Rural Transportation Infrastructure in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of Impacts, Implications, and Interventions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of ” Rural Transportation Infrastructure in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of Impacts, Implications, and Interventions”

sustainability-1566005

The paper is an extensive bibliographic and synthesis work of literature published after 2014 on rural transportation infrastructure especially in low and middle-income countries. It comprehensively and throughly analyzes the relationships between the rural transportation infrastructure and its socio-economic benefits with an additional review of the implementation activities and  the impacts in the sector, including feeder roads, rural bridges, maintenance, and non-infrastructure approaches.

The main strengths of the paper are, in my opinion, the almost exhaustive coverage of the analysis-worthy aspects on the impact, implications and interventions in the sector under research, as well as 'future research recommendations' throughout the paper. It is noteworthy that almost each of these recommendations can be the starting point for other valuable and interesting research.

Consequently, we have identified only a few minor aspects that the authors could take into account:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I kindly suggest the insertion of referenced on the importance and implications of railway transportation for rural areas in low and middle-income countries.

Specific comments.

In section 3.3. Health Impact: A possible recommendation (table 3): Investigation of the debate between the construction of small-health care facilities and the construction of roads in support of access to healthcare for inhabitants of isolated rural areas.

            At Table 3: Summary of Policy and Governance Impact and Implications of Rural Access: 

- in the 2^nd line of the table, 3^rd column, Morocco might be missing as the data selected in the 4th column referred to this country. The same observation for the next line (Tanzania) and for Table 17: Summary of Maintenance- line 2- Paraguay, line 3- South Africa, line 4- Egypt.

Date of this review:

 14^th of January 2022

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focuses specifically on a review of rural transportation infrastructure and its many relationships to socio-economic benefits including economic and agricultural, policy and governance, health, gender, education, climate change and the environment, with an additional review of the implementation activities in the sector including feeder roads, rural bridges, maintenance, and non-infrastructure approaches.

Firstly, the paper gives a thorough look into the progress of the rural transportation sector in recent years by focusing on thematic relationships between infrastructure and other components of sustainable development, namely, economics and agriculture, policy and governance, health, gender, education, and climate change and the environment. Secondly, several strategies, approaches, and tools employed by governments and practitioners within the rural transport sector are analyzed and discussed for their contributions to the well-being of rural dwellers in low- and middle-income countries. These include feeder roads, bridges, maintenance, and non-infrastructural approaches that include concepts such as technological innovations, intermediate modes of transport (IMTs), and transport services.

The paper concludes that enhancement, improvement, and extension of rural transportation infrastructure brings significant benefits to rural dwellers. However, it is required the additional integration of the sector and increased usage of systems approaches that view rural transport as an active part of many other sectors and a key leverage point within rural development as a whole. Not least, the paper notes areas for future research and investigation, including within the relationship between rural transportation infrastructure and education, through improved data collection and management in support of improved policymaking, within improved prioritization of interventions and institutionalization of maintenance, and within concepts such as pro-poor transportation strategies and interventions.

In conclusion, I consider that the proposed paper is a valuable, comprehensive, and very well written work. I also notice that the paper is very well documented on the topic, the bibliography being comprehensive and relevant.

 the text and English language must checked, edited, and corrected before publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I read the wonderful review which you had prepared, it was quite a good effort, I must appreciate it. I am providing my opinion for betterment, please go through it and take it forward.

1. Can we provide some conclusion? I know its not mandatory but for a new reader, its mandatory.
2. I feel the review is too lengthy and I am 100% sure that you wont find a reader who has patience to read all this content in near future, including me if needed. Even if read, it provides only overall view but take home is less, this is my feeling after really reading the content few times.
3. No graphs or infographics, for a review article, this days authors go for graphical representation of multiple things, here author failed.
4. In abstract its given as "These include feeder roads, bridges, maintenance, and non-infrastructural approaches that include concepts such as technological innovations," is it innovation or intervention or I am confusing?
5. Is this "low to middle income" a p[roper keyword?
6. Line 13: Firstly, this  work gives a thorough look into the progress of the rural transportation sector in recent years: Where its mentioned?
7. Why Google scholar? Is it authentic literature search source, in my personal opinion, even I agree with Semantic scholar or Microsoft academic but not Google scholar, it contains lot of grey literature and papers that gives pseudo science. Why authors not even tried Scopus?
8. Line 57-61: How this keywords are arrived? Is it based on density? How it is arrived?
9. I suggest authors to use a tool wizdom.ai where you can get proper keywords for a research and then run, not for this article but later. 
10. Very lengthy tables, can some be converted into infographics, the essence is reading will be missing with too many and too lengthy tables, this is in readers perspective. Ex table 16,18
11. Table 1 : Title : Summary of Economics and Agriculture Impact of Rural Access:" summary of economical and impact on agriculture. Stop here.
12. In table 1 las column why only few countries covered, but in previous column many countries were listed.
13. Can we take table 4 to the last? Is it possible its future recommendation, a section may be introduced, its for thinking not mandatory.
14. Line 117-230 more information less interpretation please increase interpretation than throwing more information. Check 231-237, this is what needed, exactly. Between 230-231 I expect some connecting lines
15. Section 3.3 I do agree that health impacts are there but is it really improved by providing access, are there serious consequences? You had given only two references [8,9] check line 355
16. Section 4 title says "Review of Rural Transport Inventions, Strategies, and Approaches" but the section content covers something else, please check and optimize exactly to this content. Is it intervention or invention?
17. Line 661 says Intervention is it correct or invention?
18. Line 666 I had seen many such papers, even my department works fully on low volume road based inventions, please check.
19. I beg to differ with this section 4.2, there are bridges that exist everywhere, it become mandatory and its provided. Also, what we finalise with the word rural, it vary from country to country. Rural area in my country will never be rural in other country.
20. Section 4.1 Feeder roads ( GAP roads) are different from low volume roads in many sense and classification atleast in my country classification, check to change title. Definition is " smaller perpendicular roadway that fed into a grander one" are we talking about this as low volume roads?
21. Section 4 seems to be collection of information, rather authors may interpret, draw a table giving authors inputs with the literature they read.
22. Table 8 last column last row no reference mentioned, why?
23. Table 14 title : Future recommendations for feeder roads
24. Table 15 title, check and revamp
25. Table 18: Future research recommendations- Maintenance.
26. Can we include a proper conclusion in which authors cover important aspects a reader should understand in nutshell?

Please update these and resubmit for evaluation.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf