Understanding Farmers’ Readiness to Develop a Succession Plan: Barriers, Motivators, and Preliminary Recommendations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims at understanding the priorities farm operators have for developing a succession plan,  the factors that delay or motivate succession planning, and the resources that would be helpful for creating a succession plan.

The issue of farmers aging and difficulty in finding a successor is highly relevant for all western countries, as the aging trend is affective all productive sectors. In addition, farming entangled with cultural and affective aspects, such as the inheritance of land as asset and patrimony.

I found very inspiring the recommendations to policy makers, as individually farmers may not be in the condition to be proactive. The results are very well and clearly exposed, rich in quotations and grounded in the analytical framework. The article is well referenced and appropriately summarized with tables and figures.

As minor revisions, I would suggest to reorganize a little bit the chapters and sub-chapters. I have added specific note in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1. Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide helpful suggestions. We have read through all of your comments and edit suggestions in the manuscript, and made the required changes in most instances. We have provided a point-by-point response for each comment in the section below.

 

Comment 1: The issue of farmers aging and difficulty in finding a successor is highly relevant for all western countries, as the aging trend is affective all productive sectors. In addition, farming entangled with cultural and affective aspects, such as the inheritance of land as asset and patrimony.

Response: We appreciate that Reviewer 1 acknowledged the complexity of farm succession planning. As we discovered, and described in our manuscript, farm succession planning involves cultural and affective aspects, and the rising age of farmers and the difficulty in finding a successor is a global concern for only for the sustainability of their family farm business, but also for the sustainability of rural economic development and food security.

 

Comment 2: I found very inspiring the recommendations to policy makers, as individually farmers may not be in the condition to be proactive. The results are very well and clearly exposed, rich in quotations and grounded in the analytical framework. The article is well referenced and appropriately summarized with tables and figures.

Response: We appreciate that the reviewer found the recommendations appropriate, and that the results were clear. Thank you.

 

Comment 3: As minor revisions, I would suggest to reorganize a little bit the chapters and sub-chapters. I have added specific note in the attached file.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer taking the time to consider the best way to present the information. Because another reviewer 2 also suggested restructuring the Introduction, so we have revised this section and included sub-headings. The revised changes appear on lines 29-145. We have used tracked changes in the revised manuscript of all of the changes we made. 

 

Comment 4: In reference to using convenience sampling, the reviewer asked “is this not a bias? Probably only the interested people or at least sensitive to the issue of succession are acting to contact you? Please problematize this”

Response: We used convenience sampling and snowball sampling for this study, which was the preferred approach according to our institutional ethics review board. Part of our approach was to ensure our recruitment efforts targeted different geographical regions and agricultural commodity groups so that we could collect a range of perspectives. This type of sampling strategy has been used by my research team for nearly 10 years, and is a common practice in social science. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the potential bias and therefore included a statement in our Limitations.

Lines 160-164 reads as follows: “With our goal to have a sample representing various geographical regions and commodity types in Alberta, we recruited participants using convenience and snowball sampling between May 2023 and August 2023. We posted an advertisement of our study through our social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and study website. Participants contacted a member of the research team and scheduled a semi-structured interview via telephone, in-person, or virtually.”

Lines 594-597 highlights the possible self-selection bias in the Limitations section, which reads as follows: “First, we used convenience sampling, which may have led to self-selection bias as participants with an interest in succession planning may have been more likely to participate in our study. However, the inclusion of farm families across all four categories of succession planning readiness suggests that we captured a range of perspectives.”

 

Comment 5 and Comment 6: Move the Implications section to the Conclusions and Move the Limitations section to the Conclusions

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s preference for where to display the content. However, when we moved the content (i.e., the Implications and the Limitations to the Conclusion section), the flow of the paper seemed off. Moreover, there was another reviewer who had a different opinion about where to reorganize content. To address the differing perspectives, we reviewed the journal guidelines and adhere to what is outlined for authors. Thus, we have revised our Discussion and Conclusion sections to be consistent with those guidelines. We have pasted those guidelines directly from the journal below for quick reference:

• Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.
• Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

Therefore, in accordance with the journal's guidelines, we structured our Discussion to include a presentation of our findings as they relate to our research questions and existing literature, followed by the implications and the study limitations. We provided a separate Conclusions section that summarizes the key messages.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well-written. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2. Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide helpful suggestions. We have read through all of your comments and edit suggestions in the manuscript, and made the required changes in most instances. We have provided a point-by-point response for each comment in the section below.

General Comment

I have reviewed the paper entitled “Understanding Farmers’ Readiness to Develop a Succession Plan: Barriers, Motivators, and Preliminary Recommendations.” Overall, the paper addresses an interesting and under-researched topic in the literature. Despite the small sample size, the study is well-designed and employs appropriate methods.

 

Comment 1: The abstract is well-written and includes essential information.

Response: We appreciate the comment.

 

Comment 2: The current keywords, such as “transitions” and “agriculture,” are too generic. I suggest replacing them with more specific terms, such as “risk perception” and “self-efficacy.”

Response: Replaced the current keyword “transitions” with “risk perception” and “self-efficacy”.

 

Comment 3: Introduction: This section requires restructuring to provide sufficient background on the topic for readers. While I understand the enthusiasm in emphasizing the urgency of this topic in the opening sentence, the introduction lacks depth. I recommend merging this section with Section 4 (Rationale and Research Questions), highlighting the following points:

o Challenges associated with farm businesses.

o Farm succession as a strategy to mitigate business risk.

o The importance of understanding farmers’ perspectives on this topic.

o Factors influencing farmers’ decisions to develop succession plans.

o The research problem and specific research questions.

Response: As suggested, we reorganized the Introduction by moving some of the content that we had in the Literature Review section over and by adding more research to provide enough context about the topic for readers who may be unfamiliar with it. While we provided an overview of our research question at the end of the Introduction, the specific research questions are presented at the end of the Literature Review.  The revisions made the to the Introduction have been noted with tracked changes, and appear on lines 29-56 and reads as follows:

“As agriculture is widely acknowledged as one of the most stressful occupations [1-3], there are risk management tools, such as crop and livestock insurance, that farm operators use to reduce the impact of adverse events on their business. However, one commonly overlooked risk that could profoundly affect the sustainability of family farms and agricultural businesses is a human resource risk, namely succession planning [4,5]. Succession planning is defined as the process of transferring control and ownership of a farm before retirement [6]. Despite its connection with improved economic stability, clearer business direction, and enhanced well-being [7,8], relatively few farmers develop a formal succession plan. For example, a report by Statistics Canada [9] found that 88% of Canadian farmers did not have a written succession plan, which is a trend also reported in other countries [10,11]. In recent years, farm succession planning has emerged as a growing concern. As the farming population ages and fewer young people enter the profession, many farms risk being left without successors, which raises questions about the sustainability of farms, rural economies, and agricultural productivity [12,13]. In Canada, nearly 60% of farm operators will be over 65 by 2033, representing one of the largest leadership transitions in Canadian history [14]. While there has been increased investment and a modest 4% rise in succession planning since the 2016 census [9], significant gaps persist.

Much of the existing research on succession planning emphasizes financial and operational outcomes [11,15], often overlooking the psychological and social dimensions of the process [16-18]. For example, there is some research describing that farmers develop deep emotional connections with the farm and the farming lifestyle, which make succession planning a difficult subject to discuss [11]. Other studies have described how farmers struggle to choose a successor when several family members are interested [17,18]. These issues highlight the importance of considering how farmers’ perspectives, as there may be a range of factors influencing their decisions to develop a succession plan. Moreover, most studies have been conducted in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom [15,18,19]. We located only one one qualitative study that examined the experiences of 33 Ontario farmers [20], and it remains unclear if these findings generalize to farmers in Western Canada, particularly Alberta. As a leading agricultural province, Alberta accounts for 32% of Canada’s total farmland and over 25% of its farm revenue, with operations primarily focused on beef and grain production [21]. This makes Alberta a critical region in the agricultural industry for understanding succession planning. Research specific to Alberta farmers is needed to address these gaps and develop strategies that support sustainable farm transitions.”

 

Comment 4: Literature Review: I suggest merging this section with Theoretical Framework and organizing it into subheadings to guide readers toward your research questions. A suggested structure is as follows:

o 2.1 Definition of a Succession Plan

o 2.2 Importance of Developing a Succession Plan

o 2.3 Factors Influencing Succession Plan Development

o 2.4 Resources Needed for Developing a Succession Plan

o 2.5 Theoretical Framework

Response: As suggested, we revised this section a great deal by inserting sub-headings and adding additional content to provide a fuller description of previous research. After reviewing the flow of the paper and examining recently published articles in Sustainability, we decided to place the Research Questions at the end of the Literature Review as it logically leads into the Material and Methods section. The revised section is quite long to paste here (lines 57-144), but we have noted all of the changes we made using tracked changes in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 5: Material and Methods: This section is well-written and includes relevant details about the study design. However, I suggest renaming it to Methodology and renaming subsection 5.4 to Variables.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments that we provided details about our study design. We left the heading “Materials and Methods” to be consistent with the journal guidelines. We also left the sub-heading “Materials” instead of changing it to “Variables” to be more aligned with our more qualitative methodology approach.   

 

Comment 6: Did you use any qualitative software (e.g., NVivo) for managing and analyzing complex data?

Response: As suggested, we included what qualitative software was used. The revised sentence appears on lines 182-183, and reads as follows:

“We removed all identifying information from the transcripts before uploading the data to Quirkos qualitative software [44] for the analysis.”

 

Comment 7: Results: On page 211, you mention “t (14) = 2.11.” Does this indicate the use of a t-test? If so, please clarify, especially given the small sample size.

Response: Yes, we used t tests. We indicated that we used one t tests in the Results section. Please see line 238-239, which reads as follows:

“We examined possible demographic or business-related variables associated with developing a succession plan using a series of t tests.”

 

Comment 8: I noticed that some farms did not involve more than one participant (Table 1), despite the dyadic approach being a guiding principle. Could you address this in the methodology section?

Response: We interviewed more than one person from each farm family. Please note that the first column in Table 1 presents the farm operator (FO) and the last column in Table 1 presents the additional family member(s) interviewed. Therefore, each row in Table 1 presents the total number of participants interviewed for each farm family. To improve clarification, we revised the name of the last column in Table 1 to help ensure the reader recognizes these data represent the additional family members interviewed.

 

Comment 9: One of the main principles of a dyadic approach is comparative analysis. Comparative Analysis (Comparing responses or behaviors between participants within the same dyad). In addition, Interactional Analysis (Examining how pairs influence each other’s perspectives or actions). I did not observe this in the results.

 Response: The comparative aspect of the dyadic approach was embedded in our data analytic process. In the 3.5. Data Analysis section (line 180-198), we described the process we used to examine the interviews, both as individual coders and as a team. Given the number of participants in our study (< 30), providing an interactional analysis would not only be quite lengthy, but it is also beyond the scope of our research questions.  However, we do highlight several instances, particularly in section 4.3.6. Family Dynamics of the Results, about how participants varied in their perspectives of choosing a successor, perceptions of fairness, and discussing how to transition the farm.

Furthermore, we noted in the Discussion section on line 599-601 that the multiple case study approach provided a range of perspectives that would have been overlooked had only the farm operators been interviewed. We also acknowledge the value in interviewing more family members. That section reads as follows:

“Also, while our multiple case study approach provided valuable insights into family dynamics, we typically interviewed only two individuals per farm family. Interviewing more family members might have revealed differing perspectives that could enrich the findings.”

 

Comment 10: For Figure 3, include the number of surveyed farms in each category.

Response: We did not survey any of the participants, but rather used interviews as described in the Materials and Methods section. It was from the qualitative analysis of the interviews that the four categories of farmer types emerged.

While we note in the 5.2. Limitations section, beginning on line 588, that farm operators may move categories as their circumstances change, we understand the value in presenting the number of farm operators who were represented in each of the four categories. Therefore, we added these numbers when we described each of the four categories on lines 460-474. That section now reads as follows: 

"Active Planners (high risk perception / high self-efficacy), representing 25% of farm operators (n = 4), understood the risks of not having a succession plan, wanted to protect their assets, and were confident in their ability to discuss plans with their family. They proactively developed plans, had a business team of advisors, and were ready to transfer responsibility to sustain the farm. Next, the Back Burners (low risk perception / high self-efficacy), representing 43.8% of farm operators (n = 7), did not perceive an immediate need to make a plan, often assuming they will make a plan “sometime”, but are waiting to see what their children want to do with their lives, believe they are still in good health, and want to avoid family conflict prematurely. Next, the Succession Avoiders (high risk perception / low self-efficacy), representing 12.5% of farm operators (n = 2), acknowledged the risks of not having a plan, but did not have a strong sense of farm legacy or goals to expand the farm, and lacked the confidence or desire to discuss it with family. They often planned to continue farming until they physically cannot, leaving their family to manage the farm when they pass. These farmers often have a will but do not communicate what it entails, creating uncertainty for the next generation. Lastly, the End-of-The-Line Farmers (low risk perception / low self-efficacy), representing 18.8% of farm operators (n = 3), often assumed no family members were interested in taking over their relatively small farms. Lacking confidence to discuss succession planning, they acknowledged that selling the farm and dividing the assets would mark the end of their family farm legacy."

 

Comment 11: Rearrange subsection 6.4 (Generating a Framework) to appear at the end of the results section, after subsection 6.5.

Response: As the framework (4.4. Generating a Framework) is part of our qualitative data analysis process, it is important that it is presented directly after the seven qualitative themes.

 

Comment 12: Discussion: I appreciate the authors’ effort in developing this section. However, this section should focus solely on discussions and limitations.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s preference for where to display the content. However, it appears that several reviewers have differing opinions about where to place content. To address these varying perspectives, we decided it best to review the journal's guidelines and follow those instructions as outlined. Thus, we revised our Discussion and Conclusion sections to be consistent with the journal’s guidelines. We have pasted those guidelines below for quick reference:

• Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.
• Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

As such, our Discussion includes a presentation of our findings as they relate to our research questions and existing literature, followed by the implications and the study limitations. We provided a separate Conclusions section that summarizes the key messages.  

 

Comment 13:  Combine the implications with the conclusion, and aim for conciseness by directly addressing the research questions without adding references.

Response: We really do appreciate that the reviewers took time to consider the best way to organize information. Because several reviewers had differing opinions about where to place content, we addressed their concerns by reviewing the journal's guidelines and following those instructions as outlined. Similar to our response to Comment 12, we adhered to the journal’s guidelines and placed the implications in the Discussion section. We used sub-headings to clearly indicate each section (i.e., Implications, Limitations) to improve readability.

 

Comment 14: Remove Table 2, as it contains general information that can be summarized. The paper should remain concise and avoid resembling a thesis.

Response: As the other two reviewers had positive comments about Table 2, we decided to keep the table. We did review the content within the table to ensure it was concise. This table presents a summary of how the findings can be used in a practical manner for targeted interventions.

 

Comment 15: Conclusions: Restructure this section based on the comments provided for the discussion section. Focus on the main implications for each research question.

Response: We have revised the Conclusion section and ensured that this content aligned with the journal’s guidelines for authors. Another reviewer had suggestions about what to include in the Conclusions, which we included. The revised Conclusions section appears on lines 606-612, and reads as follows: 

"Succession planning is an important process for ensuring the sustainability of family farms and Canada’s agricultural industry, yet written plans remain uncommon among Alberta farmers. By synthesizing seven key themes, our quadrant model simplified the complex nature of succession planning and provided a practical tool. Support can now be tailored to meet the unique needs of different farmer groups to support smoother transitions and long-term farm viability. Additionally, our findings showed that Alberta farmers share similarities with farmers in other contexts, which suggest existing tools and programs developed elsewhere could be adapted for their specific needs."

 

Comment 16: Provide clear practical recommendations and suggest future research directions related to this topic.

Response: This information is already provided in the Discussion. For example, future research related to the topic is described in two areas:

Lines 544-545: “While future research needs to validate our model, we provide preliminary evidence that barriers to change are both stage- and context-specific.”

Lines 596-605: “Future research should consider using a longitudinal design to examine how farmers’ succession planning behaviors and outcomes change over time. Second, we relied on convenience sampling. It is possible that farmers interested in succession planning were more likely to participate. Also, while our multiple case study approach provided valuable insights into family dynamics, we typically interviewed only two individuals per farm family. Interviewing more family members might have revealed differing perspectives that could enrich the findings. Finally, our study was conducted within a specific geographical context. To strengthen the generalizability of our quadrant model, future research should replicate this study with a larger and more diverse sample of farmers from different regions. This would help validate our findings and assess the broader applicability of the model.”

The practical implications of the findings are presented on lines 570-589, and include Table 2. Please note that the title of Table 2 is called “Preliminary recommendations for supporting farmers through succession planning” to make clear that the table reflects practical implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a sound paper. It would benefit greatly in two areas. First, part of the justification for the research was that Alberta farmers might be different from those elsewhere regarding succession. You found they were basically similar regarding priorities, motivations, barriers and resources. I would make much more of this in the discussion and conclusion as it means the results of research done elsewhere, and programs to boost succession success could be easily adapted to support Alberta farmers.

Second, you could do more to illustrate the quadrant model using material from your case studies so that there is greater confidence the quadrant model could be used as a filter to help tailor support programs and resources for farmers in each quadrant. I have noted this in the MS.

I have made suggestions for minor edits in the MS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3. Thank you very much for taking the time to carefully read through our manuscript. We found your comments particularly helpful, and we have followed your recommended changes. A point-by-point response is provided below, and all of the changes can also be viewed in the revised manuscript as we used tracked changes. 

 

General Comment: This is a sound paper. It would benefit greatly in two areas.

 

Comment 1: First, part of the justification for the research was that Alberta farmers might be different from those elsewhere regarding succession. You found they were basically similar regarding priorities, motivations, barriers and resources. I would make much more of this in the discussion and conclusion as it means the results of research done elsewhere, and programs to boost succession success could be easily adapted to support Alberta farmers.

Response: As recommended, we have made these adjustments in our manuscript to highlight how Alberta farmers were similar to farmers reported in previous research. We have also noted how existing programs and tools could be adapted to support Alberta farmers. To illustrate one example of this change, we revised the Conclusions, which now reads as follows on lines 606-612:

"Succession planning is an important process for ensuring the sustainability of family farms and Canada’s agricultural industry, yet written plans remain uncommon among Alberta farmers. By synthesizing seven key themes, our quadrant model simplified the complex nature of succession planning and provided a practical tool. Support can now be tailored to meet the unique needs of different farmer groups to support smoother transitions and long-term farm viability. Additionally, our findings showed that Alberta farmers share similarities with farmers in other contexts, which suggest existing tools and programs developed elsewhere could be adapted for their specific needs." 

 

Comment 2: Second, you could do more to illustrate the quadrant model using material from your case studies so that there is greater confidence the quadrant model could be used as a filter to help tailor support programs and resources for farmers in each quadrant. I have noted this in the MS.

Response: These were excellent suggestions and we revised our manuscript accordingly. We have pasted your comments below, and provide a response.

a) Category label change: The reviewer suggested changing a category label from “Forever Farmers” to “Succession Evaders” to keep the focus on suggestion planning.

Response. This was a great observation. We revised the label to “Succession Avoiders” as it seemed to reflect how this group tended to passively avoid the topic and struggled with their confidence or desire to discuss succession planning. While we liked the term “Evaders”, it seemed a little negative and perhaps implying a more intentional act of dodging the topic, which wasn’t the case for participants in our study.

b) Including exemplar quotes for each category: The reviewer suggested including a quote for each category in our quadrant model.

Response: We thought this was a good suggestion, so we found quotes from our participants that seemed to best reflect the mindset of farmers in each category. We added these quotes to Figure 3.

c) Did we consider other theoretical frameworks: The reviewer asked if we considered using another model, such as Bagozzi’s (2006) Goal Setting and Goal Striving Model, instead of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of Change as our theoretical framework.

Response: We considered a variety of frameworks for this project, and determined a priori that the TTM would be the most appropriate to account for farmers who (a) did not even have succession planning on their radar/not even thinking about it, and (b) to possibly account for farmers who had started, stopped, and re-started the process. Reflecting back on our notes, we wanted to include a broad framework for this qualitative study, but Bagozzi's model is an excellent model to adopt for a future study. We appreciate you pointing us in that direction. 

 

Comment 3: I have made suggestions for minor edits in the manuscript.

Response: We greatly appreciate the time that the reviewer took to carefully read through our manuscript and note areas where clarification was needed or there were typos. We addressed each of the edits in the revised manuscript using tracked changed. We highlight a few of the more noteworthy suggested edits below:

a) Explain how farm succession planning is a complex process. We revised the Introduction and Literature Review sections considerably through some reordering of content and providing additional content to describe previous research in more detail. The revised section appears on lines 65-79 and reads as follows:

“Succession planning for farm operators is similar to the process for other business owners. However, farm operators may have additional priorities for developing a succession plan. For example, farm operators may use succession planning to keep the farm in the family. In fact, the majority of farms in Canada are family-run, intergenerational businesses whereby the farm operator passes the farm to an adult child [25,26]. While adult sons are still more commonly chosen as successors, a systematic review by Sheridan et al. [27] highlighted that continuity of the family farm often took precedence over factors such as gender or birth order. In addition, farm operators may develop succession plans to ensure their successor has the right knowledge and skill to sustain the farm. The most successful plans are developed over time [18] to allow tacit knowledge and skills to be learned through mentorship and practice [29]. This gradual approach not only ensures the transfer of essential technical and managerial expertise but also fosters the successor's confidence and understanding of the farm's unique operational and financial matters [29,30]. Furthermore, farm operators may develop succession plans to ensure assets are distributed fairly so that family relations are maintained [30,31]. Together, these priorities may make the succession planning for farm businesses complex. With limited research on Canadian farmers, it is unclear if farmers from Alberta have similar or additional priorities for developing a succession plan.”

b) Explain the age u-shape relationship better. We revised these sentences to clarify the relationship between age and succession planning. The revised material appears on lines 97-101 and reads as follows:

"Beyond these logistical challenges, personal factors such as age may play a significant role [15,33,34]. For example, a literature review by Rodriguez et al. [15] identified an inverted U-shaped relationship between age and succession planning whereby the likelihood of planning increased until around age 80, after which it declined. This highlights the importance of initiating the process earlier in a farmer’s career."

c) Explain why financial issues are barriers. We revised this section and presented the content as factors that influence the succession planning process rather than barriers. The revised section appears on lines 112-122 and reads as follows:

“Previous research has also identified financial factors that can influence succession planning. For example, passing the farm to a family member may involve passing on existing debts and paying inheritance taxes, and some farm operators were concerned that these would create a financial burden on the successor and impact the viability of the farm [15,18]. Other researchers have reported that some farm operators viewed their farm as their private retirement plan whereby they intended to draw income and social security from the operation well into their later years [36,37]. However, some factors may encourage succession planning. For example, plans to expand or intensify farm operations have motivated farmers to develop succession plans as it provides a mechanism to protect assets and ensure continuity [15,37]. This research underscores the importance of understanding farm operators’ perspectives in the development of effective succession planning strategies. However, with limited research focused on Canadian farmers, it is unclear whether similar or additional factors influence their succession planning process.”

 

Comment 4: The reviewer asked whether convenience sampling reflected bias.

Response: Reviewer 1 had a similar question, so we have pasted our response to them here. We used convenience sampling and snowball sampling for this study, which was the preferred approach according to our institutional ethics review board. Part of our approach was to ensure our recruitment efforts targeted different geographical regions and agricultural commodity groups so that we could collect a range of perspectives. This type of sampling strategy has been used by my research team for nearly 10 years, and is a common practice in social science.

Lines 158-162 reads as follows: “With our goal to have a sample representing various geographical regions and commodity types in Alberta, we recruited participants using convenience and snowball sampling between May 2023 and August 2023. We posted an advertisement of our study through our social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and study website. Participants contacted a member of the research team and scheduled a semi-structured interview via telephone, in-person, or virtually.”

Nonetheless, we acknowledge the potential bias and therefore included a statement in our Limitations section. Lines 589-592 highlights the possible self-selection bias in the Limitations section, which reads as follows: “First, we used convenience sampling, which may have led to self-selection bias as participants with an interest in succession planning may have been more likely to participate in our study. However, the inclusion of farm families across all four categories of succession planning readiness suggests that we captured a range of perspectives.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for considering my suggestions to enhance the paper. Undoubtedly, the manuscript has improved and is now more readable, particularly for scholars who may be unfamiliar with the topic and its contextual background in the study area. I appreciate your point-by-point responses to my comments, which have clarified my concerns effectively.

1. The sections (introduction, literature review, and methodology) have been improved in line with my suggestions, and I am pleased with the revisions.
2. Regarding my feedback on the discussion and implications, the authors have provided reasonable justifications, which I accept. However, I would like to suggest two additional points for this section:
• Table Source: Please include the source for the contents of Table 2. For example, you might include a note such as, "Source: The recommendations presented are based on the study’s findings."
• Conclusions: On line 609, you state, "Support can now be tailored to meet the unique needs…." It would be helpful to specify what kind of support is being referred to and explain how this support will address the barriers identified for different categories of farmers within the framework of the study. While I recognize that section 5.1 provides details on these recommendations, summarizing the main points here in alignment with my suggestion would enhance the clarity and impact of this section.

Thank you again for your efforts in addressing my feedback. I look forward to seeing the final version of the paper.

 

All the best,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2: Thank you very much for your timely review of our revised manuscript. We have reviewed your additional suggested edits, and agreed that they would improve our manuscript. Below, we have provided a point-by-point response. 

 

Comment 1: Thank you very much for considering my suggestions to enhance the paper. Undoubtedly, the manuscript has improved and is now more readable, particularly for scholars who may be unfamiliar with the topic and its contextual background in the study area. I appreciate your point-by-point responses to my comments, which have clarified my concerns effectively.

Response: We deeply appreciate this feedback. Responding to revisions can be a humbling process for any researcher, and we recognize that the suggested edits are provided in good faith to enhance the overall quality of our manuscript.

 

Comment 2: The sections (introduction, literature review, and methodology) have been improved in line with my suggestions, and I am pleased with the revisions.

Response: We are pleased to know that we were able to address previous issues.

 

Comment 3: Regarding my feedback on the discussion and implications, the authors have provided reasonable justifications, which I accept. However, I would like to suggest two additional points for this section:

3a) Table Source: Please include the source for the contents of Table 2. For example, you might include a note such as, "Source: The recommendations presented are based on the study’s findings."

Response:

As suggested, we included a note at the bottom of Table 2 that reads on line 588:

“Source: The recommendations presented are based on the study’s findings.”

 

To reinforce that the recommendations presented were generated from the study’s findings, we revised the sentence on line 570-571, which now reads as follows:

“Based on our findings, we generated a list of preliminary recommendations in Table 2.”

 

3b) Conclusions: On line 609, you state, "Support can now be tailored to meet the unique needs…." It would be helpful to specify what kind of support is being referred to and explain how this support will address the barriers identified for different categories of farmers within the framework of the study. While I recognize that section 5.1 provides details on these recommendations, summarizing the main points here in alignment with my suggestion would enhance the clarity and impact of this section.

Response: We agreed that this would be a good addition to the manuscript. As advised, we have added content to the 6.0 Conclusions section by offering what support means in relation to the four farmer categories. The revised section appears on lines 606-623 and reads as follows:

“Succession planning is an important process for ensuring the sustainability of family farms and Canada’s agricultural industry, yet written plans remain uncommon among Alberta farmers. Our findings showed that Alberta farmers share similarities with farmers in other contexts, which suggest existing tools and programs developed elsewhere could be adapted for their specific needs. Our quadrant model simplified the complex nature of succession planning and provided a practical tool. Support can now be tailored to meet the needs of different farmer categories to engage in succession planning. For example, Active Farmers, who already acknowledged high-risk perception and self-efficacy, may benefit most from targeted support through advanced workshops on tax strategies, legal transfers, and estate planning that enhance or refine their existing plans. Back Burners, who recognized the importance of planning but did not to prioritize it, may benefit from awareness campaigns, webinars, and checklists that emphasize the risks of delaying succession planning while offering manageable first steps to initiate the process. End-of-the-Line Farmers may benefit from financial planning workshops that explore farm sale options or programs that connect retiring farmers with individuals interested in entering the industry. Finally, Succession Avoiders lacked both risk perception and self-efficacy, and therefore may benefit from workshops, counseling, or mediation services that build their confidence to not only start conversations about succession planning with their family but help them shift their perspective about planning as a necessary step for a sustainable future. In summary, tailoring support to each farmer category and their readiness to engage in succession planning can help overcome barriers many farmers face, providing a more effective and personalized approach to succession planning.”

 

While we were revising the 6.0 Conclusions section, it became clear that our list of recommendations presented in Table 2 lacked information. Specifically, we thought it would be most appropriate to highlight which farmer categories may benefit most from each recommended intervention. Once we made this revision, the information presented in Table 2 is definitely enhanced and aligns well with the supporting text in section 5.1 and 6.0. Revisions were made in two places. First, we revised a sentence on lines 571-573 which reads as follows:

“While each recommendation can be tailored to farmers’ needs and their readiness to engage in succession planning, the third column in Table 2 highlights the farmer categories that may benefit the most from a specific intervention.”

 

Second, beginning on line 587, we inserted a third column and labeled it “Farmer Category that may be Most Impacted”. Although we only added this third column, we have pasted the entire table below.

 

Table 2. Preliminary recommendations for supporting farmers through succession planning.

Broad Objective	Specific Goals and Interventions	Farmer Category that may be Most Impacted
Address Emotional and Legacy Considerations
	·     Acknowledge emotional investment: Encourage advisors to recognize the deep personal and emotional attachment farmers have to their land. Approach succession planning with empathy, emphasizing how it honors the family legacy.	Succession Avoiders: Helps to address emotional resistance and start discussions.
	·     Highlight the importance of farming as a legacy: Frame succession planning as a way to preserve farmland for future generations and maintain the family’s heritage and values.	Back Burners, Succession Avoiders: Emphasizes the importance of planning while connecting it to family values.
	·     Provide gradual transition options: Offer pathways for older farmers to stay involved, such as part-time roles or mentorship, easing their transition while preserving their sense of purpose.	Succession Avoiders: Eases their resistance to retirement by preserving their identity and role on the farm.
Facilitate Open Communication and Family Dynamics
	·     Support open communication training: Provide workshops that equip families with tools to navigate difficult conversations about retirement, succession, and legacy to reduce conflict.	Succession Avoiders: Builds their confidence in discussing succession topics and ways to avoid conflict.
	·     Encourage early successor identification: Advise farmers to identify potential successors early, keeping lines of communication open to accommodate changing interests or career paths.	Active Planners, Back Burners: Encourages proactive planning by removing a major succession uncertainty.
	·     Create peer support networks: Build networks of farmers who have successfully transitioned their farms, allowing them to share firsthand experiences and provide guidance.	Back Burners: Encourages planning by learning from the relatable experiences of other farmers.
Enhance Financial Knowledge and Accessibility
	·     Simplify financial processes and resources: Provide accessible tools like checklists and guides to simplify complex tax laws, inheritance policies, and capital gains requirements.	Back Burners: Lowers barriers to working on succession planning by offering straightforward, actionable tools.
	·     Educate on succession-related tax policies: Run sessions to clarify tax rules and demonstrate how effective succession planning can minimize heirs’ financial burdens.	Active Planners: May help refine their plans by integrating more advanced financial strategies.
	·     Provide succession planning grants: Establish funding programs to help farmers cover costs associated with legal, financial, or retirement planning.	End-of-the-Line Farmers: Helps to reduce financial strain so that planning is more accessible and appealing.
Build Professional and Community Support
	·      Encourage professional team development: Highlight the importance of assembling a team of specialists, including agricultural accountants and succession planners, who understand the unique aspects of farm transitions.	Active Planners: Supports their proactive mindset and reinforces a collaborative strategy with experts.
	·      Offer succession workshops in community centers: Host workshops in familiar, accessible locations to normalize and encourage routine succession planning conversations.	Back Burners: May reduce hesitation and make planning seem more approachable and routine.
	·      Connect with new farmer groups: Host workshops or seminars to learn about programs or groups that support new farmers.	End-of-the-Line Farmers: Makes connections to new farmers trying to enter the insdustry and looking for mentorship.
Prepare for Operational and Market Growth
	·     Promote proactive planning for growth: Stress the importance of planning for financial management and risk mitigation as farms expand, ensuring sustainability.	Active Planners: Supports long-term operational goals and ensures continuity of the farm.
	·     Highlight health as a catalyst: Use discussions about the physical demands of farming to prompt early succession planning before health challenges arise.	Back Burners: Encourages earlier planning by tying it to health and physical well-being considerations.