Next Article in Journal
Life Cycle Assessment of Pig Production in Central Portugal: Environmental Impacts and Sustainability Challenges
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Impact of Obesity and Insomnia on Work Productivity: Insights for Occupational Health and Sustainability in the Workplace
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 2
10.3390/su17020425
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Conceptualization of Regenerative Rural Development: A Systematic Review

by
Elkin Sánchez-Cañón
*,
Joao Alveiro Alvarado-Rincón
,
Dolly Rodríguez
,
Víctor Montaña Barrera
,
Diana Katerine Ríos-Moyano
and
Cristhian Fernández Lizarazo
School of Humanities and Social Studies, University of La Salle, Bogotá 110231, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(2), 425; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020425
Submission received: 10 October 2024 / Revised: 2 January 2025 / Accepted: 3 January 2025 / Published: 8 January 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this article, a conceptualization is proposed of regenerative rural development (RRD) based on a literature review and bibliometric analysis conducted using Web of Science and Scopus. Trends in authors, articles, and institutions related to rural development and regeneration are analyzed. The analysis, performed with VOSviewer and Bibliometrix, reveals that RRD is an emerging paradigm with a multidimensional approach aimed at healing the devastation caused by extractive models. The methodology utilized the PRISMA methodological framework and bibliometric analysis. The results demonstrate an upward trend in intellectual production related to regenerative processes in rural areas. Anglo-Saxon countries are the most prolific publishers on the subject, but there is emerging interest from countries such as China and Spain in relation to RRD. Finally, the conclusions focus on defining RRD as a multidimensional process of co-evolution and systemic interrelation that heals the devastation caused by extractive approaches in rural areas and promotes the health of living systems in the ecosystem at different scales and multidimensionally in rurality.

1. Introduction

This research work starts from the concept of ‘paradigm’ coined by Thomas Kuhn [1], who defines the concept as a set of beliefs, practices, and values shared by a scientific community and as a framework within which scientists locate themselves to solve problems [1]. Considering this concept, in this work, it is argued that there are at least two paradigms from which rural development has been organized, the extractive and the sustainable paradigms. However, in this work, a new paradigm is proposed to understand rural development, namely the regenerative one.
The extractive paradigm is a model of thought based on productivism, profitability, and the instrumentalization of nature along with its respective devastation [2,3]. Extractive rural development is a development model inspired by an economic and productivist vision of rurality [4,5,6,7]. It is based on a paradigm where nature is a means to an end; in the accumulation of income resulting from productive activity because it is not a redistributive model and aims for a large group of the population to work for the benefit of a small subgroup of society. This paradigm of rural development has served as an excuse for maintaining land concentration, continuing social inequality along with high levels of rural poverty, and the devastation of rural ecosystems [7,8,9,10,11].
As a continuation of the extractive paradigm, there is the sustainable paradigm. This originated from the Stockholm Conference [12], and is reflected in the Brundtland Report, the Rio Conference, and the Sustainable Development Goals agenda. This paradigm overcomes the extractivist vision because it integrates at least three dimensions in its conceptual corpus of the economic, social, and environmental [13,14,15,16]. The sustainable paradigm goes beyond the extractive one because it considers environmental care, and that economic growth cannot be at odds with the survival of future generations. This paradigm generated a sustainable rural development model that promoted the participation of rural communities in decision-making, respect for nature’s limits, and overcoming poverty among rural inhabitants [17,18,19,20,21].
In this study, the existence is highlighted of the following three interrelated crises: ecological, social, and economic. The extractivist model was primarily adopted as a solution to the economic crisis. Conversely, sustainable development emerged as a response to the ecological and social crises. However, both paradigms have proven inadequate in addressing pressing global challenges such as climate change, social injustice, and economic inequality. Contemporary multiple crises have been the subject of intense interdisciplinary academic debate. Scientists like Rockström et al. [22] highlighted the interconnectedness of the ecological, social, and economic challenges on a global scale. Researchers such as Steffen et al. [22] documented the systematic transgression of planetary boundaries, while Ripple et al. [23] raised alarms about the climate emergency and its multidimensional implications. The scientists explored the need to rethink traditional economic models, arguing that conventional development approaches are insufficient to address the complexity of current crises [23]. From a systemic perspective, Folke et al. [24] emphasized the necessity of fundamental transformations in our economic and social systems, suggesting that solutions require an integrative approach that reconnects human well-being with planetary sustainability.
The need to think of a new paradigm arises from the unfulfilled promises of sustainable development. According to the World Bank, in 2022 at least 685 million people lived in extreme poverty [25]. Similarly, according to the 2022 Human Development Index Report, there was a significant reduction in the quality of life globally [26]. According to OXFAM, by 2021 the 10 richest people in the world had doubled their wealth, while the incomes of 99% of the population had decreased [27]. Finally, 75% of the Earth’s surface has been significantly altered by human actions [28]. This perspective highlights that the principles of the Sustainable Development paradigm have not been effectively implemented by policymakers to alleviate poverty or reduce social inequality. Furthermore, it coexists with ongoing environmental degradation, indicating a gap between theoretical ideals and practical outcomes.
According to the above, it is necessary to think about the paradigm of regeneration and regenerative rural development. A new model that is more holistic, that overcomes anthropocentrism, that counteracts climate change, and transforms the model of thought that was the origin of the inherited problems after the industrial revolution. For this reason, in this work, a bibliometric analysis is conducted on regeneration and regenerative development in relation to rural development. The results of this analysis will be presented based on the intellectual production in two academic databases, concluding with a proposal for the conceptualization of the regenerative paradigm and rural development from this perspective.

2. Materials and Methods

This work was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved a bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science (managed by Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA/USA) and Scopus (managed by Elsevier, Amsterdam/Netherlands) databases. The limitations of Web of Science (WoS) for conducting historical bibliometric analyses are diverse and significantly affect the accuracy and representativeness of studies. One major constraint is its bias toward English-language journals and publications from Western regions, which excludes relevant research from other geographic areas and limits thematic coverage [29,30]. Additionally, the variability in its historical indexing depth poses challenges for conducting robust longitudinal studies [31]. Another critical issue is the inconsistency in the classification of scientific fields, which can hinder the identification of interdisciplinary research and the proper analysis of emerging knowledge areas [32,33]. These limitations underscore the importance of combining WoS with other databases, such as Scopus, to ensure a more inclusive and representative analysis of global scientific production.
The second stage consisted of a literature review of the most relevant articles on regenerative rural development based on the results of the bibliometric analysis. Bibliometric analysis is a methodology based on a quantitative study of the number of published articles and the ability to create maps of the relationships between authors, journals, research centers, and countries on a given topic [34,35]. The bibliometric study was based on a series of steps detailed below:
  • Definition of search criteria: Keywords such as “rural development”, “regeneration”, and “regenerative” were established.
  • Search equation: The following search equation was defined: [“rural development” AND (regeneration OR regenerative)] OR “regenerative rural development”.
  • Databases: The Web of Science and Scopus databases were selected.
  • Time period: The time periods were established according to the year the first article containing the keywords was published. For Web of Science, the time range was 2002–2023, and for Scopus, it was 1983–2023.
  • Refinement of search criteria: Articles related to fields such as medicine, biochemistry, computer science, and energy were excluded.
  • Number of articles collected: A total of 102 articles from “Web of Science Core Collection” and 126 from Scopus were collected.
  • Analysis and graphing: The programs Bibliometrix [34,36] and VOSviewer were used to analyze the information and create correlation maps.
The literature review is a research process tool aimed at obtaining references useful for the purposes of a study [37]. The recommendations were followed regarding the thematic and regional coverage of both databases, as WoS tends to include more subscription-based journals, while Scopus offers greater representation of regional and open-access publications [30,31]. Additionally, meticulous metadata cleaning was conducted to avoid duplicates and errors in the analyses [32]. Robust search strategies were also developed through the careful selection of keywords, taking into account the specific structure and language of each database [33]. A systematic review is a rigorous method of comparing and synthesizing evidence from multiple studies [38]. For this work, the review was based on documents retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases.
The research methodology followed the PRISMA [39] guidelines. Therefore, the current protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) with the DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Q5NZ2 (accessed on 19 July 2024). The data collection process is summarized in Figure 1.
Research articles and review articles were prioritized, and articles were limited to areas of study in social sciences, environmental sciences, agriculture and biological sciences, humanities, economics, and multidisciplinary areas. The review exercise aimed to establish common criteria among different authors on regeneration and its relationship with rural development.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Number of Articles Published

The results obtained from the keywords in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases are presented below. From the search process, 102 articles were retrieved from WoS and 126 from Scopus. These articles were analyzed from various perspectives, such as the number of articles published over time, the number of citations of the articles, the main authors with their respective citations, the main journals and institutions, the production by countries, and the correlation between the main keywords.
The first noticeable result is the relative closeness between the articles retrieved from both databases. It is a ratio of 102 in WoS and 126 in Scopus, considering that WoS has a shorter time range (2002–2023) and Scopus a longer time range (1982–2023). The trend in the number of articles shows a positive behavior, despite fluctuations in production, such as in 2005, 2012, and 2017. Articles on rural development and regeneration have been increasing since 2021 (Figure 2).
Following the global economic crisis of the late 2000s, budgets allocated to scientific research funding experienced significant cuts, particularly in disciplines such as social sciences and rural development. In the United States, a reduction in investment in basic research was documented, as funds were redirected toward applied research areas with higher economic return potential [40,41]. Similarly, in Europe, countries prioritized funding for commercial and technological projects, sidelining traditional and less marketable disciplines, which negatively impacted fields like rural development and social research [42]. These decisions reflect a structural shift in R&D policies, driven by the need to justify investments in terms of direct economic benefits. It is possible that the publication of articles establishing a relationship between rural development and regeneration will maintain a positive trend in the coming years. This positive trend is explained by the interest and the number of citations these studies receive in the databases. The number of citations has been increasing since 2019 and shows a positive trend in both databases, reaching its peak in 2023, as shown in Figure 3.
The evolution of the number of citations in WoS shows an upward trend, as does the Scopus database, indicating increasing interest in the study of regeneration and rural development. The first article published in WoS with these keywords was “The dynamics and sustainable use of high-value tree species of the coastal Pondoland forests of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa” in 2002 by Obiri, Lawes, and Mukolwe [43]. In contrast, the first article in Scopus was “Management of forest resources in India” by Bowonder [44].

3.2. Main Authors

Regarding the authors, they were classified according to the number of articles published on rural development and regeneration along with the number of citations these articles have received. According to Table 1, for the Web of Science database, the author with the most articles on the topic and the highest total citations was Petr Klusáček [5,6,45], while in Scopus, it was Jiangfeng Li [46,47].
Petr Klusáček [5,6,45] focuses his work on the regeneration of former abandoned agricultural fields in post-socialist societies. He studies the relationship between local development in rural areas and the regeneration of agricultural facilities abandoned after the socialist era. On the other hand, Jiangfeng Li [47] highlights the importance of water in the regeneration of villages in China. He also examines the relationship between tourism and rural regeneration in China [46].
In Table 1, it is evident that there is no predominance of a single author on the topic of rural development and regeneration. However, in the Web of Science database, it is observed that authors from Eastern Europe have shown interest in rural regeneration. In contrast, the Scopus database features authors from China, but there is no dominance of a single author on the reviewed topic.

3.3. Main Journals

The situation is different with journals. As seen in Table 2, there is a strong predominance of England in the production of articles related to rural development and regeneration. Both in Web of Science and Scopus, English-language journals are the ones with the most published articles on the reviewed topic.
The bibliometric analysis shows that the journal Sustainability from the Swiss publisher MDPI has the most articles in the Web of Science database. On the other hand, in the Scopus database, the journal with the most published articles is the Journal of Rural Studies from the publisher Elsevier in the Netherlands. These are the two journals with the highest number of articles and a good performance in the H-index, indicating they have a significant impact on international scientific production. As seen in Table 1, some journals appear in both databases, such as Land, Journal of Rural Studies, Land Use Policy, and Forest Ecology and Management. This indicates that these journals are key references when studying issues related to rurality and rural development topics.
Additionally, journals focused on tourism appear in the list with a high citation index. This corresponds to an increasing interest in rural tourism as a local development alternative and regenerative tourism for the international academic community.

3.4. Main Institutions

Additionally, journals focused on tourism appear in the list with a high citation index. This corresponds to an increasing interest in rural tourism as a local development alternative and regenerative. In the case of Web of Science, there is no hegemony by English-speaking institutions. On the contrary, the topic of regenerative rural development in research centers or universities that study the subject is varied. According to Table 3, research institutes and universities in Eastern Europe have published a significant number of articles on the regeneration of abandoned rural areas after the industrial agriculture model in a post-socialist context. One example is Mendel University in Brno and the Geon Institute in the Czech Republic.
This same reality is partially observed in the Scopus database. Here, Newcastle University is one of the major contributors to publishing articles on rural development and regeneration. However, institutions like the University of Montenegro and Ataturk University, located in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, also appear. Table 3 shows that the presence of universities outside Western Europe indicates that knowledge on rural development is produced in one place and published in another. Regenerative rural development is a growing interest in Eastern European societies, but the research results are published in Western Europe.

3.5. Main Countries

As shown in Figure 4, the Web of Science database reveals the evolution in the number of articles published by different authors in five countries since interest in the topic emerged in 2002. In the first 15 years, intellectual production on this topic was led by the United Kingdom. This coincides with the predominance of journals and the language in which most articles are written. Countries like Italy and Spain, which have been interested in local development issues and combating the aging-depopulation of rural areas in Europe, are present to a lesser extent.
In Figure 4, it is observed that since 2021, China has increased its intellectual production on rural development, regeneration, or sustainability. This phenomenon is explained by an interest in reversing the migration process caused by the industrialization of the Asian giant in the last 50 years. Likewise, China has undergone industrial agriculture processes and agrarian transition processes that have caused severe environmental problems. These types of studies contribute to seeking solutions to rural depopulation and the deterioration of rural livelihoods. Similarly, Chinese researchers have focused on rural tourism as a way to promote sustainable rural development in their villages.
Exactly as observed in Web of Science, the Scopus database shows a dominance of the United Kingdom in intellectual production on rural development and regeneration. The fact that the United Kingdom (GB) is the country with the highest intellectual output on this topic can be explained by several reasons. First, GB has historically been a leading research hub in specific areas of social sciences, including studies on rural development and sustainability [42]. Additionally, the presence of numerous top-level universities and research centers in GB has fostered the production of academic papers in these fields. Public and private funding for research has also been significant, providing considerable incentives for producing research on socially and economically relevant topics [40]. As Milan García [14] and scientometric-based studies [33,34] state, it can be argued that there is a dominance regarding the language in which science is published, as most journals are in English, and many of them are based in the United Kingdom.
The analysis of funding information in databases such as Web of Science and Scopus reveals a clear geographical disparity favoring developed countries. These databases provide broader and more detailed coverage of funding agencies from regions such as North America and Western Europe, where the major academic and research institutions with greater resources are concentrated. In contrast, funding institutions from developing countries are often underrepresented, limiting the visibility of their contributions to global science and perpetuating inequities in the evaluation of scientific output [48]. This underrepresentation is further exacerbated by issues of translation and standardization in the names of funding institutions, making their accurate identification and classification in bibliographic records more difficult [49]. Additionally, developing countries face further challenges, such as the lack of infrastructure for systematically reporting funding information and lower investment in research and development, which reduces their presence in global bibliometric studies. These inequities not only affect the perception of the scientific contributions of these regions but also limit their ability to attract international collaborations and additional funding, perpetuating a vicious cycle of academic invisibility [50].
However, Figure 5 shows how China has increased its intellectual production on the topic in the last five years. In Figure 5, it is also noted that India has generated significant production on rural development, which is an atypical result since neither journals nor authors significantly represented India as they do here.

3.6. Co-Occurrence of Keywords

The bibliometric analysis also observed a relationship between the keywords of the processed articles in both databases. As shown in Figure 6, the strongest relationship links are observed between rural development and regeneration. However, in Figure 6, illustrating Web of Science, keywords like landscape and sustainability appear. This is important because it indicates an increasing interest in landscape-based rural tourism and ensuring the sustainability of rural areas. Similarly, in Figure 6, the keywords tourism, social innovation, climate change, and rural areas are shown in yellow. On the other hand, in dark blue, keywords such as rural identity, conservation, biodiversity, and economic development are observed.
The keywords that appear in yellow correspond to more recent research interests, specifically from 2020 to 2022. In contrast, the darker keywords correspond to the periods between 2014 and 2018. This correlation behavior indicates that topics related to rural development were based 10 years ago on themes like economic development, conservation, and biodiversity, while in the last three years, they have migrated towards broader topics like tourism, climate change, and social innovation related to rurality.
In the Scopus database, the keyword most related to others was rural development. As shown in Figure 7, studies on rural development predominate, but there is a greater number of related topics that are not present in the Web of Science database. For Scopus, significant places where rural development and regeneration studies have been conducted include the United Kingdom, Eurasia, Europe, and South Africa. Similarly, the keywords most related to rural development are sustainable development, community development, and rural regeneration.
As with Web of Science, Figure 7 shows the transition over time of the keywords related to the articles. The figure illustrates that from 2000 to 2010, research interest was concentrated on agricultural development, economic development, and economic growth, while from 2015 onwards, research interests shifted to rural regeneration, climate change, and biodiversity. Scopus more clearly shows the evolution of rural development from the early 21st century to the present.

3.7. Conceptualization of Regenerative Rural Development

From the literature review, it was observed that the regenerative paradigm is a theoretical–practical model aimed at healing ecosystems affected by extractive activities and the dichotomous human–nature thinking. This paradigm is a set of beliefs, values, and practices that recognize humans’ potential to positively intervene in living systems under the principle of leaving a better world than we found. Its purpose is not to conserve ecosystems but to restore them to a state equal to or better than their current state. Nor is it intended to extract resources from the ecosystem to meet human needs; instead, it implies regenerating the systemic relationship between different actors in a biotic community, understanding the ecosystemic unity in which living beings are found.
According to Eduard Müller [51], regeneration consists of restoring the system affected from at least six dimensions, as follows: ecological, social, economic, political, spiritual, and cultural. The regenerative paradigm is a holistic explanatory model because it does not see dimensions separately but attempts to address them as a whole. “Regeneration aims to build healthy human and natural networks, based on universal principles and patterns, where ’sustainability’ and resilience are a byproduct of systemic health” [52].
On the other hand, the paradigm has influenced agriculture, architecture, engineering and urban planning. But in agriculture, there is the most interest because the aim is restoring and improving ecosystem health while meeting the population’s food needs. This system is based on agroecological principles that promote the health and resilience of agricultural systems. Different authors [53,54,55,56] see regenerative agriculture as a model for producing food sustainably and in an environmentally friendly manner.
Regenerative development was proposed in 1996 by the American Regenesis Group. This group consisted of an interdisciplinary team of architects, designers, engineers, biologists, ecologists, and philosophers, among others. Regenesis Group’s innovation lay in understanding that the regenerative paradigm applied to different systems, not only to nature but also to regenerate business systems, cities, or even societies. It is a rethinking of how we live with ecosystems, cities, and organizations. It is based on the idea that we can rebuild ecological health, socio-cultural vitality, economic value, and human potential in an integrated and reciprocal way [52]. Regenerative development creates capacities for systems to self-regenerate in positive and sustained evolution [57]. After the design and structure are delivered, the regenerative capacity continues, and people sustain the system’s regeneration.
According to Gibbons [58], the regenerative paradigm is not where problems are solved, but a transformation in the thought model that created them [58]. According to this author, regeneration aims to regenerate ecosystems’ well-being from a holistic perspective through transformative practices that promote change processes. The regenerative paradigm is not anthropogenic, not fragmented, and does not seek to dominate nature or people. Meanwhile, the sustainable paradigm aims to do less harm, mitigate impact, maintain the status quo, and manage nature and humans [58]. The approach of doing less harm or carbon neutrality is insufficient in the face of the current crisis [57]. The sustainability paradigm proposes that humanity must learn to live within the ecosystem’s limits, while the regenerative paradigm proposes coexisting with nature and co-evolving with it.
Suárez et al. [15] affirmed that the concept of regeneration goes beyond sustainability, and that it is not enough for a system to be sustainable. Therefore, to adopt the regenerative paradigm, society must be the main reference point, as everything regenerative must start from the social aspect and how it relates to and intervenes in the environment. Major and Clarke [59] consider that regeneration is the model of the future and must be strictly linked to innovation and technology because only in this way can all obsolete practices that have been proven to be neither sustainable nor regenerative be changed. This model is directly linked to the social aspect because land use and resource systems are always connected to social systems [59].
Regeneration is vitally important because it allows the healing of resources that have been damaged throughout history. It is a term that encompasses extensive processes, represented by an integral and mature approach to designing our future with greater restorative awareness [60]. Regenerative development is characterized by being holistic, interdependent, transdisciplinary, and future-oriented. One of the main characteristics of regenerative development is to surpass the anthropocentric and reductionist vision of development with a more holistic approach that integrates natural sciences, social sciences, and enriches the conceptual theoretical frameworks constructed by regenerative design and architecture [58].
Regenerative rural development is a thought model that transcends the extractive and sustainable approaches. From an interdisciplinary perspective, it proposes the restoration of the rural ecosystem through actions aimed at generating capacities in systems so that the regeneration process can occur by restoring the soil used in agricultural activities, strengthening rural cultural identity, improving the quality of life for rural inhabitants, including social and political inclusion in decision-making about rural territory, and regenerating the spiritual relationship between farmers and nature as a place of life.
Regenerative rural development is a multidimensional process of co-evolution and systemic interrelation that heals the devastation caused by extractive approaches in rural areas and promotes the health of living systems in the ecosystem at different scales and multidimensionally in rurality. It is a process that seeks the well-being of living systems devastated by extractivism by generating capacities in rural inhabitants to manage their lives in a process of co-evolution with nature, not against it.

4. Conclusions

According to the bibliometric review, Eastern Europe has shown interest in rural development and regeneration processes in post-socialist times. There is a considerable presence of the Czech Republic in producing articles related to rural regeneration, indicating a growing interest in Eastern European societies. Similarly, there is a significant increase in the production of articles on research in China. It is interesting that both Eastern Europe and China have undergone land collectivization processes and large-scale agro-industrial models, namely, “agrarian transition” or agricultural extractivism. These development models generated ecological degradation processes and the subsequent abandonment by rural inhabitants. While China seeks ways to regenerate environmental devastation and repopulate villages, in Western Europe, rural areas seek to regenerate aging rural areas, such as in Spain and France.
Although the United Kingdom has led intellectual production on the subject, it is projected that in the future, China, Italy, and Spain will match their intellectual production due to the growing problems faced by the rural areas in these countries. According to the bibliometric analysis, these problems are rural population aging, depopulation, and environmental deterioration.
The literature review shows the evolution of research interests related to rural development. This is observed because the keywords in the first decade of the 21st century focused on economic growth and agricultural development, while from 2015 onwards, processes related to environmental care, biodiversity, and rural regeneration have been placed on the research agenda.
The literature review showed that various authors have reflected on regeneration. This paradigm holistically integrates different dimensions such as ecological, cultural, economic, social, spiritual, and political. Besides its dimensions, the regenerative paradigm is characterized by being interdependent, interdisciplinary, systemic, prospective, and complex. In this sense, regenerative rural development is a process aimed at regenerating the well-being of systems devastated by the extractivist paradigm in rural areas. It seeks to develop capacities in rural agents to self-manage holistic healing processes, specifically community capacities that help social groups achieve well-being along with living systems.
The difference between sustainability and regeneration is that the latter does not aim to respect a limit to which nature can withstand but rather attempts to change the thought model that promotes devastation. This work proposes that productivism, extraction, and profitability should not be the only criteria for decision-making in rural development policies. While the sustainability paradigm seeks economic growth within the limits of nature, the regenerative paradigm promotes co-evolution with nature; while sustainability is based on social, environmental, and economic dimensions, regeneration integrates other dimensions such as political, cultural, and spiritual. Regenerative rural development is not anthropocentric but focuses on addressing living systems where humans are part of the whole, and it is a multidimensional process of co-evolution and systemic interrelation that heals the devastation caused by extractive approaches in rural areas and promotes the health of living systems in the ecosystem at different scales and multidimensionally.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.-C.; methodology, E.S.-C.; software, V.M.B.; validation, D.R.; data curation, D.K.R.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.A.-R.; project administration, C.F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Autonomous Heritage National Fund for Financing Science, Technology, and Innovation, Francisco José de Caldas, under contract 034-2024, through the Fundamental Research Call 2023. The doctoral studies were funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation under call 909 of 2021: National Doctorate for Professors of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), Resolution 2226 of 2021.

Data Availability Statement

The research data are available on the Open Science Framework. The current protocol is registered with the link: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-ac9fp-v1 accessed on 19 July 2024.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2006. Available online: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat06300a&AN=sibbila.78740&site=eds-live (accessed on 3 March 2024).
  2. McKay, B.M.; Alonso-Fradejas, A.; Ezquerro-Cañete, A. Agrarian Extractivism in Latin America; CLACSO; University of Calgary: Calgary, Canada, 2021; pp. 1–214. [Google Scholar]
  3. Urrego-Mesa, A. The Social Metabolism of Tropical Agriculture: Agrarian Extractivism in Colombia (1916–2016). Doctoral Thesis, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dethier, J.-J.; Effenberger, A. Agriculture and development: A brief review of the literature. Econ. Syst. 2012, 36, 175–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Klusácek, P.; Navrátil, J.; Martinát, S.; Charvátova, K.; Krejcí, T. From large-scale communist agricultural premise through abandoned contamined ruin to organic farming production: The story of successful post-agricultural brownfield regeneration. Eur. J. Tour. Reg. Dev. 2021, 13, 32–57. [Google Scholar]
  6. Martinát, S.; Klusácek, P. Regional paths of agricultural labour force development in the Czech Republic: Growth of labour productivity or ticking timebomb? In Proceedings of the 12th International Scientific Conference on Economic Policy in the European Union Member Countries, Ostravice, Czech Republic, 16–18 September 2014; Tvrdon, M., Majerova, I., Eds.; Silesian Univ Opava, Sch Business Adm Karvina: Karvina, Czech Republic, 2015; pp. 550–560. [Google Scholar]
  7. Universidad de La Salle. Librillo 70. Manifiesto Rural por un Pacto de la Ciudad con el Campo: Un Compromiso con el Desarrollo Rural y Territorial. Ediciones Unisalle, Editor. Bogotá; 2019; 103p. Available online: https://doi.org/10.19052/1900-2335_70 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  8. Agencia Presidencial para la Acción Social y la Cooperación. Campesinos, Tierra y Desarrollo Rural. Reflexiones Desde la Experiencia del Tercer Laboratorio de paz. República de Colombia. 2011, p. 50. Available online: https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/colombia/documents/projects/cartilla_tierra_y_desarrollo_lab_paz_iii_es.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  9. Beltrán, J.P. Ruralidad y conflicto en Colombia: Retos y desafíos para reorientar el escenario rural. Tecnogestión Una mirada al Ambient 2006, 3, 14–22. Available online: https://revistas.udistrital.edu.co/index.php/tecges/article/view/4334 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  10. Parra-Peña, R.; Ordóñez, L.; Acosta, C. Pobreza, brechas y ruralidad en Colombia. Fedesarrollo Coyunt Económica 2013, 63, 15–36. [Google Scholar]
  11. Perry, S. La pobreza rural en Colombia. Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural. 2010, p. 16. Available online: www.rimisp.org (accessed on 19 May 2022).
  12. ONU. Our Commun Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2024).
  13. East, M. The transition from sustainable to regenerative development. Ecocycles 2020, 6, 106–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Milán-García, J.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Luis Ruiz-Real, J.; De, J.; Valenciano, P. Sustainable Local Development: An Overview of the State of Knowledge. Resources 2019, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Suárez-Rojas, C.; González Hernández, M.M.; León, C.J. Sustainability in whale-watching: A literature review and future research directions based on regenerative tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023, 47, 101120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Torres, D.I.R. Contribution of higher education to the Sustainable Development Goals from teaching | Contribución de la educación superior a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible desde la docencia. Rev. Esp. Educ. Comp. 2021, 37, 89–110. [Google Scholar]
  17. Boggia, A.; Rocchi, L.; Paolotti, L.; Musotti, F.; Greco, S. Assessing Rural Sustainable Development potentialities using a Dominance-based Rough Set Approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 144, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Castro-Arce, K.; Vanclay, F. Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 74, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, X.; Yang, H.; Jia, J.; Shen, Y.; Liu, J. Index system of sustainable rural development based on the concept of ecological livability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 86, 106478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. PašPašakarnis, G.; Maliene, V. Towards sustainable rural development in Central and Eastern Europe: Applying land consolidation. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qu, Y.; Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Li, Z. How does the rural settlement transition contribute to shaping sustainable rural development? Evidence from Shandong, China. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 82, 279–293. [Google Scholar]
  22. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; De Vries, W.; De Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ripple, W.J.; Wolf, C.; Newsome, T.M.; Barnard, P.; Moomaw, W.R. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. Bioscience 2020, 70, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Folke, C.; Polasky, S.; Rockström, J.; Galaz, V.; Westley, F.; Lamont, M.; Scheffer, M.; Österblom, H.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; et al. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 2021, 50, 834–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. World Bank. The Year in Review. 2022. Available online: https://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/immersive-story/2022/12/15/2022-in-nine-charts (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  26. Deparment of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. 2022. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2022_wpp_key-messages.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  27. OXFAM. A Deadly Virus: 5 Shocking Facts About Global Extreme Inequality. 2021. Available online: https://www.oxfam.org/es/cinco-datos-escandalosos-sobre-la-desigualdad-extrema-global-y-como-combatirla (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  28. UNEP. Facts About the Nature Crisis. 2023. Available online: https://www.unep.org/es/datos-sobre-la-crisis-de-la-naturaleza (accessed on 1 October 2024).
  29. Larivière, V.; Côté, G.; Gingrasb, Y.; Archambault, É.; Vignola-Gagné, E. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics 2006, 68, 329–342. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. 2015. Available online: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=901e89d4-2ff6-3fd9-b0f5-078d419d87b6 (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  31. Zhu, J.; Liu, W. A Tale of Two Databases: The Use of Web of Science and Scopus in Academic Papers. 2020. Available online: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=3d92dccb-4414-3b1e-8be6-3c9e6cc2f2da (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  32. Visser, M.; van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Large-Scale Comparison of Bibliographic Data Sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. 2020. Available online: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=2c94287f-4cb7-326d-838c-e203e1441097 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  33. Liu, Y.; He, H. Scientometrics of Scientometrics Based on Web of Science Core Collection Data between 1992 and 2020. Information 2023, 14, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Panahi, S.; Ghaffari, S.; Lotfi, M. A Bibliometric Analysis in Web of Science Publications for Obtaining Global Research Trends and Hot Topics in Library and Information Science. Int. J. Inf. Sci. Manag. 2023, 21, 311–329. [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Raan, A. Measuring Science: Basic Principles and Application of Advanced Bibliometrics. In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators; Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M., Eds.; Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies CWTS: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 237–280. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hernández Sampieri, R.; Fernández Collado, C.; Baptista Lucio, P. Metodología de la Investigación, 6th ed.; Mc Graw Hill: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014; 600p. [Google Scholar]
  38. Purssell, E.; McCrae, N. How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review [Electronic Resource]: A Guide for Healthcare Researchers, Practitioners and Students; Purssell, E., McCrae, N., Eds.; Springer Nature eBook: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. National Science Fundation. Science and Engineering Indicators. 2016. Available online: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161 (accessed on 30 November 2024).
  41. Congressional Research Service. Federal Research and Development (R&D). 2017. Available online: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44516.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  42. European Comission. European Research Area Progress Report; European Union: Bruselas, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  43. Obiri, J.; Lawes, M.; Mukolwe, M. The dynamics and sustainable use of high-value tree species of the coastal Pondoland forests of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 166, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bowonder, B. Management of forest resources in India. Public Adm. Dev. 1983, 3, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Klusacek, P.; Charvatova, K.; Navratil, J.; Krejci, T.; Martinat, S. Regeneration of Post-Agricultural Brownfield for Social Care Needs in Rural Community: Is There Any Transferable Experience? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, C.; Dou, X.; Li, J.; Cai, L.A. Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: An empirical investigation from China. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 79, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tang, L.; Li, J.; Ding, W. Geomorphological change and rural settlement patterns: Study of the formation mechanisms of strip villages in Jiangsu, China. River Res. Appl. 2023, 39, 1300–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M. Funding acknowledgment analysis: An overview of its limitations and potential in Web of Science and Scopus. J. Informetr. 2016, 10, 871–890. [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu, X.; Fang, H. The development and limitations of funding data in Web of Science and Scopus: A comparison of funding acknowledgement practices. Scientometrics 2015, 102, 1803–1816. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruiz, S.; Contreras, E. Las limitaciones de Scopus como fuente de indicadores: Buscando una visibilidad integral para revistas argentinas en ciencias sociales. Rev. Latinoam. Bibl. 2021, 31, 137–156. [Google Scholar]
  51. Müller, E. Desarrollo Regenerativo Ante el Cambio Global, Garante de un Futuro Económico, Social y Ambiental. El Caso de Centroamérica. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad para la Cooperación Internacional. 2016. 40p. Available online: https://laliniciativablog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/uci-desarrollo-regenerativo-centroamecc81rica-05-2016-1.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  52. Duarte Dias, B. Regenerative Development-Building evolutive capacity for healthy living systems. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2018, 13, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Giller, K.E.; Hijbeek, R.; Andersson, J.A.; Sumberg, J. Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric. 2021, 50, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. LaCanne, C.E.; Lundgren, J.G. Regenerative agriculture: Merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Newton, P.; Civita, N.; Frankel-Goldwater, L.; Bartel, K.; Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 577723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rhodes, C.J. The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Sci. Prog. 2017, 100, 80–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Robinson, J.; Cole, R.J. Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2015, 43, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gibbons, L.; Cloutier, S.A.; Coseo, P.J.; Barakat, A. Regenerative development as an integrative paradigm and methodology for landscape sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Major, J.; Clarke, D. Regenerative tourism in Aotearoa New Zealand—A new paradigm for the VUCA world. J. Tour. Futures 2022, 8, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Spiller, C.; Erakovic, L.; Henare, M.; Pio, E. Relational Well-Being and Wealth: Maori Businesses and an Ethic of Care. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 00425 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart based on PRISMA.
Figure 1. Flowchart based on PRISMA.
Sustainability 17 00425 g001
Sustainability 17 00425 g002
Figure 2. Number of articles over time in WoS and Scopus.
Figure 2. Number of articles over time in WoS and Scopus.
Sustainability 17 00425 g002
Sustainability 17 00425 g003
Figure 3. Number of citations over time in WoS and Scopus.
Figure 3. Number of citations over time in WoS and Scopus.
Sustainability 17 00425 g003
Sustainability 17 00425 g004
Figure 4. Countries, number of articles, and evolution overtime (WoS).
Figure 4. Countries, number of articles, and evolution overtime (WoS).
Sustainability 17 00425 g004
Sustainability 17 00425 g005
Figure 5. Countries, number of articles, and evolution overtime (Scopus).
Figure 5. Countries, number of articles, and evolution overtime (Scopus).
Sustainability 17 00425 g005
Sustainability 17 00425 g006
Figure 6. Co-occurrence of keywords (WoS).
Figure 6. Co-occurrence of keywords (WoS).
Sustainability 17 00425 g006
Sustainability 17 00425 g007
Figure 7. Co-occurrence of keywords (Scopus).
Figure 7. Co-occurrence of keywords (Scopus).
Sustainability 17 00425 g007
Table 1. Main authors, number of articles, and number of citations.
Table 1. Main authors, number of articles, and number of citations.
Web of ScienceScopus
NameNumber of ArticlesTotal CitationsYear of First PublicationNameNumber of ArticlesTotal CitationsYear of First Publication
Klusacek, P.3132015Li, J.21282020
Krejci, T.3112021Liu, X.262022
Martinat, S.382015Mcareavey, R.2492006
Navratil, J.3112021Murray, M.2631995
Baek, H.J.262014Osborne, S.P.2362004
Belliggiano, A.292022Shucksmith, M.212011
Bindi, L.292022Thompson, N.212011
Conti, M.292022Wang, Y.242020
Cueto, C.262014Abramson, D.B.1152020
Gkartzios, M.2832011Gkartzios, M.2352011
Kim, H.H.262014Kim, H.H.252019
Park, H.J.262014Park, H.J.252019
Quaranta, G.262006Rivera, R.L.252019
Rivera, R.L.262014Wu, Y.262022
Tondelli, S.2262021Abramson, D.B.1152020
Wu, Y.2462015Cai, L.A.11262020
Abramson, D.B.1112020Dou, X.11262020
Source: own elaboration based on WoS and Scopus.
Table 2. Journals, number of articles, H-index, and total citations.
Table 2. Journals, number of articles, H-index, and total citations.
Web of ScienceScopus
JournalNumber of ArticlesH-IndexTotal CitationsJournalNumber of ArticlesH-IndexTotal Citations
Sustainability10655Journal of Rural Studies107524
Land4313Land3211
Sociologia Ruralis4392Land use Policy33141
Journal of Rural Studies3350Planning practice and Research3326
Land use Policy33133Acta Horticulturae215
Agriculture-Basel2213Agriculture (switzerland)2215
Forest ecology and Management22118Agroforestry Systems217
New medit2223Environmental Management2271
World Development2168Forest ecology and Management22136
Journal of Sustainable Tourism11305Tourism Management11377
Source: own elaboration based on WoS and Scopus.
Table 3. Institutions and number of articles published.
Table 3. Institutions and number of articles published.
Web of ScienceScopus
InstitutionNumber of ArticlesInstitutionNumber of Articles
Mendel Univ Brno7Newcastle University4
Inst Geon6University of Montenegro4
Univ Bologna6Cnr—Institute for The Conservation and the Valorization of Cultural Heritage3
Univ Molise6Ohio University3
Agr Univ Athens5Atatürk University2
Fuzhou Univ5Bournemouth University2
Univ Rey Juan Carlos5Glasgow Caledonian University2
Inst Conservat and Valorizat Cultural Heritage4Jk Lakshmipat University2
Newcastle Univ4Mendel University in Brno2
Ohio Univ4Not Reported2
Peking Univ4Queen’s University Belfast2
Res Inst Soil and Water Conservat4Southeast University2
South China Univ Technol4Universidad de León2
Univ Evora4University of Exeter2
Univ Illinois4University of Ibaraki2
Univ Kwazulu Natal4University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign2
Univ Montenegro4University of Northern Bc2
Univ Politecn Valencia4University of Ulster2
Source: own elaboration based on WoS and Scopus.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-Cañón, E.; Alvarado-Rincón, J.A.; Rodríguez, D.; Barrera, V.M.; Ríos-Moyano, D.K.; Lizarazo, C.F. Conceptualization of Regenerative Rural Development: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020425

AMA Style

Sánchez-Cañón E, Alvarado-Rincón JA, Rodríguez D, Barrera VM, Ríos-Moyano DK, Lizarazo CF. Conceptualization of Regenerative Rural Development: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(2):425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020425

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-Cañón, Elkin, Joao Alveiro Alvarado-Rincón, Dolly Rodríguez, Víctor Montaña Barrera, Diana Katerine Ríos-Moyano, and Cristhian Fernández Lizarazo. 2025. "Conceptualization of Regenerative Rural Development: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 17, no. 2: 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020425

APA Style

Sánchez-Cañón, E., Alvarado-Rincón, J. A., Rodríguez, D., Barrera, V. M., Ríos-Moyano, D. K., & Lizarazo, C. F. (2025). Conceptualization of Regenerative Rural Development: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(2), 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020425

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop