A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya

Joseph Okotto-Okotto; Weiyu Yu; Emmah Kwoba; Samuel M. Thumbi; Lorna Grace Okotto; Peggy Wanza; Diogo Trajano Gomes da Silva; Jim Wright

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255286

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 9, 2020
15 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Steven Arthur Loiselle, Editor PONE-D-20-28371 A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wright, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript “A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya” was reviewed by two independent reviewers, both of who commented positively on the approach developed in the study. However, both also highlighted several areas of concern related to placing the study within the international context as well as the local context. In this sense, it would be helpful to better highlight how the study relates to the ongoing use of participatory approaches (mapping, citizen science) for water management, one reviewer provided a number of related publications. For the latter, more attention should be dedicated to the next steps in the local context related to rural water safety planning and related research. I would also suggest that some attention should be placed, positioning the study in relation to UN SDGs, as this would improve the visibility of the manuscript, once published Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Steven Arthur Loiselle Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.) Please ensure you have provided a copy of all questionnaires used in your study as supporting information files. 3.) We note that Figure 2 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-28371 Title: A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya This manuscript introduces a mixed methods approach for mapping water safety planning in Kenya. The premise of the manuscript is that it introduces a “participatory mapping” to rural water safety planning –a method that has never been applied to the empirical study or practice of rural water safety planning. Generally speaking, this manuscript presents an interesting methodology and case study. It is well written and is relevant; however, it warrants some revisions to render it publishable in PLOS One. In order to be constructive, I structure my impressions of the article around two interrelated aspects: 1) the theoretical framing of the manuscript (i.e., the literature review); and 2) the empirical framing of the manuscript (i.e., research methods and analysis). 1) The theoretical framing of the manuscript (i.e., the literature review) Basically, this component is missing from this manuscript. While the introduction is well written, it does not situate the manuscript’s topic “planning for rural water safety” within the larger body of debates on the subject matter. What is the status of rural water safety planning generally speaking, in Africa, and in Kenya particularly? what are the primary concerns with regards to water planning in rural Kenya? how has participatory planning for rural water safety achieved in general, in Africa, and in Kenya? and why is a participatory planning for rural water safety important (in comparison to other methods/approaches)? Including this discussion will render manuscript relevant to a larger audience of readers and will render some components of it transferable (e.g., the methods) and generalizable (e.g., the findings). Similarly, and because the manuscript is built on the claim that “participatory mapping” has never been applied to the empirical study or practice of rural water safety planning, the authors should introduce what exactly is “participatory mapping”? How has it been applied in the past, for which aspects of rural planning, and in which rural contexts within Africa and/or Kenya? And how is this method transferable to mapping rural water safety in particular? And, building on the previous question, why is this method optimal? Again, through addressing these questions, the readers would be provided with a context for this study. Some references that should be consulted in this process include, but are not limited to: I. On participatory mapping in Africa (note that some actually pertain to rural water planning): a) Fagerholm, N., & Käyhkö, N. (2009). Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 187(1), 43-60. Retrieved from https://fennia.journal.fi/article/view/3703 b) Jiri Panek (2015) How participatory mapping can drive community empowerment – a case study of Koffiekraal, South Africa, South African Geographical Journal, 97:1, 18-30, DOI: 10.1080/03736245.2014.924866 c) Lammerink, Marc P. “Community Managed Rural Water Supply: Experiences from Participatory Action Research in Kenya, Cameroon, Nepal, Pakistan, Guatemala and Colombia.” Community Development Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, 1998, pp. 342–352. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44258804. II. On participatory mapping in general and/or in contexts outside Africa: d) Chambers, R. (2006), Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses?. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x e) M. Anwar Hossen (2016) Participatory mapping for community empowerment, Asian Geographer, 33:2, 97-113, DOI: 10.1080/10225706.2016.1237370 f) C.E. Roa García, S. Brown (2009). Assessing water use and quality through youth participatory research in a rural Andean watershed, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 90, Issue 10, Pages 3040-3047 2) The research methods and analyses: This discussion that spreads over sections 2 and 3 is well-written and reflects a sound and strong methodology. However, it is extremely lengthy and overly detailed –to the extent that the bigger picture behind this empirical study is diluted. I recommend condensing these sections by at least a third each, if not more, and elaborating on the bigger picture and the relevance of the study’s findings to planning for rural water safety within Kenya specifically, but also, how does this study (whether its methods and/or findings) inform planning for rural water safety in Africa and beyond. In other words, the manuscript should highlight this study’s contribution and insights for rural Kenya and beyond. Reviewer #2: This is a good study that empowers local communities to engage in water security. The ability to triangulate the outcomes between the surveys and the participatory mapping was critical to demonstrating the effectiveness of their methods. However, the overall article ends weakly. In particular the last two sentences let the reader down. The next steps and recommendations for future research should be clearly articulated at the end of the conclusion section. Some of this is hinted at in the discussion, finish strongly. ****** 6. 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 [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255286.r001
Revision 1
1 Feb 2021 Author Response Editorial comments: The editor recommended that we strengthen the linkages between our work and the UN SDGs. With this in mind, we have clarified in our methods section that the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme's 'ladder' of water sources, which we use in our analysis, forms the basis for monitoring of SDG 6, Target 6.1. We also now reflect in paragraph 2 of our revised Discussion on the differences between this 'ladder' used for SDG 6 monitoring and how local communities rank and prioritise different water source types in our study. Reviewer #1: This manuscript introduces a mixed methods approach for mapping water safety planning in Kenya. The premise of the manuscript is that it introduces a “participatory mapping” to rural water safety planning –a method that has never been applied to the empirical study or practice of rural water safety planning. Generally speaking, this manuscript presents an interesting methodology and case study. It is well written and is relevant; however, it warrants some revisions to render it publishable in PLOS One. In order to be constructive, I structure my impressions of the article around two interrelated aspects: 1) the theoretical framing of the manuscript (i.e., the literature review); and 2) the empirical framing of the manuscript (i.e., research methods and analysis). 1) The theoretical framing of the manuscript (i.e., the literature review) COMMENT: Basically, this component is missing from this manuscript. While the introduction is well written, it does not situate the manuscript’s topic “planning for rural water safety” within the larger body of debates on the subject matter. What is the status of rural water safety planning generally speaking, in Africa, and in Kenya particularly? what are the primary concerns with regards to water planning in rural Kenya? how has participatory planning for rural water safety achieved in general, in Africa, and in Kenya? and why is a participatory planning for rural water safety important (in comparison to other methods/approaches)? Including this discussion will render manuscript relevant to a larger audience of readers and will render some components of it transferable (e.g., the methods) and generalizable (e.g., the findings). RESPONSE: We accept that whilst we had explained water safety planning and the challenges for rural areas in our Introduction, we had not summarised its status and uptake in different settings. We now do so in a revised paragraph 1, drawing on relevant references including some helpfully suggested by the reviewer (one of which we had cited in our original manuscript though not in the Introduction). To strengthen the rationale for exploring participatory mapping in relation to rural water safety planning, we have broken paragraph 2 of our original Introduction out into two new paragraphs (now forming paragraphs 2 and 3 of the revised Introduction). Paragraph 2 sets out the challenges of implementing water safety planning in rural areas of developing countries. Via a deepened literature synthesis, Paragraph 3 reports on the ‘state of the art’, summarising efforts to simplify water safety planning in such settings, and participatory methods previously applied for engaging with community groups such as water user committees. COMMENT: Similarly, and because the manuscript is built on the claim that “participatory mapping” has never been applied to the empirical study or practice of rural water safety planning, the authors should introduce what exactly is “participatory mapping”? How has it been applied in the past, for which aspects of rural planning, and in which rural contexts within Africa and/or Kenya? And how is this method transferable to mapping rural water safety in particular? And, building on the previous question, why is this method optimal? Again, through addressing these questions, the readers would be provided with a context for this study. Some references that should be consulted in this process include, but are not limited to: I. On participatory mapping in Africa (note that some actually pertain to rural water planning): a) Fagerholm, N., & Käyhkö, N. (2009). Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 187(1), 43-60. Retrieved from https://fennia.journal.fi/article/view/3703 b) Jiri Panek (2015) How participatory mapping can drive community empowerment – a case study of Koffiekraal, South Africa, South African Geographical Journal, 97:1, 18-30, DOI: 10.1080/03736245.2014.924866 c) Lammerink, Marc P. “Community Managed Rural Water Supply: Experiences from Participatory Action Research in Kenya, Cameroon, Nepal, Pakistan, Guatemala and Colombia.” Community Development Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, 1998, pp. 342–352. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44258804. II. On participatory mapping in general and/or in contexts outside Africa: d) Chambers, R. (2006), Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses?. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x e) M. Anwar Hossen (2016) Participatory mapping for community empowerment, Asian Geographer, 33:2, 97-113, DOI: 10.1080/10225706.2016.1237370 f) C.E. Roa García, S. Brown (2009). Assessing water use and quality through youth participatory research in a rural Andean watershed, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 90, Issue 10, Pages 3040-3047 RESPONSE: We agree we should have more tightly defined the manuscript’s fit to prior knowledge via a more extensive and deeper literature review. We also thank the reviewer for taking the time to highlight specific relevant references for us. Paragraph 3 of the Introduction of our original manuscript provided a brief summary of participatory mapping and its applications. In the light of the reviewer’s comments and request that we deepen the literature review and more clearly explain the specific contribution of the manuscript, we have expanded this paragraph to incorporate some of the references above, strengthening the case for its application to rural water safety planning in doing so. We also clarify that we are not proposing that participatory mapping is the optimal method for rural water safety planning. Rather, we argue it is one of several relevant participatory techniques with potential for water safety planning. As such, we seek to provide evidence on its usefulness or otherwise through triangulation with other sources of information. 2) The research methods and analyses: This discussion that spreads over sections 2 and 3 is well-written and reflects a sound and strong methodology. However, it is extremely lengthy and overly detailed –to the extent that the bigger picture behind this empirical study is diluted. I recommend condensing these sections by at least a third each, if not more, and elaborating on the bigger picture and the relevance of the study’s findings to planning for rural water safety within Kenya specifically, but also, how does this study (whether its methods and/or findings) inform planning for rural water safety in Africa and beyond. In other words, the manuscript should highlight this study’s contribution and insights for rural Kenya and beyond. RESPONSE: As suggested, we have shortened Section 2 (Methods) by about a third for brevity, reducing methodological detail in doing so. To shorten Section 3 (Results), we have deleted Tables 1 and 4, summarising key statistics in the text instead. We also moved Figure 1 and Table 7 to Supplemental Materials, thereby nearly halving the number of illustrations. In reducing the number of illustrations, we have also shortened the accompanying text throughout for conciseness and removed a sub-section heading to simplify Section 3’s structure. Reviewer #2: COMMENT: This is a good study that empowers local communities to engage in water security. The ability to triangulate the outcomes between the surveys and the participatory mapping was critical to demonstrating the effectiveness of their methods. RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for these positive comments; no other response needed. COMMENT: However, the overall article ends weakly. In particular, the last two sentences let the reader down. The next steps and recommendations for future research should be clearly articulated at the end of the conclusion section. Some of this is hinted at in the discussion, finish strongly. RESPONSE: Having revisited the literature on water safety planning and participatory mapping as suggested by Reviewer 1, we agree that we should have drawn out more in our Discussion and Conclusions. With this in mind, we have introduced a new sixth paragraph in the Discussion, where we reflect on the complexity of rural water source use and the value of informal and household-managed sources to the communities. We now highlight the application of rural water safety planning to such sources as a specific area for future research via an extended Conclusion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Okotto-Okottoetal_Response_ReviewersComments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255286.r002
17 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Frank Onderi Masese, Editor PONE-D-20-28371R1 A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wright, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. I have now received comments on your revised manuscript. I agree with the reviewers that the revised paper is significantly improved. Reviewer 1 has minor concerns that you need to satisfactorily address before your manuscript is accepted for publication. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Frank Onderi Masese, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The reviewers have gone through your responses and note that the paper is significantly improved. I invite you once more to make corrections and /or clarifications to comments by reviewer 1. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: just one or two minor revisions. see attached table. Please see the attached table. 1) Confusing sentence: “perceptions of what constitutes a contamination hazard consequent implications for hazard management 75-76 Sentence was not changed. 2) What is the status of rural water safety planning generally speaking, in Africa, and in Kenya particularly? 62-64 Generally, Sub-Saharan Africa has lagged behind other world regions, with initial uptake in Uganda by 2011 (4), and a with subsequent more widespread uptake elsewhere in Africa including by Kenyan utilities (5). More information on the status of rural water safety planning in Kenya specifically would help strengthen this 3) Why is this method optimal? Incomplete Reviewer #2: The changes made in this revision have greatly improved the usefulness of this work. The manuscript has been tightened up, but more importantly, the implications of the study have been made clear so that the reader can better understand the context of the study and the implications of the results. ****** 7. 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 [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-28371 Review_SW-2021-05-12.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255286.r003
Revision 2
27 Jun 2021 Author Response We thank reviewer 1 for taking time to provide a very diligent and thorough review of our manuscript, which we also believe has greatly improved it. Responses to the remaining outstanding comments are provided below. COMMENT 1) Confusing sentence: “perceptions of what constitutes a contamination hazard consequent implications for hazard management 75-76 Sentence was not changed. RESPONSE: We have reworded this sentence to make our meaning clearer (paragraph 2 of Introduction). COMMENT: 2) What is the status of rural water safety planning generally speaking, in Africa, and in Kenya particularly? 62-64 Generally, Sub-Saharan Africa has lagged behind other world regions, with initial uptake in Uganda by 2011 (4), and a with subsequent more widespread uptake elsewhere in Africa including by Kenyan utilities (5). More information on the status of rural water safety planning in Kenya specifically would help strengthen this. RESPONSE: One of the reasons why we struggled to respond to this component of the reviewer’s suggestion in our previous submission is that there is actually minimal published evidence on rural water safety planning in Kenya. However, in our revised version, we now summarise how far the latest government guidance in Kenyan covers the situation in rural areas (final sentences of paragraph 3 in our revised Introduction). COMMENT: 3) Why is this method optimal? Incomplete RESPONSE: We now briefly summarise the reasons as to why participatory mapping is very well suited to water safety planning, drawing on WHO recommendations advocating participatory mapping for water safety planning of small community supplies in doing so (Introduction, penultimate paragraph). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Okotto-Okottoetal_Response_ReviewersComments_June2021.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255286.r004
14 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Frank Onderi Masese, Editor A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya PONE-D-20-28371R2 Dear Dr. Wright, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Frank Onderi Masese, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255286.r005
Formally Accepted
19 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Frank Onderi Masese, Editor PONE-D-20-28371R2 A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya Dear Dr. Wright: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Frank Onderi Masese Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255286.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .