IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p14803-d968184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Page

    (School of Earth and Environmental Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

  • Bradd Witt

    (School of Earth and Environmental Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

Abstract

Regenerative agriculture (RA) is emerging as one alternative model for agricultural production. However, RA has not matured sufficiently for a clear definition to have emerged, or for claimed benefits to be rigorously tested. Thus, numerous competing discourses have emerged around what RA is, and its potential role in the future of farming, leading to a level of contention about is value. This research aimed to better understand RA as a social phenomenon by using Q methodology to explore and evaluate how common discourses around agricultural sustainability, the goals of farming, and RA resonated with different Australian beef farmers. Three perspectives emerged from the data, labelled as the regenerative, environmentally conscious, and productive perspectives and represented diverse views around the goals of agriculture, the role of RA in the future of Australian agriculture, and comfort level producers have with the term and approach to farming it represents. As RA continues to grow as a movement, worldview, and farming approach, understanding the differences in thinking and worldview of proponents will be important for better understanding the goals of RA, how to reach them and measure their impact, and improve communication around RA. This is important to avoid and resolve unnecessary or destructive tensions between the range of agricultural sustainability discourses.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Page & Bradd Witt, 2022. "A Leap of Faith: Regenerative Agriculture as a Contested Worldview Rather Than as a Practice Change Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14803-:d:968184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14803/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14803/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    2. Selles, Owen A. & Rissman, Adena R., 2020. "Content analysis of resilience in forest fire science and management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Katalin Ásványi & Márk Miskolczi & Melinda Jászberényi & Zsófia Kenesei & László Kökény, 2022. "The Emergence of Unconventional Tourism Services Based on Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)—Attitude Analysis of Tourism Experts Using the Q Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    6. Courtney White, 2020. "Why Regenerative Agriculture?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 79(3), pages 799-812, May.
    7. Alexander, Kim S. & Parry, Lucy & Thammavong, Phomma & Sacklokham, Silinthone & Pasouvang, Somphanh & Connell, John G. & Jovanovic, Tom & Moglia, Magnus & Larson, Silva & Case, Peter, 2018. "Rice farming systems in Southern Lao PDR: Interpreting farmers’ agricultural production decisions using Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Leah V. Gibbons, 2020. "Regenerative—The New Sustainable?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    10. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    11. Margaret Alston, 2004. "Who is down on the farm? Social aspects of Australian agriculture in the 21st century," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(1), pages 37-46, March.
    12. Luján Soto, Raquel & Cuéllar Padilla, Mamen & de Vente, Joris, 2020. "Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    2. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    3. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    4. Turhan, Ethemcan, 2016. "Value-based adaptation to climate change and divergent developmentalisms in Turkish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 140-148.
    5. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    6. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    7. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    9. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    10. Tahereh Zobeidi & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoumeh Forouzani & Bahman Khosravipour, 2016. "Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 521-535, October.
    11. Pauline Pedehour & Marianne Lefebvre, 2023. "Combining digital technologies and incentives for water conservation: A Q-method study to understand preferences of French irrigators," Post-Print hal-04626643, HAL.
    12. Urquhart, Julie & Courtney, Paul, 2011. "Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 535-544, September.
    13. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    14. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    15. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    17. Tom O’Donoghue & Budiman Minasny & Alex McBratney, 2022. "Regenerative Agriculture and Its Potential to Improve Farmscape Function," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-25, May.
    18. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 99-109.
    19. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    20. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Cotton Matthew & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14803-:d:968184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.