Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Policy relevant analysis requires both problem and solution identification. The authors engage with a range of stakeholders to better understand the threats to soil quality and potential policy options to protect soils in Europe. In this paper, the authors apply the two-step Q-methodology to understand the range of opinion about the threats to soil quality in Europe. Interviews are undertaken in the first step to identify the range of issues. The responses are then probed for their reflection of local or more general applicability. In the second step, a set of questions identified in the step-1 interviews are posed to a variety of stakeholders. Q-scores were calculated for a set of 40+ soil degradation problem statements on a rage of -2 to +2. Factor analysis was used to identify and group similar patterns of response. Policy solutions were also grouped by factors and for respondents either from the UK or Norway.

 

Analysis proceeded by comparing groups for agreement and disagreement. There were agreement about the physical processes threating soil quality that the authors call ‘soil specific factors’. ‘Industrialized agriculture’ in a policy regime emphasizing high production for low commodity prices was the common social driver of threats to soil quality. Some inconsistencies between problem identification such as compaction and the most obvious solution of reducing heavy machinery emerged. There was little agreement about possible solutions beyond training. Some historical perspective was provided for observed opposition to financial and policy options. Potential innovation around networks and action research are discussed.

 

The author’s application of a mixed methodology to investigate threats to soil quality provides results that are consistent with other studies on the subject. The approach is particularly effective at highlighting the consistently within disciplinary/stakeholder perspectives, but incongruities between problem and solution identification across the disciplines/stakeholders. I would urge the authors to consider being more explicit in the physical, social and political perspectives on the threats, drivers, and solutions propositions. What is contested and what is in tension? What are the implications of these disagreements.

 

The authors may consider condensing the introduction and focusing on some definitional issues that are important later in the paper.  I found the use of ‘intensive agriculture’ inconsistent or confusing. ‘Industrial’ seems more appropriate to describe use of heavy machinery and synthetic chemical inputs. Over application of these techniques is not ‘intensive’ but inappropriate. Perhaps some wording around traditional vs industrial, organic vs chemical, locally adapted vs conventional/globalized food system – might help to articulate the later discussion. All these approaches to farming and soil protection can be part of extensive or intensive farming systems. Some of the most intensive and productive farm systems in the world focus specifically on continuous improvement of soil quality. Were there different understandings of ‘intensification’ among the stakeholders or between the countries?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Comment: Policy relevant analysis requires both problem and solution identification. The authors engage with a range of stakeholders to better understand the threats to soil quality and potential policy options to protect soils in Europe. In this paper, the authors apply the two-step Q-methodology to understand the range of opinion about the threats to soil quality in Europe. Interviews are undertaken in the first step to identify the range of issues. The responses are then probed for their reflection of local or more general applicability. In the second step, a set of questions identified in the step-1 interviews are posed to a variety of stakeholders. Q-scores were calculated for a set of 40+ soil degradation problem statements on a rage of -2 to +2. Factor analysis was used to identify and group similar patterns of response. Policy solutions were also grouped by factors and for respondents either from the UK or Norway.

 

Analysis proceeded by comparing groups for agreement and disagreement. There were agreement about the physical processes threating soil quality that the authors call ‘soil specific factors’. ‘Industrialized agriculture’ in a policy regime emphasizing high production for low commodity prices was the common social driver of threats to soil quality. Some inconsistencies between problem identification such as compaction and the most obvious solution of reducing heavy machinery emerged. There was little agreement about possible solutions beyond training. Some historical perspective was provided for observed opposition to financial and policy options. Potential innovation around networks and action research are discussed.

 

The author’s application of a mixed methodology to investigate threats to soil quality provides results that are consistent with other studies on the subject. The approach is particularly effective at highlighting the consistently within disciplinary/stakeholder perspectives, but incongruities between problem and solution identification across the disciplines/stakeholders. I would urge the authors to consider being more explicit in the physical, social and political perspectives on the threats, drivers, and solutions propositions. What is contested and what is in tension? What are the implications of these disagreements.

 

Response: The following text has been added to the conclusion to address this comment: “Respondents in both countries found it easy to agree on the physical processes causing declining soil quality (in both countries, respondents pointed to a loss of soil structure and soil erosion). It was harder to find agreement on social and political drivers from the Q-sorts, other than a lack of knowledge exchange in the UK. However, analysis of qualitative data suggested that respondents primarily blamed industrial agricultural methods, which in turn, they blamed on market drivers, pushing down farm-gate prices (in the UK) and regional specialisation policies (in Norway). Although these drivers of declining soil quality are difficult to address in the short term, and market drivers are outside the control of policymakers, the proposed solutions were pragmatic, focussing primarily on capacity building measures. Respondents in both countries agreed that more investment was needed in training for farmers to use soil-improving cropping systems as an important way of improving soil quality. Respondents in Norway were strongly against the use of financial penalties to encourage the use of these cropping systems, and UK respondents believed that trust needed to be built between farmers and regulators, and that more research needed to be done in collaboration with farmers. It may be possible to engage farmers in action research, including the development of evidence-based training tailored to the needs of farmers, drawing on both existing evidence and findings from new collaborative research.”

