Search results

The concept of smart village emerged in the European Union (EU) level policy debates on rural development in 2016, following the stakeholder-driven Cork 2.0 Declaration. It was developed through a pilot project initiative on ‘Smart, Eco, Social Villages’ and spelled out in the ‘EU Action for Smart Villages’ initiative.

While the concept of smart villages remains unclear for many, substantial work has been carried out to develop the concept and to prepare the underlying supporting instruments at the EU level over the last three years.

The aim of this chapter is to give an overview of how the concept of smart villages has evolved at the EU level and to draw some recommendations for future policy work. The chapter reveals difficulties in the utilization efficiency of the EU funds in rural areas and shows a patched landscape of fragmented policy instruments. The key arguments are that while the mixture of these tools is important, the glue that binds them together is still missing, and that the general utilization efficiency is not sufficient. The authors offer a set of five recommendations for the short to medium term, which is needed for the successful implementation of the smart approach: integration, simplification, communication, innovation, and ‘rural proofing.’

Over recent decades, rural areas have been facing significant challenges that exacerbate the existing discontent in their communities. These challenges are mostly reflected in depopulation trends, increased vulnerability to external shocks, and reduced quality of basic services. Local Action Groups (LAGs) all over Europe have been working on these challenges since the early 1990s. More recently, the smart villages concept is starting to generate enthusiasm among rural development stakeholders to try to revert these trends by supporting communities to move toward a more sustainable future while taking advantage of new emerging opportunities. This chapter demonstrates that the LEADER approach and its principles are also part of the smart villages concept. However, practical differences between the two emerge as a result of limitations imposed by restrictive LEADER regulatory frameworks in many member states. Our main argument is that LEADER has what is needed to be the main tool for driving smart villages in Europe as long as there is a policy framework in place that enables LEADER to exploit its full potential. This conclusion is grounded on the analysis of the role that LEADER played in a number of smart village initiatives across the EU.

Smart village is a new concept and it may be the key to the European rural future. To create an operative smart system for smart villages, it needs the participation of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In the smart villages concept local needs require real local solutions; a kind of ‘I can do this for you’ philosophy. SMEs, especially microenterprises or, even, self-employed individuals, have the potential and the capacity to develop local solutions to local problems and have the flexibility to think on a very microlevel. New ideas are needed for the smart villages, new solutions, and new perspectives. The potential of success is in the SMEs, indeed. Because it is not enough to create a system, it must be operated too. Small businesses can ensure the effective functioning of smart villages.

The idea of smart villages is about people. It is intended that the rural population should be able to use all modern technological tools and get closer to the services common in an urban environment. The question is how to make rural life attractive, especially for the young generations. To this end we need smooth connections by broadband Internet and enhanced potential for mobility. It is also a social and ecological project that is driven by public efforts assisted by larger budgetary means or in the case of the EU by a good coordination of the various development funds with broader rural development goals. However, we should not believe that SMEs operating in small settlements are to become more competitive than those in big business hubs. It is needed to acknowledge that matching urban/rural balances is a matter of financial solidarity; thus, we can keep our landscapes soundly populated and protected.

This chapter falls into two parts. The first offers a theoretical overview of three actor perspectives on issues of development intervention: (a) activity theory, (b) actor-network theory and (c) actor-oriented interface analysis. The second provides an illustrated discussion of the usefulness of actor perspectives for understanding the encounters that take place between ‘development experts’ (local and foreign) and so-called ‘beneficiaries’. The argument draws upon ethnographic data relating to issues of development interface, actor identities, networks and discourse.

The growth of tourism development in Malang makes some regions optimize their tourism potential, leading to economic growth in Indonesia. Malang regency has several tourism villages with the concept of sustainable tourism. Using leverage analysis from the multidimensional scaling approach (MDS), we find two sensitive attributes. An analytical hierarchy process (AHP) test was conducted, resulting in the best strategy for each tourism village: developing strawberry-picking tour for Pujon Kidul and new tourism packages related to water attraction for Sanankerto and developing Bromo volcano tourism package for Gubugklakah. These strategies are believed to increase the development of tourist villages without compromising their sustainability.

The Mexican government has been criticized for its implementation of neo-liberal economic policies that threaten to further impoverish indigenous populations. Given this, it is surprising that in 1997 some members of the Mixe people – one of the poorest indigenous groups in Mexico – condemned the implementation of a new government funding project that was specifically intended to alleviate hardship caused by free trade. The paper argues that objections to both free trade and the new funding program stem from the overarching problem the Mixe face, namely their systematic exclusion from decision-making processes and citizenship at the national level.