(Re-)Defining Permaculture: Perspectives of Permaculture Teachers and Practitioners across the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please change:

"the peasant agroecological movement La Via Campesina" --> "the international peasants' agroecological movement La Via Campesina"

"As with a healthy ecosystem, the term has a rich diversity of definitions and applications, yet" --> "As with a healthy ecosystem, the term has a rich diversity of definitions and applications, and continues to evolve, yet"

It is possible to question such broad statements that "Western permaculture theory is grounded in Western scientific knowledge and research" since Permaculture, as with Science, aims to be universal but neither political nor regional. The core of Permaculture is indeed cold, hard Science fact-based but also embraces ethics, common-sense and compassion for fairness (in my view!). As such, the broad laws of Nature (that are freely available to everyone) support Permaculture to encompass "the chacra of the Kichwa-Lamistas of Amazonian Peru" but not vice versa. Mostly, "Terra Preta" is local midden.

Not sure I agree with "permaculture must reconcile with its appropriative history" as this was very much part of my experience. Bill Mollison lauded the heroic and selfless work of Nikolai Vavilov who sought to find and preserve the origins of the World's major food plants for all by establishing seed banks.

Possibly change: " for radical, transformative change" --> " for rational, transformative change"

"Socially just systems are critical to permaculture." This is already known.

"Humans and nature are connected" - also obvious but perhaps better worded as "Humans rely upon Nature".

Not sure I entirely agree with this:"The permaculture design framework is inspired by Indigenous ways of life but is not equivalent to them; the differences (and similarities) should be respected and explicitly stated." Permaculture is science-based common sense and that may well have many indigenous knowledge origins (but probably not excesses of fire-stick farming nor overhunting of megafauna!)...

"toward confronting systemic injustices rather than entrenching them" --> "towards positively demonstrating healthy and just living systems"?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this paper to be a very well written description of an interesting study that has been thoughtfully and carefully analyzed.

There is however, one paragraph of the discussion that I just don't understand. The paragraph in question is section 4.1: A need for reconciliation, starting on line 353. I see much more material than can be fit into a single paragraph. The points made are clearly hugely important, but often only get a sentence or two before moving on to the next important point. I gave the paragraph to my life partner: a social anthropologist, who told me that it’s perfectly clear, so I know that the problem in understanding lies with me. But I would anyway ask the authors if they could please add some further explanation to make it easier for people, such as me, who don’t have a deep knowledge of social anthropology. In most cases, it also wasn’t clear to me how these points were related to the results, so those relationships could also be highlighted to make it easier to see. I’ll outline my questions in detail.

Line 353: I don’t really understand what you mean with “the appropriative history of permaculture”. As I understood it, your results place permaculture as a way of thinking in which practitioners learn from a wide variety of sources, with concepts and practices adopted according to the individual practitioner. As you point out “There are as many permaculture definitions as there are permaculturists. Each person has developed their own ways of using permaculture and their relationship to it.” I don’t understand how a way of thinking can be appropriated, so this needs some more explanation and context.

Even if a way of thinking can be appropriated, there is the question of whom it has been stolen from. If I understand the meaning of the word ‘appropriation’ as ‘the act of taking something from a group or culture that you are not a member of and using it without permission’, there is an implication of ownership. I could imagine that several different philosophies might claim provenance of concepts such as 'ecologically and socially just human settlements based on natural patterns and processes', so I don’t see how the principles could be traced back to single cultural sources. Again, this would need some further clarification for me to understand it.

Line 355: I don't understand what you mean with 're-centre'. I would need some more explanation for me to understand.

Lines 359-361: You write that “the movement internationally has experienced issues with diversity and inclusion of its participants”. This implies that there are entry requirements or other barriers that can be used by the white supermajority to exclude people. From the results, I can’t see how permaculture can be exclusive, so I think this needs some more elaboration.

Line 367: The concept of erasure. This was mentioned in line 346 as well, and I was hoping to find some explanation, but the example has just raised more questions. Unless people are forcing people such as the Kichwa-Lamistas, to abandon their traditional practices and adopt western permaculture, I don't understand how this erases Indigenous or alternative knowledge. The argument appears to be that alternative practices are not integrated into the western understanding of what is part of permaculture, so people who are already using alternatives have to abandon their traditional practices if they are to get funding. It’s not clear how this argument can be reconciled with the claims (at least how I understood them) that permaculture is a way of thinking that is not bound by specific practices.

Lines 368-372: I don’t understand the connection in this argument. As I understand it, inclusion of Indigenous ways of thinking under the umbrella of permaculture would help prevent their erasure, and of course, have to be acknowledged. Furthermore, the acknowledgement of these ways of thinking is necessary for our ability to move toward regenerative design. But it needs some words of explanation about why this is the case.

In summary, I don’t challenge any of the arguments. And I accept that erasure and appropriation can both be occurring, but I think this needs to be explained so that readers such as me can understand it more easily. I think this paragraph should be split into three. One about appropriation (of what and from whom), one about exclusion and erasure, and a third about how these processes can be happening simultaneously.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf