Search results

This is an elementary and yet important chapter. In this chapter, the most important hindrances to rural development have been identified and how they usually hinder development has been explained. Various forms of bias that adversely affect a rural development process, namely, spatial bias, person bias, elite bias, male bias, user and adopter bias, and active present and living biases have also been briefly discussed.

Smart villages are a currently discussed approach to rural development promoted by the European Union. This approach factors in the diversity of rural areas and the different nature of challenges faced by each area. The central role is assigned to local communities – formation of appropriate characteristics and attitudes that enable the creation of optimal conditions for development. This is also the result of the evolution of a Rural Development Policy, which is driven by the dynamics and direction of change of rural areas and changes in societal perception of change events in rural areas.

The implementation of this development approach at the local level requires a transformation of the current school of thinking on development and the utilization of available resources. The key role in this process is played by local governments, which are part of the local community and also represent its interests.

The chapter combines theoretical and practical issues, and represents a geographic perspective. Its first aim is to answer the question: How can local governments create the right conditions for smart development at the local level? The second aim is to discuss the smart village approach in the context of selected development concepts. This leads to a number of specific recommendations for policymakers. It also helps them to understand the approach, which is vital in the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations.

In any time and space and under any circumstance, we find peasants are never passive actors in their livelihoods and rural development. Instead, they always create space for manoeuvre in order to make changes. This chapter analyses the innovative actions taken by the majority of rural inhabitants in rural areas during the overwhelming modernization process, so as to affirm that peasants are the main actors of rural development. It is they who have shaped the transformation of rural societies and the history. Through the analysis, this chapter concludes that rural development is not an objective, a blueprint nor a design. It is not the to-be-developed rear field in modernization. It is not the babysitter for cities, nor a rehearsal place for bureaucrats to testify their random thoughts. Rural development is what peasants do. The path they have chosen reveals scenery so different from modernization. If we regard development as a social change, or a cross with influential meanings, we could understand rural development as peasants’ victories over their predicament. Villages accommodate not only peasants, but without peasants villages would surely vanish. In this sense, the most important part in rural development or rural change is peasants – their conditions and their feelings.

Comparing rural development with agricultural modernisation, there are fundamental differences. Industrial development of agriculture more and more segregates agriculture from other functions and is based on an ‘individualised transaction model’ in which the world consists of loose particles that are linked by markets (atomistic world view). Conversely rural development can be perceived as a form of re-socialisation of agriculture and is based on a ‘relational cooperation model’ in which new relations characterise business development.

This chapter is a second level type of analysis of many research findings of these common traits or features and gives a picture of the distinctiveness of rural development practices. Nine different features that characterize rural development practices are described and discussed: (1) novelty production, (2) relative autonomy, (3) synergy, (4) clashes and competing claims, (5) coalitions and new relations; the construction of rural webs, (6) common pool resources, (7) new division of labour, (8) the distinctive different impact and (9) resilience. The more these features are present and intertwined, the better the specific practice can face and withstand adverse conditions. These features and the associated practices have to be understood as part of a wider transitional process that might co-evolve with or run counter to competing transitional processes.

Towns and cities across Canada face rapidly changing economic circumstances and many are turning to a variety of strategies, including tourism, to provide stability in their communities. Community Economic Development (CED) has become an accepted form of economic development, with recognition that such planning benefits from a more holistic approach and community participation. However, much of why particular strategies are chosen, what process the community undertakes to implement those choices and how success is measured is not fully understood. Furthermore, CED lacks a developed theoretical basis from which to examine these questions. By investigating communities that have chosen to develop their tourism potential through the use of murals, these various themes can be explored. There are three purposes to this research: (1) to acquire an understanding of the “how” and the “why” behind the adoption and diffusion of mural-based tourism as a CED strategy in rural communities; (2) to contribute to the emerging theory of CED by linking together theories of rural geography, rural change and sustainability, and rural tourism; and (3) to contribute to the development of a framework for evaluating the potential and success of tourism development within a CED process.

Two levels of data collection and analysis were employed in this research. Initially, a survey of Canadian provincial tourism guides was conducted to determine the number of communities in Canada that market themselves as having a mural-based tourism attraction (N=32). A survey was sent to these communities, resulting in 31 responses suitable for descriptive statistical analysis, using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). A case study analysis of the 6 Saskatchewan communities was conducted through in-depth, in person interviews with 40 participants. These interviews were subsequently analyzed utilizing a combined Grounded Theory (GT) and Content Analysis approach.

The surveys indicated that mural development spread within a relatively short time period across Canada from Chemainus, British Columbia. Although tourism is often the reason behind mural development, increasing community spirit and beautification were also cited. This research demonstrates that the reasons this choice is made and the successful outcome of that choice is often dependent upon factors related to community size, proximity to larger populations and the economic (re)stability of existing industry. Analysis also determined that theories of institutional thickness, governance, embeddedness and conceptualizations of leadership provide a body of literature that offers an opportunity to theorize the process and outcomes of CED in rural places while at the same time aiding our understanding of the relationship between tourism and its possible contribution to rural sustainability within a Canadian context. Finally, this research revealed that both the CED process undertaken and the measurement of success are dependent upon the desired outcomes of mural development. Furthermore, particular attributes of rural places play a critical role in how CED is understood, defined and carried out, and how successes, both tangible and intangible, are measured.

This chapter in its first part analyzes the Leader approach in terms of concept, constituent elements, application, and its contribution to rural development and rural entrepreneurship. In the continuation of the text, authors analyze the application of this approach in Serbia, looking at the activities of the ministry in charge and the views of local action groups (LAGs)’ managers on this matter. The aim of this chapter is to present the results and problems Serbia has seen so far in the implementation of the Leader approach for development of rural areas on a local level. The results indicate that the lack of systemic and continuous state support resulting, among other things, in the lack of a financial portfolio for the LAGs, is the main cause of low local entrepreneurial initiatives and projects implemented within the Leader approach. Future steps in the implementation of this approach in Serbia will depend on financial support for the LAGs from all levels of government, as well as from the possibility of using funds within the EU pre-accession assistance for rural development. Also, it will be necessary to launch larger innovative and entrepreneurial initiatives both by LAGs’ managers and all stakeholders involved in local rural development.

European policy has had over time two main features: welfare state and democracy. Both issues have defined the model of development in Europe and have led to the European integration project. This model of development and continental integration based on the principles of democracy, freedom and solidarity has proven to work. But, nowadays challenges like globalisation or European enlargement require new instruments to promote and enhance this model.

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.

This chapter aims to contextualize smart rural development in Slovenia. It does so by presenting the current state of the art, addressing new interdisciplinary approaches in understanding the problems of rural areas, applying new approaches to smart rural development, and introducing a new concept.

We start our chapter by addressing the main problems of Slovenian rural areas and their inhabitants. We have made a review of initiatives and practices elsewhere and therefore here they are only summarized briefly to emphasize the most important achievements/improvements. Further, the chapter describes the state of the art in Slovenia in connection with smart and sustainable rural development, and analyzes the results contextually. It looks at the solutions and practices that local communities found to answer the existing challenges. Three promising examples are presented, related to different sectors: tourism, mobility, and innovation. The last part of the chapter contextualizes our findings and further explains our approach to smart rural development. Finally, the chapter introduces a new concept – that is, Smart Fab Village. The concept of Fab Village is built upon the concept designed for urban areas and then carefully adapted to the needs and specific requirements of rural areas.

The aim of this chapter is to challenge the assumption that top-down approaches to economic development and growth are the best way forward for rural areas. Looking at the work of the current LEADER programme and LEADER project examples, the chapter measures the impacts of small-scale, bottom-up approaches to foster rural development. It considers the importance of the LEADER approach as a key component of the current rural policy framework.

The chapter provides a discussion of top-down versus neo-endogenous approaches to rural growth, drawing on policy and practitioner literature. Four case studies from the current LEADER programme are used to demonstrate how the LEADER approach brings about growth at a local level, and how this can be measured using a Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach.

LEADER, as a programme, can deliver sustainable and effective economic growth through a series of small-scale interventions by stimulating entrepreneurial activity in the context of neo-endogenous growth. This forms a useful complementary strand to the top-down policy of major sectoral interventions profiled in this chapter in the context of current England-wide policy approaches to economic development. The SROI approach provides an effective tool for capturing the longer term effects of LEADER.

Considering the broader SROI and sustainable credentials of LEADER-stimulated business development provides a new and more robust means of both communicating the achievements of the programme and a rationale for giving it greater prominence.

The chapter establishes a new place-based approach to considering the wider impact of LEADER projects through an SROI approach. The insights help provide new insights into the contribution of this programme to economic development in rural communities.