Review Reports - Financial Literacy in Contexts of Vulnerability: Determinants Among Women Horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides an original and valuable contribution by analyzing the socioeconomic determinants of financial literacy among women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau. The topic is relevant, the methodological structure is solid, and the field data collection in a low-connectivity environment is a significant strength. The use of a multidimensional financial literacy framework (attitude, behavior, knowledge) aligned with OECD guidelines is appropriate, and the statistical procedures are correctly applied.

However, some methodological aspects deserve clarification. First, the sample includes 200 respondents out of a population of 978 horticulturists. This raises a potential self-selection bias: the women who chose to participate may differ systematically from those who did not (e.g., motivation, availability, literacy levels, economic stability). A brief discussion of this limitation would strengthen the methodological transparency of the paper.

Second, the authors report that 2% of the sample is engaged in activities other than horticulture, although the study explicitly targets women horticulturists. It would be useful to clarify how these cases entered the sample and whether they were retained intentionally or should be excluded to maintain sample consistency.

Overall, the manuscript is clearly written, methodologically robust, and contributes meaningful insights for policy and practice. Addressing the points above would further improve clarity and validity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript and for your valuable suggestions aimed at improving it. We hope that this revised version meets the publication standards of the Journal of Risk and Financial Management. We remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Below are your suggestions and our responses. In addition, we have attached the manuscript as a Word document with tracked changes, followed by a clean version with all changes accepted.

Comments 1: “However, some methodological aspects deserve clarification. First, the sample includes 200 respondents out of a population of 978 horticulturists. This raises a potential self-selection bias: the women who chose to participate may differ systematically from those who did not (e.g., motivation, availability, literacy levels, economic stability). A brief discussion of this limitation would strengthen the methodological transparency of the paper.”
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We have added a more detailed limitations section at the end of the manuscript, explicitly addressing the possibility of self-selection bias arising from the voluntary participation of the horticulturists.

Comment 2: “Second, the authors report that 2% of the sample is engaged in activities other than horticulture, although the study explicitly targets women horticulturists. It would be useful to clarify how these cases entered the sample and whether they were retained intentionally or should be excluded to maintain sample consistency.”
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We clarify that 98% of respondents work exclusively in horticulture, while the remaining 2% combine horticulture with another activity. Since all respondents are horticulturists and horticulture remains their main productive activity, we considered it methodologically appropriate to retain the entire sample.This clarification has been added to the Methods section, in the description of the sample characteristics.

Accordingly, as all recommendations have been incorporated into the manuscript and/or addressed to the best of our ability, we trust that this revised version meets the publication standards of the Journal of Risk and Financial Management. We would like to thank you once again for your valuable feedback and remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Respectfully,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of manuscript titled “Financial Literacy in Contexts of Vulnerability: Socioeconomic Determinants Among Women Horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau”

Abstract:

The abstract is descriptive and lacks necessary methodological details (sampling method, sample size…).

Introduction

The introduction summarizes prior studies but does not articulate a clear gap or theoretical tension.
No articulation of why Guinea-Bissau specifically contributes to the literature (beyond being “underexplored”).
The problem statement is descriptive rather than analytical.
Research questions are not explicitly stated.
No clear theoretical lens is used to position the study within the financial literacy literature.

Literature Review

Many paragraphs merely repeat what each author found, without connecting findings logically.
No conceptual framework or theoretical integration.
Contradictions in the literature are listed but not explained.
No justification for why these particular socioeconomic variables were selected.
There is a section number 2.1 but there is no 2.2.
The objectives, hypotheses, and questions are not clear in the paper.

Methods

The sampling technique is not clear. How were the authors able to get 200 people together to answer face-to-face questionnaires?
No justification for the sample size or power considerations.
The authors claim to test normality using KS test, which is inappropriate for sample sizes >50.

Results and Discussion

The authors should add a table related to the sample profile.
Financial knowledge scores are extremely low (29.5%), yet the authors do not explore structural or educational causes.
Interpretation of Likert scales is inconsistent and at times incorrect (e.g., reversing only one item but not discussing the impact on score interpretation).
The regression results are weak (Adjusted R² = 0.117), yet the authors draw strong conclusions.
The discussion is not grounded in theory.
No robustness checks, no interaction effects, no alternative models.
Comparative literature is mentioned superficially without connecting to the context.
Reduce descriptive reporting and focus on analytical interpretation; integrate theory more deeply.

Conclusions

Overgeneralizes findings despite weak regression explanatory power.
The conclusion repeats results rather than articulating contributions.
Policy implications are generic (“improve financial literacy,” “support women”) and not actionable.
No discussion of transferability or contextual limitations.
Limitations section is incomplete: no mention of cross-sectional design, self-report bias, lack of representativeness, or measurement limitations.

Tables are overly lengthy and contain excessive detail; many belong in an appendix.
Some tables repeat information described in the text.
The regression table lacks confidence intervals.
No conceptual model figure is provided.

In brief, the study claims novelty because the context is underexplored, not because the conceptual approach is new. There is no theoretical innovation. Contribution to financial literacy theory is minimal. Results are context-specific and may lack generalizability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Below are your suggestions and our responses. In addition, we have attached the manuscript as a Word document with tracked changes, followed by a clean version with all changes accepted.

1. Abstract:
Comment 1: “The abstract is descriptive and lacks necessary methodological details (sampling method, sample size…).”
Response 1: The abstract is intentionally descriptive in order to remain aligned with the focus of the article and omits certain information due to the character limit, in addition to the fact that further details—especially regarding the method and the sample—are provided throughout the manuscript in their respective sections. Nevertheless, with a view to enhancing the coherence and credibility of our article, we have incorporated the following modification into the abstract, in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation: “All 978 women horticulturists at the Pessubé Farm were invited to participate in the survey. During the data collection period, 200 valid questionnaires were returned and used as the final sample.”

2. Introduction:
Comment 1: “The introduction summarizes prior studies but does not articulate a clear gap or theoretical tension.”
Response 1: In response to the reviewer’s recommendation and in order to highlight the theoretical gap identified in the literature concerning countries in situations of vulnerability, the following passage has been rewritten with the inclusion of the necessary information to address this objective: “For this reason, the study advances and contributes to this field by examining the determinants of financial literacy among women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa. Although the literature investigating the relationship between various determinants and financial literacy is extensive, it is largely concentrated in developed and developing countries. As highlighted by Kumar (2025) in a comprehensive literature review, there is a clear absence of studies on financial literacy in least-developed and highly vulnerable countries. Our work underscores this gap by demonstrating that the instruments commonly used to assess financial literacy in most countries are not necessarily effective in contexts of severe vulnerability, such as Guinea-Bissau. A deeper understanding of how these determinants shape financial literacy across diverse geographic and social contexts, combined with recognition of the lack of studies in this group of countries, particularly in Africa, is essential for the development of appropriate measurement tools and for designing policies aimed at improving financial literacy in such settings.”

Comment 2: “No articulation of why Guinea-Bissau specifically contributes to the literature (beyond being “underexplored”).”
Response 2: To better clarify the importance of Guinea-Bissau for this study and for the global context of the literature, the following passage has been added to the introduction:
“Guinea-Bissau ranks among the thirty poorest countries in the world (IMF Data, 2025). Reasoning, our study contributes to assessing the impact of the analyzed variables in a country of extreme vulnerability, serving as a basis for examining behavioral patterns in nations with similar conditions, particularly on the African continent. While acknowledging that each country presents its own specificities, this study brings us closer to an example grounded in a reality comparable to that of other vulnerable countries.”

Comment 3: “The problem statement is descriptive rather than analytical.”
Response 3: The central objective of our article is to describe the current state of financial literacy in a context of vulnerability, specifically among women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau, together with the impact of the determinants on this variable. It highlights that the reality in which these women live is not reflected in the current literature, and that globally adopted instruments for measuring financial literacy do not prove equally meaningful when applied in this context. Therefore, we understand that the research proposal is more descriptive than analytical in nature. Nonetheless, the descriptive results make it possible to conduct a more critical analysis, allowing us to discuss the implications of these findings for the financial lives of these women and to offer evidence-based suggestions on how to improve this reality through targeted policies, context-adapted educational interventions, and initiatives that strengthen their financial autonomy.

Comment 4: “Research questions are not explicitly stated.”
Response 4: The central research question of the study has been stated more clearly in the following passage:
“This study therefore seeks to answer the following question: what are the determinants of financial literacy among women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau?”

Comment 5: “No clear theoretical lens is used to position the study within the financial literacy literature.”
Response 5: To ensure that the theoretical lens of the study is properly highlighted, the following passage has been added to the text:

“In this study, our theoretical approach to financial literacy follows the definition proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2024), which conceptualizes financial literacy as “a combination of financial behavior, financial knowledge, and financial attitude.”

Literature Review:

Comment 1: “Many paragraphs merely repeat what each author found, without connecting findings logically.”
Response 1: We reduced repetition and strengthened the logical cohesion of the literature review, connecting findings and mechanisms rather than merely summarizing authors individually.

Comment 2: “No conceptual framework or theoretical integration.”

Response 2: We developed a clearer conceptual integration by linking the three dimensions of financial literacy (knowledge, attitude and behavior) and positioning them within a coherent framework.

Comment 3: “Contradictions in the literature are listed but not explained.”
Response 3: We expanded explanations for contradictions found in the literature (e.g., inequalities in financial socialization and access to information tend to disadvantage women).

Comment 4: “No justification for why these particular socioeconomic variables were selected.”
Response 4: We clarified the rationale for selecting the socioeconomic variables tested in the empirical analysis and discussed them throughout Section 2.2.

Comment 5: “There is a section number 2.1 but there is no 2.2.”

Response 5: We corrected the structural issue by dividing the review into Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

Comment 6: “The objectives, hypotheses, and questions are not clear in the paper.”
Response 6: We formulated explicit hypotheses aligned with the literature and included a summary table to consolidate them. Also, we ensured full alignment between the literature review and the empirical model by removing variables that were previously mentioned but not tested, and by integrating only the variables that are actually included in the analysis.

Methods:

Comment 1: “The sampling technique is not clear. How were the authors able to get 200 people together to answer face-to-face questionnaires?”
Comment 2: “No justification for the sample size or power considerations.”

Response 1 and 2: To provide more comprehensive information regarding the data collection process, we added the following content to the methods section:

“Considering the constraints on internet connectivity in Guinea-Bissau and the limited digital proficiency among women horticulturists and the wider population, an on-site field study was undertaken. The authors visited locations directly to assist participants in completing the surveys. To ensure accessibility, researchers approached production groups where women were already assembled for work. Data collection occurred in January and February 2025, with all present horticulturists invited to participate. Upon acceptance of the informed consent form, the survey was administered orally by the researcher while participants completed printed forms, thereby guaranteeing inclusion irrespective of literacy levels. The process yielded 200 valid questionnaires, surpassing the minimum requirement to secure a 95% confidence level and a sampling error of less than 7%.”

Comment 3: “The authors claim to test normality using KS test, which is inappropriate for sample sizes >50.”
Response 3: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was selected because the sample size exceeded 30 observations, following the recommendation by Hair et al. (2010, p. 84): “The researcher must always remember that significance tests are less useful in small samples (fewer than 30) and highly sensitive in large samples (exceeding 1000 observations).”

(Hair et al., 2010) Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.

Results and Discussions:

Comment 1: “The authors should add a table related to the sample profile.”
Response 1: We have added Table 1: Profile of Respondents, containing the variables: Marital Status, Financial Dependents, and Education Level, at the beginning of Section 4 (Results and Discussion). This table summarizes crucial data (such as the high rate of financial dependents — 95.3% — and the low level of formal education — 26.2% with no schooling and 45.0% with only Primary Education). Additionally, the introductory paragraph has been adjusted to reference the table, as can be seen in the attached text.

Comment 2: “Financial knowledge scores are extremely low (29.5%), yet the authors do not explore structural or educational causes.”
Response 2: We have added the following excerpt: “This result is a direct consequence of structural and educational factors. The sample profile shows that 26.2% of participants have no formal schooling and 45.0% completed only primary education, characteristics that, according to the literature, are consistently associated with lower levels of financial knowledge. This structural disadvantage is further compounded by the context of Guinea-Bissau, one of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries, where limited access to formal education and to more complex financial systems hinders the development of the conceptual knowledge required by standardized assessment instruments”.

Comment 3: “Interpretation of Likert scales is inconsistent and at times incorrect (e.g., reversing only one item but not discussing the impact on score interpretation).”

Response 3: We thank you for the feedback. Indeed, there were two questions in the financial behavior construct that were flagged as reverse-coded but actually were not: variables 27 and 28. Thus, the only reverse-coded financial behavior variables are variables 21 and 24. We emphasize that the construction of the mean financial behavior indicator is correct; the error was solely in the labeling presented in the text. To make the reading clearer, we have highlighted in the tables the items from the Financial Attitude (Table 5) and Financial Behavior (Table 6) scales that had their scores reversed. To maintain consistency in the direction of the responses, these items were identified with an asterisk (*) next to the respective question. These are items 31, 21, and 24. Furthermore, we included a legend in Tables 5 and 6 explaining that the asterisk indicates items whose scoring was reversed. We also added excerpts to the text (which can be checked in the attached file) to improve the understanding of the scale’s interpretation. As an example, the financial behavior variables (e.g., “I closely monitor my finances”) follow a five-point Likert scale: 1 = “never”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “frequently”, and 5 = “always”, with higher frequencies indicating a better level of financial behavior. Thus, an average of 4 represents good financial behavior. For the reverse-coded variables (21 and 24), averages were calculated based on the inversion of responses, ensuring that an average of 4 continues to represent good financial behavior. In practice, the inversion follows the scale: 1 = “always”, 2 = “frequently”, 3 = “sometimes”, 4 = “rarely”, and 5 = “never”. Therefore, an individual who selected “rarely” for the variable “I have a lot of debts” receives a value of 4 after inversion, indicating good financial behavior.

Comment 4: “The regression results are weak (Adjusted R² = 0.117), yet the authors draw strong conclusions. The discussion is not grounded in theory.”

Response 4: Regarding the explanatory power (R²):

We argue that in social and behavioral science studies dealing with complex and multifactorial constructs such as financial literacy, which is influenced by numerous latent factors (culture, personality, social networks), an R² in this range is consistent with the literature. The regression model is statistically significant (F=3.393,p=0.001), demonstrating the collective relevance of the predictor variables for financial literacy in the analyzed context. Thus, the aim of the study is not to exhaust all possibilities of explanatory variables—that is, we do not seek to reveal all determinants of financial literacy. Instead, we focused the analysis on those factors we could empirically explore. The study's value lies precisely in identifying the most relevant predictors within a reality that is still little investigated, rather than achieving high global predictive power.

Regarding the theoretical foundation: We reinforce that the discussion was already solidly anchored in theory, but we acknowledge the need to make these connections more explicit for the reader. The effect of food sufficiency (a significant variable) is analyzed in light of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943), which postulates the need to meet basic physiological needs before seeking higher-order competencies, such as financial management. Financial satisfaction (the strongest predictor) is discussed through the prism of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy (1977), where satisfaction reinforces the belief in one’s competence in financial management. Finally, the negative impact of overdue debts is interpreted under Cognitive Load Theory (Chakraborty et al., 2025), which explains how financial stress consumes mental resources necessary for learning and planning. We have made these theoretical connections more explicit and evident in the main text to ensure the clarity of the theoretical foundation, as requested by the reviewer.

Comment 5: “No robustness checks, no interaction effects, no alternative models.”

