Our findings expand on the current perspectives of well being that are found in the environmental sustainability literature, where indicators of well being are often limited to objective measures of social and health outcomes.Our findings suggest that measures of SWB may provide an alternative that is better able to assess both ‘well being’ as a social and health outcome for the farmer, and also ‘well being’ as an indicator of a farmer’s satisfaction with different aspects of their life – including the functioning of the farm system.Using farmer well being as an indicator of how the farm system is functioning has particular relevance in the case of complex systems such as regenerative farming systems, since under such systems improving well being is considered not just an outcome of a functioning farm system, but the overarching purpose of implementing this approach to farm management.It is the view of regenerative farm managers that supporting positive interrelationships between social, environmental and economic factors is key to overall functioning of the farm system, something that is also regarded to be at the heart of a ‘sustainable’ system.Therefore, our findings suggest that SWB measures may be suitable indicators of overall functioning of regenerative farming systems, including the positive interrelationships between the different components of the farm.This is a particularly useful finding as such indicators have previously been difficult to establish.SWB measures may provide useful insight into the sustainability of farming systems particularly when used in conjunction with established measures of sustainability as they relate to the individual components of the farm.Our analysis did identify some differences in the strength of relationship between the different measures of SWB.Although hedonic well being measures were found to be related to regenerative farming, the effect was slightly stronger for measures related to eudaimonic perspectives.One explanation for this finding is the close relationship between occupational achievement and eudaimonic well being,something that is even more evident among farming groups where the work environment is strongly intertwined with all aspects of a farmers life and identity.

Further, the theoretical underpinnings of socio-ecological approaches to agriculture are conceptually similar to the eudaimonic concepts of personal growth, purpose in life,rolling benches mastery and self-efficacy , suggesting that the process of implementing regenerative principles is also one that directly develops a farmers sense of achievement and purpose.For example, regenerative agriculture has a strong focus on understanding the ecological systems of the landscape, and continually assessing landscape changes to inform on-farm decision making.This approach is likely to foster the development of a farmer’s sense of ability to make on-farm decisions and overcome environmental challenges when they occur and may have strong implications for their overall well being – as appears to be the case here.This relationship is reflected in the literature, where relationships between regenerative agriculture and related psychological resources such as adaptive capacity and work control have been identified.Although our results cannot confirm whether or not such well being pathways are present, it makes theoretical sense that factors closely related to eudaimonic well being such as self-efficacy and adaptive capacity would explain why regenerative agriculture is more closely related to eudemonic than to hedonic well being.Consistent with this argument, of all items within the PWI, regenerative agriculture was most strongly associated with a person’s satisfaction with what they were achieving in life.This measure is strongly related to a person’s sense of self, purpose and mastery , suggesting that regenerative agriculture is more likely to contribute positively to eudaimonic well being compared to other aspects of SWB.This suggests that SWB measures that are either eudaimonic, or that examine specific facets of eudaimonic well being such as self-efficacy, sense of purpose and mastery, may be more relevant and useful indicators of well being in sustainability frameworks compared to hedonic measures.More broadly, the use of eudaimonic measures is also more consistent with the idea of measuring sustainability in that farming systems that promote eudaimonic well being may also be indicative of farming systems that are resilient over the long term, as eudaimonic well being is more closely related to predictors of ability to adapt and cope than measures of pleasure and happiness.

Further examination of whether or not this is the case warrants attention and should be explored in future studies.In addition to suggesting there is a strong case for the use of eudaimonic SWB measures in sustainability frameworks, the findings also suggest other facets of SWB may be useful in such frameworks.Regenerative agriculture was found to have a positive association with satisfaction with self-rated health, something not identified in previous studies.This is an important finding when assessing the efficacy of SWB measures as indicators of sustainability, as the health of the farmer is considered to be central to the overall sustainability of the farm , and subjective assessments of general health are found to be reliable measures of health status.Further, good health is understood to be related to positive work environments , suggesting satisfaction with health may be a potential indicator of a functioning farming system.Although the exact mechanisms by which this relationship occurs remain unclear, the role of health in contributing to the adaptive capacity of farmers has been explored in past work, with better health argued to contribute to greater ability to adapt successfully to challenging times on the farm.More research on this topic is needed to better understand the relationship between agricultural systems and a farmer’s physical and mental health.This can then inform whether SWB measures of health should be included as part of sustainability frameworks seeking to examine the sustainability of different agricultural systems.While the strongest associations between subdomains of PWI and regenerative farming found in this study were satisfaction with life achievement and health, some other subdomains of the PWI may be worth further exploration for use in sustainability frameworks.Firstly, we found a small but significant positive relationship between farmer satisfaction with community connectedness.This reflects findings in the current literature, and claims made by regenerative farmers about the importance of social learning groups and connections with like minded farmers to the achievement of sustainability goals.However, no significant relationship between satisfaction with personal relationships and regenerative agriculture was found, suggesting that although regenerative farming may impact positively on some social aspects of sustainability, namely community connectedness, it may not have a measurable impact on relationships close to the farmer such as friends and family.

The lack of association may also reflect the varied levels of acceptance of ‘regenerative agriculture’ by others in a farmer’s close social networks, something suggested in the findings of past studies which recorded that some regenerative farmers felt they were treated as ‘outsiders’ by those close to them.While this study cannot confirm this, it may be important to measure this aspect of well being in sustainability frameworks to better understand if farmers engaged in particular farming systems are well accepted by others, and if this acceptance impacts well being.Others have suggested a need for supportive policies and strategies to build greater social acceptance of regenerative agriculture, also supporting the potential utility of measuring relationships and social connectedness when including well being indicators in sustainability frameworks.Future research should further examine the complexity of linkages between adoption and acceptance of regenerative agriculture and the well being of both farmers and community members.In this study, we found no significant association between a farmer’s satisfaction with their future security and the extent to which they farmed regeneratively.The term ‘future security’ has been found in past work to be strongly related to a person’s financial security.Current evidence to support the financial sustainability of regenerative agriculture is not only unclear, but highly contentious.For example some studies have identified that regenerative agriculture has positive impacts on overall farm profitability , while other have found these systems are profitable only in specific conditions , and that claims about profitability are contrary to available evidence ,.These varying results may reflect that regenerative farming is only one of many factors influencing farm profitability, or that levels of uncertainty about the future vary with a range of factors, rather than primarily due to the farming system being used.Advocates of regenerative farming argue that this approach may increase certainty and security through improving ability to work with natural systems and adapt to changing conditions.If this is the case, a different association than the one found in this study would be expected.This is an area of research that warrant further exploration.There are several limitations to our research.Firstly, overall model fit was relatively modest across all measures of SWB.

This was expected as several established well being determinants such as financial and social capital were excluded from the analysis as current literature suggests the relationship between regenerative agriculture and such drivers is complex.However,ebb and flow bench having a modest overall model fit did not take away from our ability to answer our research questions – of which regenerative agriculture was the key variable of inquiry.In saying this, better understanding the relationship between regenerative agriculture and other established well being determinants such as financial and social capital is necessary, with future studies needed to explore this relationship.Secondly, the study was cross-sectional.Because of this, we cannot confirm the causal direction of the modest relationship we found between regenerative agriculture and different measures of well being.For example, it may be possible that regenerative farmers already have higher well being prior to adopting regenerative agriculture.We also cannot rule out the possibility that those with existing eudaimonic traits are more drawn to regenerative agriculture philosophy and practices, given there appear to be synergies between the two philosophies.It may also be the case that the relationship between regenerative agriculture and farmer well being is dynamic, and the well being benefits experienced by the farmer reinforce their commitment and long term engagement in this type of farming, however this is something that needs to be explored in future studies.While the results are consistent with existing theory about the influence of regenerative agriculture on well being, ideally longitudinal studies tracking change in well being as farmers change from non-regenerative to regenerative practices are needed to better identify causal direction of the associations identified in this study.Finally, when interpreting these results, it is important to bear in mind that the measure of regenerative agriculture used in this research was based on key philosophical attributes of regenerative agriculture.In contrast, other research on this topic has relied on self-identification as a regenerative farmer.As work by Schirmer & Brown suggests, there are differences in the well being of farmers depending on whether they self-identify as a regenerative farmer, or if they are assessed based on the extent to which individual farm management ideologies align with regenerative agriculture ideologies.Given that there is no consensus about how best to define or measure regenerative agriculture, further assessment of the validity and reliability of the measure used in this paper is required to ensure it effectively and appropriately measures regenerative agriculture.Further, our research has attempted to address some of the challenges related to evaluating systems quantitatively, by using measures of farmer SWB as an indicator that a system is functioning well as a whole.It is important to bear in mind that even though measures of SWB are useful in providing an holistic perspective of a person’s life, any quantitative analysis is by nature reductionist, and that not all factors and aspects of the system are able to modelled.This means that while the results are useful, further work is needed to expand our understanding of farming systems, and what measures are most appropriate and useful for examining the interactions between farming systems and farmer well being.Globally, farming systems are transitioning from subsistence orientation to intensive or specialized market-oriented systems in response to several factors, including increasing food demands, availability of technology and inputs for production, and development policies.While transitions towards intensification and specialization in agriculture have increased food output and income for some households , concerns about environmental and socio-economic sustainability are growing.These continents are predominantly dryland regions and are paradigmatic examples, where transitions occur in agro-climatically and biophysically challenging environments, where diverse farming systems and practices are present, and where inadequate rural infrastructure and support services exist.India clearly represents such situation, where the dryland areas cover 69% of the geographic area and support 40% of the nation’s population , and where farming systems have been subjected to transitions for over two decades.