Evaluation of an International Cooperation Project for the Access to Education of Children and Adolescents in Rural Areas of Senegal: A Social Work Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes the evaluation of a program to increase access to and participation in education within rural communities in Senegal by designing a program to provide bicycles for students. It is a compelling and interesting project and a generally well-executed study, which was a pleasure to read. 
Several challenges that limit participation in primary education are initially described, which include - financial limitations; electricity and supply restrictions, cultural barriers and practices, and physical accessibility. The findings from the qualitative analyses reveal several benefits of the program that include financial benefits, increased participation in education, including across genders, a shift in the cultural acceptance of bicycles as transportation, and greater access to religious opportunities.  The manuscript thus describes an important and impactful program. It is also well-positioned within the contemporary literature, is well written and is a significant addition to the knowledge base. 
Some minor revisions would assist to improve the manuscript. The manuscript focuses on qualitative data collected through individual interviews, group interviews and focus groups, to identify impacts and benefits of the program. However, the study does have limitations, which are clearly acknowledged by the author(s), in scope of data collection and confirmation of qualitative data with quantitative data such as school attendance, retention, participation across genders, and so on.  Given these limitations, the ways in which the qualitative data were collected, analysed and interpreted could be articulated in greater detail, which may include additional figures or tables, to increase transparency and provide affirmation for the stated results. In addition, the conclusions are very long and read more like a summary of the entire paper. I understand the intention to discuss the project and its complexity in its entirety, but for the purposes of this specific research, more precision is required. 
Overall, I commend the author(s) on their work in the project and its evaluation. 
Specific comments, to assist the improvement of the manuscript, are provided below: 
1. Lines 35-36: should social work be capitalised?
2. Line 85: consider rewording for clarity
3. Introduction section: the research problem is well articulated, and contextualised within a detailed summary of the issues facing Senegalese education. However, consider whether all of the details around these issues are strictly relevant to this study, as opposed to the bicycle provision program more broadly. 
4. Cultural barriers are sparsely described. Since they are important to the findings, some more detail would be helpful here. 
5. Lines 229-232: It would be helpful to know where, and why, different approaches were taken. More information on the selection of interview approaches for each subset of participants would be useful, to confirm objectivity. 
6. Line 245: Do you mean to say 2 primary schools?
7. Line 250, Table 2: As per earlier comment - how were the approaches selected for different groups of participants? I recommend expanding this table to include such information, and adding justifications within the text. 
8. Line 257: More details of the content of the interview/focus group questions would be helpful. The analysis is described as deductive, suggesting that the questioning was ordered along pre-ordained themes. These need to be explicitly stated. 
9. Lines 259-260: Some discussion of how these themes were conceived is warranted, e.g. are they based on an analysis of the problem as discussed in the introduction, have they been used in other similar studies, etc? 
10. Lines 268-269: Again, great to state these outcomes but some details around how the themes were derived would be helpful. Could a content analysis summary be included as a table or figure? 
11. Line 281: Are there quantitative data to reinforce these findings? 
12. Line 327, Figure 1: this figure does not add much value to the discussion as it simply shows the gender distribution across schools. What would be more interesting is a breakdown of the proportions of boys and girls participating in the bicycle program, since that was a key finding described within the text (lines 303-304). 
Other aspects of the work, including the content analyses and derivation of key themes, could be strengthened with graphical or tabular representation.
13. Line 452, Section 3.5: much discussion about the importance of the increased mobility to continuity of religious practices, but no evidence is shown - citing a quote or other supporting evidence, that specifically speaks to the effects of the use of bicycles, is needed.
14. Lines 499-501: Agreed, these data are necessary and a full evaluation plan should be designed.
15. Line 532, Conclusions: Conclusions section is very long and reads more like a summary of the entire project and all the evaluation findings; refocusing it to be a concise discussion of overall findings and next steps would be more compelling.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

 

COMMENT:

This manuscript describes the evaluation of a program to increase access to and participation in education within rural communities in Senegal by designing a program to provide bicycles for students. It is a compelling and interesting project and a generally well-executed study, which was a pleasure to read.

Several challenges that limit participation in primary education are initially described, which include - financial limitations; electricity and supply restrictions, cultural barriers and practices, and physical accessibility. The findings from the qualitative analyses reveal several benefits of the program that include financial benefits, increased participation in education, including across genders, a shift in the cultural acceptance of bicycles as transportation, and greater access to religious opportunities.  The manuscript thus describes an important and impactful program. It is also well-positioned within the contemporary literature, is well written and is a significant addition to the knowledge base.

Some minor revisions would assist to improve the manuscript. The manuscript focuses on qualitative data collected through individual interviews, group interviews and focus groups, to identify impacts and benefits of the program. However, the study does have limitations, which are clearly acknowledged by the author(s), in scope of data collection and confirmation of qualitative data with quantitative data such as school attendance, retention, participation across genders, and so on.  Given these limitations, the ways in which the qualitative data were collected, analysed and interpreted could be articulated in greater detail, which may include additional figures or tables, to increase transparency and provide affirmation for the stated results. In addition, the conclusions are very long and read more like a summary of the entire paper. I understand the intention to discuss the project and its complexity in its entirety, but for the purposes of this specific research, more precision is required.

Overall, I commend the author(s) on their work in the project and its evaluation.

RESPONSE:

We sincerely appreciate the positive assessment of the manuscript and the recognition of the value of the project and its evaluation. We fully agree on the importance of improving methodological precision and conciseness in the conclusions. A new paragraph has been added to the methodology section to explain this limitation and justify the chosen approach. During the research process, the possibility of integrating quantitative data was actively considered. However, it became clear that the available records were scarce, unsystematic, and not sufficiently reliable to support a rigorous analysis. Therefore, we chose to focus the study on an in-depth qualitative approach, capable of capturing the complexity of the project and giving voice to the diversity of experiences within the educational communities. In addition, a specific recommendation has been included to improve the systematization of such data, with the aim of enabling future evaluations to incorporate complementary quantitative analyses that enrich and expand the findings.

 

COMMENT:

Specific comments, to assist the improvement of the manuscript, are provided below:

1. Lines 35-36: should social work be capitalised?
2. Line 85: consider rewording for clarity

RESPONSE:

Done

 

COMMENT:

3. Introduction section: the research problem is well articulated, and contextualised within a detailed summary of the issues facing Senegalese education. However, consider whether all of the details around these issues are strictly relevant to this study, as opposed to the bicycle provision program more broadly.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the comment regarding the length of the introductory section. We understand the concern about maintaining relevance and focus on the main object of the study—the evaluation of the ‘Bicycles for Education’ project. However, we would like to argue that all the elements developed in this section serve a substantive function within the scope of the article.

From a social work and critical international cooperation perspective, we consider it essential to offer a structural and contextualised view of the challenges facing the Senegalese education system. It is not just a matter of describing the environment, but of analysing the social, economic and cultural conditions that give meaning to the project and justify its existence, implementation and evaluation.

The sections on the education system, structural inequalities, public policies and territorial organisation provide an understanding of:

• Why mobility emerges as a central factor in educational exclusion or inclusion;
• How the project articulates with national and regional development strategies;
• And to what extent the bicycle programme can have a transformative impact beyond physical access to school, also affecting retention, gender equity and community development.

In addition, the article aims to contribute to the analysis of innovative international cooperation interventions in rural contexts in the global south, which requires placing the specific case within a broader framework.

Therefore, we consider that maintaining these elements is not only relevant but necessary to adequately ground the evaluation of the programme, its intervention logic and its potential for scalability.

 

COMMENT:

4. Cultural barriers are sparsely described. Since they are important to the findings, some more detail would be helpful here.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the comment regarding the description of cultural barriers. We understand that their presentation may seem fragmented, as they are not addressed in a single section but rather emerge throughout the chapter in relation to the different themes analyzed (such as participation, communication, trust, etc.). This approach reflects the contextual and multifaceted nature of the cultural barriers identified, which do not operate in isolation but are interwoven with other factors within the educational environment. Therefore, we believe that maintaining this distributed structure more accurately captures how these barriers manifest in practice and how they impact various dimensions of the project.

 

COMMENT:

5. Lines 229-232: It would be helpful to know where, and why, different approaches were taken. More information on the selection of interview approaches for each subset of participants would be useful, to confirm objectivity.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we have added a paragraph clarifying how the qualitative approach was applied in practice, detailing the use of different interview formats based on the participants' profile and context. This addition also highlights the use of triangulation to ensure the validity of the analysis.

 

COMMENT:

6. Line 245: Do you mean to say 2 primary schools?

RESPONSE:

Done

 

COMMENT:

7. Line 250, Table 2: As per earlier comment - how were the approaches selected for different groups of participants? I recommend expanding this table to include such information, and adding justifications within the text.

RESPONSE:

The selection of data collection techniques for each group of participants responded to both methodological and contextual criteria. In the case of the BSF team (Catalan and Senegalese), five individual interviews were conducted in order to obtain strategic and technical information about the project's design, objectives, and operational decisions.

For school management, teaching, and technical staff, a combination of individual and group interviews (9 participants) was employed to explore the implementation practices and coordination dynamics within the educational institutions participating in the programme.

With families (14 participants), focus groups were chosen as the most appropriate technique to capture shared perceptions and understand the social impact at the household level, allowing for a discussion of the implications of the programme on daily life and responsibilities.

For students (49 participants), focus groups enabled the collection of diverse experiences and challenges related to access to education, mobility, and use of the bicycles. This format fostered peer interaction and a more open expression of individual and collective views.

Finally, three individual interviews were conducted with other local actors (e.g., municipal representatives, community leaders), with the aim of gathering external perspectives and identifying relevant contextual factors that influence or interact with the intervention.

This selection of techniques allowed for triangulation of data sources and perspectives, increasing the depth and reliability of the analysis while adapting to the specific characteristics of each participant group.

 

COMMENT:

8. Line 257: More details of the content of the interview/focus group questions would be helpful. The analysis is described as deductive, suggesting that the questioning was ordered along pre-ordained themes. These need to be explicitly stated.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the need for more detail on the content addressed in the interviews and focus groups. In response, we have added a paragraph to the manuscript explaining the deductive structure of the analysis and outlining the thematic coding framework used, rather than including the literal questions. This categorization was developed based on the evaluation’s objectives and allowed for a clear and coherent organization of the information, while respecting the complexity of the context and the diversity of participants.

 

COMMENT:

9. Lines 259-260: Some discussion of how these themes were conceived is warranted, e.g. are they based on an analysis of the problem as discussed in the introduction, have they been used in other similar studies, etc?

RESPONSE:

We appreciate your comment, which has allowed us to clarify the rationale behind the category system used in the analysis of qualitative data. Indeed, the main categories (education system, perception and need, project evolution, and project benefits) were conceived based on a twofold approach:

On the one hand, they are derived from the analysis of the problem developed in the introduction, which identifies unequal access to education as a structural barrier linked to factors such as mobility, gender, socioeconomic conditions and community context. In this way, the categories allow us to empirically link the fieldwork data with the analytical framework presented above.

On the other hand, these categories are also inspired by previous studies on the evaluation of social and educational interventions in rural contexts (e.g., Rice & Girvin, 2021; Lenz & Shier, 2021; Oliveros-Romero & Aibinu, 2023), which recommend approaching evaluation from multiple dimensions—educational, social, economic, and community—to capture both immediate effects and long-term transformative changes. This system of categories was constructed deductively during the initial phase of the analysis and subsequently enriched with the results of the fieldwork. social, economic and community—to capture both immediate effects and long-term transformative changes.

This system of categories was constructed deductively during the initial phase of the analysis and subsequently enriched with emerging subcategories derived from the content of the interviews and focus groups, in line with the principles of qualitative content analysis (Bardin, 1996; Krippendorff, 1980).

 

COMMENT:

10. Lines 268-269: Again, great to state these outcomes but some details around how the themes were derived would be helpful. Could a content analysis summary be included as a table or figure?

RESPONSE:

We appreciate your suggestion, which we consider very relevant to improving the methodological transparency of the article. In the revised version, we have included a summary table of the content analysis process, showing how the themes were derived from the empirical material.

The initial coding was done deductively based on the theoretical framework and the analysis of the problem presented in the introduction. From this initial coding, recurring patterns were identified in the participants' accounts, which allowed us to construct a system of emerging subcategories. This procedure follows an iterative and reflective logic, typical of qualitative content analysis (Bardin, 1996; Krippendorff, 1980).

 

COMMENT:

11. Line 281: Are there quantitative data to reinforce these findings?

RESPONSE:

As clarified in the methodology section, there are no quantitative data supporting these findings. For this reason, one of the study's recommendations is to improve data systematization and collection so that future evaluations may include quantitative analysis to complement the qualitative approach.

 

COMMENT:

12. Line 327, Figure 1: this figure does not add much value to the discussion as it simply shows the gender distribution across schools. What would be more interesting is a breakdown of the proportions of boys and girls participating in the bicycle program, since that was a key finding described within the text (lines 303-304).

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding Figure 1. We understand the interest in providing a more detailed breakdown of boys’ and girls’ participation in the bicycle program. However, as previously noted in the manuscript, the available quantitative data are partial and lack the level of systematization required for a rigorous and reliable analysis. For this reason, we have chosen not to include such breakdowns, prioritizing the methodological coherence of the study.

 

COMMENT:

Other aspects of the work, including the content analyses and derivation of key themes, could be strengthened with graphical or tabular representation.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to use graphs or tables to strengthen the analysis. While we recognize the value of this approach, we believe that, given the complexity and richness of the qualitative content, such representations could overly simplify the findings. Therefore, we have chosen to maintain a narrative and contextualized presentation.

 

COMMENT:

13. Line 452, Section 3.5: much discussion about the importance of the increased mobility to continuity of religious practices, but no evidence is shown - citing a quote or other supporting evidence, that specifically speaks to the effects of the use of bicycles, is needed.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate your observation. In the revised version, we have included a direct quote obtained during fieldwork, which explicitly demonstrates the relationship between bicycle use and continuity of religious practices. This quote complements the analysis presented in section 3.5, providing a concrete voice from the Christian community that illustrates how improved mobility influences regular attendance at catechism and other spaces for spiritual formation.

 

COMMENT:

14. Lines 499-501: Agreed, these data are necessary and a full evaluation plan should be designed.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response, we have added a paragraph reinforcing the need to develop a more comprehensive evaluation plan, aligned with the project’s objectives and aimed at collecting systematic data to enable a deeper analysis of its impact.

 

COMMENT:

15. Line 532, Conclusions: Conclusions section is very long and reads more like a summary of the entire project and all the evaluation findings; refocusing it to be a concise discussion of overall findings and next steps would be more compelling.

RESPONSE:

Done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is an interesting read on how Bikes for Education have had an impact on rural communities in Senegal. 

There are several suggested revisions to make the paper more robust: 

• There needs to be greater clarity in the methodology, and how the data are used for presenting results. The methodology makes the claim that there will be both quantitative and qualitative data, however, there lacks clarity over how the quantitative data is generated and then used. The methodology must also be a clear differentiation between the methods used, particularly what a group interview involved vs what a focus group involved. How was it ensured that in the translation of interviews that meaning or nuances of language wasn't lost? Did the interviews also note the body language being used to help build meaning? 
• Stylistically, there are many small sections in the discussion and conclusions, make it more of a flowing narrative by merging similar sections 
• There are key terms that are used interchangeably but when used often carry slight nuances, e.g 'basic services' and 'essential services'. So, ensure terms are defined and consistently used. Similarly, on line 100 there is talk of 'access to education' when the sentence is more about 'participation in education'.
• Some of the claims in the results and discussion seem to be unsubstantiated, for example, line 275, the significant increase in attendance, provide a figure to support the change.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a need to proofread the work as there are some missing words, for example, line 9 after the word 'public' the word 'university' is missing. 

Ensure that the matter of discussion is clearly identified, as there are points where meaning can be lost. For example, line 31, who is 'they'?, or line 45, what is 'In this sense'?

Be careful of gender in your writing, for example, 3.3.1 starts to talk about 'she' and then goes on to talk about 'he'.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

 

COMMENT:

There needs to be greater clarity in the methodology, and how the data are used for presenting results. The methodology makes the claim that there will be both quantitative and qualitative data, however, there lacks clarity over how the quantitative data is generated and then used. The methodology must also be a clear differentiation between the methods used, particularly what a group interview involved vs what a focus group involved.

 

RESPONSE:

We appreciate your observation regarding the need for greater clarity in the methodology and the use of data. We would like to inform you that these issues have been addressed in our response to Reviewer 1, specifically in the Introduction and in points 5, 7, 8 and 12 of the revised manuscript. In these sections, we have clarified how the quantitative data were generated and used, as well as the methodological distinction between group interviews and focus groups, with the aim of providing greater rigor and clarity to the study's methodological approach.

 

COMMENT:

How was it ensured that in the translation of interviews that meaning or nuances of language wasn't lost? Did the interviews also note the body language being used to help build meaning?

RESPONSE:

Regarding the preservation of meaning during the translation of the interviews and the consideration of body language, as clarified in the revised manuscript, the interviews were conducted in French in order to collect the information directly, since the researchers spoke the language. However, when a family member did not speak French, a translator was present and translated each sentence individually to ensure accurate understanding. Furthermore, body language was also taken into account during the interviews to help construct meaning. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that there are cultural nuances and non-verbal communication cues that the researcher, being a foreigner with limited time in Senegal, may not have been fully able to access. This study does not aim to be an anthropological ethnography, but rather seeks to gather qualitative information within the framework of the research objectives.

 

COMMENT:

There are key terms that are used interchangeably but when used often carry slight nuances, e.g 'basic services' and 'essential services'. So, ensure terms are defined and consistently used. Similarly, on line 100 there is talk of 'access to education' when the sentence is more about 'participation in education'.

RESPONSE:

Done, thank you.

 

COMMENT:

Some of the claims in the results and discussion seem to be unsubstantiated, for example, line 275, the significant increase in attendance, provide a figure to support the change.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. In response, we have modified the wording to better reflect the nature of the evidence and avoid overstatement. The sentence now reads: "The findings suggest that the project has contributed to substantial improvements in school attendance and punctuality." This adjustment aligns with the qualitative nature of the study, which is based on participants’ narratives and perceptions rather than on quantitative measurement.

 

COMMENT:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a need to proofread the work as there are some missing words, for example, line 9 after the word 'public' the word 'university' is missing.

RESPONSE:

Ensure that the matter of discussion is clearly identified, as there are points where meaning can be lost. For example, line 31, who is 'they'?, or line 45, what is 'In this sense'?

Be careful of gender in your writing, for example, 3.3.1 starts to talk about 'she' and then goes on to talk about 'he'.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for the observation. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to correct missing words, clarify ambiguous references, and ensure consistency in the use of gender throughout the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this very interesting and valuable program evaluation study.

The article effectively reports the evaluation study of a unique international cooperation project that improves access to education, reduces gender inequalities and provides associated socio-economic and community benefits. The qualitative data collected via focus groups, and individual and group interviews is analysed using thematic coding and content analysis, resulting in four dimensions of impact.

The results indicate the broad-reaching benefits of the provision of the bicycles confirming the positive impact on children’s and young people's access to education, and positively contributing to community culture. Additionally, the bicycle program does not increase household running costs. The program demonstrates that bicycles are a viable means of transport contributing to mobility and change in those communities in Senegal. The authors provide a concise summary of recommendations and weaknesses of the study. They note that a lack of systematic and detailed data prevented a thorough analysis of the project's impact on students' academic performance and learning.

I have only a few queries for the authors’ consideration and have also marked these on the article PDF.

1. Please clarify the meaning of the Bao bikes.

Bao bikes – has 2 uses line 45, 172. Does this define a particular type of bike or is this a brand or maker of bicycles?

Considering e-bikes are now worldwide, could the authors clarify the bicycles in this study are all manually operated bicycles. (In the recommendation, would e-bikes be considered for use in Senegal in the future?)

2. Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1

Will “source: own elaboration” be changed to clear identification of data source when paper is changed to identify authors?

Results and Discussion.

3. The four dimensions of impact should be the subheading in this section with any other sub-subheading coming under each of these. There are two sections numbered 3.3 Sense of Danger and Economic Benefits.  The numbering needs to be adjusted.

4. Line 347 check pronoun agreement this should be “she”

5. Quoted participant codes. These are tagged on the PDF.

In the Results and Discussion, the codes in brackets after direct quotes from participants do not connect to any detail in the Tables, so the reader must deduce the connection. Perhaps this could be made clearer by adding a column to Table 2, using a simple 3-letter code from the group term and replacing the participant codes currently with the quotes with this 3 letter code.

6. References

• AUDA-NEPAD - Line 143 African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) has a reference. The weblink identifies the organisation but is not actually a cited reference.
• Banco Mundial is not cited in the article and should be removed from the Reference list.

• Peace and Development, 2020 is cited in lines 72, 88. It is not in the reference list.

   

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

 

COMMENT:

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this very interesting and valuable program evaluation study.

The article effectively reports the evaluation study of a unique international cooperation project that improves access to education, reduces gender inequalities and provides associated socio-economic and community benefits. The qualitative data collected via focus groups, and individual and group interviews is analysed using thematic coding and content analysis, resulting in four dimensions of impact.

The results indicate the broad-reaching benefits of the provision of the bicycles confirming the positive impact on children’s and young people's access to education, and positively contributing to community culture. Additionally, the bicycle program does not increase household running costs. The program demonstrates that bicycles are a viable means of transport contributing to mobility and change in those communities in Senegal. The authors provide a concise summary of recommendations and weaknesses of the study. They note that a lack of systematic and detailed data prevented a thorough analysis of the project's impact on students' academic performance and learning.

I have only a few queries for the authors’ consideration and have also marked these on the article PDF.

1. Please clarify the meaning of the Bao bikes.

Bao bikes – has 2 uses line 45, 172. Does this define a particular type of bike or is this a brand or maker of bicycles?

Considering e-bikes are now worldwide, could the authors clarify the bicycles in this study are all manually operated bicycles. (In the recommendation, would e-bikes be considered for use in Senegal in the future?)

RESPONSE:
BAOBIKES is the name given to the bicycles used in this cooperation project. Currently, all the bicycles provided are manual, as they are significantly cheaper than electric ones.

The main objective of the project is to facilitate access to education for all children by covering the entire cost of the bicycles. For this reason, it is not feasible to finance electric models. Furthermore, the use of electric bicycles would pose an additional difficulty, as there are not enough access points to the electricity grid to recharge them in the areas where the project is being implemented.

It is important to note that this initiative is being developed in contexts of high social and economic vulnerability, which reinforces the need for sustainable and accessible solutions.

 

COMMENT:

2. Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1

Will “source: own elaboration” be changed to clear identification of data source when paper is changed to identify authors?

 

RESPONSE:

We prefer to keep the source of Table 1, Table 2 and figure 1 unchanged, as it was prepared by the same authors who signed this publication.

 

COMMENT:

3. The four dimensions of impact should be the subheading in this section with any other sub-subheading coming under each of these. There are two sections numbered 3.3 Sense of Danger and Economic Benefits. The numbering needs to be adjusted.

RESPONSE:

Done

 

 

COMMENT:

4. Line 347 check pronoun agreement this should be “she”.

RESPONSE:

Done

 

COMMENT:

5. Quoted participant codes. These are tagged on the PDF.

In the Results and Discussion, the codes in brackets after direct quotes from participants do not connect to any detail in the Tables, so the reader must deduce the connection. Perhaps this could be made clearer by adding a column to Table 2, using a simple 3-letter code from the group term and replacing the participant codes currently with the quotes with this 3 letter code.

RESPONSE:

Done

 

COMMENT:

6. References

AUDA-NEPAD - Line 143 African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) has a reference. The weblink identifies the organisation but is not actually a cited reference.

Banco Mundial is not cited in the article and should be removed from the Reference list.

Peace and Development, 2020 is cited in lines 72, 88. It is not in the reference list.

RESPONSE:

We appreciate your comments regarding the references. We have corrected all three observations.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript, I believe that my comments have largely been addressed and that this article is now ready to be published.