Response 5: We fully agree with Reviewer 2’s suggestion regarding the importance of including robustness tests, interaction effects, and/or alternative models to improve the validity of the results. However, due to space limitations stipulated by the journal, the full inclusion of these tests in the main body of the manuscript would make the article excessively long. Despite this restriction, we argue that the multiple linear regression model used proved to be statistically significant (p = 0.001; F = 3.393) and meets the main objective of analyzing the determinants of financial literacy among horticulturists. Furthermore, the model was successfully validated, meeting the necessary assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and absence of multicollinearity and autocorrelation.

Comment 6: “Comparative literature is mentioned superficially without connecting to the context.”

Response 6: We revised Section 4 to ensure that references to comparative literature are integrated more deeply and used to interpret findings in a contextualized manner, rather than merely being listed. The main changes implemented focused on explaining why the sample results differ from or align with international findings, considering the context of Guinea-Bissau (a country classified as one of the poorest and most fragile in the world).

Financial Satisfaction: The comparison of the financial satisfaction score (mean of 7.04) with studies of female entrepreneurs in Asian countries (Ayob, 2023) was deepened. Added text: “This positive perception, despite economic vulnerability, may reflect the high level of responsibility these women assume as the primary providers for their households (75.8%), as well as a sense of personal accomplishment in ensuring family subsistence within an environment marked by scarcity and informality.”
Financial Attitude: The comparison of the perception of "financial survival" (mean of 1.6) with Fulton et al. (2023) was explicitly linked to the context. The text now concludes that the perception of "just getting by financially" is a characteristic of the structurally fragile context and low economic stability, where the majority is focused on immediate expenses, with little margin for long-term planning. Added excerpts: “The high prevalence observed in Guinea-Bissau reflects that a large share of the horticulturists perceive themselves to be in a state of financial survival, a characteristic of a structurally fragile context with low economic stability, where the focus is placed primarily on basic and immediate expenses, with little or no margin for long-term planning.”; and “This combination of high concern about the present and optimism about the future emerges as a central characteristic of the sample, suggesting that their role as primary providers fosters both caution and resilient hope, even in contexts of scarcity”. Additionally, there were minor adjustments that can be checked in the attached text..
Cautious Behavior: The comparison of high purchasing prudence (mean of 4.4) with the study by Lópezrodríguez and Lópezordóñez (2022) was contextualized. The text now highlights that the high level of caution among horticulturists, even with low formal education, suggests that factors beyond education—such as practical experience and family responsibility as the main provider—strengthen these conscious financial behaviors. We adjusted: “factors beyond formal education, such as practical experience in managing scarce resources and the full responsibility of supporting a household in an informal context, can strengthen conscious financial behaviors”.
Low Financial Knowledge: The low knowledge score (mean of 0.29) was compared to data from China (Xu et al., 2022), focusing on the high frequency of “Don’t know” responses. The text now explains that this disparity is a reflection of the disconnection between standardized measurement instruments (such as the international "Big Three"), developed in Western contexts, and the local reality, marked by low financial formalization and limited access to education. We added: “using data from the China Household Finance Survey (CHFS), which covered more than 40,000 urban and rural households across China, found that 57.26% of respondents did not select “I don’t know” for any of the three financial literacy questions. This result suggests a substantially higher level of familiarity with basic financial concepts among Chinese households compared to the women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau. Such differences can be attributed to disparities in educational opportunities, financial inclusion, and exposure to formal financial systems, factors shaped, in large part, by the extreme vulnerability of the Guinean context.” Among other small adjustments visible in the attached text.

Comment 7: “Reduce descriptive reporting and focus on analytical interpretation; integrate theory more deeply.”

Response 7: We thank Reviewer 2 for this important observation. Section 4 (Results and Discussion) was extensively revised to reduce descriptive reporting and, instead, focus on analytical interpretation and theoretical integration, as requested. The main changes made to address this critique were:

To eliminate excessive descriptive reporting, sample profile data were removed from the text and transferred to the newly added Table 1: Profile of Respondents. Additionally, the chapter's introductory paragraph was rewritten to reference Table 1 and focus immediately on the contextual analysis of the sample's vulnerability profile (e.g., the high rate of dependents and widows), transforming the description into an analysis of the intense financial pressure these women face as primary providers.
Regarding financial attitude, paragraphs were synthesized to reduce the description of averages and focus on the analysis of Financial Attitude. Results indicating high concern for the present (means of 1.5 and 1.6) and resilient optimism for the future (means of 4.2 and 3.8) were combined. Furthermore, the discussion now interprets this combination as a central characteristic of the sample, suggesting that the responsibility as the main provider fosters both caution and resilient hope, even in the face of scarcity.
We also included in the article that the positive impact of Financial Satisfaction is associated with Bandura’s concept of Self-Efficacy (1977), arguing that satisfaction reinforces the belief in competence to manage finances. The negative effect of Overdue Debts was interpreted through the lens of Cognitive Load, citing Chakraborty et al. (2025), explaining how debt stress reduces the mental resources necessary for financial learning and planning. Subsequently, the positive impact of Food Sufficiency was analyzed through the lens of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943), suggesting that meeting basic physiological needs allows people to direct attention to higher-order competencies, such as financial management.
We added: (Elimination of Methodological Repetition) “This finding reinforces the idea that, even in the absence of formal schooling, many individuals develop basic mathematical abilities through daily interactions with money, which is essential for survival in informal economic contexts. The contrast between the high accuracy in practical mathematics (Item 50) and the high frequency of “I don’t know” responses in the conceptual questions (Items 47, 48, and 49) provides strong evidence that practical financial skills outweigh formal financial knowledge within the sample.”

Although we have described the adjustments made in this item, we recommend that the reviewers consult the manuscript to check all changes in full.

Conclusions:

Comment 1: “Overgeneralizes findings despite weak regression explanatory power.”
Response 1: To justify the validity of the conclusions while eliminating any risk of overgeneralization, we made adjustments to Section 5: Conclusions, reinforcing the contextual nature of the findings:

Explicit Acknowledgement of Limitation: We included a discussion on the low R² (0.117). We explicitly state that the low explained variance is an "expected characteristic, and not an indicator of model failure," due to the multifactorial and complex nature of financial literacy. The text now highlights that "the results represent only punctual determinants within a broader system."
Context-Specific Interpretation: We reinforced the need for caution, stating that "the results must be interpreted with caution considering their specificity to the investigated context." The non-rejection of hypotheses H9, H7, and H5 is validated "in this specific context."
Conditional Language in Implications: Public policy implications are presented with conditional language, focusing on "contexts of vulnerability" and suggesting context-sensitive strategies.
We added, with the intent of demonstrating the importance of the result regarding the multifactorial nature of financial literacy: “The multiple linear regression model, which examined the determinants of financial literacy, proved to be statistically significant (p=0.001; F=3.393), but showed limited explanatory power, with an Adjusted R² of 0.117. This low explained variance suggests that most of the factors influencing financial literacy in this population remain unexplained by the analyzed model. It is fundamental to recognize that financial literacy is a multifactorial and complex concept, encompassing an evolving set of skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Given that the investigation did not include all contextual and socioeconomic factors known to influence this competence, the low R² is an expected characteristic, and not an indicator of model failure, reinforcing that the results represent only punctual determinants within a broader system. Therefore, the results must be interpreted with caution considering their specificity to the investigated context. Accordingly, three predictors were identified as statistically significant: financial satisfaction, which had the strongest positive impact (Coef. 0.205; p-value: 0.009), suggesting that the perception of financial satisfaction acts as a facilitator for learning and applying financial knowledge; food sufficiency, which also showed a positive impact (Coef. 0.152; p-value: 0.047), indicating that the fulfillment of physiological needs creates the cognitive and emotional environment required for the advancement of financial competence; and overdue debts, which exhibited the strongest negative effect in the model (Coef. −0.243; p-value: 0.002), a negative effect associated with cognitive overload, whereby financial stress consumes mental resources and undermines the ability to assimilate and apply new financial knowledge. Thus, Hypotheses H9, H7, and H5 are not rejected. In this specific context, the results corroborate that higher levels of food security and perceived financial satisfaction increase financial literacy, while difficulties in paying debts contribute to reducing this level. ”
In addition to this paragraph, we also incorporated brief passages throughout the conclusion chapter to help clarify our findings. These modifications, like all others, are highlighted in the attached text.

Comment 2: “The conclusion repeats results rather than articulating contributions.”
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the observation. We recognize that the Conclusions section must prioritize interpretation and the articulation of the study's contributions over the repetition of numerical results.

The text now highlights the discovery of the fundamental discrepancy between high Financial Behavior (0.68 of 1) and low Financial Knowledge (0.29 of 1). We interpret this finding as adaptation mechanisms and family responsibility reinforcing prudent habits in a context of scarcity. This is a crucial analytical contribution that goes beyond the mere description of averages.
Instead of listing regression results sequentially (which generated repetition), subsequent paragraphs were dedicated to articulating the implications of each significant determinant with a theoretical reference framework: The positive influence of Financial Satisfaction is linked to Bandura’s concept of Self-Efficacy (1977), suggesting that satisfaction facilitates learning; The positive influence of Food Sufficiency is interpreted in light of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943), indicating that the satisfaction of physiological needs creates an environment conducive to advancing financial competence; The negative impact of Overdue Debts is associated with Cognitive Load, where financial stress consumes mental resources and impairs the capacity to apply knowledge.
The conclusions now translate these findings into specific recommendations for public policies, such as the need for integrated food security and financial education programs and the inclusion of components that promote small financial victories to increase confidence.
We believe the new wording of the Conclusion clearly demonstrates the study’s four main contributions (contextual novelty, analytical discrepancy, theoretical integration, and actionable implications), eliminating descriptive repetition and focusing on interpreting findings in the context of vulnerability.
Examples of paragraphs we added: “The present study performs the first empirical analysis of the determinants of financial literacy in this group. This unprecedented empirical base constitutes the main contribution of this work. This situation becomes particularly critical when considering that these women are frequently the main providers of their households through horticulture, while also belonging to a social group that is frequently neglected in one of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries.”
In the analysis of the three dimensions of financial literacy, we added: “we found a fundamental discrepancy that constitutes a key analytical contribution: financial attitude presented a moderate-to-low average score (0.44 out of 1), and financial knowledge showed a low score (0.29 out of 1), while financial behavior displayed comparatively higher levels (0.68 out of 1). This difference indicates that, in a context of vulnerability and resource scarcity, the practical experience of managing finances and family responsibility act as adaptation mechanisms, reinforcing prudent habits even in the absence of formal technical knowledge”.
Finally, among other excerpts, we added: “The multiple linear regression model, which examined the determinants of financial literacy, proved to be statistically significant (p=0.001; F=3.393), but showed limited explanatory power, with an Adjusted R² of 0.117. This low explained variance suggests that most of the factors influencing financial literacy in this population remain unexplained by the analyzed model.”

Comment 3: “Policy implications are generic (“improve financial literacy,” “support women”) and not actionable.”
Response 3: We recognize that public policy implications must be specific and actionable, not limited to generic recommendations. Therefore, we suggest integrating food security and financial education programs, linking support in the distribution of agricultural inputs to practical modules on production cycle management and input savings. Furthermore, in alignment with Cognitive Load theory, financial education should prioritize debt management, renegotiation, and payment planning components before introducing complex concepts. We also propose that programs promote "small financial victories" (budgeting, saving, debt repayment) to reinforce self-efficacy and women's engagement, creating a virtuous cycle.

Example of one of the included excerpts: “These findings point to important implications for social policies and educational programs that integrate food security and financial education initiatives. In contexts of vulnerability, where food insecurity is high (70.3%), such combined initiatives may prove particularly effective and actionable. This can be operationalized through strengthening the distribution of agricultural inputs (such as seeds and cultivation materials) linked to practical financial education modules, focusing on the management of the production cycle and saving inputs for the next season. Furthermore, supporting the organization of resources into local cooperatives is fundamental to ensuring greater income stability and better supply management”.

Comment 4: “No discussion of transferability or contextual limitations.”
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for raising the issue of transferability. Although the concept of transferability (external validity) is essential for quantitative methodology, we would like to clarify that the scope and main contribution of this work lie in the contextual specificity and the novelty of the empirical base for a highly vulnerable and never-before-studied population (women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau). Our position is that the manuscript already explicitly and detailedly addresses contextual limitations and transferability, according to the adopted design, requiring no additional modification to the text.

The manuscript includes a paragraph dedicated to limitations that unequivocally states that, as it is a descriptive study based on a survey and conducted in a "single locality (Pessubé Farm)," there are "limitations regarding the generalization of results to all women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau." Furthermore, the analysis of regression results emphasizes that findings "should be interpreted with caution and as context-specific." The discussion on the inadequacy of standardized questions (“Big Three”) reinforces that results are sensitive to the reality of low financial formalization. Finally, the Suggestions for Future Research section proposes conducting "longitudinal or experimental nature studies" in other vulnerable groups, aiming to "expand the transferability of findings beyond Pessubé Farm."

Comment 5: “Limitations section is incomplete: no mention of cross-sectional design, self-report bias, lack of representativeness, or measurement limitations.”

Response 5: We adjusted the Limitations section.

Cross-sectional design: The text already describes the temporal nature of the research, mentioning it is a "descriptive study, based on a survey strategy" and that collection was "conducted in a single locality." For greater methodological clarity, we ensured the term "cross-sectional design" is explicit in the body of the Conclusion text, emphasizing collection at a single moment (between January and February 2025).
Lack of representativeness/Generalization: This point was addressed in the text by stating that the study "presents limitations regarding the generalization of results to all women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau."
Measurement limitations: This is the most detailed part of the Limitations section. The text discusses the inadequacy of "Big Three" questions for the local reality, the high number of "don't know" answers, and the "gap between applied knowledge and measured knowledge," which may "underestimate real financial skills."
We added the following passage to mention the self-selection bias: “First, we highlight the presence of self-selection bias, since the sample in this study consisted exclusively of women who were willing to participate in the research”.
Added excerpts: “Because we conducted a descriptive study using a survey strategy and a cross-sectional design (with data collected at a single point in time, between January and February 2025) in a single location (Pessubé Farm), this work has limitations”.

Comment 6: “Tables are overly lengthy and contain excessive detail; many belong in an appendix.”

Response 6: We acknowledge that the tables are extensive; however, due to the large amount of data to be presented, they offer a more visual and organized way to understand the results. For this reason, we consider it important to keep them as an integral part of the text.

Comment 7: “Some tables repeat information described in the text.”
Response 7: To resolve this issue, and in total alignment with other recommendations for improving the analysis (especially review #7 of the Results Section: "Reduce descriptive reporting and focus on analytical interpretation; integrate theory more deeply"), Section 4 (Results and Discussion) was substantially revised:

The text accompanying these tables has been adjusted to eliminate the simple repetition of values. The discussion now focuses exclusively on the analytical interpretation of the most relevant or discrepant findings. For example, instead of listing all Financial Attitude averages, the text now focuses only on questions with the worst scores (1.5 and 1.6), immediately linking them to excessive concern and financial insecurity. Similarly, the discussion of the discrepancy between high behavior (0.68) and low attitude (0.44) is transformed into an analytical contribution reflecting the women's practical adaptation to resource scarcity.

Comment 8: “The regression table lacks confidence intervals.”

Response 8: To address this issue and increase the robustness of the statistical analysis, the manuscript was adjusted as follows:

The Regression Table was updated to include the 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) for all predictors in the regression model. The text of Section 4 (Results and Discussion) was adjusted to incorporate the analysis of these intervals.
For the three statistically relevant predictors (Financial Satisfaction, Overdue Debts, and Food Sufficiency), we cite the 95% CI to reinforce the significance and direction of their effects (e.g., confirming that the interval for Overdue Debts is entirely negative and that for Financial Satisfaction is strictly positive). Furthermore, for non-significant variables (Age, Marital Status, Dependents, Education, Government Aid, and Expense Control), we used the 95% CI to confirm the absence of an effect (by noting that the confidence interval for all these variables includes zero).

Comment 9: “No conceptual model figure is provided.”

Response 9: We would like to justify that the conceptual model figure was intentionally omitted due to formatting and space restrictions imposed by the journal. Nevertheless, the underlying theoretical model and hypothesized relationships are fully detailed and mapped in the body of the manuscript, ensuring methodological transparency. This complete description fulfills the function of the figure, since the Financial Literacy construct is explicitly defined as multidimensional, combining Financial Knowledge, Financial Behavior, and Financial Attitude. Furthermore, Section 2.2 provides the theoretical justification for the inclusion of all tested determinants, establishing the basis for the regression model. Finally, Table 1 (Synthesis of Hypotheses) functions as a complete map of the conceptual model. This table lists each determinant, the direction of its expected effect, and supporting references. We believe this concise synthesis supplies the need for a visual representation of the model and its propositions.

Comment 10: “In brief, the study claims novelty because the context is underexplored, not because the conceptual approach is new. There is no theoretical innovation. Contribution to financial literacy theory is minimal. Results are context-specific and may lack generalizability.”
Response 10: Dear Editor, we thank you for the observation and the opportunity to clarify the positioning and central objectives of our work. We acknowledge that the present study does not propose a new theoretical framework (conceptual approach) for financial literacy, a construct that is already widely accepted as multidimensional. However, we would like to emphasize that the empirical novelty and contextual analysis constitute the pillar of our contribution, aiming to generate insights that realign financial literacy theory with the reality of vulnerability. Our defense is structured on the following points:

The main contribution of the study is empirical in nature, providing the first empirical analysis of the determinants of financial literacy among women horticulturists in Guinea-Bissau. The central objective is to analyze this specific reality, a "little explored" context of high vulnerability, in a country "classified among the poorest and most vulnerable in the world." The conclusions were intentionally presented as "context-specific," not with the intention of generalizing, but rather to create a knowledge base where none existed.
Although the concept is not new, its application in a context of informality generates important knowledge for financial literacy theory, such as the measurement challenge, since this study demonstrated the inadequacy of standardized questions ("Big Three"), evidenced by the high number of "don't know" responses. This finding is a direct contribution to the theory of financial literacy measurement, suggesting that instruments developed in Western contexts underestimate real financial skills in contexts of low formalization.
The discovery of the discrepancy between high Financial Behavior (0.68) and low Financial Knowledge (0.29) suggests that, in contexts of scarcity and family responsibility (75.8% are providers), prudent financial behavior is a practical adaptation for survival, not an application of formal knowledge. This enriches the theory by exploring the dynamics of FL dimensions in informal environments.
The primary intention of the work is to open doors for future research in contexts of vulnerability. The Conclusions section explicitly suggests longitudinal and experimental studies to "expand the transferability of findings beyond Pessubé Farm," establishing a research agenda based on the most critical determinants identified.

We conclude that the study’s contribution lies in the in-depth contextual analysis and the knowledge generated by the critical application of theory in an unprecedented context, which is fundamental for the advancement of policies and financial literacy theory in contexts of vulnerability.

Respectfully,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Report – Second Round

Thank you for the authors’ substantial improvements to the manuscript. The second-round version demonstrates clear progress in theoretical framing, methodological explanation, and analytical interpretation. All major concerns raised in the first round have been addressed, and the manuscript is much stronger and more coherent. The remaining issues are relatively minor but necessary to ensure clarity, methodological rigor, and publication quality. Please address the following points in the final revision:

Tables 5–7 include full frequency distributions for every Likert category. These tables are lengthy and disrupt the manuscript's flow. Please move the detailed frequency tables to the appendix and keep only the summary statistics (mean, SD) in the main text.
A conceptual diagram summarizing the determinants and their hypothesized effects on financial literacy would greatly enhance clarity.
The policy recommendations remain somewhat generic. Please add 2–3 concrete, context-specific actions relevant to Guinea-Bissau, such as linking seed/input distribution programs to budgeting or savings workshops, integrating financial literacy training within horticulture cooperatives, community-led savings groups or market-based financial education. This will increase the practical value of the study.
The authors have included several important limitations (self-selection bias, limitations of the Big Three, cultural mismatch, need for adapted tools, future research directions). They also correctly mentioned the cross-sectional design and the single timepoint. However, several standard limitations are still missing:
- Self-report bias / social desirability bias (all measures are self-reported)
- Representativeness concerns (participation was voluntary, not random)
- Limited generalizability beyond Pessubé Farm (although Pessubé is mentioned, the limitation is not explicitly articulated)
- Single-location constraint (results may not apply to female horticulturists in other regions of Guinea-Bissau or West Africa)

Please add 1–2 short sentences covering these missing limitations to ensure methodological rigor. This ensures methodological transparency and aligns with best practices.

A light proofreading pass is recommended to correct a few long paragraphs, inconsistent table formatting, and small language redundancies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A final proofreading pass is recommended to correct occasional redundancies, improve sentence structure, and harmonize formatting across tables and subsections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to submit a new revised version of our manuscript and for your valuable suggestions aimed at improving it. We hope that this revised version meets the publication standards of the Journal of Risk and Financial Management. We remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Below are your suggestions and our responses. In addition, we have attached the manuscript as a Word document with tracked changes, followed by a clean version with all changes accepted.

Comment 1: “Tables 5–7 include full frequency distributions for every Likert category. These tables are lengthy and disrupt the manuscript's flow. Please move the detailed frequency tables to the appendix and keep only the summary statistics (mean, SD) in the main text.”
Response 1: To address this comment, we have performed the following revisions:

1. Tables Modified for Main Text: Tables 5 (Financial Attitude), 6 (Financial Behavior), and 7 (Financial Knowledge) in the main text have been streamlined to include only the summary statistics (mean, median, and standard deviation).

2. Data Moved to Appendix: The full, detailed frequency distributions for these three scales, which include the percentage statistics for every Likert category, have been successfully moved to the Appendix (Appendix A).

Detailed frequencies for the Financial Attitude Scale (Likert scale from 1 to 5) are now presented in Table A1 (Appendix A.1).

Detailed frequencies for the Financial Behavior Scale (Likert scale from 1 to 5) are now presented in Table A2 (Appendix A.2).

Detailed frequency distribution and valid percentages of correct/incorrect answers for the Financial Knowledge Scale are now presented in Table A3 (Appendix A.3).

3. Textual Adjustments: We have carefully revised the manuscript body, including all titles and captions for Tables 5, 6, and 7, to clearly indicate that only summary statistics are provided in the main text. Furthermore, all discussion paragraphs in the Results and Discussion section that analyze specific frequency data or percentages (such as the detailed responses to the Financial Knowledge items) have been updated to include explicit references to the new Appendix Tables (A1, A2, and A3), guiding the reader to the complete datasets.

Comment 2: “A conceptual diagram summarizing the determinants and their hypothesized effects on financial literacy would greatly enhance clarity.”
Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a conceptual diagram summarizing all determinants included in the analysis and their hypothesized effects on financial literacy. The diagram is now presented as Figure 1, and a brief introductory paragraph has been added to guide readers and clarify its role within the conceptual framework.

Comment 3: “The policy recommendations remain somewhat generic. Please add 2–3 concrete, context-specific actions relevant to Guinea-Bissau, such as linking seed/input distribution programs to budgeting or savings workshops, integrating financial literacy training within horticulture cooperatives, community-led savings groups or market-based financial education. This will increase the practical value of the study.”
Response 3: Thank you very much for this suggestion. Indeed, the inclusion of more concrete policy proposals will provide greater practical value to the study. With this in mind, and in order to address the recommendation appropriately, the following passages have been incorporated into the manuscript:

“This could be operationalized through the implementation of a medium-term training course with the women from the Pessubé farm and other farms in the region, focusing on agroecology, financial literacy, and sound money management. The course would be offered when they enroll in the seed distribution program, with the aim of enhancing their knowledge about cultivation and horticultural activities, as well as strengthening their control over finances so that these women are better prepared in case the harvest is impaired, sales are lower than expected, and similar adverse situations occur.”

“The implementation of a public policy could also be considered, such as improving access to credit for financing horticultural activities, with credit being granted only to those women who provide proof of completion of the financial literacy and responsible money management course. This would substantiate the outcomes of the knowledge acquired and would practically demonstrate the benefits that proper resource management can bring.”

“Moreover, the government could also establish an institution staffed with finance professionals to support these women by clarifying doubts regarding resource management, the responsible use of credit, and by assessing each worker’s current financial situation. By providing guidance and practical training in day-to-day financial practices, this initiative would demystify and increasingly concretize the correct and efficient management of resources.”

Comment 4: “The authors have included several important limitations (self-selection bias, limitations of the Big Three, cultural mismatch, need for adapted tools, future research directions). They also correctly mentioned the cross-sectional design and the single timepoint. However, several standard limitations are still missing:

Self-report bias / social desirability bias (all measures are self-reported)
Representativeness concerns (participation was voluntary, not random)
Limited generalizability beyond Pessubé Farm (although Pessubé is mentioned, the limitation is not explicitly articulated)
Single-location constraint (results may not apply to female horticulturists in other regions of Guinea-Bissau or West Africa)

Please add 1–2 short sentences covering these missing limitations to ensure methodological rigor. This ensures methodological transparency and aligns with best practices.”
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s guidance on strengthening the study's methodological rigor. We have added the suggested sentences to the Conclusions section (Section 5). The revised text now explicitly acknowledges the limitations regarding self-report measures and potential social desirability bias, as well as concerns regarding representativeness and generalizability stemming from the voluntary nature of participation and the single-location constraint.

Comment 5: A light proofreading pass is recommended to correct a few long paragraphs, inconsistent table formatting, and small language redundancies.
Response 5: We conducted a light proofreading pass to improve readability, including splitting overly long paragraphs, correcting minor inconsistencies, and removing redundant wording. No substantive changes were made. The formatting of tables has also been standardized to ensure consistency with the journal’s style.

Respectfully,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf