Dear Dr. Chiwala¹,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 2025 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.

• 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: https://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,

D. Daniel, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research article is supported through the Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education and Research for Development (NORHED–II/) and Strengthening Health Systems through Primary Care Leaders’ Education (PRICE) project scholarship BC received in partnership with the University of Zambia.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. Abstract: It is stated in the introduction that ‘the objective of the study was to evaluate how stakeholders perceived their own power and interest in the context of providing SMS’. This objective is not clearly stated in the abstract.

2. Abstract, results section (use of plural or singular): The sentence ‘the main results suggested that stakeholders displayed interrelationships that was symbiotic’ to read the main results suggested that stakeholders displayed interrelationships that were symbiotic’.

3. Introduction, second paragraph: I suggest that the definition of access to SMS is made earlier in the introduction as it will enhance readers’ understanding and appreciation of the related concepts and issues presented before the definition is made.

4. Data collection and sampling strategy: It seems that some transect walks were longer than 15 minutes as interpreted from this sentence, ‘Before each walk, the team planned what to observe, estimated duration...’. If so, the authors should edit the statement, ‘from 06 AM to 07 AM for 15 minutes’ to ‘from 06 AM to 07 AM for about 15 minutes’.

5. Data analysis: The authors used several data collection approaches including online and phone-based approaches. It is not clear though how data collected from the different approaches were collated and analysed. It also not very clear how NVivo was used to analyse the data. They should elaborate. The data analysis process they present seems to be manual.

6. Data analysis: first sentence of the final paragraph in this section reads ‘The final stage of the analysis culminated in the production of this study report’. I suggest they edit to ‘this manuscript’ or ‘this paper’.

7. Results: One quotation on page 13 does not directly relate to the data it is supposedly reinforcing/ providing evidence for (TW1). (P17 KII) may also require relooking at.

8. Page 14: Last paragraph before discussion is about coordination and not about duo roles or shifting mandates. I suggest the authors move this paragraph and corresponding quotation to appropriate section of the manuscript.

9. Discussion: a couple of sentences start with or contain the phrase ‘we saw’. This suggests observations were carried out when in fact not or simply needs tight writing.

10. Discussion, page 14- last sentence to page 15 – first three sentences reference Chirgwin and Kennedy Walker as having ‘demonstrated that [the] powerful stakeholders with policy, regulatory and financial power were strategic in ensuring there were resources to implement SMS besides creating an enabling environment in terms of....’. First, the authors should delete ‘the’ as indicated in the last sentence above. Secondly, a reference like this would enhance the findings if more information is provided about the studies being referred to.

11. Discussion, page 15, third paragraph starting with ‘Nevertheless, relying on low power high interest stakeholders alone..’. I found this paragraph difficult to follow logically. I suggest the authors rewrite it.

Reviewer #2: Title: Power and interest levels in safely managed sanitation services in Zambia: a stakeholder mapping

Authors: Beatrice Chiwala; Mpundu Makasa; and Joseph Mumba Zulu

General comments:

Beatrice Chiwala et al. conducted the study that addresses an important and under-researched topic—stakeholder dynamics in the provision of safely managed sanitation services (SMS) in peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia. The overall aim of this study is evaluating how stakeholders perceive their power and interest in providing SMS. Additionally, the authors analyzed the impact of stakeholders' quadrant positions (as per Mendelow's framework) on their capacity to contribute to SMS implementation. The authors also try to explore how shifting stakeholder roles and interdependencies influence sanitation outcomes. The study's use of Mendelow's Stakeholder Matrix is innovative and provides valuable insights into the interrelationships, power dynamics, and interests of various actors involved in SMS implementation. The findings have the potential to guide policy and practice in similar low- and middle-income settings.

Abstract:

The abstract is informative but lacks specificity about the findings' implications for policy or practice.

Introduction:

The introduction effectively establishes the significance of the problem and situates the study within global and regional contexts. However, it would benefit from a stronger articulation of the research gap and a clearer link between the study objectives and the theoretical framework.

Methods:

The narrative qualitative design is appropriate for the research objectives, and the combination of key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and transect walks provides a robust dataset. However, the manuscript would benefit from more detail on how themes were derived, including coding processes and triangulation strategies, to enhance the credibility of the findings.

Results:

The results section is detailed and presents a clear application of Mendelow's framework. However, the presentation would be improved by adding figures or tables to visually depict the stakeholder matrix and interrelationships.

The manuscript mentions various stakeholder categories (e.g., government institutions, NGOs, community members) and provides examples of their involvement in safely managed sanitation (SMS) services. However, the manuscript would benefit significantly from a clearer and more detailed description of each stakeholder's specific roles and responsibilities in SMS interventions. For example:

• Government Institutions: What specific policies, regulations, or enforcement mechanisms are implemented by ministries like the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Water Development and Sanitation? How do these institutions support or hinder SMS efforts?

• NGOs and Community-Based Organizations: How do advocacy and awareness-raising activities translate into tangible SMS outcomes? Are there specific programs or models these organizations employ to address challenges in peri-urban areas?

• Beneficiaries: What behaviors or practices among the community impact SMS outcomes, and how can these stakeholders be more effectively empowered?

I suggest to introduce a section or table summarizing the roles, responsibilities, and contributions of each stakeholder type to enhance the readers' understanding of the dynamics in the study context and provide a clearer link between stakeholder actions and SMS outcomes.

Discussion:

The discussion highlights key findings but often reiterates results rather than critically interpreting them. It could be enhanced by drawing more explicit connections between the findings and broader literature, as well as by proposing actionable recommendations for policy and practice.

The use of the Mendelow Stakeholder Matrix is a novel and valuable approach. However, the manuscript could better articulate how the findings align with or validate the matrix's framework. For instance:

• Dynamic Shifts: The manuscript highlights that stakeholders often shift quadrants (e.g., local authorities performing dual roles). Explain how this aligns with the theoretical flexibility of the Mendelow Matrix and what implications these shifts have for stakeholder engagement strategies.

• Power-Interest Analysis: The manuscript describes quadrant categorizations, but it does not delve deeply into how the specific power-interest dynamics influence SMS outcomes. For example, how do stakeholders in the “low power, high interest” quadrant (e.g., beneficiaries) contribute to or limit program success? How can stakeholders with “high power, low interest” be better incentivized to engage more actively?

My suggestion is the authors could expand the discussion section to explicitly connect the matrix framework to the study's findings. For example, explain how Mendelow's theory helps interpret stakeholder behavior, prioritize engagement strategies, and address challenges such as overlapping mandates or siloed interventions.

Based on the stakeholder roles and Mendelow analysis, the authors may propose concrete strategies for improving stakeholder coordination, engagement, and resource allocation. For instance:

• How should government agencies address overlapping mandates?

• What mechanisms can enhance the participation of low-power stakeholders?

• How can NGOs and donors better align with national strategies to avoid silos?

Conclusion:

The conclusion effectively summarizes the findings but does not sufficiently emphasize the study’s implications or provide a clear roadmap for future research or interventions.

The manuscript concludes with general observations on stakeholder interdependence but lacks specific, actionable recommendations for practitioners and policymakers.

Recommendation:

The manuscript demonstrates strong potential but requires some revisions to improve its clarity, depth of analysis, and presentation. Suggested revisions include:

• Strengthening the introduction by explicitly stating the research gap.

• Expanding on methods for data analysis and coding validation.

• Enhancing the discussion with critical analysis and actionable recommendations.

• Improving visual presentation of the stakeholder matrix.

Language:

Review the manuscript for minor grammatical errors and ensure adherence to standard academic English.

Abstract

Line 11: The phrasing "stakeholder influence access to SMS" is unclear and grammatically incorrect. This could be revised to: "Variations in power and interest among stakeholders significantly influence access to SMS."

Lines 21 – 22: "Similarly, stakeholders within and outside the quadrant were not homogenous". This statement is vague and lacks context for what "within and outside the quadrant" refers to. To provide clarity, I would suggest to write: "Stakeholders categorized into the Mendelow quadrants displayed varying levels of homogeneity in power and interest."

Introduction

Lines 36 – 38: The sentence is too long and awkwardly structured. This could be break into two sentences, for example: "In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a majority of those affected live in peri-urban and rural areas. They predominantly rely on non-sewered, unimproved sanitation facilities."

Lines 51 – 53: The sentence is overly detailed for an introduction. This could be simplified to: "Access to SMS entails improved sanitation facilities with safely managed waste disposal, either in situ or off-site."

Methods

Lines 80 – 82: The sentence is verbose and unclear. This could be simplified to: "The narrative research design enabled the collection of data on stakeholders' roles in providing SMS at the household level."

Results

Lines 188 – 189: Repetition of "stakeholders" and "levels". Could be revised to: "Using respondents' input, we identified stakeholders and evaluated their power and interest levels through Mendelow’s matrix."

Line 372: "The results showed how the stakeholder are interrelated in an effort to provide SMS". Grammatical error ("stakeholder" should be plural).

Discussion

Lines 554 – 556: The sentence is long and cluttered. This could be simplified to: "During emergencies, stakeholders with high power stepped in to provide resources, including financial, material, and technical support, particularly for infrastructure development."

Conclusion

Lines 611: Repetitive phrasing ("levels of power and interest"). Suggestion for revision: "Achieving SMS requires collective efforts from all stakeholders, regardless of their power and interest levels."

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Chiwala¹,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 2025 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.

• 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 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: https://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,

D. Daniel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript demonstrates a strong effort to address and respond to my previous comments. Key structural, conceptual, and linguistic revisions were incorporated in several sections. However, some minor adjustments would improve the manuscript. For example: in results section, including a diagram of stakeholder categories by quadrant would greatly enhance the reader’s comprehension.

**********

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 #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

Power and interest levels in safely managed sanitation services in Zambia: a stakeholder mapping

PONE-D-24-50711R2

Dear Dr. Chiwala¹,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

D. Daniel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Appreciation to all authors for the strong and good works in responding all comments and suggestions.

**********

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 #2: No

**********