The search criteria did not capture all papers on regenerative food systems. A full scoping of all papers that have been produced was not, however, an aim of this paper, as the main purpose was to find the key papers shaping the scholarly understanding and key defining features of regenerative food systems. The focus on food systems literature also created a limitation by potentially excluding relevant discussions on alternatives to current dominant paradigms in other disciplines and systems, for example alternative economic frameworks, e.g., regenerative, circular, and symbiotic economy. The specific interest and focus on regenerative aquaculture in the search also narrowed the scope in a way that may have excluded potentially relevant literature on related approaches such as ecosystem-based approaches to aquaculture or marine permaculture. The inclusion of only peer-reviewed academic articles was also a selected limitation, which restricted the contribution of grey literature and other knowledge systems. Further development of this framework could therefore include input from a wider range of sources, such as grey literature as well as local, Indigenous, and practitioner knowledge as well as from a broader range of disciplines and aligned approaches within the aquaculture field.

The scope of this review was focused on regenerative food systems, but the importance of cross-disciplinary knowledge and the uptake of the regenerative concept across fields such as economics, governance and management is acknowledged. Two papers in the corpus represent research drawing together work on regenerative approaches across diverse disciplines. This work showed a shared sense of regeneration being in contrast to degeneration and explored the dynamics and requirements for regeneration across different fields. Fischer et al. (2024), for example, looked across fields as diverse as ecology, chemistry, management, psychology, and economics and concluded that there were some core similarities in how the diverse fields engaged with the meaning of regenerative. This included: (1) an intention to positively enhance a particular desired outcome, (2) a commitment to working through systems-focused practices that are often also place-based, and (3) an emphasis on building on human-nature connectedness. Through their review, Fischer et al. (2024) lay out a generalized framework to study and manage regenerative systems, emphasizing the importance of developing terminology and theory that is broadly applicable across a wide range of fields, yet precise enough to enable regenerative approaches to move into the mainstream. In their framework, particular attention is given to the notion of regenerative dynamics and how they enable the ongoing re-creation of desirable outcomes, i.e., dynamics that enable ongoing improvements in a system (i.e., positive cycles) in ways that are life-affirming at all scales, do not undermine resources or have negative spill-over effects for other systems, and become largely self-perpetuating over time. For Fischer et al. (2024), regenerative practices then are the intentional activities that humans perform (including the energy, effort and resources they put in), to help establish and support regenerative dynamics in a system.

Buckton et al. (2023) express concern about the lack of a coherent understanding of regeneration and regenerative practices across different disciplines and worked to develop a conceptual framework going beyond food systems and agriculture to include fields such as economics, sustainability, tourism, urban studies, design, development, education and governance. Through their interdisciplinary review, the authors developed an integrated framework as a reflexive tool that they call “the Regenerative Lens” (Buckton et al., 2023). The authors note that in general, regenerative systems can be understood as systems in which “life begets life” and there are positive cycles of improving wellbeing occurring both within and beyond the system. Importantly, Buckton et al. (2023) emphasise that a system cannot be regenerative alone but operates as a part of an “ensemble” of interdependent and nested regenerative social-ecological systems. With this understanding, they draw together and describe five qualities that are needed to encourage regenerative dynamics in systems in ways that can generate positive outcomes for both human and ecological well-being and evolution. These 5 key qualities are described in the regenerative lens as: (1) an ecological worldview embodied in human action, (2) mutualism (i.e., cooperation, reciprocity, caring, resource-sharing etc), (3) high diversity (of both physical and conceptual system components), (4) agency (for humans and non-humans), and (5) reflexivity (through continued evaluation, learning and adaptation). With a focus on social-ecological systems, Buckton et al. (2023) describe how systems can be understood as internally and/or externally, regenerative and/or degenerative, and demonstrate how a framework with an “optimal level of simplicity” can be useful for stimulating visions and deepening discussions in fields of practice in ways that enable greater implementation of regenerative approaches. To build regenerative food systems they must be considered within the broader nested social-ecological systems, and inclusion of other disciplinary research will support implementation of regenerative approaches across society.

Within the body of literature reviewed on regenerative food systems there is repeated emphasis on regenerative approaches to agriculture existing as one among a set of related, yet arguably distinct, alternatives to the type of food systems and regimes that currently dominate in a global context and are responsible for significant ecological degradation. These dominant and degradative food systems are variously referred to in the literature as industrial (Dahlberg, 1994; El-Sayed and Cloutier, 2022; Loring, 2023a; Gordon et al., 2022; Mambo and Lhermie, 2024), productivist (Beacham et al., 2023; Umantseva, 2022), and/or extractivist (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021). Despite the literature on regenerative food systems employing different terms for the degradative systems, there appears to be agreement on the key features of these systems, that regenerative approaches are then being defined in opposition to. Degradative food systems are seen to embody an industrial logic, based on human domination and control over nature, and an extractivist mindset, in which nature has only instrumental value and exists as a set of resources available for humans to extract and consume according to their own needs. These food systems adopt a productivist agenda in which the primary focus is on enhancing yields and profits, which following the logic of an industrial mindset, is to be achieved through standardization, large-scale monocultures, and enhanced use of inputs and new technologies to boost any declines in levels of production. The widespread adoption and promotion of this model of food production is highlighted as leading to an increasing concentration of power and wealth, as well as a range of technological and methodological lock-ins (El-Sayed and Cloutier, 2022; Loring, 2023a; Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021).

Since as early as the 1990s, there have been calls for recognising the failings of modern industrial/extractivist/productivist approaches and the need to develop food systems and regimes with the capacity to be more renewable (Dahlberg, 1992). This has been recognised as requiring not just alternative technologies, but a different set of underlying values, priorities, beliefs and ideologies, which are then supported by alternative structures and institutions so that there is an active shift away from patterns of domination and destruction, toward collaboration and regeneration. Regenerative food systems are therefore put forward as an alternative approach that specifically aims to address the root causes of the decline of nature by promoting visions in which humans and nature thrive together, adopting models of systems-thinking, pursuing multi-functional aims and outcomes, and engaging in activities that both restore and enhance communities and ecosystems in the process of food production (Leitheiser et al., 2022; Dahlberg, 1992; Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021).

Defining regenerative food systems in contrast to existing systems that are degenerative opens up for a spectrum of approaches, with several authors recognizing a continuum between industrial and regenerative food systems (Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023; Gordon et al., 2022; Walthall et al., 2024). If this is accurate, what becomes clear from reviewing the literature on regenerative food systems is that one of the key defining features of the ends of this continuum are the targeted outcomes. Within industrial/extractivist/productivist systems, the desired outcomes are primarily linked to high yields and high profits, while in regenerative systems there is a greater focus on a wider set of outcomes that include benefits for both people (particularly local communities) and nature. Within this, benefits for people are also more broadly understood than just the amount of food available or the level of profit to be made, with the targeted benefits extending out to include healthy, nutritious and diverse diets (Kraak and Niewolny, 2024; Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021), viable and resilient livelihoods (Loring, 2022; Wilson et al., 2022), vibrant rural communities (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021; Wilson et al., 2022), enhanced ownership, agency (Buckton et al., 2023; Seymour and Connelly, 2023) and sovereignty (James et al., 2021), to name just a few. Benefits for nature include habitats and conditions that support and encourage the survival, flourishing and evolution of diverse species within the food system. This means that while the cross-disciplinary reviews can be seen to pay close attention to definitions of regeneration and draw specific attention to the dynamics of regenerative systems, the literature on regenerative food systems often focuses on defining regenerative systems in contrast to what they are not. Regenerative food systems include a breadth of outcomes being targeted, with importance given to understanding and embracing the interconnections between people and nature in food systems.

Within the literature on regenerative agriculture, diversity and ambiguity in how the concept, practice and movement is defined is widely acknowledged, with significant debate about the value of arriving at a single specific definition. Several authors put forward specific definitions of regenerative agriculture (Jayasinghe et al., 2023; Sands et al., 2023; Schreefel et al., 2020), while others propose that individual users of the term should be permitted to define it in ways that are relevant for their own purpose and context (Newton et al., 2020). While some highlight that conceptual flexibility may be required for encouraging context-specific applications of regenerative practices (Mambo and Lhermie, 2024), others emphasise that a balance is needed to ensure the use of regenerative terminology does not become vague (Fischer et al., 2024), greenwashed (Loring, 2023b; Wilson et al., 2024; Loring, 2023b) or strategically repurposed (Sands et al., 2023). To avoid vagueness but still provide some structure for how regenerative agriculture is understood and defined, authors in this field define regenerative agriculture by describing it’s characterizing principles, practices or outcomes (Newton et al., 2020; Schreefel et al., 2020; Jayasinghe et al., 2023; Dudek and Rosa, 2023). The grassroots nature of the development of regenerative agriculture, and its broad application across different regions, have led to the emergence of diverse ways in which it is understood, practiced and discussed (Gordon et al., 2022). Not all who practice regenerative agriculture agree on the practices or principles or hold a shared vision (Beacham et al., 2023). Even so, it is noted that there is enough common ground for an inclusive community to have emerged and one that allows space for individual interpretation (Gordon et al., 2022).