 

Comment: The authors may consider condensing the introduction and focusing on some definitional issues that are important later in the paper.  I found the use of ‘intensive agriculture’ inconsistent or confusing. ‘Industrial’ seems more appropriate to describe use of heavy machinery and synthetic chemical inputs. Over application of these techniques is not ‘intensive’ but inappropriate. Perhaps some wording around traditional vs industrial, organic vs chemical, locally adapted vs conventional/globalized food system – might help to articulate the later discussion. All these approaches to farming and soil protection can be part of extensive or intensive farming systems. Some of the most intensive and productive farm systems in the world focus specifically on continuous improvement of soil quality. Were there different understandings of ‘intensification’ among the stakeholders or between the countries?

 

Response: While we agree with the reviewer, it is not possible to replace the word “intensive” with “industrial” in most instances because the word “intensive” was used in our data collection instruments, and so it is important to represent these findings accurately using the original wording that respondents saw. However, we have now used the word “industrial” throughout the discussion and have made it clear that these two concepts are related where they appear together in the results section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors carried out a research using Q-methodology to understand a wide range of stakeholder perspectives to improve socially acceptable design of agricultural soil management policy and practice.

The manuscript has a good overall quality, the choice of methodology is correct, the presentation of the results and the discussion are appropriate to the analysis used.

However, since Q-methodology is the research focal tool, authors should provide readers with more information on this method, even if bibliographic citations are present in the text.

Furthermore, since the two groups of respondents to the survey in UK and Norway are different in number and composition of stakeholders, the authors should explain the reason for this choice and hypothesize how the choice may have affected the research results.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Comment: The authors carried out a research using Q-methodology to understand a wide range of stakeholder perspectives to improve socially acceptable design of agricultural soil management policy and practice.

 

The manuscript has a good overall quality, the choice of methodology is correct, the presentation of the results and the discussion are appropriate to the analysis used.

 

However, since Q-methodology is the research focal tool, authors should provide readers with more information on this method, even if bibliographic citations are present in the text.

 

Response: We have further explained Q methodology in the introduction to section 2.2 in response to this feedback.

 

Comment: Furthermore, since the two groups of respondents to the survey in UK and Norway are different in number and composition of stakeholders, the authors should explain the reason for this choice and hypothesize how the choice may have affected the research results.

 

Response: The number of respondents is not significantly different (61 and 53 in the UK and Norway respectively). We already not the higher proportion of farmers in the Norwegian study, but we now also note and discuss the more diverse stakeholder composition in the UK study in the methods section.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper consists of two studies, which are minimally connected. It is necessary to agree with the authors of the article: "Although the limited sample makes generalizations inadvisable at national scales,“ .. ", it is not possible to recommend the subjective opinions of a small group of agricultural entities as a basis for scientific conclusions in the field of soil quality.

Farmers' answers to your question are the basis of your work. The result can only be an evaluation of the moods and attitudes of some agricultural entities, not the search for solutions.

Political statements and declarations are utterly unacceptable in a scientific article.

I have a few more comments on the article:

Introduction

• I completely missed the topic of the attitude of agricultural entities to the agricultural policy of the governments of Norway and the United Kingdom.
• Define your scientific hypotheses with a focus on respondents' opinions

Materials and Methods

• I find several questions misleading and inappropriate.
• Do you think agricultural entities' views and solutions for professional issues (soil quality) are highly scientific and lead to an improvement?
• Why were the same questions not used in both studies?
• I consider the number of respondents to be minimal.

Results

• You are using "table 2." for 2 different tables
• The results in Table 2 – 4 are confusing and misleading        

Conclusions

In conclusion, I would expect a summary of how farmers perceive themselves, government regulations, and other measures. Furthermore, I lack a comparison of the views of agricultural entities in both countries.

English Errors:

Line 20 – knowledges – knowledge is an uncountable noun.

Line 83 – differs – differ

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Comment: The paper consists of two studies, which are minimally connected. It is necessary to agree with the authors of the article: "Although the limited sample makes generalizations inadvisable at national scales,“ .. ", it is not possible to recommend the subjective opinions of a small group of agricultural entities as a basis for scientific conclusions in the field of soil quality.

 

Farmers' answers to your question are the basis of your work. The result can only be an evaluation of the moods and attitudes of some agricultural entities, not the search for solutions.

 

Political statements and declarations are utterly unacceptable in a scientific article.

 

Response: We agree with the reviewer, and have made it clear that although funded as part of the same project, these were two separate studies, which are reported together, and this is not a comparative analysis because the two cases are not comparable and our methods would not support such comparison. Since this is already clear, as the reviewer points out by quoting the article, we have not made any changes to the manuscript in this respect.

 

We agree that the respondents’ answers (they were not all farmers) are the basis for our work, but do not agree with the reviewer that farmers and stakeholders should not be asked for their opinions about potential solutions to environmental issues that affect them. On this basis, we have retained our results pertaining to solutions, and note that the other two reviewers are supportive of the inclusion of this material.

 

We agree that party political statements are not appropriate in an article of this nature and we do not make any such statements. We do however believe it is relevant to reflect on possible implications for policy, and there is now a strong tradition of evidence-based policy throughout Western democracies, in which advice is routinely sought from researchers. We also note the request of Reviewer 1, who asked us to be more explicit about political perspectives and the implications of our research in this context.

 

Comment: I completely missed the topic of the attitude of agricultural entities to the agricultural policy of the governments of Norway and the United Kingdom.

 

Response: The political preferences of the stakeholders who took part in the research were not known to the researchers, and not deemed sufficiently relevant to probe. Given the tradition of confidentiality around political preferences in both countries, this may have been seen as an intrusive question, and so would have to be highly pertinent to the analysis to justify its inclusion. Furthermore, there are no published studies of the voting behaviour of different types of stakeholder in either country. The one exception may be surveys conducted pre-Brexit among farmers about their voting intentions, but we do not consider this to be relevant enough to justify inclusion.

 

Comment: Define your scientific hypotheses with a focus on respondents' opinions

 

Response: This would be appropriate for a more deductive methodology, but Q methodology combined with qualitative analysis of interviews requires an inductive approach to the research, which precludes the prior statement of hypotheses.

 

Comment: Materials and Methods: I find several questions misleading and inappropriate. Do you think agricultural entities' views and solutions for professional issues (soil quality) are highly scientific and lead to an improvement? Why were the same questions not used in both studies? I consider the number of respondents to be minimal.

 

Response: The purpose of this study was to understand and report the perspectives of stakeholders, not to validate these suggestions in relation to published literature. There is a vast literature for each of the interventions mentioned, and to assess the evidence base would require an evidence synthesis for each intervention, which is beyond the scope or purpose of this paper. The concourse for the Q sorts was constructed from interviews and literature, and not all statements were relevant to the specific context of each country. To ensure they were appropriately adapted to each country, minor modifications were made to the questions, and this is explained and justified in the methods section. While the sample size is small, it is not uncommon for Q methodology studies to have samples of this size and we already justify this in our methods section.

 

Comment: Results: You are using "table 2." for 2 different tables. The results in Table 2 – 4 are confusing and misleading.

 

Response: The issue with Table 2 citations in the text has now been resolved. Thank you. It is not possible to address the second point without understanding what the reviewer sees as confusing or misleading. This is a multi-authored paper and none of the authors or other reviewers have found the tables to be confusing, so we trust that the majority of readers will also find them sufficiently easy to understand.

        

Comment: Conclusions. In conclusion, I would expect a summary of how farmers perceive themselves, government regulations, and other measures. Furthermore, I lack a comparison of the views of agricultural entities in both countries.

 

Response: As noted by this reviewer, and further discussed in response to this comment, it is not appropriate to directly compare the views of respondents in both countries. However, a summary of key similarities and differences, and their implications is now included in the conclusion.

 

Comment:

Line 20 – knowledges – knowledge is an uncountable noun.

Line 83 – differs – differ

 

Response: “Differ” has been corrected, but we have left “knowledges” as it stands. It is common in the social sciences to refer to knowledge in the plural, to emphasise the range of different knowledge bases being referred to.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I repeat the comments:

• The paper consists of two studies, which are minimally connected.
• It is not possible to recommend the subjective opinions of a small group of agricultural entities as a basis for scientific conclusions in the field of soil quality.
• Farmers' answers to your question are the basis of your work. The result can only be an evaluation of the moods and attitudes of some agricultural entities, not the search for solutions.
• Political statements and declarations are utterly unacceptable in a scientific article. (“Countries can withstand coups d’état, wars and conflict, even leaving the EU, but no country can withstand the loss of its soil and fertility.”)I have a few more comments on the article:

Introduction

• I completely missed the topic of the attitude of agricultural entities to the agricultural policy of the governments of Norway and the United Kingdom (legislative regulation).
• Define your scientific hypotheses with a focus on respondents' opinions

Materials and Methods

• I find several questions misleading and inappropriate.
• Do you think agricultural entities' views and solutions for professional issues (soil quality) are highly scientific and lead to an improvement?
• Why were the same questions not used in both studies? I see no scientific reason to combine 2 different studies.
• I consider the number of respondents to be unrepresentative.

Results

• You are using "table 3." for 3 different tables
• The results in Table 2 – 4 are confusing and misleading

Conclusions

The conclusion is too broad. In conclusion, I would expect a summary of how farmers perceive themselves, government regulations, and other measures. Furthermore, I lack a comparison of the views of agricultural entities in both countries.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Comment: The paper consists of two studies, which are minimally connected. It is necessary to agree with the authors of the article: "Although the limited sample makes generalizations inadvisable at national scales,“ .. ", it is not possible to recommend the subjective opinions of a small group of agricultural entities as a basis for scientific conclusions in the field of soil quality.

 

Farmers' answers to your question are the basis of your work. The result can only be an evaluation of the moods and attitudes of some agricultural entities, not the search for solutions.

 

Political statements and declarations are utterly unacceptable in a scientific article.

 

Response: We agree with the reviewer, and have made it clear that although funded as part of the same project, these were two separate studies, which are reported together, and this is not a comparative analysis because the two cases are not comparable and our methods would not support such comparison. Since this is already clear, as the reviewer points out by quoting the article, we have not made any changes to the manuscript in this respect.

 

We agree that the respondents’ answers (they were not all farmers) are the basis for our work, but do not agree with the reviewer that farmers and stakeholders should not be asked for their opinions about potential solutions to environmental issues that affect them. On this basis, we have retained our results pertaining to solutions, and note that the other two reviewers are supportive of the inclusion of this material.

 

We agree that party political statements are not appropriate in an article of this nature and we do not make any such statements. We do however believe it is relevant to reflect on possible implications for policy, and there is now a strong tradition of evidence-based policy throughout Western democracies, in which advice is routinely sought from researchers. We also note the request of Reviewer 1, who asked us to be more explicit about political perspectives and the implications of our research in this context.

 

Comment: I completely missed the topic of the attitude of agricultural entities to the agricultural policy of the governments of Norway and the United Kingdom.

 

Response: The political preferences of the stakeholders who took part in the research were not known to the researchers, and not deemed sufficiently relevant to probe. Given the tradition of confidentiality around political preferences in both countries, this may have been seen as an intrusive question, and so would have to be highly pertinent to the analysis to justify its inclusion. Furthermore, there are no published studies of the voting behaviour of different types of stakeholder in either country. The one exception may be surveys conducted pre-Brexit among farmers about their voting intentions, but we do not consider this to be relevant enough to justify inclusion.

 

Comment: Define your scientific hypotheses with a focus on respondents' opinions

 

Response: This would be appropriate for a more deductive methodology, but Q methodology combined with qualitative analysis of interviews requires an inductive approach to the research, which precludes the prior statement of hypotheses.

 

Comment: Materials and Methods: I find several questions misleading and inappropriate. Do you think agricultural entities' views and solutions for professional issues (soil quality) are highly scientific and lead to an improvement? Why were the same questions not used in both studies? I consider the number of respondents to be minimal.

 

Response: The purpose of this study was to understand and report the perspectives of stakeholders, not to validate these suggestions in relation to published literature. There is a vast literature for each of the interventions mentioned, and to assess the evidence base would require an evidence synthesis for each intervention, which is beyond the scope or purpose of this paper. The concourse for the Q sorts was constructed from interviews and literature, and not all statements were relevant to the specific context of each country. To ensure they were appropriately adapted to each country, minor modifications were made to the questions, and this is explained and justified in the methods section. While the sample size is small, it is not uncommon for Q methodology studies to have samples of this size and we already justify this in our methods section.

 

Comment: Results: You are using "table 2." for 2 different tables. The results in Table 2 – 4 are confusing and misleading.

 

Response: The issue with Table 2 citations in the text has now been resolved. Thank you. It is not possible to address the second point without understanding what the reviewer sees as confusing or misleading. This is a multi-authored paper and none of the authors or other reviewers have found the tables to be confusing, so we trust that the majority of readers will also find them sufficiently easy to understand.

        

Comment: Conclusions. In conclusion, I would expect a summary of how farmers perceive themselves, government regulations, and other measures. Furthermore, I lack a comparison of the views of agricultural entities in both countries.

 

Response: As noted by this reviewer, and further discussed in response to this comment, it is not appropriate to directly compare the views of respondents in both countries. However, a summary of key similarities and differences, and their implications is now included in the conclusion.

 

Comment:

Line 20 – knowledges – knowledge is an uncountable noun.

Line 83 – differs – differ

 

Response: “Differ” has been corrected, but we have left “knowledges” as it stands. It is common in the social sciences to refer to knowledge in the plural, to emphasise the range of different knowledge bases being referred to.