Dear Ms Jackson,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Buildings promote frequent and intense contact between humans and bats in rural Kenya" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Three reviewers have evaluated your manuscript and all three indicated that it is well written and presents valuable information and understanding about human-bat interactions. All three reviewers did ask for minor revisions to clarify certain aspects of the manuscript and each provided several suggestions for improvement. Please evaluate these comments, revised the manuscript accordingly and resubmit. Thank you!

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Bowen

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Justin Remais

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Three reviewers have evaluated your manuscript and all three indicated that it is well written and presents valuable information and understanding about human-bat interactions. All three reviewers did ask for minor revisions to clarify certain aspects of the manuscript and each provided several suggestions for improvement. Please evaluate these comments, revised the manuscript accordingly and resubmit. Thank you!

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The study sample size of 102 people is small to test the hypothesis given. The authors make reference to the total human population of Taita Taveta county. However the nature of the county landscape that is under protected forests means that human population are congregated around certain areas. The authors also need to give a better description of the infested buildings for example what were the roofs made of (iron sheets or brick tiles) did the building material play a role in raising the risk for bat inhabiting buildings?

The term rural Kenya is misleading as the county governance structure is devolved meaning the counties have clear urban and rural areas. Was the study conducted in an Urban area like Taita Taveta town? This means that the population also sampled would not be indigenous to the county but people from other parts of Kenya who settle in the town as they are employed or run enterprises and thus require the build rental houses. The study authors need to disaggregate study respondents in two groups indigenous to the county and not indigenous. Literacy level also plays a role in how people approach and tackle issues why was this not a variable on why the respondents chose to live in a build house instead of the traditional roof thatched houses (that may or may have not been also inhabited by bats-did the study come across thatched houses inhabited by bat colonies?)

Reviewer #2: Adequate methods.

Reviewer #3: Objectives were clear enough but the method of identifying the population of individual residences with bat roost/bats living on the property was certainly not clear. It sounds like snowball sampling was the general method, as they describe as 'word of mouth' but the recruitment method needs to be elaborated upon.

Sample size is insufficient, or more description is needed for explaining those who were approached and refused.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results are clear and match the analysis plan put forward in the methods section of the paper. However, in Table 1. (Methods used by people to remove bats from buildings). The responses total is 114 yet there were 102 respondents can the authors explain if this was part of a multiple response data analysis?

Reviewer #2: Adequately presented results.

Reviewer #3: Results for this building study are okay, but could be broadened.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The study describes well the zoonotic risk exposure pathways. This is a commendable effort as this was a known fact that had not been documented or quantified. However, the authors missed the opportunity to give a clear policy direction on what type of building design and materials would deter bat infestation. In addition, the failure of authors to describe accurately the unique ecosystem of Taita Taveta means there was a missed opportunity to direct future research to the county as it may be one of the few natural habitats for bats in Kenya.

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

Yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

Yes, the study discuss the limitations of being survey-based.

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

I think the discussion could develop more on this.

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Yes, but I think this study could discuss further on what can be done in the local context to reduce or mitigate bat-human conflicts, especially after mentioning increase in risk in the foreseeable future.

Reviewer #3: There is no Conclusion section, just Discussion that ends the paper. Conclusions could be expanded to talk about potential risk mitigation measures on the number of issues raised in Results section.

Authors do not discuss how data can be helpful to advance bat exposure to humans.

and Public health relevance is NOT addressed.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Minor edit

Title: Include the county name Taita Taveta and if possible the exact geographical area the study was conducted (sub county and village). The title misrepresents the highly diverse nature of remote locations in Kenya. Taita Taveta has the highest number of protected forests,48, and does not represent the ecology of the arid and semi-arid areas which make up 80% of Kenya's land mass.

Could this be also the reason there are high bat infestation because of the high forest cover?

In the abstract section consider revising the third sentence from the top this will improve clarity.

Bats are associated with several pathogens that can spill over and cause diseases in humans. Rapid urbanization has resulted in the encroachment and loss of the bats' natural habitat, forcing the bats to use anthropogenic structures for roosting.

Reviewer #2: L188 - I recommend inverting the sentence, start with `Compared to more common removal reasons,`

Figure 1 - Maybe report somehow in this figure the age of respondents for each category or the amount of time respondents have been living at the same place and discuss how those numbers could approximate to a good estimate.

Reviewer #3: THis paper has merit but needs further work. there are topics like the domestic animals' eating of dead bats that should be expanded upon, and this inclusion in 'building'/ediface paper makes me think there could be a follow-up suggested to expand on this narrowly focused questionnaire data than the team is exploiting. Would be a richer paper with a more full-bodied approach and exploration of some of these interface dynamics. Since I see the questionnaire does not include other interface questions, I would heartily suggest further development of results and Discussion section, perhaps suggesting next steps on avenues for exploration, and adding a Conclusions section.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The study has notable strengths in documenting and quantifying possible risk pathways for humans sharing living spaces with bats. However the small sample size makes this more an observational study that does not give a high statistical power to make inferences from.

In the discussion section, the authors highlight a study bias of selecting respondents who were unaffected by regional customs about bats. The study failed to describe the study population (indigenous or migrants) so this statement needs to be removed. In addition, if the survey was conducted in an urban areas the most likely respondents were not indigenous Taita Taveta community who would be inclined to the cultural fear of talking about bats . The respondents would have been workers from other parts of Kenya who will not be affected by the local cultural belief system.

In conclusion, if the authors have more data on the type of housing associated with bat infestations. They can analyse this data and make a policy recommendation on the design and type of roofing that can deter bat roosting especially in an area that is a hot spot for closer bat-human coexistence due the nature of the unique conserved forest landscape of Taita Taveta County.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Studies like this are much needed so public health authorities can promote guidelines for mitigating bat-human conflict. I believe this draft requires minor changes in order to be considered for publication in PlosNTD.

The suggested changes would be focused on the discussion. For instance, the mentioned stigma could be target of educational projects that could be applied in the region, and some discussion on this topic would be desired. Moreover, I feel like the authors could illustrate more the local context in terms of mentioning existing community projects acting in the region, if there were attempts to provide guidelines for living peacefully with bats. Moreover, the discussion could explore future research demands in the region. Finally, I felt this study could mention how to integrate surveys like this to the One Health approach, by briefly discussing links between human health and biological conservation.

Reviewer #3: This paper seems cursory, and a bit superficial, but is of scientific interest, as not much has been done on the bat/human co-habitation interface.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments on Bat human interface paper.docx

Dear Dr Jackson,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Frequent and intense human-bat interactions occur in buildings of rural Kenya' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Richard A. Bowen

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Justin Remais

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************