58,59,60,61,62,63].

The main thematic categories associated with these models in Scopus-indexed literature include climate change, sustainability, the use of organic fertilizers or reduction in chemical inputs, carbon dioxide emissions, and energy flow accounting (Figure 3). Some studies also reference core principles of the circular economy, such as reducing raw material and fossil fuel consumption, incorporating residues into production cycles, adapting agricultural practices to local contexts, and utilizing ecological technologies, such as biogas production and organic composting.

In the WoS search, the categories identified emphasize the challenges and opportunities associated with the implementation of circular agriculture. Key barriers include the need to integrate new technologies, the effective utilization of agricultural residues, and the restructuring of productive chains to enhance sustainability and efficiency. Additional challenges involve a lack of understanding regarding the integration of complementary activities and innovative practices, as well as weak local and household-level management structures.

The various categories examined reveal that circular agriculture is situated at the intersection of environmental sciences, agronomy, and food production technologies (Figure 4), closely aligning with the categories found in the Scopus analysis.

In general, the economic and social dimension of circular agriculture remains insufficiently explored in the academic literature. This gap is evident in the analyzed documents, where the focus predominantly lies on industrial aspects, energy use, or the chemical or biological characteristics of the models and their production levels [34,42,46,64].

Key components of the circular economy within agriculture—such as circular farm design, the use of renewable energy sources (mainly solar and wind power), and the reintegration of agricultural residues—are mentioned. However, these practices are often not embedded within closed-loop material cycles. Furthermore, references to specialized investments in agricultural systems—such as water-monitoring sensors, energy-tracking tools, soil composition analysis technologies, or governance frameworks informed by community practices or ancestral knowledge—are notably scarce.

Although political and social analyses are infrequent in the literature on circular agriculture, only a few studies emphasize the importance of stakeholder engagement. In particular, they highlight the role of state and local governments, whose involvement and regulation of sustainable practices can guide agricultural decision-making with greater relevance and effectiveness.

In summary, the academic discussion on circular agriculture models appears to be in an exploratory phase, often grounded in small-scale case studies with context-specific features. No unified set of criteria or standardized performance indicators has been identified to assess the success of circularity integration in agriculture. Finally, while some works suggest the incorporation of circular agriculture principles into public policy design, there is little evidence of comprehensive legal framework analyses in the regions where the studies were conducted.

3.2. Sustainability Dimensions in Circular Agriculture

The academic literature on circular agriculture addresses the three core dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. However, these dimensions are not explored with equal depth or frequency. As illustrated in Figure 5, there is a notable variation in the number of articles that focus on each of these aspects.

The literary analysis reveals that the environmental dimension is the most frequently addressed in studies on circular agriculture [21,31,65,66]. This dimension is primarily associated with the potential of circular agriculture practices to restore soil health and mitigate pollution caused by conventional farming methods. Key themes include a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, the decline of greenhouse gases emissions, and efforts to preserve or restore biodiversity. Water is also discussed, particularly in relation to its role as a cost factor in economic valuation models, integrated production systems, and life cycle assessments [67]. Technological innovations are frequently incorporated into productive processes, especially in studies based on experimental farm research. However, only a limited number of articles explicitly reference closed-loop production systems as part of circular agricultural schemes.

The bibliometric analysis of the search string “circular agriculture” (see Figure 2) reinforces these findings, showing a strong association with environmental keywords, and a much weaker connection with social aspects. Most studies focus on both environmental and economic dimensions, presenting circular agriculture as a means to simultaneously pursue profitability and environmental protection.

In contrast, research addressing the social dimension of circular agriculture remains limited [26,68]. When it is discussed, it is often linked to economic considerations. This limited focus may be explained by the early, exploratory stage of circular agriculture in practice, as much of the literature is based on small scale, context-specific case studies rather than systemic public policy interventions. Social aspects are typically explored through surveys that assess farmers’ perceptions of external conditions influencing circular agriculture performance. Key variables identified include collective work, supply chain organization, market access, transparency of information, participatory decision-making processes, and consumer behavior toward organic products. The scarcity of literature on the social implications of circular agriculture signals a significant opportunity for future research—particularly concerning the regulatory and legal framework that may support or hinder its implementation in the last decade.

Economic themes such as production costs, profitability, resource efficiency, collaborative economies, and overall economic performance are widely discussed and often analyzed in conjunction with environmental issues [59,63,64,69,70]. This trend is expected, given that circular agriculture is rooted in the broader framework of the circular economy, where cost reduction is a core objective. Many studies evaluate the economic feasibility of adopting clean technologies, which inherently requires financial investment assessments. The economic dimension is examined through various tools, including expert surveys to evaluate resource prioritization; models that quantify energy flows and emissions; supply chain analyses; and economic valuation of biogas and organic crops, the role of bioeconomy, and investment returns. Econometric models identified in the literature often integrate environmental, social (e.g., farmer behavior), and economic variables (e.g., input costs).

In conclusion, the integration of the three sustainability dimensions in circular agriculture research is becoming increasingly common. However, the environmental dimension continues to dominate, particularly in studies focused on chemical and biological analysis of water, fertilizers, crops, and other inputs. Recent studies have also started to incorporate broader sustainability indicators, such as climate change mitigation, virtual water use, and ecological footprint, indicating a gradual expansion toward more holistic assessments.

3.3. Challenges for Circular Agriculture in Developing Countries

A systematic review of the literature available in the Scopus and WoS databases and the grey literature reveals that most studies on circular agriculture focus on conceptual frameworks, bibliometric analyses, and isolated case studies. However, comparative empirical evidence specifically addressing the context of developing countries remains scarce.

Within Latin America, only a limited number of countries have begun to explore the subject in depth. The current landscape highlights a set of structural and contextual challenges that hinder the effective implementation of circular agriculture models in low- and middle-income countries.

The analysis of the reviewed literature underscores the need for more comprehensive research and policy development in the following areas:

• Empirical research on circular agriculture models;
• Public policy framework that supports circular agriculture;
• Barriers related to technological advancement and investment capacity;
• Promotion of integrated innovation across value chains from cultivation to distribution.

Each of these areas represents a critical dimension where knowledge gaps persist and where targeted interventions could significantly enhance the adoption and scalability of circular agricultural practices in developing countries.

3.3.1. Empirical Research

Several of the analyzed studies reveal a growing body of academic and scientific literature on circular agriculture. Most of the agriculture-focused research adopts a bibliometric or conceptual approach, with empirical data often drawn from localized contexts involving private agricultural initiatives. A portion of the literature consists of general reviews that lack clear geographic specificity, while other studies employ quantitative methods in case studies characterized by high levels of technological investment—conditions that are generally not replicable in developing country contexts.

For instance, Moscoso-Paucarchuco et al. [65] apply econometric models in a rural area of Peru, illustrating both the feasibility and necessity of replicating such methods in regions with similar socio-economic characteristics. However, these initiatives remain isolated and do not reflect a consolidated or expanding trend.

A regional analysis of publications revealed that, in contrast to Europe, Latin America tends to associate circular agriculture with ancestral agricultural systems, emphasizing the need to revitalize and integrate this traditional knowledge to ensure good sovereignty and security. Furthermore, numerous circular agriculture initiatives in the region are characterized by low investment levels and limited tools and technologies for assessing environmental, economic, and social impacts.

3.3.2. Contextualized Public Policy

Another significant finding is the lack of public policy with concrete, context-specific proposals for the implementation of circular agriculture models in developing countries. While some studies examine structural barriers in European contexts, such regulatory frameworks are embedded in sociocultural and legal environments, distinct from those of Latin America. As a result, these findings are difficult to scale and reveal a notable gap in aligning scientific efforts with political decision-making in a globally relevant manner.

Environmental policies in Latin America are comprehensive in their regulation of natural resources, such as water. However, this breadth does not necessarily translate into effectiveness, possibly due to a lack of coordination and cooperation among institutions responsible for policy implementation. Furthermore, we found no evidence of policies with international articulation, links to private sector initiatives, or a focus on research, development, innovation, and human capital formation, key elements that should be the base of effective public policy.

3.3.3. Technology and Innovation Investment

Technological innovation in agriculture appears to be marginal and largely confined to private initiatives that are disconnected from broader public policies or national programs. Some studies assess technical efficiency in sectors such as dairy farming in Germany, highlighting the importance of residues management and emissions reduction. While valuable, these insights have limited applicability in regions with low technological capacity and minimal government support.

Research on private management initiatives in small-scale farms or rural entrepreneurship demonstrate the potential of these efforts. However, they are often isolated and not easily scalable, particularly in middle-income countries facing similar socio-economic constraints. Challenges include the high cost of circular practices, limited infrastructure, insufficient technical support, and restricted access to institutional incentives. This underlines the need for robust public policies, sustainable financing mechanisms, ongoing technical assistance programs, and increased investment in clean infrastructure as foundational pillars for a successful transition to circular agriculture.

3.3.4. Systematic and Adaptive Innovation

Innovation serves as a cross-cutting theme in the transition to circular agriculture, particularly in developing contexts. To ensure effective adoption, it is essential to redesign production processes by integrating clean technologies and circular principles, supported by sustainability systems. However, such proposals may not be viable in regions with deeply rooted traditional practices and limited access to financial or technical resources.

Agroecological household-level models can promote food sustainability by combining ancestral knowledge with contemporary practices, integrating regenerative techniques, and strengthening community networks to enhance food security and sovereignty. Nonetheless, systemic barriers persist, including informal labor conditions, inequitable access to resources, and weak institutional structures.

Innovation should not be confined to technical domains. The inclusion of structured public and private sector actors as key stakeholders is crucial to foster participatory governance through the development of rules and institutional frameworks. Moreover, transitioning small-scale farmers to circular systems requires innovative financial schemes and localized management models.

In conclusion, innovation must be systematic, adaptive, inclusive, and context-specific, ensuring that proposed solutions are both replicable and responsive to the socio-economic and cultural realities of each region.

4. Discussion

The literature review reveals that only about half of the studies addressing agricultural topics refer to the concept of a circular agriculture model. This finding somewhat contradicts the assertions of Duque-Acevedo et al. [19], Bian and Liu [34], and Wang et al. [31], who argue that food production capacity in certain regions significantly depends on the regeneration of agricultural soils, an outcome that can be facilitated by circular agriculture practices. This discrepancy highlights a broad discourse on agricultural outputs, yet only a limited number of studies incorporate a defined, sustainable model into their research frameworks.

Circular agricultural models are often implemented in specific contexts. For instance, Fan et al. [38] present an industrial model aimed at optimizing resource use and minimizing environmental impacts through life cycle analysis in a case study. Similarly, Wen et al. [67] support an integrated agricultural and livestock model enhanced by mathematical tools to improve its efficiency and sustainability. These cases illustrate that circular agriculture encompasses both economic and ecological decision-making, as also noted by Fang et al. [71] and Xi [72] in discussing on recycling strategies. In Latin America, models reflect similarities with the observations of Angulo et al. [58] regarding productive flows, organic waste recycling, and the involvement of both public and private institutions in the implementation process, findings that are corroborated by Bian and Liu [34] and Liu et al. [73].

The thematic analysis of Scopus-indexed literature on circular agriculture frequently centers on environmental protection and related topics, such as fertilizers, waste management, agricultural production. These themes align with the classification established by the EMF [15,16], Jun and Xiang [24], and Aznar-Sánchez et al. [22]. In contrast, the most prevalent categories in WoS focus on structural transformations necessary for circular agriculture, civic engagement, and governmental support to encourage the transition from linear to circular agricultural systems—issues emphasized by Atinkut et al. [74], Rauw et al. [75], and Zucchella and Previtali [68].

A key principle of the circular economy that is often overlooked in the literature is the establishment of quantitative objectives for production and consumption throughout the life cycle of agricultural products. This gap is also noted by Zeballos [50] and Bian and Liu [34]. Although several studies address energy saving and waste treatment, they do not typically frame these within a closed-loop systems perspective, a shortcoming also observed by Rodino et al. [47].

Regarding the integration of sustainable development dimensions in circular agriculture, the reviewed articles demonstrate that the environmental, social, and economic pillars are explicitly addressed in the academic discourse. This aligns with the findings of Wang et al. [31] and Varella et al. [59].

The environmental dimension is the most frequently discussed, echoing the assertions of the EMF [16,39]. The role of water resources in productive processes is highlighted by Moscoso-Paucarchuco et al. [65] and Hilmi et al. [63] and is also addressed in life cycle assessments by Villagrán et al. [69] and Azzaretti and Schimelpfenig [76].

Although the concept of closed-loops cycles is extensively promoted by the EMF [16], it is explicitly referenced in only a few studies—specifically those by Duque-Acevedo et al. [19] and Dziedzic et al. [20] when discussing circularity in agriculture.

The social dimension, which is less frequently analyzed, underscores the importance of public policies to promote circular agriculture. This was particularly emphasized in the categorization of database analysis. These findings are consistent with the work of Bian and Liu [34], Liang et al. [70], Zhang [64], and Cordeiro and Sindhøj [77].

The economic dimension is commonly examined alongside the environmental dimension, given that the conservation of natural resources is often assigned a monetary value. This joint approach aligns with the studies of Moscoso-Paucarchuco et al. [65] and Han and Huo-Gen [78]. Topics such as investment in clean technology and bioeconomy are also addressed by Bera et al. [79] and Akter et al. [80]. Furthermore, Atinkut et al. [71] suggest that econometric models may offer a viable means of integrating variables across all three dimensions.

The main challenges identified in the implementation of circular agriculture align with previous studies highlighting the difficulty of extrapolating empirical research. For example, Batlles de la Fuente et al. [21] analyze the subject without reference to a specific geographic context, while Wang et al. [31] focus their empirical study on a narrowly defined context, such as a dairy farm.

The legal framework, supported by public policy for implementing circular models, is primarily analyzed within a European context, as seen in the work of De Lauwere et al. [26]. However, there is noticeable lack of literature addressing the regulatory environment in developing countries, where economies are predominantly based on agriculture. As previously noted, research on circular agriculture is still emerging, as evidenced by the limited Latin American literature found in the Scopus and WoS databases.

The literature analysis confirms that innovation in circular agriculture could result in significant cost savings through reduced resource use. This is consistent with findings from Wang et al. [31] and Keestra et al. [81], who advocate for agroecology within family-and community-based farming systems.

De Lauwere et al. [26] emphasize that innovation requires engagement both within and outside the system to adapt contexts and existing structures for successful circular models. Moscoso-Paucarchuco et al. [65] argue that the implementation of circular agriculture requires financial schemes tailored to local realities, particularly small-scale, low-budget models on traditional agricultural practices. This perspective is reinforced by Battles de la Fuente et al. [21], who highlight the lack of integrated proposals that connect science, policy, and territory.

5. Conclusions

Circular agriculture is currently in a phase of consolidation and is becoming a key strategy to address sustainability challenges. It offers a pathway toward more resilient agricultural systems capable of reducing environmental impact, optimizing resource use, and enhancing profitability. However, existing studies on circular agriculture remain at an early stage. Empirical evidence is primarily limited to small-scale farms, which contrasts with the broader conceptual definitions, models, and applications associated with circular agriculture.

A wide range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies has been employed to study circular agriculture, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of the field. The principles of circularity are applied across various stages of the production chain, including the integration of organic waste, co-production of food and energy or livestock, and the redesign of production processes.

The literature review reveals that the most robust models are context-specific, often developed in regions with high levels of technical investment. Nonetheless, it is essential to systematize successful applications to enable replication in other contexts. This could accelerate the development of more efficient, sustainable systems of production, distribution, consumption, and reuse, following the closed-loop model.

Furthermore, the economic and environmental dimensions are thoroughly examined in the literature, reflecting a consistent emphasis on creating profitable and ecologically sound circular systems. In contrast, the social dimension remains underexplored, and critical social aspects such as the participation of rural communities, the role of women in agroecological systems, and the integration of ancestral knowledge into circular practices are largely absent, despite their importance in food production systems.

Circular agriculture models are adapted to the specific characteristics and needs of each region, ranging from small family initiatives to industrial-scale operations. This diversity confirms that circular agriculture can be structured from multiple dimensions, responding to varied socio-economic and infrastructural conditions. However, the involvement of relevant stakeholders is essential to develop evidence-based solutions.

The literature also identifies the need for accurate public policies that support circular agricultural systems grounded in the protection of natural ecosystems. Circular agricultural has the potential to contribute significantly to the SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) through the production of more and better-quality food, SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by promoting alternative energy sources, SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by enabling pollution-free production, and SDG 13 (Climate Action) by fostering environmental protection.

We would like to acknowledge that the selection of countries and the decision to include only articles in English may have introduced a bias into the research. Although this selection was based on the fact that these countries account for approximately 70–80% of the total number of publications on the topic, the remaining 20% may address models of circular agriculture that were not considered in our analysis. Nevertheless, this limitation in terms of article selection and language is justified by the scope of the research team and the time constraints associated with the investigation.

There is currently no evidence of a specific legal framework for circular agriculture; in most countries, it is addressed within a broader environmental policy context that includes sustainable practices such as the circular economy. This lack of specific policy may result in missed opportunities, particularly for private initiatives, to access the technical and financial resources necessary for the development of circular agriculture or to align with international efforts, including those related to export markets. We argue that an effective circular agriculture policy should incorporate a governance model that clearly defines responsibilities and fosters coordination among all stakeholders. Additionally, it should establish an economic framework that optimizes resources use, strengthens value chains, promotes markets participation, and supports sustainable initiatives that generate employment and enhance food security, particularly in regions with high agricultural potential, such as Latin America.

At the same time, it is essential to recognize that serious barriers and challenges persist throughout the stages of implementing circular agriculture. Overcoming these challenges requires the active involvement of both internal and external stakeholders, the establishment of coherent and robust public policies, and the provision of economic and legal incentives for farmers. Moreover, ensuring the viability of these alternative farming models demands sustained technical and financial support, which can enhance agricultural efficiency while contributing meaningfully to biodiversity conservation and global environmental protection.