Coevolving Citizen Science, Bats, and Urban Planning to Support More-than-Human Healthy Cities: Lessons from Florida

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an article titled “Examination of How Citizen Science Can Support Bat-Friendly Urban Planning in Florida, USA, by Understanding Their Coevolution Within Society.” However, the article did not provide any discussion about the coevolution of citizen science and bat-friendly urban planning, particularly in Florida.

The article has several weaknesses. First, the English language use is poor, with many long sentences and unnecessary repetition of adjectives, making it difficult for readers to understand the meaning.

Second, the authors claimed to perform a literature review on the 13 endemic bat species of Florida. However, most reviewed articles were from areas outside Florida. Checking the species listed in Table 1, I found only one endemic to Florida—the Florida bonneted bat. It is unclear why the authors labeled all 13 species as Florida endemics, as endemic species are those whose entire global range is restricted to a particular area. Therefore, this discussion on endemicity is invalid.

Third, since these bat species also occur in other regions, it is not justified to consider Florida as the study area. Moreover, the citizen science projects cited in the literature were from locations other than Florida.

Fourth, the authors identified “Natural and manmade urban planning features (UPF) that can be altered to effect change on endemic bat populations” (Table 3). However, these features do not represent bat-friendly urban planning because they were not designed with bat conservation in mind. The authors discuss how these features might benefit or harm specific bat species, but this is merely a discussion, and it does not imply coevolution of bat-friendly planning with citizen science. Additionally, the article does not mention any bat-friendly urban planning strategies from the literature, despite the title suggesting such a focus.

Fifth, the interviews with three professionals in section 3.3 are loosely connected to the literature review, as the former pertains to Florida while the latter relates to other areas. The quotes provided are difficult to understand, which could frustrate or irritate readers.

Other comments

I noted several inconsistencies, such as when referring to the conservation status of species (lines 259-269, Table 5), which, along with the questionable endemicity claims, hinder understanding.

The authors state they examined evidence under the One Health approach (see lines 61–65), but they do not effectively apply this framework beyond wishful thinking.

The impact of urbanization on bat species is addressed only briefly in Appendix D (lines 205–207) and could be more thoroughly discussed to help identify urban planning measures for bat protection, both in Florida and beyond.

In the Materials and Methods section, it is unclear how many articles were used and for what reasons. Presenting this information in a diagram would be helpful. Additionally, a clearer description of the methodology, especially for textual and thematic analysis, is needed, preferably with subsection headings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language use is poor, with many long sentences and unnecessary repetition of adjectives, making it difficult for readers to understand the meaning.

Author Response

Thank you for your very discerning comments. We particularly appreciate your highlighting of the need for a much stronger linkage between the contributions made by the literature review and those made by the interviews.

We have revised the identification of bats as native species or native bats. Thank you for bringing this to our attention as we understand that these bats are indeed found elsewhere and have used the word endemic incorrectly.

 

Many of the citizen science projects and responses to urbanisation by native species are from study areas in other states or internationally since there was very little documented citizen science contributions in Florida and no targeted reviews regarding urbanisations for species in this study area despite large scale urbanisation. The primary author’s geographic location alongside this finding was a major catalyst for the decision to focus on Florida. We hope the lesson(s) that a Florida-focussed study offer us are now more strongly articulated. A more targeted review of individual species or larger geographic regions should be considered for further study. This study is meant to help open the door for further work in this area, informed by One Health principles.

Regarding Table 3, it is meant to outline urban planning features that impact bats during an era of urbanisation. These impacts/changes can be positive or negative and affect each species differently. We use this table to highlight the features noted in literature reviews that should be considered when urban planning occurs.

We were not implying that the paper provides specific strategies for bat-friendly urban planning but upon further reflection did feel that including proposed projects could help initiate discussion in the field, leading us to add Table 6. The main focus of the paper still focuses attention on how urban planning could co-evolve with citizen science and how a One Health approach can further promote and inform this. By drawing this to the attention of the journal’s readers, we are encouraging further assessment of how citizen science can help to positively shape societal perceptions of bats and contribute to bat-friendly urban planning and, ultimately to the emergence of more-than-human healthy cities.

We accept that the interviews were limited in number and only one was specifically connected to Florida and clearly recognise this in the paper. We have further outlined in “Limitations of literature review and interview analysis” [section 3.4] how this could impact our results. Nevertheless, this study helps to identify and map a crucial theme of coevolution between citizen science and bat-friendly urban planning.

We have broken down the Materials and Methods to 2 subsections along with reasoning as to why we chose to have both a literature review and qualitative interview analysis of the three key-informant interviews.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written manuscript, which treats very important problems, concerning the improvement of the conditions for bats. This type of articles are not typical scientific products, but aim to deliver an approach for creating a better image of the animals. This way the articles benefit to the "PR" of some species which are not popular and beloved by the citizens. The article may contribute to better understanding of the attitude toward bats and may provide an impulse for the development of citizen science communities. In this relation I am providing my positive decision on the manuscript and recommend acceptance.

Line 260: The Latin name have to be fixed

 

Author Response

We are very grateful for your comments.

We have reviewed the scientific names and made sure they are accurate and formatted correctly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While reading the manuscript, I realised that it is much closer to the social sciences, with a strong focus on human dimensions, social perceptions, and qualitative research methods, than to pure biology. My comments may therefore be biased by my biological background. I am not a native English speaker, so for editorial clarity I have used ChatGPT to help formulate this review.

The manuscript “Examination of How Citizen Science Can Support Bat-Friendly Urban Planning in Florida, USA, by Understanding Their Coevolution Within Society” addresses an important and timely topic. Combining a literature review with semi-structured interviews to explore the role of citizen science in bat conservation and urban planning is valuable, particularly in the One Health context. The focus on Florida’s endemic bat species and the attempt to link social perceptions, citizen engagement, and spatial planning give the work a novel, interdisciplinary character.

However, the text is very long and at times reads more like a master’s or doctoral thesis than a concise journal article. The abundance of descriptive material and repetition makes it harder to extract the main conclusions. The manuscript would benefit from significant condensation and a sharper articulation of its core arguments. The literature review contains an impressive compilation of citizen science projects, but this section could be synthesised and focused on those most relevant to Florida’s bats or those offering particularly transferable approaches. The interview data are valuable, but with only a small number of interviewees, the scope for generalisation is limited—this limitation is noted but would benefit from deeper critical reflection.

The ecological component of the work relies entirely on secondary data, with no new field observations, so it would be important to clearly distinguish between strictly biological conclusions and those based on social analysis. The integration of the literature review and interview findings could also be improved; at present, they sometimes appear as parallel narratives rather than a fully integrated synthesis. A clearer conceptual framework tying the various threads together into a set of actionable recommendations for bat-friendly urban planning would strengthen the paper.

In terms of references, the work could be reinforced by including more ecological literature on bats in human-modified environments, for example Mikula et al. (2016, Mammal Review), which analyses bats as prey of diurnal birds and provides a complementary perspective on their interactions with cultural landscapes. The conclusions rightly highlight the need for inclusive approaches to citizen science and spatial planning, but they remain general; more specific, actionable proposals—such as which urban features to prioritise for modification and which citizen science protocols to implement first—would increase the applied value of the paper.

Minor comments include reducing redundancy, simplifying figures, standardising species name usage, and making minor editorial corrections. Overall, this is an ambitious and original project, but it requires shortening, clearer positioning within the social-science-informed conservation paradigm, and stronger linkage between the two data streams. With these adjustments, the manuscript could make a significant contribution to the interdisciplinary literature at the intersection of ecology and the social sciences.

Mikula, P., Morelli, F., Lučan, R. K., Jones, D. N., & Tryjanowski, P. (2016). Bats as prey of diurnal birds: a global perspective. Mammal Review, 46(3), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12060

Author Response

We appreciate your recognition that this paper leans into the social sciences and humanities and the significant contributions these disciplines can make to a One Health approach to bat conservation. We feel that this aspect helps to develop a better understanding of the complexity of the field and how bat-friendly urban planning can fit into the field of One Health and adopt transdisciplinary approaches.

We have reviewed the results regarding the literature review of citizen science projects and feel this is necessary as it outlines/maps what has been done before; this creates a valuable baseline that can inform and plan future work. Based on the variety of native bats in Florida, each project offers transferable approaches when planning future projects.

We appreciate that the number of interviews is small and have revised the section titled “Limitations of literature review and interview analysis” [section 3.4] to better reflect how this could have impacted the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors,

 

Thank you for your interesting submission entitled “Examination of How Citizen Science Can Support Bat-Friendly Urban Planning in Florida, USA, by Understanding Their Coevolution Within Society.” While the manuscript had a good analysis of the current state of bat citizen science monitoring and challenges, there is some concern regarding the, what I guess is the “coevolution” part of the manuscript in the interviews and thematic analysis.

 

Figure 1 on experiential influences on perspectives/attitudes/emotions, is this based on prior literature from behavioral intervention models or KAP/KAB models? There are plenty of existing theorized models on the relationship between experience and various individual measures, many of which are used in the citizen science/participatory science/CBPR literature. Referencing this literature or grounding the model you pose in this manuscript would be warranted. If you are developing a new model of experience/perspective interaction, more data regarding participant experiences in these bat related CS programs and the perspectives/attitude outcomes are needed. It seems what you have proposed here in Figure 1 in based entirely off of 3 interviews with leaders, not all participants, of a citizen science program and their assumed (not measured) outcomes regarding participant changes in perspective.

 

Given that there is already a robust body of literature on changes in participant outcomes in citizen science programs in various constructs around knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, practices, etc. particularly with non-charismatic or difficult to monitor species (i.e., mosquitoes, entomology research) this section does not seem particularly innovative nor well founded to contribute to the broader body of literature in this CS space. While the other elements in the manuscript seem to be of interest regarding status and challenges to bat citizen science, the thematic analysis elements may be better positioned explored through the lens of prior citizen science literature on barriers/outcomes, and transference of CS program effects.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and attention to our submission.

We have revised a significant portion of the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion to better convey how bat-friendly urban planning and citizen science are coevolving within society.

We have revised the text of the paper with particular attention to the abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion to better clarify the contribution we feel this paper makes to the environmental challenges urbanisation brings and how citizen science can contribute to the development of a transdisciplinary One Health approach.

We have further reassessed Figure 1 and agree that its inclusion does not strengthen the manuscript and that behavioural conclusions from three interviews should not be drawn. We have therefore removed this figure and referenced appropriate KAB studies that have already studied this area.

 

We still feel it is important to include the section “Individual perspective” as this helped us to identify some of the barriers to inclusion of individuals. Understanding individual perspectives in bat conservation may allow future projects to reimagine how they can be more inclusive and generate positive evolution of perspectives.

Deeper reflection allowed expanding on the limitations of the literature review and interviews.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the centre of this manuscript is an interesting approach to collect knowledge about bat conservation measures from amateurs and/or citizen scientists. However, I unfortunately cannot see what this paper intends to be. Is it a presentation of the method with the idea that such a method can be used for finding or optimizing conservation strategies? In this case a lot of info like the IUCN classification of the bat species is unnecessary load. Or is it a collection of facts about bats in Florida? In that case the sociological considerations (incl. fig 1 and 2) are unnecessary weight and furthermore the facts need to be restructured more clearly. 

In the opening of the discussion it is said "this project is set out to explore the current contributions  made by citizen science to bat conservation, current documented effect of urbanisation on bats and the potential of citizen science..." I cannot see any of this aims met in a satisfying manner. The current contributions remain unclear. Is it the list of reporting sites for bat observations? Is it the identification of problems bats have in urban areas with the intention to reduce them? (where is the list of these problems? it is for sure more than habitat availability and direct prosecution. What about traffic collisions? cats? pollutants? artificial lighting and insect availability / predator avoidance). Amateurs and citizen scientists in other parts of the world contribute a lot of work to bat conservation in urban areas. Very impressive examples exist in UK and in Switzerland but also in many EU countries. The EUROBAT initiative is in the single countries largely driven by amateurs. The few anecdotic presentations of bat activists treated in the manuscript are not even close to the broad palette of approaches in bat conservation in urban areas we see in various parts of the world. from the title and the announcement in the beginning of the Discussion I would have expected a comprehensive list of these amateur activities with a weighting of their effectiveness, frequency, effort needed, funding needed etc. Since this is not there I regret I have problems to understand the main aim and focus of the manuscript in the current state. 

I have a few minor things to add: 

1) Unfortunately, like many other manuscripts that use the buzzword “citizen science”, this manuscript succumbs to the temptation to attribute everything that is not done professionally to “citizen scientists.”  This is incorrect, because there is a huge difference between the highly qualified amateurs (often higher qualified than the staff in the conservation authorities), such as those often found in bat conservation, and typical citizen scientists, who are usually less qualified but active in a wide range of fields and with impressive energy. Clarification is needed as to how the term “citizen scientist” is to be understood here.

Table 2: the entries do not fit to the headline in column 2. For example "Project Roadkill" is not a utilizing technique, it is a project. The technique would be "entry of roadkills into a database by..." or something like that. Also "Ohio Bat Working Group" is not a technique.

table 3: I have serious problems to see the logic behind that table (and it's function in the paper). First question is, where this collection comes from. Are those things mentioned in the interviews? or made up by the authors? If the first, how often were they mentioned? Furthermore "natural reserve" is not a feature, it is a class of legal protection which is manmade and not "natural" at all. The feature would rather be natural landscape or natural biotop element. Among the green spaces roadside trees are missing. They are an important guiding structure for bats. In the vegetation section woodland/forestry is missing (probably absent in Florida?). What about caves (probably absent as well)?

lone 260: E. floridanus , not E. Floridanus

Table 5: what is the purpose of this table? The species are listed in table 1 and for all other aspects treated in the manuscript the IUCN status seems not to play a role (if it dioes pleas mention where and why). From the text examples I understand that a bat is interesting because it's a bat and not because it's listed in a certain IUCN category. 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We have revised text in the introduction, results, discussion, and conclusion to better clarify how this paper contributes to current environmental challenges and how a transdisciplinary One Health approach would be beneficial. This paper serves as an initial study to pave the way for further development of citizen science projects in Florida and help to evolve how to best approach urban planning with ecosystem health in mind. This requires the understanding that both are coevolving due to the many complex connections between stakeholders and society. Florida served an initial focus of study due to limited citizen science contributions, lack of published responses to urbanisation, and large-scale urbanisation threatening natural landscapes.

We have noted that the Europe does have many contributions and that is noted in the results with the identification of 25 projects of the total 43 occurring in Europe. We accept in the limitations that some projects may be missed by not including grey literature and other databases.

We have removed (the old) Figure 1 as it was found to not significantly strengthen the paper.

We have amended the column headings on Table 2 to provide more clarity. This table serves as good summary of which projects utilised which research technique. For example: Project Roadkill utilised sporadic sighting of wildlife reported into online database.

The title of Table 3 has also been revised to clarify where this information was sourced from. We have also changed nature reserve to natural landscape.

Table 5 helps to highlight further inconsistencies and data gaps. We have also added the reason this is important as federal and local laws draw on these designations for urban planning policy and protections.

Thank you for bringing our attention to inconsistencies in scientific names. We have gone through the paper and ensured these are formatted correctly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have healed the woes of the first version of the article. They have reorganized the information and given it direction and meaning.

The article can now be recommended for publication.

Congrats!

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for investing further work into this manuscript. Now I see it's purpose and the philosophy behind it. I think it is an important piece of information for starting more bat conservation activities in Florida and it can be an example how to set up similar activities elsewhere. In my opinion text and tables are now clear and consistent.

Please note that in the introduction (line 35) there is still this issue with the capitalized scientific species name in E. Floridanus. I assume it is a problem with auto correction misinterpreting the dot after the abbreviated genus name.