Dear Dr. Zungu,

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 Dec 07 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,

Muhammad Luqman

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. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

I have read your Mnuscript in detaild and suggested a amjor revison. My detailed comments can be found as follows:

1. Clarify research gap and originality compared to prior studies.

2. Strengthen theoretical framework linking governance theory to findings.

3. Provide justification for sample size of 27 participants.

4. Explain how municipalities were purposively selected.

5. Include more detail on interview structure and questions.

6. Discuss data reliability and potential researcher bias.

7. Improve consistency in referencing recent South African studies.

8. Expand on limitations and implications for generalizability.

9. Add a conceptual model connecting determinants and strategies.

10. Quantitative analysis section lacks statistical clarity—revise.

11Figures are underexplained; improve captions and visual quality.

12. Integrate discussion with international environmental governance literature.

13. Ensure results and discussion are clearly differentiated.

14. Strengthen link between findings and policy recommendations.

15. Revise abstract for brevity and focus on main contributions.

16. Clarify ethical considerations regarding participant anonymity.

17. Improve coherence between introduction and conclusion claims.

18. Justify inclusion of quantitative content analysis in a qualitative design.

19. Provide citation support for claims about political influence.

20. Revise for grammatical consistency and eliminate redundancy.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Comments for the Authors

1. Title and Abstract

• The abstract provides a concise summary, but would benefit from clearly separated sections (e.g., Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion) to improve reader accessibility and conform with best practice. I would suggest the authors to reformat the abstract into structured subheadings to enhance clarity.

2. Introduction

• However, lines 49–56 should be restructured to clarify the distinction between compliance vs. enforcement and the challenge of “fixed rules” in sustainability. I would suggest that the authors to briefly define environmental compliance versus enforcement and highlight examples where legislation may fall short due to institutional fragmentation.

3. Theoretical Framework

• The integration of governance theory (GT) is appropriate and enhances the conceptual depth of the study.

• However, the connection between GT and the study’s coding themes could be strengthened in the discussion. The authors should explicitly link themes like political support, enforcement, and institutional restructuring to GT’s dimensions (e.g., hierarchical, networked, market-based governance) in the discussion section.

4. Methodology

• Ethical protocols, data collection, and participant demographics are clearly presented.

• The summary of methods lacks sufficient detail on:

o Interview guide development,

o Justification for the sample size (n = 27), and

o Coding reliability/validation measures.

The authors should include a supplementary file with the semi-structured interview guide. Clarify whether inter-coder agreement or peer debriefing was used to validate themes.

5. Results

• Results are rich and supported with meaningful quotes.

• The inclusion of Figures 1–3 is commendable, especially:

o Figure 1 (page 34): Compliance drivers by role group,

o Figure 2 (page 35): Co-occurrence of drivers, and

o Figure 3 (page 36): Preferred interventions by stakeholder group.

• However, the narrative tends to over-quote participants. Several quotes repeat the same theme.

Focus on integrating fewer but more representative quotes and enhance comparative analysis between participant categories (e.g., ECs vs EMIs).

6. Discussion

• The discussion aligns well with findings and relevant literature.

• Some claims are too general (e.g., “political will is a cornerstone…”), and citations need to be used more selectively.

• The link between findings and institutional theory could be sharpened, as this would strengthen the study’s theoretical contribution.

Provide a schematic or conceptual figure showing how identified themes map onto GT dimensions. This would help readers visualize how governance structures shape compliance.

7. Conclusion and Implications

• The conclusion is policy-relevant and forward-looking.

• However, the recommendations are broad; prioritization would enhance their practical value. I would recommend specific actions tailored to different stakeholders (e.g., municipal managers, regulators, policymakers) and identify short- vs long-term priorities.

8. Formatting, Clarity & Language

• Some editorial polishing is needed:

o Overuse of passive voice,

o Redundant wording in certain sections,

o Occasional lapses in sentence clarity (e.g., lines 253–259).

The paper minor language and grammar editing, especially to improve sentence flow and eliminate verbosity.

**********

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

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Determinants and strategies for environmental compliance in municipalities: Perspectives from KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa

PONE-D-25-23589R1

Dear Dr. Zungu,

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,

Muhammad Luqman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: