Significance of Songbirds for Park Visitors, the Urban Environment and Biodiversity: Example of the Croatian Coastal Belt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

The paper titled "Significance of songbirds for park visitors, the urban environment, and biodiversity: example of the Croatian coastal belt" explores how residents perceive songbird species in urban parks. It links urban biodiversity with public engagement. The study results highlight a low level of knowledge on songbirds by the public. It uses participants' demographics to investigate the residents' attitude toward songbirds. Furthermore, it pinpoints the importance of the cultural and emotional value of birds. Moreover, the authors conducted a large-scale survey with a sample of 662 participants across six Croatian cities. The dataset analysis included descriptives, Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. A number of implications are presented based on the study findings. 

However, I suggest considering the following: 

1. The sample size includes far more female participants (85%) than male participants, and this can cause bias in the study results.
2. The survey containing over 100 questions is very lengthy. How did the participants agree to it? and what was the average time for completing the survey?
3. The abstract should include some of the main quantitative findings. 
4. The introduction should include a clear research gap. 
5. The "Urban Vegetation and Birds" section can be labeled as a literature review. 
6. What are the future research directions? 
7. Did the authors conduct a pilot survey?
8. It is important to show the reliability of the dataset by using Cronbach's alpha.
9. Any policy recommendations? 
10. Was there an ethical approval for this study? 
11. Songbirds are usually active during specific seasons and not throughout the year. Did the authors consider this aspect? 
12. What was the survey language, and how was it translated to English?
13. What was the non-response rate? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment in the box

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studies the importance of songbirds in Croatian coastal urban parks, a relevant topic given increasing urbanization and biodiversity loss. The study's aim to assess park visitor knowledge and opinions is valuable. However, the manuscript requires significant revisions to strengthen its methodology, analysis, and overall contribution.

Firstly, the survey methodology needs substantial improvement. While the sample size (N=662) appears adequate, more detail is needed on the sampling method. Was it random, stratified, or convenience sampling? How was representativeness ensured across the six coastal cities? The demographic breakdown reveals a large gender imbalance (564 females, 98 males); the authors must address the potential bias this introduces and discuss how it might affect the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the survey instrument itself requires scrutiny. The manuscript mentions four dimensions and question numbers, but the actual questions are not provided. Were these validated instruments? Providing sample questions or a supplementary table is crucial for assessing the survey's validity and reliability.

Secondly, the presentation and analysis of the results need clarification and expansion. Descriptive statistics are provided, but the rationale for using non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis) is insufficient. While deviations from normality are mentioned, more justification is needed, especially since the sample size is relatively large. The reporting of these tests should also be more detailed, including effect sizes or confidence intervals, to better understand the magnitude of the observed differences. Furthermore, the interpretation of the results often lacks depth. For example, the statistically significant differences in knowledge and attitudes between age groups and sexes are reported, but the discussion of why these differences exist is limited. More exploration of potential socio-demographic or cultural factors influencing these results is needed.

Thirdly, the literature review, while providing context, needs better integration with the study's findings. The review covers relevant topics like habitat diversity, bird diets, and urbanization impacts, but it often reads as a series of disconnected summaries. The authors should explicitly connect these previous findings to their survey results. For instance, how do the reported low levels of songbird knowledge among park visitors relate to the findings of Shwartz et al. (2014) on visitor awareness? How do the observed opinions on conservation align with the policy context described in the introduction? A stronger connection between the literature and the study's unique findings is essential.

Finally, the discussion and conclusion need to be more focused and nuanced. The authors should avoid overstating the implications of their findings, given the methodological limitations. The conclusion should summarize the key findings, acknowledge the limitations (e.g., the gender imbalance, potential survey biases), and offer specific, actionable recommendations for park management or future research. For example, based on the identified knowledge gaps, what targeted educational interventions could be implemented? How could future research address the limitations of this study to provide a more robust understanding of songbird-human interactions in urban parks?

 

Author Response

Respected, in the attachment there is a revised paper after the editorial recommendations for the correction of the summary.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It seemed to me that this study contains little actual data for publication. I would expect that, in addition to survey of visitors, the article contains some data on the observation of birds and their behavior in the parks. How many birds are nesting or feeding on, what is the dynamics of their number? Without this, despite a large number of cited works, the relevance of issues is in doubt. Visitors to the parks know some birds - and what follows? These birds, whom people know, have some kind of primacy to those who know worse? In general, setting tasks and approach to solving doubts.

Why did the authors formulate just such questions, and not some others? The choice of questions and their wording is not explained in any way and are not backed up by literature. Why did the respondents are divided into such groups, and not to others (for example, by age in group 71+ there were very few respondents, and if the group were 60+, then their number would be statistically more significant)?

I believe that on the basis of the material presented, you can do a better study if you combine survey data with other types of data, in particular, biological/environmental. Then the results are suitable for this scientific journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment." in the box 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments addressed. 

Author Response

Respected, in the attachment there is a revised paper after the editorial recommendations for the correction of the summary.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was substantially revised, unclear points were improved. The authors convinced me that such a study is suitable for this journal and can be published.

Author Response

Respected, in the attachment there is a revised paper after the editorial recommendations for the correction of the summary.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx