Rock and Plovers—A Drama in Three Acts Involving a Big Musical Event Planned on a Coastal Beach Hosting Threatened Birds of Conservation Concern

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found your paper interesting to read and easy to follow. As someone who often works with multiple stakeholders, I found the conflict you described somewhat familiar in that no one likes surprises during project planning. When I think of musical Big Events, Woodstock in NY, USA in 1969 immediately comes to mind. And though held at a dairy farm, it was a concert featuring 400,000 people in a natural space. I found the writing of the introduction easy to follow, but a bit disjointed as you have several two and three sentence paragraphs. I think you can link some of the ideas to form larger paragraphs for the reader.

I found the Act and Scene description easy to follow, and liked the figure you included. To me, a surprising outcome was conflict between the Municipality and Park Agency. What I’m left to wonder is how the issue could have been avoided. On L168 you state that the economic interests induced the Municipality to be reluctant to provide information about the need of an EIA. Do you think it was intentional that the Municipality did not involve the Park Agency or that the Municipality was not aware that there were regulations and that the Park Agency should be involved? I think being unaware can be solved with education, but intentionally excluding an agency and trying to bypass regulations is not so easily addressed. 

On L164 you state...Keeping active, open and participated communication is one of the foundations of leadership and management, including environmental ones. Do you have any suggestions on how to keep open and active communication that you can add to the concluding paragraph. What could have been done differently in your case study that might have changed the outcome.

I found a few typos (e.g., ONG not NGO) that can be revised throughout.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I carried out this further review of our ms.

Thanks for this further opportunity to improve it.

Here, below, my reviewer’s responses in bold letters.

Have a nice year and holidays!

Regards,

Corrado

 

REV 1

I found your paper interesting to read and easy to follow. As someone who often works with multiple stakeholders, I found the conflict you described somewhat familiar in that no one likes surprises during project planning. When I think of musical Big Events, Woodstock in NY, USA in 1969 immediately comes to mind. And though held at a dairy farm, it was a concert featuring 400,000 people in a natural space. I found the writing of the introduction easy to follow, but a bit disjointed as you have several two and three sentence paragraphs. I think you can link some of the ideas to form larger paragraphs for the reader.

Author’s response: Thank you for your graceful comment. I added a sentence to improve the Introduction. I added also the number of people precited for the Big Event (>40,000; row 71). I hope that this addition is enough (for a short note).

I found the Act and Scene description easy to follow, and liked the figure you included. To me, a surprising outcome was conflict between the Municipality and Park Agency. What I’m left to wonder is how the issue could have been avoided. On L168 you state that the economic interests induced the Municipality to be reluctant to provide information about the need of an EIA. Do you think it was intentional that the Municipality did not involve the Park Agency or that the Municipality was not aware that there were regulations and that the Park Agency should be involved? I think being unaware can be solved with education, but intentionally excluding an agency and trying to bypass regulations is not so easily addressed. 

Author’s response: Yes, I specified better that the Municipality (i) was aware of the rules on this Directive, (ii) of the need of an environmental authorization by Regional authority and, finally, (iii) on the obligation to inform anyone wishing to carry out infrastructures and activities in the SPA, identified following these Acts. Indeed, the request form is available on the institutional website for anyone who needs it. I added a reference about it.

On L164 you state...Keeping active, open and participated communication is one of the foundations of leadership and management, including environmental ones. Do you have any suggestions on how to keep open and active communication that you can add to the concluding paragraph. What could have been done differently in your case study that might have changed the outcome.

Author’s response: Ok, I added a sentence (and a reference) about it. Thanks. I renumbered all the references.

I found a few typos (e.g., ONG not NGO) that can be revised throughout.

Author’s response: Ok, I changed everywhere. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,
the paper deals with an interesting topic: Rock and Plovers – a Drama in three Acts involving a musical Big Event and two threatened beach-nesting birds. Despite the relevance of the topic, the manuscript does not live up to expectations, several flaws make it difficult to follow and do not permit a complete understanding of the value of results weaking their relevance.

First, The text i in first person text, making it difficult to read.

Second, the Abstract is no informative; it seems more like a summary of the Introduction (definition of the context of the work) without reporting any kind of information related to the results and their discussion.

As for the rest of the paper: the text is written atypically as for articles on nature conservation. It may be incomprehensible to people looking for data on nature conservation, e.g.: Act I (The premises). 2.1. Scene I: The top-level agreement (Actors: pop star staff, Environmentalist ONG); 3. Act II (On the field) 3.1. Scene I: The field surveys (Actors: pop star staff, local Municipality).

There are no research hypotheses. Which phenomenon is under investigation? The loss of complexity (and in turn of habitats/species) following the anthropic impacts on two threatened beach-nesting birds or the effectiveness of the ecological recovery interventions (the so called "protective measures")? It is not clear at all, and this lack of clarity greatly reduces the meaning of the data shown.

There is no empirical data on birds which is clearly presented in the title: three Acts involving a musical Big Event and two threatened beach-nesting birds.

 There is no of the statistical analyzes.

About the Results, negative effects must be proven by field studies of birds.

In publications of this type, the results are not described as theatrical scenes.

The text is not very persuasive.

The text is unconvincing. In my opinion, the text should not be published or published after major changes. The author must prove his thesis based on the results of research on birds!

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I carried out this further review of our ms.

Thanks for this further opportunity to improve it.

Here, below, my reviewer’s responses in bold letters.

Have a nice year and holidays!

Regards,

Corrado

REV 2

Dear Editor,
the paper deals with an interesting topic: Rock and Plovers – a Drama in three Acts involving a musical Big Event and two threatened beach-nesting birds. Despite the relevance of the topic, the manuscript does not live up to expectations, several flaws make it difficult to follow and do not permit a complete understanding of the value of results weaking their relevance.

Author’s response: As reported below, this is not a hypothetical-driven research but a conservation story. I used a theatrical metaphorical approach useful to tell stories of social and policy events in a conservation front line. I specified better it along the text.
First, The text i in first person text, making it difficult to read.

Author’s response: Ok, I deleted some first person forms, maintaining ‘I’ only when necessary. Thank for the suggestions.
Second, the Abstract is no informative; it seems more like a summary of the Introduction (definition of the context of the work) without reporting any kind of information related to the results and their discussion.
Author’s response: I added some points (Acts, social actors involved). I think that the six lessons reported should have the priority in the abstract. If further requested I may add other points but I think that there are enough for this short note. Thanks.

As for the rest of the paper: the text is written atypically as for articles on nature conservation. It may be incomprehensible to people looking for data on nature conservation, e.g.: Act I (The premises). 2.1. Scene I: The top-level agreement (Actors: pop star staff, Environmentalist ONG); 3. Act II (On the field) 3.1. Scene I: The field surveys (Actors: pop star staff, local Municipality).

There are no research hypotheses. Which phenomenon is under investigation? The loss of complexity (and in turn of habitats/species) following the anthropic impacts on two threatened beach-nesting birds or the effectiveness of the ecological recovery interventions (the so called "protective measures")? It is not clear at all, and this lack of clarity greatly reduces the meaning of the data shown.

Author’s response: This paper reports a conservation story. Facts are social- and policy-characterized. Differently form previous research on plover birds carried out locally (e.g., Conservation 2022, 2(3), 450-456), the classical IMRED approach with data sampling and analyses are not carried out and I preferred write it in a ‘Opinion paper’ format using a theatrical metaphoric approach that, I hope, could be of interest for readers (mainly conservation practitioners working in conservation front lines). I specified better it in the Introduction. Thanks.
There is no empirical data on birds which is clearly presented in the title: three Acts involving a musical Big Event and two threatened beach-nesting birds.

Author’s response: Ok, I have available data on number of breeding plover birds for this area and on the threats acting on them. I added them. However, following this suggestion, I changed a bit the title.
There is no of the statistical analyzes.
About the Results, negative effects must be proven by field studies of birds.
In publications of this type, the results are not described as theatrical scenes.
The text is not very persuasive.
Author’s response: As stated before, this is a Letter from a Conservation front line telling a critical (social/policy) story on a site of a high conservation concern. We improved the Introduction stating it. I hope that the approach for this note has been clarified.
The text is unconvincing. In my opinion, the text should not be published or published after major changes. The author must prove his thesis based on the results of research on birds!

Author’s response: About research on birds, I have available local data on plover birds nesting in the area of musical event: I added them. However, I have not before/after data because the events did not happen. I tell this story explaining a series of social/policy facts using a precautionally (and theatrical) approach, given that the event would have transformed a large dune sector and irreversibly altered the nesting habitat of these species, as well as having eliminated the halo-psammophilous plant communities.  This story of events has not available data deserving a statistical analysis. However, I added a final sentence, suggesting the use of quantitative and analytical Before-After-Control-Impact approach in monitoring the impact of muscial events on specific target of conservation concern. Thanks for your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Battisti reported an interesting communication about an entertainment event with direct conservation implications for the coastal dune ecosystem and for two species of Plovers. The manuscript is well written, clearly reported the storytelling of the events, and critically analysed the complexity of the issues that characterised the musical event and the relationships among the “actors” involved. The manuscript, other than being valuable for the specific case study, highlights critical issues that could emerge in many other similar circumstances in different locations and countries. It also provides some significant considerations that could be useful in the next to avoid misunderstandings and to improve decision processes.

Here my comments.

Keywords: I suggest adding something referring to costal dune ecosystems and nature conservation.

Line 87: typo “decision”.  

Line 107: I suggest revising the sentence. For example: “In our case study, the Municipality of Ladispoli (Rome), due to this economic interest, does not communicate any….”

Line 116-117: The Regional Authority, which is shown in the Figure 1 and cited in the paragraph, it has not been reported in the heading.

Line 158-159: “Communicators….scale”. I think that the problem is that digital tools were used by expert in communications and not by ecologists, as the Author said, rather than the ineffectiveness of digital tools when working at fine-grained scale. Digital tools can provide significant support information at fine-scale resolution as well. I suggest considering to revise this sentence. The overconfidence in digital devices (line 160) is likely due the fact these tools were not used by ecologists, but from people lacking from an ecological and scientific background. For example, I can think that the EU habitat code 1210 is mapped in a GIS metadata. Similarly, the fact that the area is a breeding site for the two species of Plovers is surely stored in some metadata by the Park Agency or other Research Institutes/Agencies, or available on web-platforms like “Ornitho” or “I Naturalist/GBIF”. As I said, in accordance with the Author, I think that the problem is the poor expertise of people that take such decisions, the lack of involving of ecologists in the decision processes rather than the ineffectiveness of GIS/digital tools in this context.

Line 160 and Abstract: “Google Map effect” has been used to indicate “overconfidence in digital devices”. I suggest considering to revise (or simply remove) the use of the term “Google map effect” because the inaccurate use of digital tools can also involve platforms that are different from Google Maps. I do not think that is necessary finding a term to identify the concept of “overconfidence in digital devices”. Additionally, I suggest considering to replace the term “overconfidence” that has been used in this context with a term that indicates an inaccurate/inappropriate use of digital tools (see also previous comment for the motivation).

Here some comments on Figure 1.

Check the bottom margin because some words were cut out (“Winter”, and likely some words after “with direct” in the Act I, Scene III; Act III, Scene II: the heading).

There are some “X” in the figure (Act II, Scene I; and behind the icons of the Act II, Scene II; Act III, Scene I-III). If they have a meaning, please explain it in the caption.

At line 92-93 the Author identified as “actors” the pop star staff, NGOs, the Park Agency, stakeholders and people, but in the Figure 1 both the icons of the pop star staff and NGOs has been omitted in relation to their role of communications. They could be added in the figure, maybe with an arrows leading to the “surprise” effect on Park agency and people.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I carried out this further review of our ms.

Thanks for this further opportunity to improve it.

Here, below, my reviewer’s responses in bold letters.

