Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I find the topic interesting, I recommend the following.

I believe that a graphical representation of the regions presented in section 2 would be appropriate.

I think it is necessary to insert a section dedicated to Research Methodology.

I think the paper would be more suited to the structure of a Review than an article, I recommend resubmitting it as a Review. Or if you want to keep it in this form I recommend inserting some empirical research based on data or statistical information.

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1:

Thank you for your helpful comments, which were similar to those of the other reviewers.  The biggest concerns were that our research design, questions, hypotheses and methods were not clearly stated, our empirical results were not clearly presented, and our conclusions were not thoroughly supported by our results.  The reason for this is that our article is not presenting original research for the first time, but rather providing a bird’s eye view of a project that has been underway for 25 years to highlight the insights it can provide into the development of a restorative agricultural economy. We followed your advice to present this as a review article.  To do so, we completely revised the abstract and introduction to clarify our goals and approach.  We made major revisions to sections 3-5 to further clarify our intentions and provide succinct summaries at the end of each section of the main lessons learned that we believe would be valuable for researchers pursuing similar efforts.  We made major revisions to the summaries and conclusions as befits a review article. We also included an image of our study site. We trust our revisions also make the arguments and discussions more “coherent, balanced and compelling”. 

As a review article, we did not believe it necessary to include a methods section or present detailed empirical results, though we refer the interested reader to the numerous articles we cited that do this. If we had reproduced the empirical results of our quantitative studies, our article would have been twice as long.  Also, much of our discussion is qualitative.  For example, we never attempted to quantify farmers’ attitudes towards risk, and found that the policy makers with whom we worked were not particularly interested in our quantitative results.   We therefore added a section reflecting on the role of objective facts in persuading policy makers. To quote from section 5:

“Perhaps not surprisingly, the policy makers with whom we have been speaking appear less interested in the results of our quantitative research on the ecological and economic impacts of SPS-RF than in our qualitative descriptions of the project and the political optics of our policy proposals. This is not necessarily a bad thing.  In a highly complex, rapidly changing world, we should not put too much trust in precise quantification.   Mainstream agronomists and ecologists can provide convincing quantitative evidence that their approaches are the best for achieving their specific goals, but if their goals are poorly chosen or incomplete, that evidence is of limited use.  We cannot be certain that the agroecosystems we are designing are the best approach to restoring degraded ecosystems while improving farmer livelihoods, and view agroecosystem design as a continual adaptive process with no single best outcome. Our approach is to continually assess the ability of our project to improve farmer livelihoods and ecosystem health, improve the project elements that achieve this, and replace those that do not with new experiments in an ongoing process. In this dynamic approach, the right goals are more important than the specific practices with which we are experimenting.”

Since we are reviewing our own project, it is inevitable that we cite ourselves heavily, a practice we agree that is otherwise best avoided. We also realized we plagiarized ourselves to some extent, though most of this plagiarism occurred in describing our site and our accomplishments.  We have eliminated most of the exact repetition, though for some short phrases describing our site and research, we considered some repetition appropriate.     

We hope our extensive revisions have adequately addressed your concerns. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The manuscript raises an important issue related to the possibility of farmers implementing agricultural production methods that are beneficial to society, and the natural environment and ensure an appropriate level of agricultural income. Precious are comments on implementing these activities into agricultural practice, the role of universities, agricultural policy, and public aid, but also farmers who are the first to implement modern solutions. The article uses a case study but lacks detailed data, which reduces the value of the article. In my opinion, this article may be published as an interesting case study. However, it is worth considering supplementing the article with detailed data on the implemented programs or supplementing this information with another series of articles.

Best regards

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2:

Thank you for your helpful comments, which were similar to those of the other reviewers.  Your main concern was that the article “ lacks detailed data, which reduces the value of the article. In my opinion, this article may be published as an interesting case study. However, it is worth considering supplementing the article with detailed data on the implemented programs or supplementing this information with another series of articles.”

The reason for the lack of detailed data is that our article is not presenting original research for the first time, but rather providing a bird’s eye view of a project that has been underway for 25 years to highlight the insights it can provide into the development of a restorative agricultural economy.  This article is essentially a summary of a long series of articles with detailed data.  We explicitly refer the interested reader to the numerous articles we cited that contain empirical data. If we had reproduced the empirical results of our numerous quantitative studies, our article would have been twice as long.  Also, much of our discussion is qualitative.  For example, we never attempted to quantify farmers’ attitudes towards risk, and found that the policy makers with whom we worked were not particularly interested in our quantitative results.   We therefore added a section reflecting on the role of objective facts in persuading policy makers. To quote from section 5:

“Perhaps not surprisingly, the policy makers with whom we have been speaking appear less interested in the results of our quantitative research on the ecological and economic impacts of SPS-RF than in our qualitative descriptions of the project and the political optics of our policy proposals. This is not necessarily a bad thing.  In a highly complex, rapidly changing world, we should not put too much trust in precise quantification.   Mainstream agronomists and ecologists can provide convincing quantitative evidence that their approaches are the best for achieving their specific goals, but if their goals are poorly chosen or incomplete, that evidence is of limited use.  We cannot be certain that the agroecosystems we are designing are the best approach to restoring degraded ecosystems while improving farmer livelihoods, and view agroecosystem design as a continual adaptive process with no single best outcome. Our approach is to continually assess the ability of our project to improve farmer livelihoods and ecosystem health, improve the project elements that achieve this, and replace those that do not with new experiments in an ongoing process. In this dynamic approach, the right goals are more important than the specific practices with which we are experimenting.”

We followed the advice of reviewer 1 submit this as a review article.  To do so, we completely revised the abstract and introduction to clarify our goals and approach.  We made major revisions to sections 3-5 to further clarify our intentions and provide succinct summaries at the end of each section of the main lessons learned that we believe would be valuable for researchers pursuing similar efforts.  We made major revisions to the summaries and conclusions as befits a review article. We also included an image of our study site. We trust our revisions also make the arguments and discussions more “coherent, balanced and compelling”. 

Since we are reviewing our own project, it is inevitable that we cite ourselves heavily, a practice we agree that is otherwise best avoided. We also realized we plagiarized ourselves to some extent, though most of this plagiarism occurred in describing our site and our accomplishments.  We have eliminated most of the exact repetition, though for some short phrases describing our site and research, we considered some repetition appropriate.     

We hope our extensive revisions have adequately addressed your concerns. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The topic of the study is interesting as there is pressing need to address relevant issues, especially the last years in which policy makers looking for new ways to deal with sustainable ecosystem services and food systems’ resilience. In general, you have sufficiently introduced the gap that your study attempts to fill in. However, I feel that the manuscript in current form looks like a book chapter rather than a journal article. Below please find my recommendations:

Abstract

- Specific key results are not stated. Readers would benefit from a brief summary of the most important findings.

- The abstract should end with a compelling statement of the paper's overall impact. What new understanding or capabilities does your work offer?

Introduction

- In this section the authors could show how this study differs from other studies and also elaborate more on the contributions of this paper to the relevant literature.

Summary and Conclusions

- The policy implications should be directly derived from the discussion of the results, and they should not go beyond the results. Please revise accordingly.

Overall

- As you mention you have conducted participatory action research. Devote a section to describe how you “set the scene” of this action (number of farmers, policy makers, reasons for selection, by which ways you approached them etc.).

- The results are discussed with a convoluted way. My recommendation is to devote a section where you will present explicitly the findings of the study. Consider also reorganizing the structure to pull out the main points that represent the 'big picture' of your findings in the end of this section. This helps to create a more memorable takeaway “message” for your readers.

I wish you all the best in your revisions and improving your manuscript.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3:

Thank you for your helpful comments, which were similar to those of the other reviewers.  The biggest concerns were that our research design, questions, hypotheses and methods were not clearly stated, our empirical results were not clearly presented, and our conclusions were not thoroughly supported by our results.  The reason for this is that our article is not presenting original research for the first time, but rather providing a bird’s eye view of a project that has been underway for 25 years to highlight the insights it can provide into the development of a restorative agricultural economy. Reviewer 1 suggested we present this as a review article. We agreed this was the best approach.   To do so, we completely revised the abstract and introduction to clarify our goals and approach.  We made major revisions to sections 3-5 to further clarify our intentions and provide succinct summaries at the end of each section of the main lessons learned that we believe would be valuable for researchers pursuing similar efforts.  We made major revisions to the summaries and conclusions as befits a review article. We provide more detail below on how these changes address some of your concerns. We also included an image of our study site. We trust our revisions also make the arguments and discussions more “coherent, balanced and compelling”. 

As a review article, we did not believe it necessary to include a methods section or present detailed empirical results, though we refer the interested reader to the numerous articles we cited that do this. If we had reproduced the empirical results of our quantitative studies, our article would have been twice as long.  Also, much of our discussion is qualitative.  For example, we never attempted to quantify farmers’ attitudes towards risk, and found that the policy makers with whom we worked were not particularly interested in our quantitative results.   We therefore added a section reflecting on the role of objective facts in persuading policy makers. To quote from section 5:

“Perhaps not surprisingly, the policy makers with whom we have been speaking appear less interested in the results of our quantitative research on the ecological and economic impacts of SPS-RF than in our qualitative descriptions of the project and the political optics of our policy proposals. This is not necessarily a bad thing.  In a highly complex, rapidly changing world, we should not put too much trust in precise quantification.   Mainstream agronomists and ecologists can provide convincing quantitative evidence that their approaches are the best for achieving their specific goals, but if their goals are poorly chosen or incomplete, that evidence is of limited use.  We cannot be certain that the agroecosystems we are designing are the best approach to restoring degraded ecosystems while improving farmer livelihoods, and view agroecosystem design as a continual adaptive process with no single best outcome. Our approach is to continually assess the ability of our project to improve farmer livelihoods and ecosystem health, improve the project elements that achieve this, and replace those that do not with new experiments in an ongoing process. In this dynamic approach, the right goals are more important than the specific practices with which we are experimenting.”

Since we are reviewing our own project, it is inevitable that we cite ourselves heavily, a practice we agree that is otherwise best avoided. We also realized we plagiarized ourselves to some extent, though most of this plagiarism occurred in describing our site and our accomplishments.  We have eliminated most of the exact repetition, though for some short phrases describing our site and research, we considered some repetition appropriate.     

Concerning your specific comments, we revised the abstract to more clearly state our aims and to emphasize our key messages in the context of a review article:

Abstract: Agriculture is the most important economic sector and simultaneously the greatest threat to the ecosystem functions on which all complex life depends.  It is therefore a logical starting point for developing a restorative economy. We must develop and disseminate agroecosystems capable of providing food security for all while simultaneously restoring vital ecosystem functions degraded by conventional agriculture. We review 25 years of transdisciplinary work towards this goal on an agroecology project in Santa Rosa de Lima, Santa Catarina, Brazil and distill some key lessons for like-minded efforts.  Our project seeks to integrate the knowledge, insights and goals of farmers, diverse scientists, agricultural extensionists, and policy makers to design high biodiversity silvopastoral systems and multi-function riparian forests capable of improving farmer livelihoods, together with policies that support their adoption by aligning the interests of farmers and society.  We consider scientific, economic, social, and political aspects of our effort, concluding that all are necessary yet perhaps collectively insufficient to promote the large-scale adoption of restorative agriculture.  We contend that building a restorative economy will require a fundamental extension of humanity’s moral values to the rest of Nature and use evolutionary science to support our views.  We hope our insights can help other researchers researching, developing and disseminating restorative agricultural economies.

We completely rewrote the introduction to explain that this is a review article. The following paragraph taken from the intro summarizes our goals and main points:  

Our goal with this review article is not to describe our specific project findings in detail, which we have done elsewhere [e.g. 26, 31], but rather to extract valuable lessons from our experience that can help inform other efforts to build restorative agricultural economies. Creating a restorative agricultural economy is often viewed as a technical problem best solved by scientists [32], or as an economic policy problem best solved by providing appropriate incentives [33].  The overarching lesson from our research is that transforming complex socio-ecological systems requires a transdisciplinary approach, which means not only drawing on theories, methods, tools, and insight from multiple disciplines, but also transcending disciplinary frameworks all together to integrate the knowledge, values and insights from the myriad stakeholders involved. Today’s problems are often caused by past “solutions” that neglected this principle [34].

We revised the summary and conclusions to reiterate our main points without introducing anything new.

You also recommended we “devote a section where you will present explicitly the findings of the study. Consider also reorganizing the structure to pull out the main points that represent the 'big picture' of your findings in the end of this section. This helps to create a more memorable takeaway “message” for your readers.”  Rather than devoting a single section to this, we summarized our main lessons from sections 3-5 at the end of those sections, then used the conclusion to further emphasize the ‘big picture’.

We hope our extensive revisions have adequately addressed your concerns. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that the changes made to the article have improved and clarified the doubts, so I think it can follow the path to publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your effort in reviewing our article.  A second reviewer was not satisfied with our last version.  We have therefore attached our response to that reviewer. We certainly hope it does not change your view that our last draft was publishable!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that there has been considerable progress and improvement in the structure of the manuscript, which was achieved through the extended changes that you made. But in my humble opinion, the paper still suffers from two main points: the first is the contribution to the empirical literature, underscoring the need to highlight by which way this study differs from other similar studies, and the second concerns the policy outcome (there are relevant comments in the previous review report for both issues). Unambiguously, I can realize that this is a review paper, and I also recognize your multiannual work in the field. However, I feel that a part of its content can be characterized as a matter of course (see lines 22-24: “We hope our insights can help other researchers researching, developing and disseminating restorative agricultural economies”), and that the manuscript fails to deliver a meaningful takeaway message for policy recommendations. Consequently, I consider that there is still room for further improvement on these two aspects.

I wish you all the best.

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf