Soundscape Design in an Urban Natural Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study seeks to develop a method for evaluating integrative strategies to mitigate the impact of traffic noise on wildlife in an urban wild park, without addressing the specific effects of noise on the perception and communication of individual species. The topic is good, but the conclusion is not innovative.

1.     The relevant research on soundscape ecology should be included in the introduction, especially the research on soundscape indicators. (Line 164-Line 299)

2.     The use method of AudioMoth full-spectrum acoustic loggers and data processing method should be briefly explained, mainly highlighting what data can be obtained. The principle of the instrument and the method of use can be placed in supplementary materials. (Line 344- Line 420)

3.     The discussion is inappropriate and needs to be revised. The data obtained in the three scenarios should be discussed and analyzed in order to obtain effective evaluation methods and strategies.

Author Response

The study seeks to develop a method for evaluating integrative strategies to mitigate the impact of traffic noise on wildlife in an urban wild park, without addressing the specific effects of noise on the perception and communication of individual species. The topic is good, but the conclusion is not innovative. 

1.     The relevant research on soundscape ecology should be included in the introduction, especially the research on soundscape indicators. (Line 164-Line 299) - soundscape indicators were introduced and b explained 

Soundscape indexes were introduced and briefly explained. 

2.     The use method of AudioMoth full-spectrum acoustic loggers and data processing method should be briefly explained, mainly highlighting what data can be obtained. The principle of the instrument and the method of use can be placed in supplementary materials. (Line 344- Line 420) 

More details were added at line 413 

 3.     The discussion is inappropriate and needs to be revised. The data obtained in the three scenarios should be discussed and analyzed in order to obtain effective evaluation methods and strategies. 

The results obtained for each 3 scenarios were discussed in detail line 680 to 806  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article uses stationary measurements and software simulation techniques to characterize anthropogenic noise's impact on biodiversity in the Văcărești urban nature park (Bucharest, Romania). The Authors describe a method for assessing integrative strategies for mitigating the effects of traffic noise on wildlife in an urban nature park.

According to the reviewer:

- the topic corresponds to the topic of the special issue,

- why is the research area described in the introduction? However, it would be better to create a subsection describing the location and development of the park.

- the descriptions of the methods used are too extensive - I understand that the Authors wanted to include all the necessary information in the article, but in my opinion, this affects the readability of the article

- results - please focus on the essential elements in their description,

- discussion - there is no discussion of the results. Why does the discussion include a description of a drone as a tool supporting the research methodology?

- there is no evaluation of the proposed approach in the conclusion. Has the intended goal been met? Has the method been developed?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check your English carefully. There are grammatical and stylistic errors. Please avoid starting sentences with the word "this". If the journal accepts the personal form in sentences, please leave "we"; if not, please change this form to an impersonal one.

Author Response

The reviewed article uses stationary measurements and software simulation techniques to characterize anthropogenic noise's impact on biodiversity in the Văcărești urban nature park (Bucharest, Romania). The Authors describe a method for assessing integrative strategies for mitigating the effects of traffic noise on wildlife in an urban nature park. 

According to the reviewer: 

- the topic corresponds to the topic of the special issue, 

- why is the research area described in the introduction? However, it would be better to create a subsection describing the location and development of the park. 

Being a natural urban park with an unusual formation from an initially different scope, a short history was considered useful. 

- the descriptions of the methods used are too extensive - I understand that the Authors wanted to include all the necessary information in the article, but in my opinion, this affects the readability of the article 

Some aspects of the method description were reconsidered. Our aim for this article is to be read not only by researchers and specialists, but also by representatives from authorities, so we considered an extensive explanation of the methods as necessary. 

- results - please focus on the essential elements in their description, 

The results were reformulated and explained in detail.

- discussion - there is no discussion of the results. Why does the discussion include a description of a drone as a tool supporting the research methodology? 

The discussion chapter was modified and the results were commented. Also, the paragraph with the drone method was moved to lines 566-574 

- there is no evaluation of the proposed approach in the conclusion. Has the intended goal been met? Has the method been developed? 

The conclusion chapter was modified with an evaluation of the proposed approach and the accomplishment of the goal. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language 

Please check your English carefully. There are grammatical and stylistic errors. Please avoid starting sentences with the word "this". If the journal accepts the personal form in sentences, please leave "we"; if not, please change this form to an impersonal one. 

The English language was revised.