There are some recent works within the field that highlight mindsets, philosophies or paradigms as important characterizing features (Gordon et al., 2022; Gosnell et al., 2019). Indeed, research found some regenerative farmers differentiate practicing regenerative agriculture from “being regenerative,” acknowledging that regenerative mindsets are as important as physical practices (Seymour and Connelly, 2023). Mambo and Lhermie (2024) usefully offer a distinction between technical and social definitions of regenerative agriculture. Technical definitions include those that are process based, those that are outcomes based, and those offering a combination of processes and outcomes. In contrast, social definitions are said to include those that focus on mindset at the individual level (e.g., farmers holding philosophical or ethical approaches), or at the societal level (e.g., through an emphasis on the importance of social sustainability or indigenous knowledge systems). Sands et al. (2023) valuably present an anti-colonial definition of regenerative agriculture. This definition highlights the importance of Indigenous and local knowledges for regenerative farming practices and philosophies, emphasising that any definition that does not acknowledge these cultures and ways of knowing, and their role as a source of many of the beliefs and practices important for regenerative agriculture, is just another colonial and extractivist project. Sands et al. (2023) also suggest that it is imperative not to restrict regenerative agriculture to “technical” definitions that focus solely on processes and outcomes, as this would neglect the central role that values, mindsets and culture play in shifting from degenerative to regenerative approaches. Although the inclusion of non-material dimensions such as mindsets, values, beliefs, norms, and spirituality – embedded in (and extricable from) indigenous cultural contexts – are present in the literature (Gosnell et al., 2019; Gordon et al., 2022; Sands et al., 2023; Wright, 2022) they are arguably not yet mainstreamed in the field.

Western ontologies and exploitive human-nature relations are ingrained in dominant agricultural practices and discourses (Seymour and Connelly, 2023). Similar to the body of literature on regenerative food systems, works focused on regenerative agriculture also present it as an alternative to industrial farming approaches (O’Donoghue et al., 2022), which separate humans from nature (Page and Witt, 2022), extract and seek to control (Umantseva, 2022), and dis-embed and commodify food and land (Leitheiser et al., 2022). Despite an emphasis on creating alternative food systems, the literature on regenerative agriculture tends to maintain a focus at the farm-scale, discussing practices, principles, outcomes and mindsets linked to production and producers, rather than out to the whole value-chain or food system structures, actors and arrangements more broadly. Academic research on regenerative agriculture also often tends to focus on biophysical dimensions and neglect social and economic dimensions (Sands et al., 2023). Indeed, within works focused on regenerative agriculture, one clear item of disagreement and debate is the extent to which there are or should be social and political aims linked to definitions of regenerative agriculture, such as around communal models of ownership and control.

In both the literature on regenerative food systems and on regenerative agriculture, it is common to note the existence of various versions of alternative agriculture approaches, such as agroecology, permaculture, organic, climate-smart, sustainable etc., and to emphasise that although these can all be recognised as sharing a basis in resistance to systems built on productivist approaches and extractivist paradigms. These alternative systems also exist on a spectrum of divergence from those dominant systems and are not synonymous with one another (Walthall et al., 2024; Shrestha and Horwitz, 2024). For example, the literature highlights the way in which, despite its initial radical roots and the persistence of an articulated philosophy that honours human-nature connectedness, organic agriculture has become an alternative approach that is also now largely defined by what it does not permit (e.g., the use of synthetic chemicals), has become highly regulated through standardisation, often operates through large monocultures, and is currently an integrated component of existing global food systems (Mambo and Lhermie, 2024; Schreefel et al., 2020). In contrast, agroecology has largely retained it’s identity as a social movement that operates according to a set of defining practices, but also extends well beyond this in it’s clear and dedicated pursuit of a socio-political agenda that specifically aims to break down patterns of concentration in power and wealth and more fairly redistribute agency and ownership within agriculture (Walthall et al., 2024). Within regenerative agriculture it is noted that the diversity and ambiguity that remains in the field is allowing for varying degrees of divergence from industrial-productivist models of agriculture (Gordon et al., 2022; Walthall et al., 2024), and it is not yet clear to what extent it may follow a path more closely resembling that of organics or the agroecological movement.

Similar to regenerative agriculture, regenerative aquaculture has initially emerged as a grassroots movement driven by practitioners - such as GreenWave (USA) and Havhøst (Denmark) – while the concept has only recently emerged in the academic literature. The work that is published on regenerative aquaculture often draws on regenerative agriculture research and discourse (Alleway et al., 2023; Mizuta et al., 2022). While there is an opportunity to learn from regenerative agriculture, the biophysical differences between the terrestrial and marine environments are significant. In marine systems where nutrient cycling takes place over broader spatial and temporal scales (Loring, 2023b) direct application of the specific practices and processes developed for regenerative agriculture, where soil health and conservation are the base (Schreefel et al., 2020), is clearly not possible. That said, the work identifying regenerative outcomes, dynamics, general principles and mindsets as characterizing features may have some degree of transferability.

Mizuta et al. (2022, p. 4) offer the first definition of regenerative aquaculture in the academic literature: “commercial or subsistence aquaculture performed with focus on social, economic, and ecological responsibility and stability, with minimal external input and impact to the environment.” According to this definition, regenerative aquaculture focuses on developing farming activities that involve minimal external inputs and environmental impacts, while placing emphasis on social wellbeing and economic stability (Mizuta et al., 2022). Although Mizuta and colleagues mention the importance of context specificity, they also assume it is possible to arrive at agreement and conceptual clarity regarding the meaning of regenerative aquaculture despite this. To support the operationalization of their definition, Mizuta et al. (2022) offer 5 ‘suggested identification steps’: 1. Assisted culture, 2. Low external input during cultivation, 3. Usually polyculture, 4. High focus on social responsibility results 5. Private product ownership.

As seen in agriculture, there are various forms of aquaculture, both those that are considered to be “conventional” and those defined as alternatives to the norm. Mizuta et al. (2022) outlines four key aquaculture approaches: commercial, conservation, restorative, and regenerative. The interconnection and overlap between different aquaculture approaches can spark confusion and hence providing conceptual and definitional clarity is identified as important for policy and practice (Mizuta et al., 2022). In essence, the category of commercial aquaculture aligns with that of industrial agriculture, in which there is a primary focus on productivity and profit for global commercial markets – typically in the form of large-scale monocultural farms using advanced technology. This commercial form of aquaculture has had a wide range of negative environmental impacts (Naylor et al., 2021; Tsikoti and Genitsaris, 2021; Singh et al., 2024; Chary et al., 2024), with ownership and wealth often concentrated in the hands of a few. An illustrative example of this form of aquaculture is carnivorous fin-fish farming.

The category of conservation aquaculture as outlined by Mizuta et al. (2022) refers to aquaculture systems that are used to cultivate species to support conservation goals, e.g., through breeding threatened species and re-releasing them into wild ecological systems. The term restorative aquaculture is then used to refer to aquaculture systems that target the dual goals of supplying seafood or other products for human use, at the same time as generating environmental or ecological benefits. An example of this might be commercial seaweed farming which provides consumable products as well as offering services such as carbon sequestration and habitat generation. Alleway et al. (2023) acknowledge restorative aquaculture’s role in regenerative food systems but define it differently from regenerative aquaculture to more directly recognise and emphasise the role of aquaculture in rehabilitation and restoration of aquatic environments, as demonstrated in the six principles of restorative aquaculture (see Box 2). While the restorative aquaculture principles do encompass social factors, the focus of social wellbeing and justice issues receive stronger focus in a regenerative aquaculture approach (Mizuta et al., 2022). An example given by Mizuta et al. (2022) under the category of regenerative aquaculture is integrated multitrophic aquaculture in which polycultures of bivalve shellfish and seaweed offer low input systems that deliver products for human use as well as environmental benefits and services. This distinction between restorative and regenerative has been framed in other works, for example Reed (2007) who highlight the nature of restorative design as “humans doing things to nature” as different from regenerative design focusing on evolution of the whole system, and a shift to “humans participating as nature.”

It is noteworthy that although the approach of Mizuta et al. (2022) to defining and distinguishing regenerative aquaculture from other forms of aquaculture specifically emphasises the importance of the socio-political dimension, this was not unanimously highlighted by all approaches to identifying key defining features of regenerative agriculture. Interestingly, Mizuta et al. (2022) also include both subsistence and commercial practices in their definition of regenerative aquaculture, while also drawing attention to the need for redistribution of subsidies and taxes to improve social and economic welfare. Furthermore, although Mizuta et al. (2022) emphasise environmental benefits and minimal inputs as important characterizing features, they say less about the role of regenerative mindsets and the specifics of regenerative dynamics in their definitional approach, which are emphasised as important in other bodies of work related to regenerative food systems.

While this literature review found very little published academic literature actively engaging with or developing the specific concept of regenerative aquaculture, there are other bodies of potentially aligned work in aquaculture that are relevant to note and consider when seeking to define the specific characterizing features of regenerative approaches. Similar to the agricultural context, there currently exist several approaches that challenge production and extraction centred paradigms, each with their own community of practice. For example, ecological aquaculture uses ecological principles and practices as the fundament to developing an alternative model of aquaculture that draws on rich traditional knowledge systems for aquaculture development (Costa-Pierce, 2021). Ecological aquaculture offers six principles (see Box 3) to guide aquaculture development that preserve and enhance the natural and social environments of the system, whilst delivering environmental and economic profits (Costa-Pierce, 2021). This holistic approach and social-ecological systems understanding of aquaculture systems was developed further in the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA), which aimed to provide a management framework that integrates aquaculture in local planning and integration with other sectors (Brugère et al., 2019).

A concept developed in the terrestrial farming context surfacing in aquaculture is demonstrated in the work of Spillias et al. (2024) who translate permaculture design principles for the ocean. Marine permaculture is another related approach offering a framework for designing aquaculture based on principles that promote resilience and equity in social-ecological systems that are guided by three central ethics: earth care, people care, and fair share (Spillias et al., 2024). This approach specifically promotes small-scale aquaculture development and seeks to restrict dominance of large-scale actors (Spillias et al., 2024), in their work Spillias et al. (2024) define marine permaculture as a regenerative approach, and highlight the relevance to non-aquaculture implications such as focus on use of renewable energy over fossil fuels.

The contribution of ecological aquaculture, EAA and marine permaculture principles offer insights into alternative approaches to dominant paradigms and provide valuable contributions for shifting from a production and profit focus to promote regeneration in social-ecological systems. In the same way that the regenerative agriculture movement draws on and defines itself in relation to other alternative systems such as organics, agroecology and permaculture, regenerative aquaculture may find it useful to draw inspiration from and characterize itself in relation to alternative approaches such as EEA or marine permaculture. Understanding the potential contributions and synergies between these aquaculture approaches and regenerative aquaculture’s relationship to these frameworks will benefit from future empirical research. Ensuring clear understanding of the similarities and differences between emerging alternatives can allow multiple pathways to develop toward improved social and environmental outcomes, each of which may be more appropriate or accepted in specific contexts. For example, permaculture’s promotion of small-scale farming, which relocates agency to the individual and community level, can play a key role in diversity and resilience for blue food systems (Spillias et al., 2024), while the application of an ecological approach to aquaculture to larger scale production systems (Costa-Pierce, 2021) can help existing larger systems improve environmental and social outcomes.

There appears to be benefit in viewing the variety of alternative approaches (conservation, restorative, ecological, permaculture, regenerative) and their communities of practice as all contributing to more sustainable food systems, each offering their own input and knowledge to improve environmental and social outcomes. Continuing research into understanding the contributions of different aquaculture systems in different aquatic environments, for example the ecosystem service contributions (Alleway et al., 2019) and addressing issues that lead to persisting social inequities (Bennett et al., 2022) offer complementary knowledge for future pathways for aquaculture development. Mizuta et al. (2022) describe their paper as a first attempt at defining different types of aquaculture as a foundation for establishing clear guidance for policy-makers and practitioners to advance environmental conservation and a sustainable economy. In this paper we aim to build on this foundation and based on our review performed across the four distinct yet related bodies of literature, synthesise key features of regenerative food systems that can be used to discuss, develop and align regenerative aquaculture within the broader conversation of regenerative approaches. Through observing and reflecting on the maturing of the regenerative agriculture movement, there appears to be value in developing identity within regenerative aquaculture practitioner communities and describing key features of this approach to farming in the ocean is an important step for identity and community building (Figure 1).

Regenerative food systems prioritize activities that enhance communities and ecosystems (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021) resulting in positive outcomes for people and nature. The tendency to measure the success of food systems on narrow economic and production criteria has resulted in neglect of other dimensions including ecology, ethics, and equity (Dahlberg, 1992). Working toward positive outcomes both ecologically and in human social and cultural spheres is central for moving away from production focused and extractive food systems toward regenerative food systems. Regenerative food systems draw on intentional regenerative practices and dynamics that encourage continuous improvements of ecological and social outcomes. Importantly, to be truly regenerative, regeneration of a desired outcome should not result in degeneration, or a decline in another desired outcome (Fischer et al., 2024).

Regenerative aquaculture aims to not only reduce ecological impacts but maintain the regenerative capacity of the biosphere (Loring, 2022). Broad regenerative ecological outcomes, such as “maximise ability of Earth’s biosphere to build, maintain, repair and reproduce itself, as well as adapt and evolve” (Buckton et al., 2023, p. 828) will need to be translated into practice in aquaculture to determine concrete, specific outcomes. The focus of terrestrial regenerative agriculture on soil and nutrient cycling does not translate to marine ecosystems, demanding regenerative aquaculture consider broader ecosystem scales and processes including the relationship between aquaculture and fisheries and terrestrial and marine environments. Overton et al. (2023) outline 12 ecologically beneficial outcomes possible through aquaculture including habitat rehabilitation and restoration, bioremediation, species recovery and climate change mitigation. Selecting the specific ecological outcomes arguably needs to be adapted to the specific context and acknowledge that the same practices cannot assume the same results in all regions (Khangura et al., 2023). The most developed knowledge on environmental beneifits of aquaculture are water quality improvements, habitat provision and climate mitigation from extractive bivalve and seaweed species (Alleway et al., 2023). Extensive evaluation is needed to further improve knowledge of the benefits of aquaculture practices (Alleway et al., 2023), including the development of clear and measurable indicators to ensure positive intentions result in positive ecological outcomes (Overton et al., 2023). Deciding when, where and how to monitor outcomes, the selction of indicators and metrics, and the trade-offs between comprehensiveness and feasilbility of monitoring present an ongoing challenge that will be an important element in any shift toward regenerative systems (White et al., 2024).

As well as positive ecological outcomes, regenerative food systems emphasize the importance of social outcomes such as valuing social innovation (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021) and enabling human cultural and intellectual evolution through meeting people’s full suite of needs (Buckton et al., 2023). Regenerative outcomes are not only a result of the practices or technologies, but also the social organization of the systems (Loring, 2022), highlighting the importance of regeneration beyond the bounds of the farm. This means that regenerative aquaculture involves moving beyond the narrow aim to reduce environmental harms, toward cultivating diverse and resilient livelihoods and vibrant communities. In aquaculture, human and social issues have received insufficient attention (Osmundsen et al., 2020), with the focus on profits and yields neglecting the non-economic value of aquaculture (Brugere et al., 2023). Defining social outcomes for regenerative aquaculture can draw from previous work, such as Krause et al. (2020) who outline potential qualitative and quantitative indicators for aquaculture based on the UN social dimension categories of population, health, education, work and housing. Additionally, Brugere et al. (2023) put forward foundations for a renewed human relationship with aquaculture based on recognizing substantive equality and agency, intersectionality, and integrated knowledge systems, and outline implementation strategies including inclusive business models, benefit sharing, and capacity building. Regenerative aquaculture can draw on these important works to develop and maintain the high focus on social responsibility that has been emphasised as an important characterizing feature (Mizuta et al., 2022).

For clarity, the use of the term mindsets here follows the definition from Fang et al. (2004) as “the basic assumptions, beliefs, core values, goals and expectations shared by a group of people who are committed to a specific field, and what they will use as rules to guide their attitudes and practice in the field.” A mindset influences how people form (and re-form) their connection with the world around them (Seymour and Connelly, 2023), which can include relationships with the natural world, the food systems and related social and cultural systems. Here we highlight two elements of regenerative mindsets that came forward in the corpus: interdependent nested systems thinking and relationality.

A regenerative mindset places emphasis on thinking and living as interconnected systems (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021; Dahlberg, 1994), sometimes referred to as a holistic approach (Mambo and Lhermie, 2024; Seymour and Connelly, 2023). Systems thinking focuses on how things are interconnected and how these interconnections affect the character, activity and outcomes of the larger whole. This approach therefore pays particular attention to relationships and interactions (Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021) and acknowledges how living social and ecological systems are interconnected, interdependent, and not uniform (Loring, 2023a; Paolini et al., 2024). A regenerative mindset adopts a systems view that sees nested layers of interconnected systems in which humans are a part of and dependent on nature, and recognises the value and agency of the more-than-human (Seymour and Connelly, 2023) and non-material worlds (Gosnell et al., 2019; Sands et al., 2023; Wright, 2022). Seeing humans as an inherently integrated and interwoven part of nature, is a commonly held sentiment among many Indigenous communities globally and regenerative mindsets honour this wisdom (Sands et al., 2023; Buckton et al., 2023). Relationality is discussed in the corpus in several ways, including relational approaches (Seymour and Connelly, 2023), relational thinking (Gosnell et al., 2019), relational values (Sands et al., 2023), and relational worldviews (Page and Witt, 2022). Relational thinking acts as a key determinant differentiating regenerative in opposition to industrial and extractive food systems.

While there are a wide range of traditions and disciplines now advocating for relational mindsets, which includes but also now extends beyond indigenous communities as the initial embodiment of such views (West et al., 2020). Relational mindsets can arguably be characterised as taking the systems view a step further in the sense that the relationship is viewed as primary, and the interacting components are seen to be co-constituted through the relationship. Meaning that in relational worldviews, the parts do not precede or exist independent of the whole. In this worldview, it is not that there exist entities and that these two separate entities then interact. Rather, what we understand as separate entities actually arise together and are constituted through myriad interactions and interconnections. In practice it is often helpful to see and think in terms of separate entities or categories (such as humans and nature, or social and ecological systems), but in relational worldviews, the world is in a dynamic state of interactional flow in which there are no set entities, but rather a wide range of unfolding processes and shifting relationships that give rise to certain arrangements that appear stable for some time. Relational approaches therefore tend not to refer to system components as nouns, and rather direct language to focus on verbs and processes of becoming (West et al., 2020). Regenerative mindsets see the world in terms of interconnected systems of becoming in which the type and quality of relationships shape what arises. Acknowledging the co-arising of humanity/nature leads to regenerative mindsets offering opportunities to reframe dominant attitudes and embracing care-based paradigms for human-nature relationships (Seymour and Connelly, 2023) in global food systems.

Of relevance to this work, is understanding how regenerative mindsets grounded in systems thinking and relationality would manifest within aquaculture, as well as how this can contribute toward desired regenerative outcomes and encourage regenerative dynamics and practices. A mindset influences an individual’s (constantly re-forming) connection with the world around them and may affect behaviors or decision making, for example on a terrestrial or aquatic farm. Alternatively, influence can happen the other way with regenerative practices and regenerative thinking acting as a pathway that challenges the mainstream concepts of development and growth, which can in turn generate mindset shifts (Beacham et al., 2023; Miller-Klugesherz and Sanderson, 2023; Umantseva, 2022). Some of the mindset shifts within conventional aquacultural systems that would be necessary to align with more regenerative approaches would for example be: (a) a shift away from seeing the ocean as an infinite resource to extract as much value as possible from, toward honouring the various ways our lives are shaped and supported by the ocean and finding ways to live in reciprocal give and take relationships grounded in respect and care; (b) a shift away from the assumption that single species farming is the most efficient and productive and into adopting a multifunctional lens in which the search is for a wide range of positive outcomes for people and nature that extend well beyond financial profit; (c) understanding food systems in a dynamic way that acknowledges and actively engages with the interactional processes between terrestrial food production, aquaculture and fisheries, and (d) valuing networks of small businesses and organizations to empower communities and pursue goals of having resources circulated locally. The promotion of holistic, systems thinking is promoted in the EAA. Integrating ecological, social and governance factors proved limited due to lack of institutional and human capacity (Brugère et al., 2019). Important lessons can be learnt from EAA, and other, attempts to promote holistic management and sectoral integration, including the need to include value chain approaches (Brugère et al., 2019).

Diversity, reciprocity and equity are normative principles (see Sumberg et al., 2023) for regenerative food systems and will therefore be essential to embed and embody within regenerative aquaculture. Whilst these principles are by no means an exhaustive representation, they are core values revealed by the literature review that provide guidance for the development of regenerative outcomes, mindsets and practices. Interpretations of each of these terms vary across disciplines and context, and the following discussion is based on the definitions and interpretations in the reviewed literature. Defining a core set of guiding principles is important in the development of a brand and identity, which is commonly seen in ‘alternative’ forms of agriculture (Sumberg et al., 2023). The definition of such normative principles is a political act of framing, and an important step to foster a community of regenerative practitioners and practice.

Regenerative practices encourage regenerative dynamics, are supported by defining the regenerative outcomes and must be considered within, and rely on the ecological, social and cultural context. This means that regenerative aquaculture practices will need to vary depending on the context, including the species cultivated, the organizational models in place, and the technologies used. Given the limited amount of literature on regenerative aquaculture as a specific form, and on the concrete practices that might characterize it, rather than prescribing specific practices here, an indication of common circularity characteristics of regenerative agriculture that may also be applicable in aquaculture can be noted. This includes for example, emphasis on systems that leverage cyclic processes and recycle materials (El-Sayed and Cloutier, 2022); polyculture or mixed species farming (Beacham et al., 2023); using native species (Chary et al., 2024); minimizing external inputs (Schreefel et al., 2020; Mizuta et al., 2022); and using low-energy processes (El-Sayed and Cloutier, 2022; Dahlberg, 1992; James et al., 2021). These types of cyclical processes are also emphasized as important features in other alternative approaches to aquaculture, for example marine permaculture principle 2: catch and store energy and principle 5: use and value renewable resources and services (Spillias et al., 2024).

Regenerative aquaculture practices would ideally be selected with consideration and support for regenerative outcomes in local ecosystems, distant ecosystems (e.g., terrestrial based feed impacts) and all interacting systems throughout the value chain. For food systems to be regenerative they need to account for and accommodate environmental variability and change at multiple scales (Paolini et al., 2024). Diversity, reciprocity and equity offer guiding principles for how to select practices that enable regenerative actions for aquaculture. Practical understanding of regenerative dynamics and the determination of practices that support these dynamics within aquaculture systems really requires empirical investigation in specific contexts, importantly including analysis of both ecological and social practices that support regeneration. If regenerative aquaculture is to really become a movement and a thriving community recognised by practitioners, policy-makers and the public, developing a sense of relevant practices within and across different contexts is a crucial next step.

To understand and encourage regenerative systems, we need an understanding of regenerative processes and cycles (Dahlberg, 1992). Regeneration involves the process of renewal or re-creation of a desired outcome, with emphasis on positive cycles and dynamics (in multiple interconnected domains) rather than static goals (Fischer et al., 2024). To create regenerative momentum toward desired outcomes, outside energy and practices are needed for regenerative dynamics to win out over degenerative dynamics (Fischer et al., 2024; Reed, 2007). A focus on the self-perpetuating process of regeneration and regenerative dynamics shifts focus from doing less harm toward doing more good (Paolini et al., 2024). This positive framing (Fischer et al., 2024) allows potential and hope to drive meaningful action (Camrass, 2020). Understanding the regenerative dynamics of aquatic environments and how these dynamics can be incorporated into aquaculture systems is a key area requiring further investigation and description through iterative interactions between theory and practice.

Flexibility, learning and adaptation within cultural systems is necessary to respond to changing environmental and social contexts (Paolini et al., 2024; Loring, 2022). In the face of climate change and biodiversity decline, blue food systems will need to be able to understand the changes occurring and be able to adapt and support regenerative approaches. Regenerative food systems aim to create the flexibility necessary to adapt to environmental changes and for farmers to co-evolve with the changing ecosystems (Gordon et al., 2022). This requires acknowledging and restructuring systems of feedback and power (Loring, 2022). To be able to monitor impacts from regenerative practices and continue supporting regenerative dynamics in the face of changing environmental conditions, deep reflexivity, continuing evaluation, learning and adaptation need to be nurtured (Buckton et al., 2023). To be regenerative one benefits from embracing various ways of knowing, including local and Indigenous knowledge, and being in the world (Page and Witt, 2022) and this means learning not only intellectually but also experientially, with the senses (sight, smell, sound) and through practice (Seymour and Connelly, 2023). Beyond the farm, building regenerative food systems will require creating regenerative momentum, flexibility, adaption and learning along the whole value chain.