Leveraging Continental Norms and Mechanisms to Enhance Barrier-Free Access for Pedestrians with Disabilities in Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research article explores the challenges faced by pedestrians with disabilities in accessing barrier-free streets in Kenya. It examines the policy, legislative, and practical contexts that hinder meaningful access for pedestrians with disabilities. The article argues that Kenya can leverage continental policy and normative instruments to improve barrier-free access. It suggests engaging with African Union (AU) frameworks and institutions to enhance implementation and enforcement of accessibility measures.

 Overall, this research article provides valuable insights into the barriers faced by pedestrians with disabilities in Kenya and proposes potential solutions through continental engagement. The study's methodology, which includes qualitative data collection through interviews and focus group discussions, adds credibility to the findings. The article effectively highlights the gaps in policy implementation and the need for stronger political will to ensure barrier-free access.

 One strength of the article is its comprehensive analysis of the legal and policy framework in Kenya. The examination of the Constitution and other relevant laws provides a solid foundation for understanding the rights and obligations related to accessibility. Additionally, the discussion on the AU's role and the potential for engagement with its institutions offers a fresh perspective on addressing the implementation gap.

 However, there are a few areas that could be further developed or clarified. Firstly, the article could provide more specific examples or case studies to illustrate the challenges faced by pedestrians with disabilities in Kenya. This would enhance the reader's understanding of the practical implications of the barriers discussed. Additionally, while the article acknowledges the limitations of continental frameworks, it could further explore potential strategies for strengthening these frameworks to better address accessibility issues.

 Furthermore, the article could benefit from a more in-depth analysis of the role of non-state actors, particularly organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs), in advocating for barrier-free access. Exploring successful initiatives or best practices implemented by OPDs would provide practical insights for improving accessibility in Kenya.

 In terms of structure and organization, the article flows logically and maintains a clear focus on the research objectives. The introduction effectively sets the context and research question, while the conclusion provides a concise summary and suggests future directions for action.

 Overall, this research article makes a valuable contribution to the field of accessibility for pedestrians with disabilities in Kenya. It offers important recommendations for leveraging continental norms and mechanisms to enhance barrier-free access. With some further development and clarification in certain areas, this article has the potential to be a significant resource for policymakers, researchers, and advocates working towards inclusive urban environments in Kenya and beyond.

Apart from footnotes, a final reference list is missing.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
Thank you for conducting research on such an important topic that has wide implications for the everyday life of persons with disabilities.
Because your submission is to this particular journal, I expected a clearer analysis of the legal and policy environment on this particular issue of accessibility. After closely reading your manuscript, I have several questions and suggestions that I hope will improve the depth of your analysis and argument.
1. Whose jurisdiction is it to implement the accessibility laws in Kenya (local or national governments)? Where does the funding come from? I ask because on pg. 8 you seem to imply that it was the national government's, but then on pg.13 it seems that it was county government's responsibility? It's important to clarify to support your conclusions at the end.
2. Your thesis needs to be better developed. I suggest you specify the conditions under which Kenya may take advantage of the accessibility laws and policies. It looks more a hypothesis than an argument in the current form.
3. You seem to limit your focus only to continental Kenya. Does it mean that the situation on the islands is different? Are laws, policies and institutions there different? Please clarify why this delimitation.

4. Accessible streets are not only for PWD. They are also for the elderly, people with temporary mobility issues, mothers with baby strollers. etc. You briefly refer to this on p.11, but I wonder what's the policy messaging specific to barrier-free access? Why are you framing the lack of accessibility as disability-only problem and not a wider accessibility issue? Is there wider articulation as a benefit to other groups? 
5. It's unclear if by the law the sidewalks are city property and who is responsible for their maintanance, the city or the property (building) owner? What does the law say? If the property owner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in front of his building, per city standards, are there fines paid by those who do not comply? If the fines are paid, do they go to the local or national budget?
6.  What are the reasons behind the ineffectiveness of the National Council for PWD? (pg.10) Is it poor articulation? Lack of political will? Budget? Something else? Who is it accountable to? Is it an elected or nominated body? Is its role advisory? implementation? It would help to understand your criticism of its ineffectiveness.
7. What's the OPD's relationship with the National Council? In the hierarchy of power, is AUC more powerful than the national government? It's the latter who signed the UNCRPD and bears the state obligations. Yet you suggest that OPDs should engage more robustly with AUC and not the national government and National Council? As you talk about PWD's political participation, they have more specific leverage over the national government who they may or may not vote for. What's a regular person's leverage on the AUC? Please clarify.

Inconsistent use of the serial (Oxford) comma.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Formal requirements achieved. As for the suggested improvements regarding the mention of some examples in two specific areas, the work would have resulted more vivid. But it seems to have been discarded by the editors, according to the author's response.

Good job. Congratulations. 

Author Response

Thank you. Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I sincerely hoped that my comments, questions, and suggestions would help you improve and strengthen your manuscript. But I didn't observe any significant improvement in the quality. The main questions and concerns I raised previously to strengthen the argument you developed went unaddressed. It is customary for the authors to respond to the reviewer's questions and comments point by point in a separate letter, which I didn't receive. But judging from the current version of the manuscript, I have the same questions I had before, so they did go unaddressed, which is a pity.
Moreover, there are serious formatting issues in the manuscript. Also, endnotes' numbering is off for some reason. which causes confusion during reading.
Good luck with your research endeavors.

Please review the overall language. For instance, "ramps are far too steep for the disabled" is inadequate phrasing.

Author Response

Thank you. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf