Inner Dimensions of Regeneration: Mental Models, Mindsets and Cultures

Abstract

A growing body of scholarship recognizes the importance of understanding the inner dimensions of transformations to sustainability at individual, collective, and system levels and their influence on the behavior of individuals and groups and the types of institutions that prevail. This review summarizes and synthesizes scholarship on the inner dimensions of regeneration, a subject of growing interest in the sustainability science literature. Regeneration refers to a process of rebuilding or renewing an asset, resource, ecosystem, individual, family, organization, community, or place. It enables the expression of nature’s capacity for self-organization and empowers social-ecological systems to revive themselves through positive reinforcing cycles. The review seeks to improve understanding of the characteristics and meanings of regenerative mental models, mindsets, and cultures. It begins with definitions, then describes methods, summarizes results, and discusses what regenerative mental models and mindsets look like when they become part of culture and are scaled to larger social-ecological systems.

1. Introduction

A growing body of scholarship recognizes the importance of taking seriously the inner dimensions of transformations to sustainability at individual, collective, and system levels and their influence on both politics and practices [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Inner dimensions include individual and shared values, beliefs, attitudes, identities, mindsets, and worldviews, along with collective aspects of reality, such as societal norms, culture, narratives, discourses, and imaginaries. Bristow et al. (2024) [7] characterize “inner dimensions of sustainability and system transformation” as

the domain of cognition, emotion, consciousness and culture; a complex interplay between individual subjective experience, unconscious processes and neurophysiology, interpersonal relationships, collective beliefs and social constructs. It is contrasted by the material ‘outer’ world of landscapes and objects, but neither realm is truly separate or distinct, and both exist in dynamic interdependence continuously influencing and informing one another.

As this quote suggests, inner dimensions are essential to understand because of their inextricable links with the outer world, including the behavior of individuals and groups and the types of institutions that prevail. In a systematic review of literature describing these inner/outer links, Wamsler et al. (2021) [6] identify particular transformative qualities/capacities (e.g., awareness, connection, insight, purpose, and agency) and a suite of intermediary factors (e.g., the presence/absence of social trust) that together “can influence the beliefs, values and worldviews/paradigms that delineate our relationships with ourselves and the world around us, with direct implications for sustainability.” Common to this body of work is the notion that inadequate attention to the inner dimensions of sustainability can lead to constrained and ineffective actions across all levels [8]. For example, an economic incentive program aimed at engaging farmers in “climate smart” practices that fails to take into account the role of farmer identity and peer pressure in farmer decisionmaking is unlikely to be successful [9].

This review explores the inner dimensions of regeneration, a subject of growing interest in the sustainability science literature. Regeneration can be defined as “a process of rebuilding or renewal of the Common Good—taking an asset, resource, ecosystem, individual, family, organization, community, or place, from crisis and collapse to recovery and renewal” [10] (Sarkar et al. (2022) list 9 domains of the “Common Good”—social, economics, nature, work, culture, media, law, technology, and politics—and 5 worlds, interconnected and interdependent—the individual, community, work, the nation, and the planet.). Regeneration “creates, builds, and heals” and “puts life at the center of every action and decision.” It “weaves justice, climate, biodiversity, and human dignity into a seamless tapestry of action, policy, and transformation” [11]. Regeneration differs from restoration [12] because it enables the expression of nature’s capacity for self-organization [13], which means empowering social-ecological systems to revive themselves through positive reinforcing cycles [14]. Fischer et al. (2024) [15] (p. 3) say, “regeneration suggests humans co-evolving with and participating as nature, restoration refers to humans doing things to nature.”

Outer manifestations of regeneration include how humans interact with nature (e.g., regenerative agriculture), their community, and each other. Inner dimensions of regeneration include individual aspects, e.g., the ways individuals think about their relationships to nature and each other and how they make decisions, as well as collective aspects, e.g., their shared beliefs, values, norms, customs, and practices. As Gordon et al. (2022) [16] point out, facilitating a large-scale transition to regenerative landscapes will require concerted attention to these inner dimensions, or “mindscapes,” which refer to the geography of mental models, mindsets, and cultures that shape how an individual or group perceive and interpret the world. There is growing recognition among scholars and policymakers alike that this type of inner transition is a necessary prerequisite for achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals [6,11].

This review seeks to improve understanding of the characteristics and meanings of regenerative mental models, mindsets, and cultures. By organizing our paper around these three subheadings, we move from the micro (mental models), to the meso (mindsets), to the macro (culture), offering a comprehensive and multi-scalar analysis of the inner work necessary for regenerative change. We begin with definitions, then describe methods, summarize results, and discuss what regenerative mental models and mindsets look like when scaled to larger social-ecological systems.

1.1. Mental Models

Mental models are specific cognitive tools or frameworks used for understanding and decision-making in a given domain or situation, e.g., on a farm [17]. They are representations in people’s minds of how parts of the world work, frameworks people use to understand the world around them [18]. Mental models are based on a person’s knowledge, experience, values, beliefs, aspirations, and “deeply ingrained assumptions” [19], as well as their social interactions and community dynamics [20]. They are context-dependent and change over time through learning [17,18,21].

Mental models are significant because they influence how people interact with the world, make decisions, and filter and store new information. In farming, they reflect the cognitive process by which farmers’ views about sustainable agriculture are translated into decision-making on the farm, including which management practices are adopted [22]. For example, when farmers are trained in Holistic Management (HM) and learn about the four fundamental ecosystem processes, their mental models regarding how plants, animals, and soils interact to produce food, fiber, and carbon change [23,24].

While no two people can have the same mental model, elements of mental models can be shared, e.g., cultural understandings of how the world works [17,25,26] or views about a particular topic or problem [18,27]. “Group mental models… represent the collective knowledge and understanding of a particular domain held by a specific population of individuals” [22]. Jonassen and Henning (1996) [20] note that mental models are not only internal but also embedded in the activities and social relations of a community. There is some debate about whether mental models are purely cognitive “in the head” knowledge structures or whether they are actually “embodied knowledge structures” [26,28].

1.2. Mindsets

While mental models are specific to particular domains or situations (e.g., how people think about nature), mindsets are broader and can influence a range of behaviors and decisions. Both mental models and mindsets play a role in shaping human cognition and behavior, but they operate at different levels of specificity and influence. A mindset can be thought of as a “meaning-making system” [29] or a predisposition to see the world in a particular way, like a filter [30] or a lens through which individuals view the world and their role/place in it [31,32]. In general, mindset refers to the underlying assumptions, beliefs, values, and associated inner capacities that inform one’s overall perspective and behavior [6]. In the transformative learning literature, mindsets are described as frames of reference or “habits of mind” formed by previous experience [33]. The term “mindset” is sometimes used as an umbrella term for “consciousness, values, worldviews, beliefs, spirituality, and human–nature-connectedness” [34]. Mindsets inform collective action [35] and are often characterized as deep leverage points for transformation since they represent “the great big unstated assumptions” and the “deepest set of beliefs about how the world works” [8,36].

Examples of mindsets include a growth mindset (believing that abilities can be developed through dedication and effort), a fixed mindset (believing that abilities are innate and unchangeable), and an abundance mindset (believing that there are plenty of opportunities and resources available) [37].

Mindsets “are both place-based and global” [35], and, like mental models, the concept relates to collectives as well as individuals. Meadows (1997) [36] discusses mindsets in terms of systems change, describing them as “the shared idea in the minds of society,” the “shared social agreements about the nature of reality,” and “the sources of systems.” Oyserman (2011) [38] writes about “cultural mindsets,” arguing that they have “causal downstream consequences for meaning-making, self-processes, willingness to invest in relationships, and complex mental procedures.” Karlsson et al. (2020) [39] (p. 1) refer to mindsets as a group’s “collective view of the system it manages,” which includes their “mental models and assumptions regarding how to understand the system and its context and how to control or influence it towards an intended state.” Thus, individual mindsets and mental models not only reflect the surrounding culture; they can be shared and together play an essential role in shaping culture.

1.3. Culture

Culture can be defined as “the values, beliefs, language, rituals, traditions, and other behaviors that are passed from one generation to another within any social group” [40]. Peterson (1979) [41] identifies four elements—norms, values, beliefs, and expressive symbols—as key components. Culture shapes ways of living and also includes shared knowledge, art, morals, laws, customs, and other acquired capabilities and habits within a society. Culture involves “processes of meaning-making” revealed through “rituals, symbols, evaluations, norms, and categories” [42] (p. 17).

2. Methods

The first task for this project was identifying keywords and concepts relevant to the inner dimensions of regeneration. These included regeneration, regenerative mindset, regenerative mental model, regenerative culture, regenerative thinking, and regenerative paradigm. Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) were used to combine these keywords effectively. Advanced search features such as wildcard (*) and quotation marks for exact phrase searching were also used. Databases searched include Web of Science and Google Scholar, as well as AI research assistants, Chat GPT, and Elicit. Search strategies were tailored for each database to optimize results. Results were sorted by date range, relevance, and citations. The “Cited by” feature was particularly useful in identifying highly influential papers and tracking scholarly conversations around specific articles. Findings from the literature review have been synthesized, highlighting key themes, trends, and insights.

Because the topic of regeneration is relatively new to scholarly peer-reviewed literature, and the focus on the inner dimensions of regeneration is even more recent, database searches using the specific terms described above resulted in relatively few hits, e.g., regenerative culture* (28 hits, 16 relevant); regenerative mindset* (3 hits, all relevant); regenerative mental model* (0 hits); regenerative thinking (9 hits, all relevant). Therefore, grey literature and websites of leading organizations in the regenerative space (e.g., Regenesis, The Really Regenerative Centre, TerraGenesis) were also consulted in the triangulation process. We used expert opinion to synthesize information from the websites of organizations that we already knew about along with ones we had not heard of but which included useful insights regarding inner dimensions.

3. Results

The search found differentiating between mindsets and mental models to be somewhat challenging since mindset influences one’s mental models, and mental models are one component of a broader mindset. In general, mental models refer to thinking, while mindsets are more related to feeling and being. For example, Seymour and Connelly (2023) [43] suggest that a regenerative mindset is associated with people “being regenerative” in their relationships and decision-making, but their decision-making is influenced by mental models involving living systems theory and holistic thinking. Some scholars argue that regenerative mental models derive from Indigenous practices, values, and knowledge systems [44,45,46,47,48,49]. The shared mindsets and mental models of a group of individuals play a significant role in shaping local culture; conversely, culture influences the evolution of individuals’ mental models and mindsets. This section attempts to separate these three concepts while recognizing that they are all interconnected. The discussion of regenerative mental models focuses primarily on concepts associated with living systems theory and holistic decision-making, including long-term thinking, and includes consideration of the ways regenerative mental models reflect and align with Indigenous knowledge. The discussion of regenerative mindsets has more to do with relationality and care, a sense of place, commitment to ongoing growth, and a sense of abundance. The discussion of regenerative cultures revisits many of the previously discussed concepts, illustrating how they reflect living systems with attention to care, well-being, reciprocity, community engagement, and co-creation of regenerative futures, all informed by a shared bioregional identity.

3.1. Regenerative Mental Models

3.1.1. Focus on Living Systems

Many proponents of regenerative agriculture refer to the importance of living systems theory to their thinking about and understanding the world [16,50]. This is evident in the Buckton et al. (2023) [14] regenerative systems framework, the ‘Regenerative Lens.’ Living systems thinking looks to nature for design principles for regeneration and stands in contrast to mechanistic thinking, which sees the world in terms of hierarchies, striving for efficiency and growth through extractivism and competition, which ultimately results in system degeneration. For regenerative farmer Charlie Massy, the focus is on processes that enable the expression of nature’s capacity for self-organization [13]. The Really Regenerative Center identifies five main principles associated with living systems thinking that inform regenerative mental models (Living Systems: A New Story for a Regenerative Future. https://reallyregenerative.org/living-systems/ (accessed on 30 April 2024)).

First, living systems create conditions conducive to life. This requires understanding the evolutionary potential of a place and then creating developmental processes and systems to support that potential [50], e.g., through the creation of a self-regenerating social and ecological system [51] or through “self-amplifying positive feedbacks” that result in persistence on the regenerative path [9]. For example, “a gardener is consciously designing an ecosystem, nested within other ecosystems, to create and maintain the conditions for healthy growth through seasonal cycles and environmental perturbations” [50].

Second, living systems are interconnected and nested in interdependent systems. Regeneration requires the ability to see a landscape or community in these terms rather than as a collection of building blocks or things.

It begins by trying to see what is at the core of a system, around which the system organizes and orders itself. It looks at the web or larger context of reciprocal relationships within which it is embedded since all systems are comprised of smaller systems and are part of larger systems. Together, these aspects provide the basis for illuminating the potential inherent in a living system that it is attempting to manifest. This constant reaching toward being more whole, being more ‘alive,’ is seen as the fuel for regeneration.

[50] (p. 30)

The ability to see the world this way can be cultivated through the study of ecology and biomimicry. The trained, ecoliterate eye sees order in what might look to others like messy or chaotic nature.

Third, living systems depend on collaborative partnerships and mutual resilience. People who subscribe to this mental model perceive a need “to re-weave human and natural communities into a co-evolutionary whole, where humans exist in a symbiotic relationship with the living lands they inhabit” [50].

Fourth, living systems are constantly adapting, changing, and evolving. Seeing the world as a complex adaptive system leads to an appreciation for the importance of regular monitoring, evaluation, ongoing learning, and being nimble and responsive to inevitable shocks and stressors. This way of thinking aligns with the principles of “resilience thinking” outlined by Walker and Salt (2012) [52]. Fazey et al. (2021) [53] identify ways that interventions aimed at enhancing community resilience can create self-amplifying feedback loops that result in regenerative cultures.

Finally, living systems thinking puts high value on diversity of all kinds (in nature as well as in communities) since it increases options for adapting to change and tends to increase creativity in the system. In sum, living systems thinking, or regenerative thinking, “encompasses a systemic, place-based, and positive outcomes-oriented approach to design and development” [54]. Systems thinking is also associated with Holistic Management [55].

3.1.2. Holistic Decision-Making

In a study of regenerative farmers in New Zealand, Seymour and Connelly (2023) [43] note that “one of the strongest themes to emerge from the research regarding the mindset of being regenerative was that of the holistic approach. Holism was found to be something that was referenced by all participants (directly or indirectly) in a way that guided their worldview and their on and off-farm decision-making.” Similarly, Gosnell et al. (2020) [24] argue that what distinguishes regenerative agriculture from other forms of sustainable agriculture is a focus on holistic decision-making. Since holistic decision-making is associated with thinking, it is portrayed here as part of a regenerative mental model while recognizing that it has close ties with regenerative mindsets, which have more to do with feeling and being.

Savory and Butterfield (1999) [56] identify three elements in holistic decision-making. First, the entity being managed (“the whole” or the social-ecological system) must be broadly defined in terms of the people responsible for its management and the resources available to them (time, money, energy, etc.).

Second, those involved work together to articulate a holistic goal or context that reflects their values and their desired quality of life and includes environmental, economic, and social/personal dimensions. The goal includes short-term and long-term considerations, e.g., what kind of future do we want? “Intergenerational thinking becomes an integral part of regenerative decision-making as understanding place within the web of interconnectedness also acknowledges that the web shifts, changes and persists through time” [43].

The third element concerns how the holistic context is used as the basis for all future decision-making, on and off the farm. This leads to a sense of right livelihood since the future well-being of the system is always considered. Thus, holistically informed regenerative agriculture can be thought of as a “triple bottom line” approach to food and fiber production because it explicitly requires attention to ecological, economic, and social/personal factors [23].

A common refrain among people who subscribe to this mental model is “healthy soils, healthy plants, healthy animals, healthy people” [43]. All of these aspects of the agroecosystem are seen as interconnected and interdependent.

Striving for healthy people requires a healthy system and, therefore, the health of everything which constitutes that system… Decisions that are embedded within holistic perspectives recognize that management of one part of the farm or the ecosystem has flow-on effects for other parts. If one part of the system is non-functioning, for example, pest insects on a crop, being regenerative means meeting this with curiosity and engagement about what in the system is causing it to occur.

[43]

Gordon et al. (2023) [57] refer to deep holism, which takes the view that holistic decision-making primarily understands the totality of something, but to really understand the whole one must move beyond intellectual and analytical modes of thinking. The whole can only be known by also embracing spiritual, embodied, and relational modes of being that generate a sense of oneness with the environment [58].

3.1.3. Regeneration, Indigenous Peoples’ Sovereignty and Power Relations

Many regenerative approaches have emerged from the practices, values, and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples all over the world, e.g., regenerative agriculture practices [44]. James et al. (2021) [47] discuss the ‘5Rs of Regeneration,’ a policy framework grounded in Indigenous Peoples’ food sovereignty—relationality, respect, reciprocity, responsibility, and rights. These act as principles for building regenerative food systems and dismantling the corporate food regime—which can easily co-opt regenerative movements [59]. Sands et al. (2023) [44] and El-Sayed & Cloutier (2022) [45] both propose anti-colonial approaches to regenerative agriculture that draw on diverse knowledge systems including Indigenous Peoples’ ecophilosophies and published scientific analyses. Gram-Hanssen et al. (2022) [60] explore ‘right relations’ as an assertion that respectful relationships can underpin sustainability transformations, as they do across many Indigenous cultures, to shift uneven power dynamics in society. Ross (2014) [61] says we need to be in right relationship with the past, present, and future; the physical world and spiritual world. Right relations “can be seen as an obligation to live up to the responsibilities involved when taking part in a relationship—be it to other humans, other species, the land or the climate” [60] (p. 6).

Inner regeneration requires seeing and addressing relations of power and inequity between humans, but also between humans and non-humans [14], another way it reflects and aligns with Indigenous Peoples’ ontologies. Seymour and Connelly (2023) [43] show how regenerative farmers in their study acknowledged that they were embedded in unequal power relations with the non-human. This gave them a newfound awareness of their ability to disrupt healthy environmental functioning and non-human livelihoods. As such, their actions became the focus of their management—not the environment itself—and conceding their control over nature meant that sometimes they were not the most powerful actor in the system.

3.2. Regenerative Mindsets

While regenerative mental models involve ways of thinking about the world, regenerative mindsets are associated with ways of feeling and being in the world.

3.2.1. Focus on Relationality and Care

Being regenerative is associated with viewing the world relationally, with care, and with a “kin-centric worldview,” which can be thought of as horizontal vs. hierarchical. Mang and Reed (2012) [50] argue that “the caring about a mutuality of relationship that comes from deepening connection with a living place is essential to launching and sustaining a regenerative process. But caring about any living entity without understanding how it works can lead (and has led) to well-intentioned but ultimately damaging interventions” [50]. This observation highlights the role of the mental models described above in a regenerative mindset, as well as the importance of ongoing learning about living systems. In one regenerative agriculture study [24] an Australian beef farmer shared his mental model regarding the relationships that result in carbon sequestration, saying,

“Everyone talks about carbon, but to increase carbon you’ve got to fix the other problems first. You’ve got to fix soil structure and all the other things. But preceding that, you’ve got to go back to plants. Plants are what drives pretty well everything. Like, soil health, soil structure…it’s all microbial health. And the carbon, I think, it comes well after all that, the increase in carbon. Plants are the drivers of it. It’s all about diversity of species”

Seymour and Connelly (2023) [43] highlight the critical role that relationships play in a regenerative mindset and identify four major features of such relationships: attentiveness, an understanding of the power dynamics of interrelation, conceding control to regain balance, and a shift in valuing of non-human species. Gosnell (2022) [62] argues that farmers’ feelings of kinship with nature (animals, plants, microbes) resulting from learning about and working with soil are underappreciated drivers of behavioral change and powerful leverage points for larger-scale social-ecological transformation.

Sarkar et al. (2023) [10] observe that regenerative mindsets tend towards cooperation rather than competition. Becoming regenerative involves “a shift in social-ecological consciousness, moving from individualism to collaboration, and a focus on place-based, community-centered, and environment-focused practices” [63]. Thinking shifts from “me” to “we” and is characterized by compassion, empathy, and collaborative action. This stands in contrast to the individualism, reductionism, separation, and marketization associated with scientific thinking. Regenerative mindsets are place-based, community-centered, and environment-focused [63]. Those with a regenerative mindset see a “horizontal web of interdependency between all matters” [64] (p. 539) and experience “a sense of co-dependence, reciprocity, and co-production” [43].

3.2.2. Universal and Relational Values

Universal values are those that inherently apply to all humans and non-humans, regardless of whether they are consciously held, and that foster human-nature connections in coherent and acausal ways [65]. While religions offer similar frameworks for human-nature connectedness, universal values transcend religious tenets and norms [66]. They overlap with relational values, which are “values of meaningful and often reciprocal human relationships—beyond means to an end—with nature (often specified as a particular landscape, place, species, forest etc.) and among people through nature” [67]. They step outside the binary of nature either having intrinsic moral value or instrumental value because it benefits humans [68,69].

Relational values are particularly relevant to regeneration because they establish a values foundation for humans co-evolving with, and participating as, nature [69]. Many regenerative agricultural practices evolved within Indigenous value systems that were relational and prioritized respect, responsibility, and care [44]. Such values are also held, either latently or explicitly, by some farmers in regenerative agriculture [70,71]. Sands et al. (2023) [44] discuss the challenge of defining regenerative agriculture and argue for an Indigenous-informed approach that “confronts current epistemic injustice and prioritizes sociocultural and relational values.”

Typically, regenerative agriculture has been defined according to processes (concerned with practices/principles) and/or outcomes (concerned with results) [72]. However, Gordon et al. (2025) [73] highlight an important values distinction between productivist and relational framings of regenerative agriculture. This distinction is defined by which values are prioritized by farmers and policymakers. Their findings suggest that many productivist approaches to regenerative agriculture over-emphasize values based on production benefits to humans whilst neglecting relational values. Meanwhile, relational approaches prioritize care for the more-than-human community without neglecting production needs. They argue that this distinction is more significant for sustainability transformations than the process-outcomes distinction. It also makes room for Indigenous-informed approaches per Sands et al. (2023) [44].

The inner dimensions of regeneration discussed in this article predominantly reflect the relational approach to regenerative agriculture and its alignment with Indigenous Peoples’ value systems. This is because the productivist approach, by neglecting relationality, does not inspire inner regeneration and can be undertaken without challenging the values of dominant society. Unfortunately, this also creates pathways for the co-optation and greenwashing of regenerative agriculture [59].

3.2.3. Growth Mindset—Learning, Experimentation, Self-Efficacy

Regenerative mindsets are associated with a willingness to experiment and learn [43] and a sense of individual agency and self-efficacy [74]. For example, regenerative farmers exhibit confidence in their ability to successfully manage land for a range of outcomes and adapt to changes. This farming self-efficacy is associated with well-being and resilience [74].

Gosnell et al. (2019) [9] and Gordon et al. (2022) [16] refer to ongoing experiential learning in regenerative agriculture persisting through time via positive feedbacks, which reinforce farmer confidence. Examples of these positive feedbacks include biophilic emotions from connecting with nature [62] and social cohesion amongst regenerative farmer networks [9]. Each of these are also relational values [70], which help consolidate a regenerative growth mindset and eagerness to continue learning. Buckton et al. (2023) [14] (p.834) say, “enabling agency in regenerative systems requires greater trust in the inherent cooperative tendencies of human communities when given opportunities to self-organize as well as trust in the self-organizing power of ecosystems.”

Seymour and Connelly (2023) [43] combine aspects of regenerative mental models (holistic decision-making) and mindsets (relationships), arguing that “the four components of regenerative decision-making interconnect with the components of regenerative relationships to contribute to the mindset of being regenerative. They can be thought of as co-constituting parts of a regenerative mindset framework” [43].

4. Discussion: Implications for Regenerative Cultures

The cumulative effect of groups of individuals embracing the mental models and mindsets described above and “thinking regeneratively” and “being regenerative” is the creation of spaces that are collaborative, interconnected, and, ultimately, caring [43].

This discussion explores how these spaces emerge at the collective scale of regenerative cultures. Regenerative cultures are plural and place specific, evolving from the unique social and ecological characteristics of place [75]. As such, each bioregion is both biologically and culturally distinct [57]. In the following sections we will explore links between the previous segments and culture.

4.1. Links with Living Systems

Since culture is a reflection of local norms, values, and beliefs, there are several commonalities between regenerative cultures and living systems as per Section 3.1.1, e.g., what organizes and orders them, how they are structured, and how they evolve. Ideas around regenerative culture have emerged “predominantly from regenerative development: a practice that seeks to align human activities with the continuing evolution of living systems [50,76,77,78].

“Systemic thinking moves us toward enlightened self-interest by which we understand that our human well-being and flowering is collective, not individual; long term, not short term” [75] (p. 3). Gibbons (2020) [79] suggests that the alignment between human consciousness and actions with living systems principles is what differentiates regenerative cultures from sustainable cultures. In these places, “living systems principles and characteristics guide the development of regenerative indicators and strategies made specific to a place through transformational co-creative processes.”

Fazey et al. (2021) [53] show how a systems approach to resilience building in a community can make the local culture more regenerative by purposely establishing different kinds of self-reinforcing feedback loops (

Table 1. Ten requirements for the emergence of a self-reinforcing process of community resilience building in support of a regenerative culture (Fazey et al., 2021) [53]. Reproduced with permission from Ioan Fazey, Sustainability Science; published by Springer Nature, 2021.

1. Enhance relationships and trust to enhance collaborative action and reinforce relationships 2. Enhance learning about systemic aspects to stimulate collaborative and synergistic action 3. Enhance understandings of the understanding of others to build relations and support systemic action 4. Surface and find ways to work with different values, mindsets, and assumptions to develop more holistic understandings 5. Surface and work flexibly with tensions 6. Invest time and effort in, and enhance willingness to engage in deep and systemic learning 7. Provide appropriate quality and quantities of support for engagement, participation, and systemic action 8. Build in, and ensure support for high levels of flexibility 9. Make wider narratives and framings of resilience, governance, and change explicit; and explore how these affect approaches to resilience building 10. Develop a deep understanding of how current policy environments support or hinder community–resilience building and strategically develop alliances, navigate governance at wider scales, and make locally based decisions

). This is also reflected in Section 3.2.3 where positive feedbacks, such as relational values like social cohesion, were central to ongoing experiential learning and change.

A key takeaway from Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 was the criticality of trust and relationship building for cultivating these feedback loops, which necessitates a culture of care.

4.2. Culture of Care, Personal and Planetary Well-Being, Reciprocity, Relationships

As per Section 3.2.1 on regenerative mindsets, regenerative design involves not merely maintaining the integrity of Earth’s life-giving systems and safeguarding their diversity but actively nurturing and strengthening their systemic health and complexity [80]. This focus on planetary health applies to human health and well-being as well. In line with living systems thinking, great value is placed on cultivating conditions that promote increased life, whole system health, and well-being.

Like living systems, regenerative cultures exhibit a web of reciprocal relationships. They are constantly reaching towards being more whole, more alive, and this is the fuel that keeps regeneration alive [50]. Casarejos et al. (2021) [80] highlight the linkages between solid relationships in a community, diversity, and a culture of learning. They say, “the more diverse the relationships in social-ecological systems’ networks, the greater the collaboration towards new ways of seeing, listening, thinking, communicating, acting, and caring.” Community ideals around equity extend to more-than-humans and other life forms in a regenerative culture.

It is critical to consider equality at multiple scales, including the diversity of non-human species with whom all humans share the same planet. To do so, it is necessary to recognize that Earth’s life-giving systems have rights and political voices of their own. Giving voice to nature must also occur through a variety of other forms of human agency in order to meet the needs of those who have experienced the most adverse effects of non-regenerative exploitation. Thus, Regenerative Democracy must transcend the current territorial definition of citizenship and empower individuals to speak for nature and for the future of human society and the planet as a whole.

[80]

Regenerative cultures maintain a transformative openness to alternative thinking and practice and provide opportunities for community members to strengthen their inner capacities to engage in systems thinking [16,57]. A regenerative culture consciously builds the capacity of everybody in a particular place to respond and change and accepts transformation as something that life just “does” [75].

4.3. Community Engagement in the Co-Creation of Regenerative Futures

Regenerative cultures are characterized by a strong sense of community, civic responsibility, and political engagement [81]. This is reflected in Section 3.1.3 where seeing relations of power becomes a tenet of regenerative mental models. Casarejos et al. (2021) [80] describe the critical role that Regenerative Democracy plays in regenerative culture and flourishing societies, arguing that a focus on equality, collaboration, and intergenerational responsibility (long-term thinking) is “essential for furthering a culture of regenerative change.” Regenerative Democracy relies on social equity, political participation, intergenerational justice and solidarity, long-term thinking, and synergistic relationships between societies and Earth’s life-giving systems, all of which align with holistic decision-making described in Section 3.1.2. “To transition to Regenerative Democracy, it is crucial to rethink and redesign the concept of society not as a compartmentalized realm of individuals within the boundaries of a single nation-state but as a globalized commonwealth of citizens in a hyperconnected world” [80].

This requires “democratic deepening” [81] and local participation in the co-creation of activities that apply systems thinking in a way that responds to the uniqueness of a given place “to shift the focus of attention from simply solving current problems to working to realize the upper limits of creative potential a healthy system is capable of manifesting” [50]. They reflect recognition of “the need to re-weave human and natural communities into a co-evolutionary whole, where humans exist in a symbiotic relationship with the living lands they inhabit” [50].

Three factors make Regenerative Democracies possible: a recognition of the interconnectedness of racism, capitalism, and patriarchy in leading to crisis; a bottom-up approach to governance with a robust political culture; and “a shared awareness that the current systemic crisis results from institutional and technological strategies based on an instrumental logic, which regards people and other living beings as mere pieces of a system, in which their productive capacity and/or consumption and availability for value extraction must be maximized” [80].

Governance structures play a critical role in nurturing regenerative cultures by creating the enabling conditions for inner and outer transformation. Local governments, cooperatives, and community-led institutions can support shifts in mindsets and values by embedding relational, place-based, and participatory principles into policies and funding mechanisms. For example, regenerative governmental frameworks that prioritize bioregional identity, community co-design, and shared stewardship can reinforce cultural narratives of care and interdependence. Cooperative ownership models and community land trusts can also redistribute power and foster collective agency, enabling cultures that value reciprocity over extraction. Public investments in nature-based education, community well-being, and arts or storytelling initiatives can further cultivate the inner capacities needed for regenerative transitions.

A recent real-world example of regenerating democracy and citizen participation in politics comes from Australia with the ‘Voices For’ movement [82]. Starting in the electorate of Indi, community members gathered to re-engage their electorate in politics using a method called Kitchen Table Conversations [83]. This grassroots movement is now operating across many electorates and has led to the emergence of non-party affiliated Independent political candidates, which is reshaping Australian politics at the federal level [84,85].

4.4. Bioregional Place-Based Identity

O’Brien et al. (2023) [65] refer to enacting universal and relational values (see Section 3.2.2) as a powerful means of generating fractal-like patterns for change across scales. Scaling regeneration is therefore based on universal values that apply to all but can manifest differently across local contexts and cultures resulting in different place-based identities.

Wahl (2016) [75] observes that regenerative cultures emerge from the context of bioregions. Regenerative cultures nurture, support, and encourage vibrant connections between people and the particular place they inhabit. The co-creative nature of that relationship becomes critical to the identity of the individual and the place.

Many scholars of place argue that it is only in relationship to place that humans experience the intimacy and responsibility to the living world and find a meaningful identity and role for themselves (Relph, 1976; Sack, 1977; Berry, 1981; Casey, 1996; Malpas, 1999; Cameron, 2002; Cresswell, 2004).

[50]

The shared sense of connection to a particular bioregion that regenerative cultures support manifests, to varying degrees, in rituals and traditions that promote nature connectedness, human-nature interdependence, and spirituality and in stories and narratives that portray cooperation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and “right relations.” Communities associated with regenerative agriculture, for example, share “songs, stories, myths, rituals, foods, ceremonies and music that transform agriculture from a functional economic activity to a spiritually rich and emotionally fulfilling central heart of an agricultural community” [86] (p. 14). Therefore, regenerative communities can be thought of as groups of people who actively co-create the conditions for ecological health, social well-being, and cultural renewal by living in right relationship with one another and with the more-than-human world.

4.5. Toward More Regenerative Cultures

For culture to be truly regenerative, an explicit focus on equitable and restorative relationships is required to counter the compounding historic injustices of agriculture, especially towards Indigenous Peoples [73]. Advocates of regenerative cultures must help regenerate those cultures that are unique to a place through ancient time, and therefore it is an inherently political process of justice, equity, and reconciliation in those places with a colonial history [14]. Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and cultures are essential to regeneration because they are the foundation for renewing place-based biocultural heritages and relationships [14,87].

Per Section 3.1.3, food sovereignty is a mental model that supports the heritages and relationships of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to thrive across scales (mindsets and cultures). It refers to their right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and to defining their own food system using sustainable practices (La Via Campesina. What is food sovereignty? https://viacampesina.org/en/what-is-food-sovereignty/ (accessed on 24 September 2024). This mental model is important because it puts Indigenous Peoples and local communities at the heart of regeneration and ensures they have power to direct those processes as they unfold. This avoids the co-optation of regeneration and traditional knowledges by retaining that link to local values and heritages—thus supporting place-based regenerative cultures [73].

Indigenous Peoples are also the custodians of relational ontologies and values that collapse distinctions between people and nature [88], so that people are co-becoming as the places they inhabit [46]. Such ontologies and values are central to place-based regenerative cultures focused on healing and well-being [48,49]. Gordon et al. (2025) [73] developed checking questions to help advocates of regenerative agriculture identify whether regeneration was equitable and relational in their place. Per Section 3.2.2, these articulate the need for approaches to regeneration that prioritize relational values and are informed by the Indigenous Peoples of specific places. The questions help ensure that reciprocal relationships between people and the rest of nature are foregrounded, that practices are not disconnected from relational values, that regenerative agriculture evolves according to the unique identity and character of the place its functioning within, and that it empowers Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and the more-than-human world.

5. Conclusions

One aim of this study was to provide a missing link between literature from sustainability science on the inner dimensions of sustainability on the one hand, and the concept of regeneration on the other. Our review explored literature that provided insights into the mental models, mindsets, and culture associated with regeneration to inform efforts to scale up regenerative agriculture in different contexts worldwide. Literature related to regenerative mental models—regenerative thinking—focused on living systems theory, systems thinking, resilience thinking, holistic decision-making, and relational models from Indigenous People (including considerations of power). Literature on regenerative mindsets, which had more to do with being and feeling regenerative, focused on nature connectedness, universal and relational values, relationships, community dynamics, and learning. In the discussion, we explored how these linked to the concept of regenerative cultures, which were characterized by elements identified in our results, e.g., living systems; cultures of care and reciprocity; engaged, politically active communities; and a shared sense of identity related to the bioregion.

Given growing global interest in the concept of regeneration, our findings have relevance for policymakers and those involved in implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Increasingly, scholars and practitioners argue that achieving the SDGs will require regenerative approaches that go beyond sustainability to actively heal and enhance the systems on which life depends. As Paul Hawken (2021) [11] notes, “regeneration is the pathway to achieve all 17 SDGs. It is the unifying framework that makes them possible, because it addresses not just symptoms, but underlying patterns.” And Wamsler et al. (2021) [6] argue that “meeting the SDGs requires deeper attention to inner and outer transformations. Regenerative mindsets and relational values can foster the systemic changes needed to truly implement the goals.”

Future research in this space could explore how to monitor change over time in the inner dimensions of regeneration. For example, mental models could be explored using cognitive mapping to track systems thinking capacity, the use of holistic decision-making, and references to feedback loops and interdependencies in explanations. Mindsets could be explored using the Inner Development Goals Framework (2021) [89] indicators to characterize increases in relational values and decreased anthropocentric thinking. Regenerative cultures could be explored using ethnography, participant observation, and network analysis to track the emergence of new collective rituals, bioregional identities, shared stories, and new governance forms emphasizing participation and reciprocity. It is hoped that the themes identified in this review provide a foundational set of indicators for engaging in this type of future knowledge generation.