Have a nice year and holidays!

Regards,

Corrado

REV 3

Battisti reported an interesting communication about an entertainment event with direct conservation implications for the coastal dune ecosystem and for two species of Plovers. The manuscript is well written, clearly reported the storytelling of the events, and critically analysed the complexity of the issues that characterised the musical event and the relationships among the “actors” involved. The manuscript, other than being valuable for the specific case study, highlights critical issues that could emerge in many other similar circumstances in different locations and countries. It also provides some significant considerations that could be useful in the next to avoid misunderstandings and to improve decision processes.

Author’s response: Thank you for your graceful comments.

Here my comments.

Keywords: I suggest adding something referring to costal dune ecosystems and nature conservation.

Author’s response: Ok, I added. Thanks.

Line 87: typo “decision”.  

Author’s response: Ok, I corrected. Thanks.

Line 107: I suggest revising the sentence. For example: “In our case study, the Municipality of Ladispoli (Rome), due to this economic interest, does not communicate any….”

Author’s response: Ok, I changed the sentence. Thanks.

Line 116-117: The Regional Authority, which is shown in the Figure 1 and cited in the paragraph, it has not been reported in the heading.

Author’s response: Ok, I added.

Line 158-159: “Communicators….scale”. I think that the problem is that digital tools were used by expert in communications and not by ecologists, as the Author said, rather than the ineffectiveness of digital tools when working at fine-grained scale. Digital tools can provide significant support information at fine-scale resolution as well. I suggest considering to revise this sentence. The overconfidence in digital devices (line 160) is likely due the fact these tools were not used by ecologists, but from people lacking from an ecological and scientific background. For example, I can think that the EU habitat code 1210 is mapped in a GIS metadata. Similarly, the fact that the area is a breeding site for the two species of Plovers is surely stored in some metadata by the Park Agency or other Research Institutes/Agencies, or available on web-platforms like “Ornitho” or “I Naturalist/GBIF”. As I said, in accordance with the Author, I think that the problem is the poor expertise of people that take such decisions, the lack of involving of ecologists in the decision processes rather than the ineffectiveness of GIS/digital tools in this context.

Author’s response: Ok, I agree. I deleted the trem ‘overconfidence’ everywhere and changed the sentences evidencing the role of ecologists in fine-grained and small scale analyses. Thanks.

Line 160 and Abstract: “Google Map effect” has been used to indicate “overconfidence in digital devices”. I suggest considering to revise (or simply remove) the use of the term “Google map effect” because the inaccurate use of digital tools can also involve platforms that are different from Google Maps. I do not think that is necessary finding a term to identify the concept of “overconfidence in digital devices”. Additionally, I suggest considering to replace the term “overconfidence” that has been used in this context with a term that indicates an inaccurate/inappropriate use of digital tools (see also previous comment for the motivation).

Author’s response: I changed the sentences everywhere, as requested, removing the ‘Google Maps effect’ and the term “overconfidence” also form keywords.

Here some comments on Figure 1.

Check the bottom margin because some words were cut out (“Winter”, and likely some words after “with direct” in the Act I, Scene III; Act III, Scene II: the heading).

There are some “X” in the figure (Act II, Scene I; and behind the icons of the Act II, Scene II; Act III, Scene I-III). If they have a meaning, please explain it in the caption.

At line 92-93 the Author identified as “actors” the pop star staff, NGOs, the Park Agency, stakeholders and people, but in the Figure 1 both the icons of the pop star staff and NGOs has been omitted in relation to their role of communications. They could be added in the figure, maybe with an arrows leading to the “surprise” effect on Park agency and people.

Author’s response: I checked for the words. I think that now the Fig. 1 has bee corrected. I deleted the ‘X’. Ok, I added the icons in relation to their role in communication. Thanks.

Finally, I added the useful role of the three anoymous reviewers and Editors in improving the first draft of the manuscript.

Thank you for all.

Have a nice 2023!

Corrado

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 The text is not prepared according to the Editor's order (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/conservation/instructions):

   Introduction: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.

    Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited. Give the name and version of any software used and make clear whether computer code used is available. Include any pre-registration codes.

    Results: Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

    Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.

    Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

    Patents: This section is not mandatory but may be added if there are patents resulting from the work reported in this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

here in attach the second revision for the Brief report Conservation-2130311 (Author: C. Battisti), submitted to Conservation for publication.

I followed, as possible, all the editor’s and reviewer’s suggestions. See below, my point-by-point responses to any comment in bold letters.

I confirm that neither the manuscript nor any parts of its content are currently under consideration or published in another journal.

I approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to Conservation.

Hoping that this manuscript deserves to attention for publication, I thank you in advance for attention.

Very Sincerely,

 

Corrado Battisti (Corresponding Author)

 

(C. Battisti) LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park, Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, via Ribotta, 41, 00144 Rome, Italy. E-mail: c.battisti@cittametropolitanaroma.it (Corresponding author); ORCID: 0000-0002-2621-3659

Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=msf6rlwAAAAJ&hl=it

 

Author’s replies

The text is not prepared according to the Editor's order (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/conservation/instructions):

Author’s response: Ok, I changed the text structure according the Instructions for Conservation. I added the row on ‘Conflict of interest’. I hope that now all it is ok.

   Introduction: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.

Author’s response: Ok, now I highlighted in Introduction why this study and the specific approach is important. There is not a working hypothesis because it is an event chains in the real world. I cited the poor availability of research about the impact of musical Big events on coastal ecosystems. I mentioned the main aim of the work. Now, I hope that this short paper may be comprehensible to a large number of conservation managers and practitioners working in this disciplinary arena, also suggesting a new approach. I changed the title, making it more readable (I hope). Thanks.

    Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited. Give the name and version of any software used and make clear whether computer code used is available. Include any pre-registration codes.

Author’s response: Ok, I described better in detail the methods (and study area) including a specific section. I added a reference about the Methods.

    Results: Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

Author’s response: As stated in the Introduction and Methods, in this report there are not experimental results, but a new metaphoric approach (see Jacobson et al., Conservation Education, cited) has been introduced to communicate dramatic stories of conservation in crisis contexts. However, I have detailed any passage to adopt this approach in future reports.

    Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible, and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.

Author’s response: I added some further implication both of this new approach and about the story of events acting on these species of conservation concern (plover birds, EU 147/2009/Directive). I prefer to make a distinction between the section Results (reporting the story of events, as obtained following the approach for ‘diary’) and the Discussion (reporting all the implications). I added some further references. However, if further requested I may combine the two sections. Thanks.

    Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

Author’s response: I decided to delete this section since the manuscript is a brief report on a case study (however, I think, of high conservation concern).

    Patents: This section is not mandatory but may be added if there are patents resulting from the work reported in this manuscript.

Author’s response: There are not patents resulting from the work reported in this manuscript. Therefore, I did not add this section at the end of the manuscript.

Finally, I (i) corrected minor refuses and (ii) reported the role of the Editor in the Acknowledgements in suggesting further changes which improved this second reviewed version. Thanks.

Have a nice work and day.

Corrado Battisti

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

lines 2. Change part of title: "drama in three acts with".
l. 11-13 - resign from individual theatrical acts - this is a work on nature conservation.
l. 27-63 - no research studies that have been verified.
l. 41-52 - resign from "social actors".
l. 77 - specify the specific period of the conducted research.
l. 83-87 - detailed in the description from (so-called "Acts") and (so-called "Scenes").
l. 89 - opt out in the description "Social actors of this story".
l. 96 - opt out in the description “All acts and scenes”.
l. 99-185 - detailed in the description of “acts”, “scenes, "social actors", etc.
l. 99-185 (3. Results) - the event is described but the drama is not proven.
l. 234-240 - this part is not supported by a publications in the field of nature conservation.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

here in attach the third revision for the Brief report Conservation-2130311 (Author: C. Battisti), submitted to Conservation for publication.

Further, I followed, as possible, all the editor’s and reviewer’s suggestions. See below, my point-by-point responses to any comment in bold letters. I had trouble finding the points to answer because the line numbers don't match the latest version 2 of the previously submitted manuscript (for example, the reviewer refers to results at lines 99-185 but in the last pdf the results are in rows 106-193: I think that between versions there was a shift of about 9-10 rows). However, I hope that all my responses refers to the indicated questions. I would acknowledge the reviewer for these last suggestions (added in Acknowledgments).

I confirm that neither the manuscript nor any parts of its content are currently under consideration or published in another journal.

I approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to Conservation.

Hoping that this manuscript deserves to attention for publication, I thank you in advance for attention.

Very Sincerely,

 

Corrado Battisti (Corresponding Author)

 

REPLIES TO REVIEWER

Lines 2. Change part of title: "drama in three acts with".

Author’s response: Ok, I changed it. Thanks. Moreover, I changed a verbe, making the title more readable.

1. 11-13 - resign from individual theatrical acts - this is a work on nature conservation.
   Author’s response: I prefer maintain the metaphorical approach for this conservation story. However, as suggested by the reviewer, I changed a bit, specifying better as ‘actors’ refer to ‘social targets’ and ‘threatrical acts’ are phases along this story of events. I added also some references reporting the theatrical approach in conservation (Heras and Tàbara, 2016; Boesch et al., 2008). I renumbered all the citations (since I added references).
2. 27-63 - no research studies that have been verified.
   Author’s response: this section I reported some (scanty) research about the impact of these disturbance events on ecosystems. I have added some references (see numbers 3, 4 and 5). Along the text I explained better as a quantitative approach to test for the verification of hypotheses should be added.
3. 41-52 - resign from "social actors".
   Author’s response: Since here ‘social actors’ has been repeated, I changed with ‘them’. I specified better the term ‘social actors’ also adding references about the use of this concept in nature conservation (Cáceres et al., 2015, Ecology and Society; Cortés-Avizanda et al., 2022, Ambio; beier and Brost, 2010, Conservation biology). Thanks for this suggestion.
4. 77 - specify the specific period of the conducted research.
   Author’s response: Ok, I added it. Thanks.
5. 83-87 - detailed in the description from (so-called "Acts") and (so-called "Scenes").
   Author’s response: Ok, I have detailed the description of Acts and Scenes. I hope that now it is clarified better.
6. 89 - opt out in the description "Social actors of this story".
   Author’s response: I didn't understand the term 'opt out'. if you mean that I have to better describe 'social actor', I proceeded to better define what is meant by this term (line 98). Thanks.
7. 96 - opt out in the description “All acts and scenes”.
   Author’s response: Ok, I deleted here. Thanks for suggestion.
8. 99-185 - detailed in the description of “acts”, “scenes, "social actors", etc.
   Author’s response: Ok, I detailed all these terms. I also (before in the text) added references reporting their use in conservation biology. Thanks.
9. 99-185 (3. Results) - the event is described but the drama is not proven.
   Author’s response: In discussion (first sentences) I reported better as the drama refers to the criticalities emerged among Institutions with long term cascade effects on the nature reserve management of the Special Protection Area. Now, I specified better. Thanks for this suggestion which make more readable the manuscript.
10. 234-240 - this part is not supported by a publications in the field of nature conservation.

Author’s response: Yes. I added some references as suggested and adopted a more cautious conclusion. Moreover, I changed all the sentences suggesting the need of adopting specific metrics useful to test our hypotheses. Thanks.

Finally, I (i) added the role of the useful further reviewer’s comments (in Acknowledgments), (ii) re-numbered all the References (I added further papers), and (iii) corrected minor rephuses in punctuation.

If necessary, I have a version with all the changed evidenced (Revision tools for Windows).

Thanks for all. Regards, Corrado

(C. Battisti) LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park, Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, via Ribotta, 41, 00144 Rome, Italy. E-mail: c.battisti@cittametropolitanaroma.it (Corresponding author); ORCID: 0000-0002-2621-3659

Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=msf6rlwAAAAJ&hl=it

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf