Stunting among children under two years in Indonesia: Does maternal education matter?

Agung Dwi Laksono; Ratna Dwi Wulandari; Nurillah Amaliah; Ratih Wirapuspita Wisnuwardani

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271509

. 2022 Jul 25;17(7):e0271509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271509

Stunting among children under two years in Indonesia: Does maternal education matter?

Agung Dwi Laksono ^1,², Ratna Dwi Wulandari ^2,^3,^*, Nurillah Amaliah ⁴, Ratih Wirapuspita Wisnuwardani ⁵

Editor: Marcello Otake Sato⁶

PMCID: PMC9312392 PMID: 35877770

Abstract

Background

Measuring height for age is one of the essential indicators for evaluating children’s growth. The study analyzes the association between maternal education and stunting among children under two years in Indonesia.

Methods

The study employed secondary data from the 2017 Indonesia Nutritional Status Monitoring Survey. The unit of analysis was children under two years, and the study obtained weighted samples of 70,293 children. Besides maternal education, other independent variables analyzed in this study were residence, maternal age, maternal marital status, maternal employment, children’s age, and gender. In the final stage, the study occupied a multivariate test by binary logistic regression test.

Results

The results show the proportion of stunted children under two years in Indonesia nationally is 20.1%. Mothers in primary school and under education categories are 1.587 times more likely than mothers with a college education to have stunted children under two years (95% CI 1.576–1.598). Meanwhile, mothers with a junior high school education have a chance of 1.430 times more than mothers with a college education to have stunted children under two years (95% CI 1.420–1.440). Moreover, mothers with education in the senior high school category have 1.230 times more chances than mothers with a college education to have stunted children under two years (95% CI 1.222–1.238).

Conclusion

The study concluded that the maternal education level was associated with stunting children under two years in Indonesia. The lower the mother’s level of education, the higher the chances of a mother having stunted children under two years.

Introduction

Stunting is when children under five years old (toddlers) have a length or height less than their age—the condition by a length or height of more than minus two standard deviations of WHO’s median child growth standard [1–3].

Stunting is irreversible due to inadequate nutrition and repeated infections during the first 1000 days of a child’s life. Childhood stunting is one of the most significant barriers to human development and globally affects an estimated 162 million children under five. Stunting has long-term associations on individuals and society, including decreased cognitive and physical development, reduced productive capacity and poor health, and an increased risk of degenerative diseases such as diabetes [2, 4]. Stunting is a well-established risk marker of poor child development, and Stunting before age two predicts poorer cognitive and educational outcomes in later childhood and adolescence. Child stunting has immediate and long-term consequences, including increased morbidity, mortality, and adverse impact on child development and adult health contributes to the cycle of malnutrition, and hampers economic development [3, 5].

The prevalence of short toddlers in Indonesia tends to be static. The 2007 Indonesian Basic Health Survey results showed the prevalence of stunting in Indonesia was 36.8%. In 2010, there was a slight decrease to 35.6%. However, most stunted toddlers increased again in 2013 to 37.2%. In 2018, the survey found that the prevalence of stunting in children under two years is 29.9%. In toddlers, it is 30.8% [6]. Moreover, the stunting prevalence in 2019 was 27.67% [7].

The incidence of stunting is still one of the nutritional problems experienced by toddlers in the world today. In 2017, 22.2% or around 150.8 million under-five experienced stunting. However, this figure has decreased compared to the stunting rate in 2000, which was 32.6%. In 2017, more than half of stunted children under five came from Asia (55%), while more than a third (39%) lived in Africa. Of the 83.6 million small children under five in Asia, the highest proportion came from South Asia (58.7%). Data on the prevalence of stunting under five collected by WHO, Indonesia is included in the third country with the highest majority in the Southeast Asia/South-East Asia Regional (SEAR) region. The average prevalence of stunting under five in Indonesia from 2005 to 2017 was 36.4% [8, 9].

The WHO Conceptual Framework on Childhood Stunting describes how stunting is caused by a complex combination of family, environmental, social, and cultural variables [10]. Stunting is a chronic nutritional problem (a condition that lasts a long time) caused by many factors such as socioeconomic conditions, maternal nutrition during pregnancy, and infant pain [11]. Other causes are unhealthy living behavior, and lack of food intake for a long time from infancy can cause children to become short [6].

One of the demographic characteristics that became the focus is maternal education. Education is a critical factor that does not directly affect nutritional status because this education will affect the pattern of parenting for children [12]. The study analyzed data on 85,932 children aged 6–59 months in Vietnam and found that there was no maternal education among children 6–23 months, compared with a graduate education (OR 1.77; 95% CI, 1.44–2.16). Meanwhile, for children 24–59 months, the strongest associations with child stunting were no maternal education compared with a graduate education (OR 2.07; 95% CI 1.79–2.40) [13].

Meanwhile, another study conducted in Indonesia with a cohort-prospective study yielded similar conclusions. The study performs between August 2012 and May 2014 at three health centers in Jakarta, Indonesia. Subjects were healthy children under two years old, in which the study measured their weight and height serially (at 6–11 weeks old and 18–24 months old). Of 160 subjects, 14 (8.7%) showed declined growth pattern from regular to stunted and 10 (6.2%) to severely stunted. As many as 134 (83.8%) subjects showed consistent standard growth patterns. Only two (1.2%) showed improvement in linear growth. Maternal education duration of fewer than nine years (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.23–5.46) showed a statistically significant association with declined linear growth in children. Mother with an education duration of fewer than nine years was the determining socio-demographic risk factor contributing to the decreased linear growth in children under two years of age [14]. Based on the description of the background narrative, we intend this study to analyze the association between maternal education level and the stunting among children under two years in Indonesia.

Materials and methods

Data source

The data used in this analysis is secondary data from the 2017 Indonesia Nutritional Status Monitoring Survey. The 2017 Indonesian Nutritional Status Monitoring is a cross-sectional survey on a national scale conducted by the Directorate of Nutrition of the Indonesian Ministry of Health. The design of this study is cross-sectional, which analyzes data of variables collected at one given time across a sample population. The aim is to collect and present systematic data to provide a factual description of a particular situation.

Sample determination of under five-year samples: Sample selected 300 households. Samples of children under five years are all children under five years in homes chosen in each cluster. Respondents are mothers of children under five years or household representatives who can represent the sample [15].

The 2017 Indonesian Nutritional Status Monitoring uses a minimum of a nutrition diploma graduate as interviewers and anthropometric measurements. Measure height using a microtoise, while body length using a length board—measurement of body weight with a digital scale with an accuracy of 0.01 kg.

The population in this study were all children under two years in Indonesia. In this study, the unit of analysis was children under two years (<23 months), with mothers as respondents. The weighted sample was 70,293 children under two years with the multi-stage cluster random sampling method.

Variables

The study employed stunted children under two years as an outcome variable. Stunting was a nutritional status indicator based on height for age or the height of a child who is reached at a certain age. Based on WHO growth standards, the height indicator for a period is determined based on the z-score or height deviation from average height. Stunted children under two years consist of two categories: not stunted and stunting. The limit for the nutritional status category according to the height index/age is [15]:

Stunted: < -3.0 SD to -2.0 SD
Normal: ≥ -2.0 SD

The research used maternal education as an exposure variable. The survey determines maternal education based on the last certificate held by mothers of children under two years. Maternal education consists of four levels: primary school and under, junior high school, senior high school, and college.

Apart from maternal education level, other independent variables, as control variables, were the type of residence, maternal age, maternal marital status, maternal employment status, age of children under two years, and gender of children under two years. The type of residence consists of two types: urban and rural. Maternal age is determined based on the last birthday (in years). Maternal marital status includes never married, married, and widowed/divorced. Moreover, maternal employment status consists of two categories: unemployed and employed.

Children under two years are determined based on the last month’s birthday (in months). Meanwhile, the gender of children under two years consists of two types: boy and girl.

The inclusion criteria in this study were children under two years. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria in this study were children under two years who did not have a mother, and their anthropometry was not measured.

Data analysis

The study carried out a co-linearity test in the early stages of analysis. Then, the study used the Chi-Square test to test the dichotomous variables, and the T-test for continuous variables. The study used the statistical test to assess whether there is a statistically significant relationship between the variable nutritional status of children under two years as the dependent variable and the independent variable. The study uses a multivariable test in the final stage by utilizing a binary logistic regression test. The analysis performed all statistical analyzes with IBM SPSS Statistics 21 software.

Moreover, the research used ArcGIS 10.3 (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA, USA) to create a distribution map of stunted children under two years in Indonesia. The study issued a shapefile of administrative boundary polygons by the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics for the task.

Ethical approval

The 2017 Indonesian Nutritional Status Monitoring Survey has an ethical license approved by the national ethics committee (Number: LB.02.01/2/KE.244/2017). The survey used informed consent during data collection, which accounted for aspects of the procedure for data collection, voluntary and confidentiality. Respondents gave written consent.

Results

The analysis results indicate that the proportion of nationally stunted children under two years in Indonesia is 20.1%. The lowest proportion of stunted children under two years was in Bali Province at 13.6%; meanwhile, the province with the highest proportion of stunted children under two years was Central Kalimantan Province at 30.1%.

Table 1 shows that co-linearity tests indicate no collinearity between independent variables. Based on Table 1, the analysis results show that the tolerance value for all variables is more significant than 0.10. At the same time, the variance inflation factor (VIF) value for all variables is less than 10.00. Then referring to the basis of decision-making in the multicollinearity test, the study concluded that there are no symptoms of a strong relationship between two or more independent variables in the regression model.

Table 1. The results for the co-linearity test of nutritional status of children under two years in Indonesia (n = 70,293).

Variables	Collinearity Statistics
Variables	Tolerance	VIF
Area context
Residence	0.961	1.040
Maternal Characteristics
Education level	0.936	1.069
Age (in years)	0.980	1.021
Marital status	0.997	1.003
Employment Status	0.962	1.040
Children under two years’ Characteristic
Age	0.996	1.004
Gender	1.000	1.000

Open in a new tab

Note: *Dependent Variable: Nutritional status of a toddler; VIF: variance inflation factor.

Descriptive analysis

Table 2 shows a statistical description of the characteristics of children under two years who are the object of analysis in this study. The value of the proportion of children under two years living in rural areas in Indonesia is 22.6% (95% CI 22.4%-22.8%). Children under two years living in rural areas dominate all nutritional status categories based on the type of residence.

Table 2. Descriptive statistic of nutritional status of children under two years in Indonesia (n = 70,293).

Variables	Nutritional Status		p-value
Variables	Not stunted (n = 55,142)	Stunting (n = 15,152)	p-value
Residence			< 0.001
● Urban	26.7%	22.6%
● Rural	73.3%	77.4%
Maternal Characteristics
Education level			< 0.001
● Primary school and Under	26.4%	30.6%
● Junior high school	26.8%	28.6%
● Senior high school	37.8%	34.1%
● College	9.0%	6.6%
Age (in years; mean)	29.63	29.72	< 0.001
Marital status			< 0.001
● Never married	0.3%	0.4%
● Married	98.9%	98.4%
● Divorce/Widowed	0.8%	1.1%
Employment Status			< 0.001
● Unemployed	76.5%	76.4%
● Employed	23.5%	23.6%
Children under two years’ Characteristic
Age (in months; mean)	10.67	15.0	< 0.001
Gender			< 0.001
● Boy	49.8%	56.7%
● Girl	50.2%	43.3%

Open in a new tab

According to maternal education, mothers with senior high school education led in nutritional status categories. Based on maternal age, stunted children under two years have mothers with an average age slightly older than normal children.

Based on maternal marital status, married mothers led both nutritional status categories. On the other hand, according to maternal employment status, unemployed mothers dominate in both types of nutritional status.

Table 2 shows that average children under two years who are stunting are older than children under two years who have normal nutritional status. Moreover, based on children under two years of gender, the boy led in the stunted category; On the contrary, the girl dominated the not stunted type.

Multivariate analysis

Table 3 shows the results of the binary regression logistics to analyze the association between maternal education level and the stunted among children under two years in Indonesia. The study used the nutritional status "not stunted" category as a reference in this analysis.

Table 3. Binary logistic regression of nutritional status of children under two years in Indonesia (n = 70,293).

Predictors	Stunting
	p-value	AOR	95% CI
	p-value	AOR	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Residence: Urban	< 0.001	0.828	0.825	0.831
Residence: Rural	-	-	-	-
Maternal Education: Primary school and under	< 0.001	1.587	1.576	1.598
Maternal Education: Junior high school	< 0.001	1.430	1.420	1.440
Maternal Education: Senior high school	< 0.001	1.230	1.222	1.238
Maternal Education: College	-	-	-	-
Maternal age	< 0.001	0.994	0.994	0.995
Maternal Marital Status: Never married	< 0.001	1.348	1.308	1.389
Maternal Marital Status: Married	< 0.001	0.804	0.792	0.817
Maternal Marital Status: Divorced/widowed	-	-	-	-
Maternal employment: Unemployed	< 0.001	0.972	0.968	0.975
Maternal employment: Employed	-	-	-	-
Children under two years’ age	< 0.001	1.111	1.111	1.112
Children under two years’ Gender: Boy	< 0.001	1.352	1.347	1.356
Children under two years’ Gender: Girl	-	-	-	-

Open in a new tab

Note: AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval.

Table 3 shows that mothers with education in the primary school and under category have 1.587 times more likely than mothers with a college education to have stunted children under two years (AOR 1.587; 95% CI 1.576–1.598). Meanwhile, mothers with education in the junior high school category have 1.430 times the probability of mothers with a college education to have stunted children under two years (AOR 1.430; 95% CI 1.420–1.440). Moreover, mothers in the senior high school education category are 1.230 times more likely than mothers with a college education to have stunted children under two years (AOR 1.230; 95% CI 1.222–1.238). This analysis indicates that the lower the level of education, the higher the probability of a mother having stunted children under two years.

In addition to maternal education level, six other independent variables analyzed significantly associated with stunted children under two years. Table 3 informs that mothers who live in urban areas are 0.828 times less likely than mothers who live in rural areas to have stunted children under two years (AOR 0.828; 95% CI 0.825–0.831). The result means that those who live in rural areas have a higher probability of having stunted children under two years.

Based on maternal marital status, mothers who were never married have 1.348 times more likely than divorced/widowed mothers to have stunted children under two years (AOR 1.348; 95% CI 1.308–1.389). Married mothers are 0.804 times less likely than divorced/widowed mothers to have stunted children under two years (AOR 0.804; 95% CI 0.792–0.817). This analysis informs that maternal marital status is one predictor of the possibility of children under two years being stunting.

Table 3 indicates that an unemployed mother is 0.972 times less likely than an employed mother to have stunted children under two years (AOR 0.972; 95% CI 0.962–0.975). This information shows that the unemployed mother is a protective factor for having stunted children under two years. Meanwhile, based on age, maternal age, and children’s age, the analysis results were significantly associated with the possibility of stunted children under two years.

According to gender, the boy is 1.352 times more likely than the girl to be stunting (AOR 1.352; 95% CI 1.347–1.356). This analysis indicates that children with gender boys have risk factors for experiencing stunting.

Discussion

We confirmed that the odds of stunting increased significantly among children aged <2 years who had lower maternal education, older (both maternal age and children age), from the rural area, and boys. On the other hand, the study also identified other factors; marital status and occupation. Because of the cross-sectional study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of reverse causation.

This study found lower maternal education is associated with a higher risk of stunting, which agrees with systematic review studies [16–18]. Mothers, as caregivers, have all decisions about healthy feeding practices, including breastfeeding [19, 20]. In addition, higher paternal education was associated with protective caregiving behaviors, including vitamin A capsule receipt, complete childhood immunizations, better sanitation, and the use of iodized salt [21]. We should consider that education is an essential issue for Indonesia, like many other developing countries. Many studies reported a better education level as a strong determinant of better health outcomes [22–25]. Meanwhile, several studies also report poor education as a barrier to achieving better health output [26, 27]. A better level of education can understand the risks and benefits of behavior that will be chosen for adoption [12, 25].

A contradictory finding is older maternal age was associated with a higher risk of stunting. The hypothesis was that younger maternal age could increase more increased risk of stunting. For example, several studies showed the odds of women ≤ 24 years having a stunted child were between 1.09 and 1.23 more significant than women ≥ 33 years [28–30]. Still, some studies have also found contradictory results for maternal age. A previous study found older maternal age has a higher risk of stunting in Indonesia [31]. Older children were significantly associated with a higher risk of stunting in this study, which agrees with a systematic review in Sub-Sahara Africa [18] and a survey among 1366 children aged 0–23 months in Indonesia [32]. We should consider that older children have higher nutrients that are needed. Children who were not given age-appropriate feeding were significantly more likely to be stunted than those fed appropriately [32].

Children who live in rural areas were associated with a higher risk of stunted children under two years. A systematic review concluded that rural residents were associated with stunting [16]. Indonesia’s rural health care system was associated with food poverty, low health literacy among parents, mothers’ typical household decision-making power, and the consequences of high persistent use of traditional birth attendants among ethnic minorities [33]. In addition, rural subgroups were disadvantaged as the socioeconomic inequalities in maternal, newborn, and child health in Indonesia, i.e., rural people may be insufficient without sufficient skilled local health workers [34]. It suggests that rural area needs more attention for technical and financial support to improve leadership and capacity building in the health sector.

Maternal marital status was associated with stunting in this study. Children with married parents had a lower risk of stunting, and parents who were never married or divorced/widowed had a higher chance of stunting children. In contrast with our study, maternal marital status was not associated with infant growth outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa [35]. Nevertheless, a recent survey in Sub-Sahara Africa indicates that maternal marital status is combined with household cooking fuel on child nutritional status [36].

Meanwhile, employed mothers were one of the risk factors for stunting in children under two years, and employed mothers had a higher risk of stunting children. On the contrary, two studies found no significant association between maternal employment and stunting in Indonesia and Ethiopia [37, 38]. Still, recent studies have also found similar results for maternal marital status in Iran and Ethiopia because housewife mothers have more time to spend with their family and take care of their children [39, 40]. However, maternal marital status is not the leading cause of stunting. Improvements in nutrition-specific and–sensitive sectors, focusing on health care access, sanitation, and education, are critical points to decline in Nepal and Ethiopia [41, 42].

Moreover, boys were more likely to be stunted than girls, and several studies found similar findings in Indonesia, Mozambique, and meta-analysis [37, 43, 44]. We should note that sex and follicle-stimulating hormones might play a role in further growth [45].

Strength and limitation

The study examines big data to provide results at the national level. Meanwhile, this study analyzed secondary data from the 2017 Indonesia Nutritional Status Monitoring Survey. The variables analyzed were limited to those offered by the survey. The analysis results cannot explain several other variables that have been known from previous studies to affect stunting in children under two years: antenatal care, maternal stature, maternal body mass index, wealth index, diarrhea, anemia, and agri-food [40, 46–48].

On the other side, the study conducted with a quantitative approach cannot explain the associated cultural factors that are still very strong in Indonesia, especially in rural areas. Several previous studies informed the related results, including the value of children, food taboo, parenting, and intake patterns [49–53].

Conclusions

The study results concluded that maternal education level was associated with stunting among children under two years in Indonesia. The lower the maternal education level, the more likely it is to have stunted children under two years.

Based on the results, the author recommended that the government conduct interventions were focusing on mothers of children under two with poor education to reduce the proportion of stunting under two. A more specific target is mothers of children under five who live in rural areas, are never married, and are employed.

Data Availability

The 2017 Nutrition Status Monitoring Survey data used to support these findings of this study were supplied by the Directorate of Community Nutrition of the Indonesian Ministry of Health under license and so can not be made freely available. Requests for access to these data should be made to the Directorate of Community Nutrition of the Indonesian Ministry of Health (https://gizi.kemkes.go.id/; Email: subditkewaspadaangizi@gmail.com).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Kusrini I, Laksono AD. Regional disparities of stunted toddler in indonesia. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14: 1685–1691. [Google Scholar]
2.WHO. Stunting prevalence among children under 5 years of age (%) (JME). In: WHO. 2020.
3.Li C, Zeng L, Wang D, Allen S, Jaffar S, Zhou J, et al. Growth in early life and physical and intellectual development at school age: A cohort study. Br J Nutr. 2019;121: 866–876. doi: 10.1017/S0007114519000060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.World Health Organization. WHA Global Nutrition Targets 2025: Stunting Policy Brief. 2014. [Google Scholar]
5.Engidaye G, Melku M, Yalew A, Getaneh Z, Asrie F, Enawgaw B. Under nutrition, maternal anemia and household food insecurity are risk factors of anemia among preschool aged children in Menz Gera Midir district, Eastern Amhara, Ethiopia: A community based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19: Article number 968. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7293-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.National Institute of Health Research and Development of The Indonesia Ministry of Health. The 2018 Indonesia Basic Health Survey (Riskesdas): National Report. Jakarta; 2019. Available: http://labmandat.litbang.depkes.go.id/images/download/laporan/RKD/2018/Laporan%7B%5C_%7DNasional%7B%5C_%7DRKD2018%7B%5C_%7DFINAL.pdf [Google Scholar]
7.The Ministry of Health of The Republic of Indonesia. Report on the Implementation of the March 2019 Susenas Integration and the 2019 Indonesian Toddler Nutritional Status Survey. 2019. [Google Scholar]
8.Data and Information Center of Ministry of Health of The Republic of Indonesia. Situation of Stunted Toddler in Indonesia. Jakarta; 2018. Available: http://www.depkes.go.id/resources/download/pusdatin/infodatin/situasi-balita-pendek-2016.pdf
9.Laksono AD, Kusrini I. Ecological Analysis of Stunted Toddler in Indonesia. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14: 1685–1691. [Google Scholar]
10.de Onis M, Branca F. Childhood stunting: A global perspective. Matern Child Nutr. 2016;12: 12–26. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.World Health Organization. Child stunting. 2020. [cited 18 Nov 2020] p. 1. Available: https://www.who.int/gho/child-malnutrition/stunting/en/ [Google Scholar]
12.Laksono AD, Wulandari RD, Kusrini I, Ibad M. The effects of mother’s education on achieving exclusive breastfeeding in Indonesia. BMC Public Health. 2021;21: 14. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-10018-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Beal T, Le DT, Trinh TH, Burra DD, Huynh T, Duong TT, et al. Child stunting is associated with child, maternal, and environmental factors in Vietnam. Matern Child Nutr. 2019;15. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Gunardi H, Soedjatmiko S, Sekartini R, Medise BE, Darmawan AC, Armeilia R, et al. Association between parental socio-demographic factors and declined linear growth of young children in Jakarta. Med J Indones. 2017;26: 286–292. doi: 10.13181/mji.v26i4.1819 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Directorate of Community Nutrition of The Ministry of Health of The Republic of Indonesia. the 2017 Indonesia Nutritional Status Monitoring (Pemantauan Status Gizi 2017). Jakarta; 2017. Available: http://www.kesmas.kemkes.go.id/assets/upload/dir_519d41d8cd98f00/files/Buku-Saku-Nasional-PSG-2017_975.pdf
16.Tahangnacca M, Amiruddin R.Ansariadi,Syam A. Model of stunting determinants: A systematic review. Enferm Clin. 2020;30: 241–245. doi: 10.1016/j.enfcli.2019.10.076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Beal T, Tumilowicz A, Sutrisna A, Izwardy D, Neufeld LMLM. A review of child stunting determinants in Indonesia. Matern Child Nutr. 2018;18: 1–10. doi: 10.1111/mcn.12617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Akombi BJ, Agho KE, Hall JJ, Wali N, Renzaho AMN, Merom D. Stunting, wasting and underweight in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14: Article number 863. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Bain LE, Awah PK, Geraldine N, Kindong NP, Sigal Y, Bernard N, et al. Malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: burden, causes and prospects. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;15: Article number 120. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2013.15.120.2535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Rachmi CN, Agho KE, Li M, Baur LA. Stunting, underweight and overweight in children aged 2.0–4.9 years in Indonesia: Prevalence trends and associated risk factors. PLoS One. 2016;11: Article number e0154756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Semba RD, de Pee S, Sun K, Sari M, Akhter N, Bloem MW. Effect of parental formal education on risk of child stunting in Indonesia and Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2008;371: 322–328. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60169-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Megatsari H, Laksono AD, Ibad M, Herwanto YT, Sarweni KP, Geno RAP, et al. The community psychosocial burden during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Heliyon. 2020;6: e05136. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Ipa M, Widawati M, Laksono AD, Kusrini I, Dhewantara PW. Variation of preventive practices and its association with malaria infection in eastern Indonesia: Findings from community-based survey. PLoS One. 2020;15: e0232909. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Masruroh Yusuf A, Rohmah N, Pakki IB, Sujoso ADP, Andayani Q, et al. Neonatal Death Incidence in Healthcare Facility in Indonesia: Does Antenatal Care Matter? Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2021;15: 1265–1271. doi: 10.37506/ijfmt.v15i1.13590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Wulandari RD, Laksono AD. Education as predictor of the knowledge of pregnancy danger signs in Rural Indonesia. Int J Innov Creat Chang. 2020;13: 1037–1051. [Google Scholar]
26.Rohmah N, Yusuf AA, Hargono R, Laksono ADAD, Masruroh, Ibrahim I, et al. Determinants of teenage pregnancy in Indonesia. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14: 2080–2085. doi: 10.37506/ijfmt.v14i3.10736 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Laksono AD, Wulandari RD. The Barrier to Maternity Care in Rural Indonesia. J Public Heal. 2022;30: 135–140. doi: 10.1007/s10389-020-01274-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Best CM, Sun K, De Pee S, Sari M, Bloem MW, Semba RD. Paternal smoking and increased risk of child malnutrition among families in rural Indonesia. Tob Control. 2008;17: 38–45. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.020875 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Semba RD, Moench-Pfanner R, Sun K, De Pee S, Akhter N, Rah JH, et al. Consumption of micronutrient-fortified milk and noodles is associated with lower risk of stunting in preschool-aged children in Indonesia. Food Nutr Bull. 2011;32: 347–353. doi: 10.1177/156482651103200406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Semba RD, Kalm LM, De Pee S, Ricks MO, Sari M, Bloem MW. Paternal smoking is associated with increased risk of child malnutrition among poor urban families in Indonesia. Public Health Nutr. 2007;10: 7–15. doi: 10.1017/S136898000722292X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Laksono AD, Ibad M, Mursita A, Kusrini I, Wulandari RD. Characteristics of mother as predictors of stunting in toddler. Pakistan J Nutr. 2019;18: 1101–1106. doi: 10.3923/pjn.2019.1101.1106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Torlesse H, Cronin AA, Sebayang SK, Nandy R. Determinants of stunting in Indonesian children: evidence from a cross-sectional survey indicate a prominent role for the water, sanitation and hygiene sector in stunting reduction. BMC Public Health. 2016;16: Article number 669. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3339-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Wulandari RD, Laksono AD, Kusrini I, Tahangnacca M. The Targets for Stunting Prevention Policies in Papua, Indonesia: What Mothers’ Characteristics Matter? Nutrients. 2022;14: 549. doi: 10.3390/nu14030549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia;WHO. STATE OF HEALTH INEQUALITY Indonesia. Geneva, Switzerland; 2017.
35.Ngandu CB, Momberg D, Magan A, Chola L, Norris SA, Said-Mohamed R. The association between household socio-economic status, maternal socio-demographic characteristics and adverse birth and infant growth outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2020;11: 317–334. doi: 10.1017/S2040174419000680 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Amadu I, Seidu A-A, Duku E, Okyere J, Hagan JE, Hormenu T, et al. The Joint Effect of Maternal Marital Status and Type of Household Cooking Fuel on Child Nutritional Status in Sub-Saharan Africa: Analysis of Cross-Sectional Surveys on Children from 31 Countries. Nutrients. 2021;13: Article number 1541. doi: 10.3390/nu13051541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Titaley CR, Ariawan I, Hapsari D, Muasyaroh A, Dibley MJMJ. Determinants of the stunting of children under two years old in Indonesia: A multilevel analysis of the 2013 Indonesia basic health survey. Nutrients. 2019;11: Article number 1106. doi: 10.3390/nu11051106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Eshete H, Abebe Y, Loha E, Gebru T, Tesheme T. Nutritional Status and Effect of Maternal Employment among Children Aged 6–59 Months in Wolayta Sodo Town, Southern Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2017;27: 155–162. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v27i2.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Fatemi MJ, Fararouei M, Moravej H, Dianatinasab M. Stunting and its associated factors among 6-7-year-old children in southern Iran: a nested case-control study. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22: 55–62. doi: 10.1017/S136898001800263X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Amaha ND, Woldeamanuel BT. Maternal factors associated with moderate and severe stunting in Ethiopian children: analysis of some environmental factors based on 2016 demographic health survey. Nutr J. 2021;20: Article number 18. doi: 10.1186/s12937-021-00677-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Conway K, Akseer N, Subedi RK, Brar S, Bhattarai B, Dhungana RR, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in Nepal: a country case study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112: 844S–859S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Tasic H, Akseer N, Gebreyesus SH, Ataullahjan A, Brar S, Confreda E, et al. Drivers of stunting reduction in Ethiopia: a country case study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112: 875S–893S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Garcia Cruz LM, Gonzalez Azpeitia G, Reyes Suarez D, Santana Rodriguez A, Loro Ferrer JF, Serra-Majem L. Factors Associated with Stunting among Children Aged 0 to 59 Months from the Central Region of Mozambique. Nutrients. 2017;9: Article number 491. doi: 10.3390/nu9050491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Thurstans S, Opondo C, Seal A, Wells J, Khara T, Dolan C, et al. Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition. BMJ Glob Heal. 2020;5: Article number e004030. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Schoenbuchner SM, Dolan C, Mwangome M, Hall A, Richard SA, Wells JC, et al. The relationship between wasting and stunting: a retrospective cohort analysis of longitudinal data in Gambian children from 1976 to 2016. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110: 498–507. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Castro-Bedriñana J, Chirinos-Peinado D, Ríos ER. Socioeconomic and productive disparity in child stunting in the central andes of Peru, taking as a model the community of Tunanmarca, Jauja. Adv Sci Technol Eng Syst. 2020;5: 135–141. doi: 10.25046/aj050318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Tesfaw LM, Fenta HM. Multivariate logistic regression analysis on the association between anthropometric indicators of under-five children in Nigeria: NDHS 2018. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21: 193. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02657-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Castro-Bedriñana J, Chirinos-Peinado D, De La Cruz-Calderón G. Predictive model of stunting in the Central Andean region of Peru based on socioeconomic and agri-food determinants. Public Heal Pract. 2021;2: Article number 100112. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Kusrini I, Ipa M, Laksono AD. “Is It true that the child is king?”: Qualitative Study of Factors Related to Nutritional Status of Children in West Lombok, Indonesia. Indian J Public Heal Res Dev. 2019;10: 1729–1733. doi: 10.37506/v10/i12/2019/ijphrd/192113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
50.Laksono AD, Wulandari RD. “Children are Assets”: Meta-Synthesis of ‘the Value of Children’ in the Lani and Acehnese Tribes. J Reprod Heal. 2019;10: 11–20. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
51.Maghfiroh MS, Laksono AD. “Given sugar water… at first the cry became silent, because it was full, not limp, its endurance increased”; Study of Patterns of Infant Intake (“Diberi air gula… awalnya nangis menjadi diam, karena kenyang, gak lemas, daya tahan tubuhnya meningkat”; S. Amerta Nutr. 2020;4: 116–122. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
52.Pratita I, Laksono AD. “If this child eats, whatever she/he is asked…”: Exploration of Value of Children and Parenting Patterns in Javanese in the Besowo village, Kediri, East Java. Amerta Nutr. 2020;4: 147. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
53.Laksono AD, Soedirham O, Saptandari P, Wulandari RD. Study of family size among tenggerese in Indonesia. Int J Innov Creat Chang. 2020;13: 964–978. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271509.r001

Decision Letter 0

Marcello Otake Sato

17 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-21440Stunted among Children Under Two Years in Indonesia: Does maternal education matter?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wulandari,

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 MS by Laksono and cols addresses an crucial issue in public health, especially in underdeveloping countries, the importance of the parental education and children health. Despite the merit, there are still several points to be cleared as described by the 2 reviewers. Also, an English editing would add quality for this interesting study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2022 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: 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,

Marcello Otake Sato, Ph.D., D.V.M.

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publications, which needs to be addressed:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/755/1/012035

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/mcn.12826

http://mji.ui.ac.id/journal/index.php/mji/article/view/1819

https://worldwidescience.org/topicpages/c/canada+temporal+socio-demographic.html

The text that needs to be addressed involves the Introduction.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please address the following:

- Please refrain from stating p values as 0.000 and instead use the format p<0.0001.

- Please re-read the Abstract of this manuscript and ensure it contains no errors of grammar.

- Please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed these data.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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].”

b. 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/

7. 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

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: This study addresses an important issue in global public health problem, i.e., stunting, in Indonesia, one of the largest countries in the world.

Title:

• As a non-native speaker, I am not sure about using the word “stunted among…..”. Please check.

Abstract:

• Authors could include the p-value or 95%CI for the point estimates listed.

• Authors might want to conclude the results more rather than restating the results.

Introduction:

• Authors might want to revisit the first sentence regarding the definition of stunting based on the WHO.

• The Introduction Section could be made more concise.

Materials and methods

• Please add a brief explanation about the 2017 Indonesian Nutritional Status Monitoring.

• Were there any variables related to household economic status apart from maternal employment? The economic status of mothers or households is an important indicator to adjust in the model, and this might be related to maternal education.

• Did the authors consider using province/region to adjust in the analysis?

• It will be good to explain how the survey conducted anthropometric measurement. Please elaborate.

• Were there any extreme values of these measurements found? How were they treated?

Results:

• Please add the 95%CI for the proportion of stunted children reported.

• The authors mentioned the collinearity test between dependent and independent variables? Please clarify.

• As a non-native speaker, I am not familiar with the wordings used by authors to describe Table 2 – “occupy” or “controlled” or “rule,” so I could not make any advice about this.

• Table 3. Please change p=0.000 to p>0.001, and authors can remove the Asterix for the p-value in the footnote.

• Table 3. The lower and upper bound for aOR for maternal age is the same? Please check again.

• Table 3. To make it easier for readers, authors could change some reference groups to make it more consistent, e.g., selecting ‘employed’ as the reference group, instead of ‘unemployed,’ so that all aOR consistently indicates the risk factors rather than a mixed with the protective factor (<1.0).

Discussion:

• Please avoid using the word “influence” or “effect.” It is best to use “association” as this is a cross-sectional study.

• Overall, the authors might include some recommendations of interventions that could be implemented based on the findings. Authors could use references from previous studies/literature regarding the effectiveness of those interventions.

• Authors might want to add the strengths of this study.

Conclusions:

• Authors might want to conclude the findings rather than restating the findings. Authors could include some recommendations based on the findings.

Reviewer #2: - I recommend revision of the title indicating that this is a meta-analysis and use the word "stunting" or "stunted growth" instead of stunted in the title.

- Abstract : Background - Expound a bit on the background of the study; use "stunting" among children...

Methods - What is maternal marital? Does it pertain to maternal status?

- Introduction - Avoid very long sentences and repeated use of "and" in a sentence (last sentence, second paragraph)

- Materials and Methods - Again, use stunting (a condition, status) and not stunted; You may include the inclusion and exclusion criteria and other statistical analysis/es employed in the study

-Results - Please follow proper format for Tables (APA format); format Tables 1-3

-Table 1 - Since maternal characteristics is written in bold and clear, I suggest to delete the "mother's.." in the 4 entries

-Conclusions - Use "stunting among children under two years in Indonesia"

**********

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.

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 25;17(7):e0271509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271509.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

18 May 2022

Response

1. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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/contentpermission-

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].”

b. 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 authors decided to remove the figure from the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(5.9KB, pdf)}