Soundscapes as Conservation Tools: Integrating Visitor Engagement in Biodiversity Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study evaluates the visitors' perception of the acoustic environment of Queulat National Park in Chile, through a sound walk, through interviews after 1-minute listening. For the soundscape evaluation, they use the adaptation of the ISO/TS on soundscape of Gale et al.

The topic of the article is very interesting, but the authors need to make some clarifications and modifications for publication:

·         Please, review if the abstract length is appropriate according to the instructions for the authors of the journal.

·         Line 199. Please, review the instructions for authors regarding the location of the figures' caption.

·         The authors use different statistical analyses, but they do not explain the reason for using them. Please, explain it, and also provide a brief explanation of each statistical analysis.

·         Figure 4 ad 5 have a common part. Please, remove it from one of the figures.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses along with the corrected passages and associated text lines for the re-submitted files in the attached reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

This manuscript explores visitor soundscape perceptions in Queulat National Park in Chile using a listening experiment to try to inform PA management strategies in that area. The following are some specific concerns.

 

The study is mostly a replica of a widely used research method and questions at a new site, and the discussion mirrors a lot of widely established results (e.g., “anthrophony is disruptive,” “visitors value natural soundscapes”). The necessity needs more extensive discussion.

The 9-point appeal/appropriateness scale (-4 to +4) is unconventional compared to standard 5- or 7-point scales.

It is unclear how well visitors can accurately estimate “percentage of time” or “foreground vs. background,” especially without any training.

More details about visitor interception methods would be ideal, including time of day distribution.

There seems to be much of overgeneralisation in the discussion and conclusion. Data is collected from just one area for five days during a tourism peak, which would make it hard to be extrapolated towards broad policy recommendations (e.g., mainstreaming acoustic monitoring, shaping global biodiversity strategies).

Although the manuscript references biodiversity and ecosystem, the actual data is only from visitor sound perception. There is no direct measurement of ecological indicators to contextualise the ecological focus.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses along with the corrected passages and associated text lines for the re-submitted files in the attached reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled, “soundscapes as conservation tools: integrating visitor engagement in biodiversity strategies.”

The manuscript forests in Chile and biodiversity is very interesting and represent a rare case in the field.

The manuscript follow rigorous research procedures and demonstrates a strong commitment to academic excellence.

The contribution in the statistical section is modest, but the exploratory study on soundscape is highly fascinating.

I have some comments.

 

Figures 4 and 5

The key figures are not clearly visible.

 

Figures 5 and 6

The analysis section needs revision to provide better guidance for the readers.

 

Limitations and further research suggestions

The section for illustrating limitations and further research suggestions would be helpful for future researchers.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses along with the corrected passages and associated text lines for the re-submitted files in the attached reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments have been addressed well.