Neglected with No Social Protection: The Plight of Sex Workers during COVID-19 in South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper provides an exploration of the experiences of female sex worker (FSWs) in the KZN province of South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work looks to use a feminist lens to understand how criminalization compound the marginalization of FSWs and perpetuates economic hardship and isolation from government services or traditional social support networks. This work is both timely and important and the use of a phenomenology approach is a particular strength of the study given the intricacies and ever-changing nature of participant experiences as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses. The paper clearly situates itself within the feminist theories of De Beauviour; however, I think it could benefit from additionally citing additional work carried out regarding the relationship between criminalization of sex work and further marginalization of sex worker, specifically work written by sex workers themselves. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have addressed them. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This article visibilize an existing reality. Interesting and necessary to investigate and disseminate the study and the reality that is presented.

Some change proposals:

- It is recommended that the abstract have the IRMD structure. This ensures that all relevant parts of the article are presented.

- The analysis of the information has been done with Atlas.ti. It could be interesting includes some draw or graph of the analysis.

- Review the spaces between words; sometimes, there are more spaces between them.

- Review citations. There are citations with three authors that are placed with et al. and sometimes not.

- 49-51: on what dates was the study carried out?

- 482: error in the citation and the year.

- Review bibliographical references, there are errors. For example, in references 15 and 33.

- Reference 12, is 2021 or 2020? The information is contradicted.

- References 56 and 57 are repeated.

- 504-506: missing information.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have addressed them. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This is a very important topic to be studying and I commend the authors for doing this research. It does however, need extensive work still. There is a problem with writing style but I won't talk about specifics in this review, but will give some higher level comments for the authors to work on. I suggest that they get it proof read for academic style before they resubmit.

Introduction: The argument has no flow. It needs a tighter more cohesive focus. The focus should be purely on sex workers not being eligible for financial support during covide-19 and the effect this had on them - citing relevant literature. The authors should probably move the literature they discussed in the theoretical framework into this section so they provide a good understanding of what has happened in other countries. They also talk about only female sex workers. What about male and transgender? They would have also required support as surely they will also fall out of the scope of government support programmes (line 37-38). Some of this introduction also makes leaps of thought - for instance in lines 46-51 the authors spoke about sexual  violence. How does this fit with eligibility for relief programmes? 

Methods: There was a lack of detail in this section and also a lack of referencing. Firstly, there is no mention as to whether the study was approved by an Ethics Committee. The authors state that used purposive sampling. The reader needs to know how the participants were identified and invited into the study. I'm not sure what the authors mean by 'Modus Operandi of the sex industry'. Do they mean that participants had experience of working in the sex industry? If so, say that. There needs to be more detail on analysis - preferably with reference to the literature. If thematic analysis was done, did they follow Braun and Clarke's method? There is also no reflexivity. Were the authors involved in the sex industry or were they outsiders to the sex industry? How might this have positioned them when doing the analysis?

Theoretical Framework: I felt that this section was redundant. The authors didn't demonstrate a good understanding of the different feminisms. I would also dispute that 'most' feminists blame patriarchy for the suffering of sex workers. I also question why the authors say that De Beauviour's feminist understandings are drawn on in their study as this was not the case in the analysis that they provided. 

Results: There were some very compelling quotes in this section and I'm not suggesting major changes here. There are some awkward sentences that need rephrasing. The quotes need to be separated out when the authors are talking about 2 different participants - for instance lines 314-318. The interviewee identification should also come at the end of each quote and not in the middle.

Discussion: This section was quite repetitive. The fact that sex workers did not receive a government support package was repeated numerous times over the manuscript. The discussion could have drawn in research on other countries' experiences of covid-19 in relation to sex work and drawn some comparisons.  Feminist thought was brought back into the discussion (it was absent from the results but it was more of an afterthought and there was no deep engagement with De Beauvoir. 

Conclusion: This was again a bit repetitive. The authors indicated that emphasis should be put on decriminalizing sex work in South Africa. There was no discussion in the paper about decriminalization, and how countries who have decriminalized sex work fared during the covid-19 lockdowns. This could have been in the introduction and discussed again in the light of the study's findings in the discussion. This would have strengthened a claim for decriminalizing in SA. (One point: in the abstract decriminalization is recommended (line 16) but in the next line it refers to this a 'legalization'. These are two very different forms of regulation - decriminalization does not equal legalization.)

Overall: I encourage the authors to rewrite this paper and attend to the comments above. This paper would be a valuable addition to the literature with careful reworking as the data is very rich. I suggest that they possibly leave out feminist thought as this is not used in a way that adds weight to the paper.

 

Author Response

Comments are Appreciated and have been addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The article covers an important issue on a topic that is under-researched. It will be a solid addition to a small body of literature on this issue, especially since it is a small case study that reflects a pattern similar to that of other studies. Replicating case studies on similar issues in is always a good strategy, especially given the difficulty of getting a representative sample of sex workers.  When several studies in different locations have similar results, it serves to strengthen confidence in the findings.

That said, there are a number of ways in which this article can be strengthened.

At line 24, the author mentions that the sex industry is illegal in South Africa. More information should be provided regarding the actual law for the readers unfamiliar with South African sex industry law. For the same reason, the COVID-19 regulations put in place should be clearly identified. Both sets of laws impinge on sex workers’ ability to work, and on their ability to work safely. Since they have to work around both sets of laws, it would be helpful/useful to know exactly what they were at the time of the research.

Table 1 provides a list of the study participants.  But there does not seem to be any reason for the particular order in which the participants are listed (& if there is a reason, spell it out). There are a number of options that would help to professionalize the Table. participants could be listed by location (and group the locations by name); or by age of participant; or by years in the industry. Also, since the participants refer to their children and dependants have an impact on economic needs, it would be useful to know which ones have children (or adults) in their care. This information could also be listed on Table 1.

The participants appear to all be working inside but this is never clearly stated. Interviews were conducted “in their places of work” (line 80) but no information is provided about these locations. Some information would clarify the situation of the sex workers. In the results at line 337, there is a reference to streetwalkers but I assume that these workers were not among the participants, who ALL worked inside.

At line 86 the author(s) mention that the results “were entered into an appropriate” database. More elaboration about what this means would strengthen the methodology section.

The author(s) depend upon de Beauvoir’s work but seem to depend on secondary (rather than primary) work she wrote.  On occasion (e.g., lines 46-48) claims are made about de Beauvoir’s position that are not properly cited. When referencing de Beauvoir’s feminist ideals (lines 112-114), her book The Second Sex is mentioned but it is not in the list of references. There is a similar reference made at lines 123-125 but the source is not cited.

At line 177, the author(s) state that “it was unexpected that the arrival of the pandemic in South Africa would result in the exclusion of certain people (from receiving state support/aid) based on their sector of occupation, regardless of the legality/illegality question (my italics).”  How is it possible that the author(s) held this opinion, especially given that the research they cited from other locations described how sex workers were denied such state help?  If there is something special about South Africa that gave them reason to believe the state would perform more inclusively, it should be clearly stated.

The format for acknowledging the id# of the participants is inconsistent through the results section.  Some times it appears in the middle of the quote (e.g., line 231 & line 265) and other times at the end (e.g., lines 293 & 364). They should be at the end of each quote.

Line 347: Interviewee 9’s view is introduced but the detail that follows is from Interviewee 7.

Lines 408-411: Briefly explain what the “documents needed to apply” involve. Is this the only reason FSWs did not receive the needed help, or is it just one of the reasons? 

Line 450: Clarify to what “This” refers.

In the Discussion section but not highlight in the Results section. Lines 430-431: borrowing money from friends and family members to pay bills. Lines 459-461: being terrified & even fearing for their lives.

Lines 434-436: The author(s) argue that FSWs joined the sex industry because of push factors such as poverty, unemployment, and broken family structure. Then they conclude “hence it was not by choice.”  Entering the sex industry because of push factors, or “key drivers” such as poverty or financial need, does not make it “not by choice”.  These factors come into play with respect to other many other jobs as well.  Not choosing involves coercion (force or threats).  If coercion is the push factor or key driver then I would agree: entry into sex work is not by choice. Some clarification is required here.

Respectful language use etc.: 

Line 337: in Canada “street-based sex workers” is preferred to “streetwalkers”.

Line 169: sex workers sell their services not their bodies.

Line 402: meager activities not merge activities.

Line 422: What is “Sexual sex”?

Finally, the paper needs a close editing for grammatical corrections and added clarity.

 

REPORT FORMS on the  next two pages.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper has been improved somewhat but there is still an issue with flow and a fundamental lack of understanding of the different forms of sex work regulation globally. Legalisation and decriminalisation are very different forms of regulation. Legalisation (such as in Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Nevada) means that sex work is legal in licensed brothels and sex workers are required to conform to a number of rules (such as mandatory sexual health check-ups) in order to work in these brothels. Usually the number of licenses are limited. All sex workers who work outside of these licenses brothels are working illegally. This creates a two-tier system where some sex workers can benefit from things like being left alone by police and also being entitle to supports (like those received in the pandemic) and others do not. Decriminalisation (such as in NZ, some states of Australia, and most recently Belgium) means the scrapping of all criminalising laws for all sex workers and is the approach most sex workers worldwide are fighting for. (Please note: this is different from the Nordic Model which ostensibly decriminalises sex workers but criminalises all third parties - such as in Canada, the Nordic countries, France and Ireland). 

In this paper you seem to conflate legalisation and decriminalisation - eg: lines 15-17; and lines 449-460 and 473-498 you talk about South Africa and if sex work is 'legalised' there - the current Bill in Parliament is for decriminalisation.

Line 70-75 and 395-397 implies that all sex workers in Germany and Netherlands would have benefited - however, only those who were working in licensed brothels would have benefitted.

There were a few things going on in this paper: the discussion of how sex workers fared in the pandemic; a discussion of stigma and marginalisation; and a discussion of structural conditions which can sometimes pull people into the sex industry (this latter part was brought in in this 2nd draft with the change from a feminist focus to the use of conflict theory). I think that you are trying to do too much and this detracts from the flow of the paper. I think the paper could have been improved if you had just maintained a focus on the impact of the pandemic on sex workers working in a criminalised environment. You could have then produced a sound argument for the decriminalisation Bill in Parliament at the end using comparisons from countries which have decriminalisation - see below links for example:

https://www.nswp.org/es/news/new-zealand-safety-net-helps-sex-workers-lockdown

https://scarletalliance.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/COVID_Report.pdf

And attached chapter by Joep Rottier.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Noted. 

While we acknowledge the comments. it becomes essential to reflect that this study's goal was to give a holistic understanding of the plight of sex workers during the pandemic.  we have, however, addressed the commenters in the paper. 

 

Changes have been highlighted in red for ease of reference. 

 

The comment.

A few things were going on in this paper: the discussion of how sex workers fared in the pandemic; a discussion of stigma and marginalisation; and a discussion of structural conditions which can sometimes pull people into the sex industry (this latter part was brought in in this 2nd draft with the change from a feminist focus to the use of conflict theory). I think that you are trying to do too much, which detracts from the paper's flow. While noted, other review comments played a role in the authors changing the flow of the paper. 

We would be happy to work on the paper if there are queries. 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Your changes address all my concerns and this version of your article is much improved over the earlier one

Congratulations on conducting a well structured piece of research.  It will make a strong contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Noted and appreciated. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Highly relevant paper - and nice to see a KZN contextualized study. Have read this with great interest, but also with some fear of how others (who have not studied SW) would read the paper. The intentions is to highlight SW under Covid-19 restrictions, but a lot of what I read mainly stresses poverty-related issues (for which SWs have been stigmatized for a long time). Please, do consider to set out with contextualization of SW as work - and be more explicit as to how the pandemic and its restrictions enhance problems for SWs in a context of criminalization from the start. especially in the analysis, that positions comes out poignantly where you show how breaking the curfew is criminal (considered as) ON TOP OF the work. This combination seems core to the manuscript, but only after reading a lot that is valid for SWs more generally (e.g. without the pandemic) - the latter relates to stigmatization of SWs - and we don't want more of that, do we?

Have attached the manuscript with some minor errors / glitches marked and commented.

Thanks for a good read though. Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Highly relevant paper - just lacks some explicit acknowledgement of SW as work - if you don't pay attention to this, readers may fall into the trap of (further) stigmatization of SWs as driven by poverty, It would be good if you could pay some more attention to the  SPECIFIC circumstances of Covid-19 in relation to SW, at the start (abstract and intro) - at the start of the analysis and in the conclusion. Only minor change needed - insert comments - but desperately needed. Other, minor adjustments presented in text comments. Neglect sole hightlighting - was only for the reviewer to mark most important points.

SPECIFIC circumstances of Covid-19 in relation to SW. (This had been included, section included as per the suggestions of of the reviewer as addressed].   Only minor change needed - insert comments - but desperately needed. Other, minor adjustments presented in text comments. Neglect sole hightlighting - was only for the reviewer to mark most important points.  (Addressed via language editing)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Topic is timely and interesting.

Introduction: Needs mire clarity in locating the topic within the gap in the literature on PSWs and COVID-19 pandemic. globally and in sub-Saharan African literature.

Theoretical frameworks: although the authors noted in the abstract that "The study is underpinned by humanitarianism theory as a lens 5 to explain the exclusion of sex workers from benefitting from social protection programmes". This theory wad not presented and discussed to show its choice over theories presented.

Method: Authors noted that "The study used a qualitative phenomenology design to understand the lived experiences of sex workers in their own words," but failed toe state why this choice of study approach. Why was a qualitative method as opposed to quantitative one?

I suggest that the authors include the actual questions either in the Method or as an Appendix. Authors might look at an article on content analysis and thematic analysis: Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.

Results: The first paragraph belongs to the Introduction and not results.

Authors need to provide a table and discussion on the participants' characteristics. 

Are the themes presented a representation of questions asked or from the content analysis? Results need to reflect what the participants said and not the opinion of the authors. The later is to be part of the discussion section.

Some of the themes seem to overlap such as Themes 1 and 2.

Discussion: This section is weak. I suggest authors locate the study findings within the literature reviewed earlier.

In this section or conclusion, what are areas for future research in which the findings of the research point?

Conclusion: To be redone to reflect study findings that ties to the recommendation stated by the authors, which I agree with.

Overall, paper needs moderate editing and restructuring  to give clarity to the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2	Action taken
Introduction: Needs mire clarity in locating the topic within the gap in the literature on PSWs and COVID19 pandemic. globally and in sub-Saharan African literature	This has been addressed, in the revised submission. Kindly see the introduction section
Theoretical frameworks: although the authors noted in the abstract that "The study is underpinned by humanitarianism theory as a lens 5 to explain the exclusion of sex workers from benefitting from social protection programmes". This theory was not presented and discussed to show its choice over theories presented	This has been addressed in the theoretical framework section. And incorporated into the discussion
Method: Authors noted that "The study used a qualitative phenomenology design to understand the lived experiences of sex workers in their own words," but failed to state why this choice of study approach. Why was a qualitative method as opposed to quantitative one?	This has been explained in the methodology section.
I suggest that the authors include the actual questions either in the Method or as an Appendix. Authors might look at an article on content analysis and thematic analysis: Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive. study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405. Results: The first paragraph belongs to the Introduction a	The question has been included as an additional attachment after the refence section
Authors need to provide a table and discussion on the participants' characteristics.	This has been done under methodology
Are the themes presented a representation of questions asked or from the content analysis? Results need to reflect what the participants said and not the opinion of the authors. The later is to be part of the discussion section.	This has been addressed in thes discussion and result sections
Some of the themes seem to overlap such as Themes 1 and 2.	These themes have been merged into 1
Discussion: This section is weak. I suggest authors locate the study findings within the literature reviewed earlier	This has been done incorporated.
In this section or conclusion, what are areas for future research in which the findings of the research point?	This has bene addressed.
Conclusion: To be redone to reflect study findings that ties to the recommendation stated by the authors, which I agree with.	This has bene addressed to suit the findings of the study
Overall, paper needs moderate editing and restructuring to give clarity to the paper.	Done. The paper has bene sent to a professional Language editor.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article discusses an important and timely topic, the situation of sex workers under the COVID-19 pandemic and their exclusion from state protection programs in South Africa. The merit of the paper is that it aims to understand the consequences of pandemic measures on sex workers through sex workers’ own narratives and perspectives. However, there are several issues that the authors should pay attention to before the article would be publishable to a broader academic community.

 

First, the article would need to situate itself better in the discussions on sex work, now the portrayal of the academic perspectives and research is simplified and polarized between sex work as choice and sex work as exploitation. A more balanced viewpoint (that is shared by the majority of scholars) that understands sex work as work that often has exploitative aspects is missing (and the article findings seem to point to this similar conclusion). It is also unclear what is the “theory of prostitution” that the paper refers to. Because the paper reflects its findings in the light of confirming either of these polarized viewpoints, it a bit misses its main contribution which is adding to the understanding of the effects of COVID-19 measures to sex workers and how they cope in the new situation. Secondly, it would benefit the paper to contextualize itself in recent research on the consequences of COVID-19 on marginalized populations and research on sex work in Africa or South Africa (that the paper states to be poorly documented but where there is a considerable body of research). Thirdly, the paper would benefit from a better explanation of how the research came to be. Now it is unclear how the researchers knew there was distress among sex workers, how they were aware of the large concentration of sex workers in Empangeni and Richards Bay, how they reached the sex worker interviewees (the authors state that they used purposive sampling but do not state their knowledge/contact to the field). 

 

 

Smaller points:

 

Conceptual continuity. See that there is conceptual continuity throughout the paper. Now the paper uses sex worker, prostituted women, etc. these concepts have very different histories and theoretical underpinnings.

 

Contextualization. Explain the context better, where is the area of study in South Africa, and what are the context-specific terms in the interviews such as braai pack/mealie meal/ sjambok / red velvet website.

 

The paper would also profit from some editing so that the paper would be more focused. Now, for example, the introduction jumps from one point to another without transitions. 

the paper frames the critique of the state policies before their findings. I understand that the paper might have arisen from these concerns, but it might be more efficient to present the argument rising from the research findings. There are also several typos in the paper that could be cleared with spell-check or programs such as Grammarly.

 

The discussion on the differences between sex work, prostitution, and trafficking is a bit confusing. Sex work usually refers to a wide variety of sexual service provision from full-service sex work (traditionally understood as prostitution), webcamming, striptease, porn, etc. Trafficking refers to a variety of labor exploitation (not only in sex work) but has a specific legal definition. This section should be revisited for clarity.

 

The first part of the analysis (cat-and-mouse). Make sure that the content corresponds to the thematic category and the heading.

 

Some of the background mentioned in the discussions/conclusions would be maybe more efficient mentioned in the contextualization, for example, the national lockdowns (and one would have to explain to an outsider what level 5-1 means or alternatively state it in form of actual measures). Also, the understanding that South Africa is known globally as a country with good policies could be offered earlier in contrast to the findings of the study.

 

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3	Action taken
The article discusses an important and timely topic, the situation of sex workers under the COVID-19 pandemic and their exclusion from state protection programs in South Africa. The merit of the paper is that it aims to understand the consequences of pandemic measures on sex workers through sex workers’ own narratives and perspectives. However, there are several issues that the authors should pay attention to before the article would be publishable to a broader academic community. First, the article would need to situate itself better in the discussions on sex work, now the portrayal of the academic perspectives and research is simplified and polarized between sex work as choice and sex work as exploitation. A more balanced viewpoint (that is shared by the majority of scholars) that understands sex work as work that often has exploitative aspects is missing (and the article findings seem to point to this similar conclusion). It is also unclear what is the “theory of prostitution” that the paper refers to. Because the paper reflects its findings in the light of confirming either of these polarized viewpoints, it a bit misses its main contribution which is adding to the understanding of the effects of COVID-19 measures to sex workers and how they cope in the new situation. Secondly, it would benefit the paper to contextualize itself in recent research on the consequences of COVID-19 on marginalized populations and research on sex work in Africa or South Africa (that the paper states to be poorly documented but where there is a considerable body of research). Thirdly, the paper would benefit from a better explanation of how the research came to be. Now it is unclear how the researchers knew there was distress among sex workers, how they were aware of the large concentration of sex workers in Empangeni and Richards Bay, how they reached the sex worker interviewees (the authors state that they used purposive sampling but do not state their knowledge/contact to the field)	First, the article would need to situate itself better in the discussions on sex work, now the portrayal of the academic perspectives and research is simplified and polarized between sex work as choice and sex work as exploitation. (This has been addressed, as section has been added that explains the concept ofc sex work and sex work a profession)   sex work as work that often has exploitative aspects is missing (and the article findings seem to point to this similar conclusion). (This has been incorporated into paper and the exploitative nature has been incorporated).   It is also unclear what is the “theory of prostitution” (the theory has been removed)   Because the paper reflects its findings in the light of confirming either of these polarized viewpoints, it a bit misses its main contribution which is adding to the understanding of the effects of COVID-19 measures to sex workers and how they cope in the new situation. Secondly, it would benefit the paper to contextualize itself in recent research on the consequences of COVID-19 on marginalized populations and research on sex work in Africa or South Africa (that the paper states to be poorly documented but where there is a considerable body of research (a section titled “Consequences of COVID-19 on marginalized populations” has been adeeded to addressed this”   Thirdly, the paper would benefit from a better explanation of how the research came to be. Now it is unclear how the researchers knew there was distress among sex workers, how they were aware of the large concentration of sex workers in Empangeni and Richards Bay, how they reached the sex worker interviewees (the authors state that they used purposive sampling but do not state their knowledge/contact to the field (this has been addressed in the methodology and study contextualization section of the  section  of the paper )
Conceptual continuity. See that there is conceptual continuity throughout the paper. Now the paper uses sex worker, prostituted women, etc. these concepts have very different histories and theoretical underpinnings.	Done. Sex workers has been adopted
Contextualization. Explain the context better, where is the area of study in South Africa, and what are the context-specific terms in the interviews such as braai pack/mealie meal/ sjambok / red velvet website.	A section titled Study contextualization has been added .
The paper would also profit from some editing so that the paper would be more focused. Now, for example, the introduction jumps from one point to another without transitions.	Done.  See language certificate attached.
the paper frames the critique of the state policies before their findings. I understand that the paper might have arisen from these concerns, but it might be more efficient to present the argument rising from the research findings. There are also several typos in the paper that could be cleared with spell-check or programs such as Grammarly.	The paper has been more argumentative and succinct in incorporating the literature review and findings, however, the findings and interpretation of the data were captured to reflect what was communicated by the participants and with minimal possible disruption.
Are the themes presented a representation of questions asked or from the content analysis? Results need to reflect what the participants said and not the opinion of the authors.	The themes are a combination of the questions asked and the thematic content analysis? hence the analysis reflects what has been said by the participants and the findings of the literature
The discussion on the differences between sex work, prostitution, and trafficking is a bit confusing. Sex work usually refers to a wide variety of sexual service provision from full-service sex work (traditionally understood as prostitution), webcamming, striptease, porn, etc. Trafficking refers to a variety of labor exploitation (not only in sex work) but has a specific legal definition. This section should be revisited for clarity	This has been removed as a section and incorporated into the literature.
The first part of the analysis (cat-and-mouse). Make sure that the content corresponds to the thematic category and the heading	This has been addressed, see analysis section
Some of the background mentioned in the discussions/conclusions would be maybe more efficient mentioned in the contextualization, for example, the national lockdowns (and one would have to explain to an outsider what level 5-1 means or alternatively state it in form of actual measures). Also, the	level 5-1 means has been adrrssed, a table had been inserted to explain such.
Conclusion: To be redone to reflect study findings that ties to the recommendation stated by the authors, which I agree with.	Done, conclusion has been re0worked.
Overall, paper needs moderate editing and restructuring to give clarity to the paper.	Done.  See language certificate attached.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached comments.

Do minimize the use of passive verb to make your paper stronger.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf