A Leap of Faith: Regenerative Agriculture as a Contested Worldview Rather Than as a Practice Change Issue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the study, the subject of Regenerative agriculture is explained in detail using the Q methodology. In my opinion, a well-written article. I think that the issue of revitalizing small agricultural enterprises is an important issue both in terms of environment and sustainability. The abstract, introduction, method and conclusion parts of the study were written in harmony with each other. 

Author Response

Thank you for the positive and constructive feedback. We haven’t responded specifically to this comment, but have made changes in line with comments from reviewers 2 and 3 to clarify aspects of the method and discussion sections to make them clearer and more compelling as per this reviewers suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Discourses and perspectives of RA are very actual and important. The reviewer agrees with the author's goals. The paper is coherent, the methods are well formulated. However, international relevance is missing. According to US and European examples, the authors have to put some other current literature and general aspects.
https://www.interacademies.org/publication/regenerative-agriculture-europe
https://www.ria.ie/sites/default/files/easac_report_regenerativeagriculture_april_2022_web_1.pdf
Fig1. is not quite sharp.

Author Response

Again, thank you to the reviewer for their positive feedback on the manuscript.  The reference Suggested by reviewer 2, and a White Paper from New Zealand European (Grelet, G.; Lang, S.; Merfield, C.; Calhoun, N.; Robson-Williams, M.; Horrocks, A.; Dewes, A.; Clifford, A. Regenerative Agriculture in Aotearoa New Zealand– Research Pathways to Build Science-Based Evidence and National Narratives; Next Foundation; Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research; National Science Challenges, 2021) were included to add some more international context and provide more current literature. References were amended to reflect the addition of these two papers.

Figure 1 has been replaced with a clearer image.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The present research main question is to determine what regenerative agriculture means to farmers and what the relation between regenerative and sustainable approach is and also what does the environment represent for the two approaches.  The topic not original but very important and it is relevant in the field, certainly it would contribute to unifying the worldview around these concept, especially regenerative agriculture development.  Overall, research result will enriching the background around this cognitive field, especially Australian people vision.   About methodology there are no comments, but the discussion part needs more improvement,

   -       First, what does mean 12 consensus statements (28%) of a total of 44,

   -       Second, more explanation of the 12 statement position change from Factor to other one (figures appendix),

   -       Also, it misses author’s recommendations and propositions to more contribute to regenerative and sustainable approach execute by farmers.

2. The abstract need  to add the participants concerning and the main findings  
3. Please review the key word: Regenerative, sustainability, agriculture, farmer, worldview, Q Methodology
4. Line 321: replace KenQ by Ken-Q
5. Authors have to signal that their research interested to a qualitative study because the number of 28 participants it statically is insufficient.
6. is better to use percentage:

Line 374: “50% of participants….”  instead of  “14 people…”

Line 415:: “28,5% of participants….”  instead of  “8 people…”

Line 457: “7% of participants….”  instead of  “2 people…”

6. From Line 496 to line 501, not necessary , it’s a repetition
7. Please can you explain more how you choose the three Factors
8. Why authors relate regenerative approach directly to environment (factor 2)
9. In discussion part, authors should add a discussion of their results according to the three chosen  Factors
10. Please include Appendix number in text
11. Please use 2-Literature review instead 1-2

Author Response

Thank you to this reviewer for the positive feedback and highlighting areas that were not clear enough. Below is a point by point response:

1. A short explanation of consensus statements was added to the appendix (where they are visible in the figures and confusion may arise).
   There are some recommendations for directions of future research in the discussion and conclusions, however we believe that it is important not to overreach recommendations as this research was an exploration of farmer responses to common discourses around regenerative and sustainable agriculture. Further research using other methods is needed to better understand the implications of these narratives and better inform recommendations for approaches to regenerative and sustainable agriculture.
2. The main findings are reported in the abstract. Number of participants are not reported in the abstract as per normal reporting procedures in studies using Q methodology.
3. Keywords reviewed. Cattle was retained to ensure broad search capture for a diverse audience.
4. Line 321. KenQ changed to Ken-Q
5. The small sample size is addressed in line 287-289. This size sample is within the acceptable range for studies using Q methodology. It is important to note that, as indicated in the manuscript, Q methodology is not intended for use in making generalisations about larger populations as would be the case for quantitative survey methodologies. Please see the following references for examples:

Churruca, K.; Ludlow, K.; Wu, W.; Gibbons, K.; Nguyen, H.M.; Ellis, L.A.; Braithwaite, J. A Scoping Review of Q-Methodology in Healthcare Research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021, 21, 125, doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01309-7.

Davies, B.B.; Hodge, I.D. Exploring Environmental Perspectives in Lowland Agriculture: A Q Methodology Study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics 2007, 61, 323–333, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.002.

Ásványi, K.; Miskolczi, M.; Jászberényi, M.; Kenesei, Z.; Kökény, L. The Emergence of Unconventional Tourism Services Based on Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)—Attitude Analysis of Tourism Experts Using the Q Methodology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3691, doi:10.3390/su14063691.

Mandolesi, S.; Cubero Dudinskaya, E.; Naspetti, S.; Solfanelli, F.; Zanoli, R. Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8718, doi:10.3390/su14148718.

Syrou, D.; Botetzagias, I. Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3389, doi:10.3390/su14063389.

6. In keeping with normal reporting procedures in studies using Q methodology (see above references), referring to the number of participant responses aligning to each factor has been retained (i.e. not using percentages). In recognition of normal reporting procedures “people” has been changed to “participants”

6a. The repetition in lines 496-501 has been removed and embedded within the paragraph.

7. Section 3.1.4. Analysis and interpretation explains how the factors were obtained through statistical analyses of the data. Section has been amended with a sentence explicitly stating this to ensure this message is as clear as possible.

8. Results suggest that protecting the environment and ensuring positive environmental outcomes is important to this group. Additionally, results show that the participants aligning to this perspective reject regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is not directly related to the environment.

9. The discussion section was not broken into separate sections with subheadings for each factor as this was felt that it would be too repetitive of the results section. Each factor is discussed in the discussion, as well as situated within broader literature.

10. Appendix numbers added to text

11. Literature Review has been put into a separate section (Section 2) and subsequent section numbering has been amended.

 

Additional changes

Extra space deleted in line 169

Figure 2 replaced with a higher resolution image