BACKGROUND 1 1.1 | The condition Context: In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz Michela Wrong describeswalking down the overgrown disused railway which years before had been part of a network linking DRC's copper mines to ports in Angola and South Africa. Despite new investments in the last decade-the Benguela Railway link from DRC to Angola reopened in 2018 after being closed for 34 years 2 -Africa's rail system is small compared to that in other parts of the world, and a substantial part of what there is not used (Bullock, 2009). The poor state of railway transport in Africa-and the unrealised potential of inland waterways-puts excess pressure on the fragile road transport system, so that transport costs-which are increased by uncompetitive practices-are a break on African development.While much of Africa is an extreme case, inadequate transport infrastructure is an issue across much of the developing world.There are great disparities in the quantity and quality of infrastructure. European countries such as Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK have close to 200 km of road per 100 km 2 , and the Netherlands over 300 km per 100 km 2 . By contrast, Kenya and Indonesia have <30, Laos and Morocco <20, Tanzania and Bolivia <10, and Mauritania only 1 km per 100 km 2 . 3 As these figures show, there is a significant backlog of transport infrastructure investment in both rural and urban areas, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (Foster & Bricenõ-Garmendia, 2010). The situation is often exacerbated by weak governance and an inadequate regulatory framework with poor enforcement which lead to high costs and defective construction.The wellbeing of many poor people is constrained by lack of transport, which is called "transport poverty." Lucas et al. (2016) suggest that up to 90% of the world's population are transport poor when defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: (1) lack of available suitable transport, (2) lack of transport to necessary destinations, (3) cost of necessary transport puts household below income poverty line, (4) excessive travel time, or (5) travel conditions unsafe or unhealthy.

There are great disparities in the quantity and quality of transport infrastructure. Differences in access to investment are often exacerbated by weak governance and an inadequate regulatory framework with poor enforcement which lead to high costs and defective construction. The wellbeing of many poor people is constrained by lack of transport, which is called ‘transport poverty’. This evidence and gap map identifies, maps and describes existing evidence on the effects of transport sector interventions related to all means of transport (roads, paths, cycle lanes, bridges, railways, ports, shipping, and inland waterways, and air transport).

Background There are great disparities in the quantity and quality of infrastructure. European countries such as Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK have close to 200 km of road per 100 km2, and the Netherlands over 300 km per 100 km2. By contrast, Kenya and Indonesia have <30, Laos and Morocco <20, Tanzania and Bolivia <10, and Mauritania only 1 km per 100 km2. As these figures show, there is a significant backlog of transport infrastructure investment in both rural and urban areas, especially in sub‐Saharan Africa. This situation is often exacerbated by weak governance and an inadequate regulatory framework with poor enforcement which lead to high costs and defective construction. The wellbeing of many poor people is constrained by lack of transport, which is called “transport poverty”. Lucas et al. suggest that up to 90% of the world's population are transport poor when defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: (1) lack of available suitable transport, (2) lack of transport to necessary destinations, (3) cost of necessary transport puts household below the income poverty line, (4) excessive travel time, or (5) unsafe or unhealthy travel conditions. Objectives The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to identify, map, and describe existing evidence from studies reporting the quantitative effects of transport sector interventions related to all means of transport (roads, rail, trams and monorail, ports, shipping, and inland waterways, and air transport). Methods The intervention framework of this EGM reframes Berg et al's three categories (infrastructure, prices, and regulations) broadly as infrastructure, incentives, and institutions as subcategories for each intervention category which are each mode of transport (road, rail trams and monorail, ports, shipping, and inlands waterways, and air transport). This EGM identifies the area where intervention studies have been conducted as well as the current gaps in the evidence base. This EGM includes ongoing and completed impact evaluations and systematic reviews (SRs) of the effectiveness of transport sector interventions. This is a map of effectiveness studies (impact evaluations). The impact evaluations include experimental designs, nonexperimental designs, and regression designs. We have not included the before versus after studies and qualitative studies in this map. The search strategies included both academic and grey literature search on organisational websites, bibliographic searches and hand search of journals. An EGM is a table or matrix which provides a visual presentation of the evidence in a particular sector or a subsector. The map is presented as a matrix in which rows are intervention categories (e.g., roads) and subcategories (e.g., infrastructure) and the column outcome domains (e.g., environment) and subcategories as (e.g., air quality). Each cell contains studies of the corresponding intervention for the relevant outcome, with links to the available studies. Included studies were coded according to the interve...

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: the primary objective of this review is to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to promote climate‐smart agriculture to enhance agricultural outcomes and resilience of women farmers in low‐and‐middle‐income countries (research question 1). The secondary objective is to examine evidence along the causal pathway from access to interventions to promote climate‐smart agriculture to empowering women so that they can use climate‐smart technology. And such outcomes include knowledge sharing, agency improvement, resource access and decision‐making (research question 2).

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The review will address the following research questions: (1) What are the long‐ and short‐term effects of wilderness therapy and adventure learning on anti‐social behaviour and violent and other offending behaviour? What factors explain any heterogeneity (i.e., moderate) these effects. What are the long‐ and short‐term effects of wilderness therapy and adventure learning on intermediate mental health and behaviour outcomes such as social skills and self‐regulation? What factors explain any heterogeneity (i.e., moderate) these effects? Factors such as setting (indoor/outdoor), quality of relationship with counsellors and the degree of the challenge element involved are important moderators of these effects, and help explain any observed heterogeneity across studies (2) What are the barriers and facilitators affecting the successful implementation of wilderness therapy and adventure learning programmes? (3) Are wilderness therapy and adventure learning interventions cost effective?