https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5331-6496
Abstract
LEADER has been an outstanding example, within the European normative institutional model, of progress towards territorial governance. The application of this policy has been organised through local action groups (LAGs). This study aims to develop the analysis of the existing relationship between rural development and territorial governance by looking at the usefulness of digitalisation processes in providing access to the information available in these LAGs.
The paper will attempt to measure digital governance with the DGOVERNANCE_LAG tool to evaluate digital access to the information provided by the groups. There will be an analysis of the information openly available online offered by the 251 LAGs in Spain. This information will be scrutinised using a methodology composed of 21 indicators. The results obtained display an average of 50.33%, being very high in the relationships between the groups and their citizens but showing that internal modernisation still needs to be improved and oriented towards the handling of resources and the development of elements that encourage the decision-making process.
Public Interest Statement
Do villages have access to the Internet? Has the rural population been digitalised? Even though city dwellers think it impossible, there still exists a great digital divide between the countryside and the city. The aim of this article is to measure digital governance, that is, to evaluate the digital access to the information available on websites provided for local inhabitants by those responsible for managing the rural environment (Local Action Groups).
Digital technologies and the expansion of the Internet are crucial to the consolidation of democracy, transparency and public participation. In spite of the majority of the local action groups (LAGs) in Spain having made an effort to communicate public information to local inhabitants, they have not yet achieved high levels of success. It is not only a question of doing things better, but also of communicating how and why these things are being done, so that local inhabitants know what is happening and can participate.
1. Introduction
Link Between Rural Economic Development Activities (LEADER)Footnote1 was created in 1991 as a methodology based on the autonomy and responsibility of the rural population for its own development. Many authors have analysed its evolution (Convery, Soane, Dutson, & Shaw, Citation2010; Gkartzios & Scott, Citation2014; Kovách, Citation2000; Ray, Citation2000), the progress is made in relation to its institutional capacity (Annibal, Liddle, & McElwee, Citation2013) and the evaluation of its management (Díaz-Puente, Montero, & de Los Ríos Carmenado, Citation2009; High & Nemes, Citation2007), in this way increasing awareness of and interest in rural development (Teilmann, Citation2012).
LEADER, as a rural development and territorial governance strategy, is an adaptation of structures and processes to new social requirements, within the European Union (EU) being an example of the principles that have defined its normative institutional model, through the opening up of the decision-making process, the responsibility, the efficiency and the coherence of European institutions (European Commission, Citation2001). To these can be added other new principles: participation, transparency and the search for a consensus on a spatial model (Angeon & Lardon, Citation2008; Fernández-Tabales, Foronda-Robles, Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, & García-López, Citation2017; OECD, Citation2006; Pina, Torres, & Royo, Citation2010; Tovey, Citation2008). Within the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), LEADER represents the recognition of the absolute need for a channel through which full advantage can be taken of the possibilities offered by the non-statutory organisations that exist in rural areas (Ray, Citation2000), as well as an opportunity to diversify the economy of these areas through innovation.
LEADER is also the reflection of an endogenous focus that responds to territorial challenges (Bosworth et al., Citation2016) that fall within two main concepts: taking decision making to the territory itself (Navarro, Woods, & Cejudo, Citation2015)—the principle of subsidiarity—; and activating the mechanisms of public and private representation—the principle of association (Aagaard-Thuesen, Citation2010). Both concepts appear to be driven by social actors (Lopolito, Sisto, Barbuto, & Da Re, Citation2015), in an intervention of a multisectorial nature that ensures complementarity in rural areas (Gallent, Juntti, Kidd, & Shaw, Citation2008) and the empowering of the local community (Storey, Citation1999). The means employed by this policy have access to information (Scott, Citation2004), participation (Böcher, Citation2008), territorial trust (Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, Foronda-Robles, & García-López, Citation2014; Pisani, Franceschetti, Secco, & Da Re, Citation2014) and collaborative networks (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, Citation2012; Kovách, Citation2000; Pappalardo, Marquardt, & Pecorino, Citation2014), as well as other tools of social capital (Nardone, Sisto, & Lopolito, Citation2010; Yamaoka, Tomosho, Mizoguchi, & Sugiura, Citation2008).
The application of this policy is organised through local action groups (LAGs), which have two roles, one as a conduit for development funds and the other as a provider of structure for rural development policy (Andersson & Kovách, Citation2010). This type of entity is very closely associated with organisational efficiency (Yagüe, De Nicolas, & Martínez, Citation2013) and the ability to decentralise (Parker, Citation1995). Its structure took control away from state institutions and provided a forum for public participation (Navarro et al., Citation2015). However, there is a dichotomy that is expressed in the opinions of different authors, between elitist LAGs (Aagaard-Thuesen, Citation2010; Böcher, Citation2008; Sørensen & Torfing, Citation2007) and inclusive LAGs (Davies, Citation2007; Shortall, Citation2008).
In terms of (local) governance, the introduction of technological applications implies a transformation in institutional and community culture (Muñoz-Cañavate & Hípola, Citation2011; Reddick & Aikins, Citation2012), in that they offer the possibility of participating in the management of local affairs. Due to the problems existing in rural areas, the EU (European Commission, Citation1997) has already given importance to examining how information and communication technology (ICT) can facilitate the implementation of rural development strategies, a reduction in distances to decision-making centres, an increase in access to information, and support for both the availability of services and training in the use of new technologies (Chapman & Slaymaker, Citation2002). Telecommuting has been one of the most important examples of the new opportunities available in rural areas (Grimes, Citation2000). The EU has already published the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, Citation2010a), in which is included the Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission, Citation2010b).
It is patently obvious that the Internet could be used as a tool for improving democratic processes (Arabatzis, Andreopoulou, Koutroumanidis, & Manos, Citation2010; Archer, Citation2005; Nugroho, Citation2010). Public administration websites and social network activity are key tools for the dissemination of information coming from the public sector (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, Citation2012; Picazo-Vela, Gutiérrez-Martínez, & Luna-Reyes, Citation2012; Yildiz, Citation2007), this being particularly true in the context of the different forms of e-government (Banas, Citation2010; Choudrie, Weerakkody, & Jones, Citation2005). These electronic strategies are factors that have a direct impact on the satisfaction and trust of the general public (Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, Citation2005)
The current scientific literature also includes the concepts of resilience (Ashmore, Farrington, & Skerratt, Citation2017; Roberts, Anderson, Skerratt, & Farrington, Citation2017) and digital inclusion (Mariën, Heyman, Salemink, & Van Audenhove, Citation2016; Philip, Cottrill, Farrington, Williams, & Ashmore, Citation2017) in the studies that explore inequality in rural development associated with digital policy (Salemink, Strijker, & Bosworth, Citation2017).
This paper aims to offer a deeper understanding of the existing relationship between rural development and territorial governance in terms of how digitalisation processes are used to access information, focusing on the case of LAGs. This topic is new and challenging in the context of the current scientific literature on LAGs (Arora-Jonsson, Citation2017; Hoffmann & Hoffmann, Citation2018; Pisani & Christoforou, Citation2017; Pollermann, Raue, & Schnaut, Citation2017; Sisto, Lopolito, & van Vliet, Citation2018; Talò, Citation2017), the EU documents concerning LAGsFootnote2 and the documents drafted by LAGs across the EU (European Commission, Citation2018; European Economic and Social Committee, Citation2017a, Citation2017b; European Network for Rural Development, Citation2014, Citation2016). The research into digital governance and information technologies in a rural context must be continued from this moment and into the future.
The proposed objective is to design indicators that allow the measurement of the territorial governance achieved by LAGs. They will be used as an instrument for the evaluation of the digital access to information that LAGs provide for the citizens living in their territories and the contribution of this digital access to rural development. This objective will be pursued through the use of a digital governance index (DGOVERNANCE_LAG), which is a model for the statistical integration of variables related to contact with the general public, institutional and organisational information, and financial references. This index will be applied to all of the LAGs in Spain. Furthermore, the approach presented here can be used as a tool for monitoring the success of LAGs’ rural development actions in the framework of the European CAP.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Instruments
The EU’s determination to achieve sustainable growth, improve competitiveness and optimise expenditure, in a context of fiscal restrictions, has given rise to important policy changes. One consequence of these changes is Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013,Footnote3 in which are laid down the rules relating to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) for the period 2014–2020, among which can be found the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (Fésüs, Citation2014). In Article 4 of the EAFRD’s own Regulation (EU) Nº 1305/2013Footnote4 are laid out the rural development measures that should be financed, which include the following: encourage competitiveness in agriculture; guarantee the sustainable management of natural resources and climate change; and achieve the balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities, this including the creation and preservation of employment.
The use of LAGs as a variable to work in the accomplishment of these EAFRD objectives is justified in different reviews (Ottomano Palmisano et al., Citation2016; Volk & Bojnec, Citation2014). In the same vein, the analysis of indicators for the study of LAGs is a reference that is supported by solid arguments and is defined from different perspectives, from general evaluations of the LEADER programme (Lopolito et al., Citation2015) to specific evaluations of certain actors, such as the role played by agricultural entrepreneurs (Delin, Citation2012).
This study proposes an analysis of LAGs that is based on the presence or absence of certain common features, established in predefined variables, which are found on their websites. These variables specifically consist of 21 indicators (Table ) that describe the characteristics of each site (Arabatzis et al., Citation2010) in relation to its digital capability to improve results in and be accountable for rural development policies, and thus promote an improvement in territorial governance processes.
Contact with citizens (CONTACT_LAG): This core is composed of eight indicators, beginning with Communication channels (CC): Email (01_CC) and the opportunities offered by this Internet service (Jones & Woolley, Citation2014); Web form (02_CC), which allows data to be introduced in an intuitive way (Bon et al., Citation2013); Suggestion box (03_CC), containing suggestions from citizens (Colombo, Citation2010); Intranet (04_CC), only for those who have been registered in the system (Huang, Luo, & Zou, Citation2013); and News section (05_CC). In Social networks (SN) and active online participation are included the following indicators (Lundgren & Johansson, Citation2017): Facebook (06_SN) profile (Svensson, Citation2015); Twitter (07_SN) account (Wang, Kuzmickaja, Stol, Abrahamsson, & Fitzgerald, Citation2014); and YouTube (08_SN), where users upload and share LAG videos (Susarla, Oh, & Tan, Citation2012).
Institutional and organisational information (INFO_LAG): There are seven indicators that examine aspects relative to the group’s operation and management rules: Aims (01_STN) and objectives of the LAG (Huang et al., Citation2013); Statutes (02_STN) or legal document, where the interests of the group’s members are represented, its strategies are established, and its decision-making process is laid out (Cristóvão & Baptista, Citation2012). There is also Management information (MNG): General assembly/Members (03_MNG), as a reflection of the actors implicated in the territorial reality (Lester & Reckhow, Citation2013); Governing board (04_MNG), which is legally responsible for the group and its activities (Aagaard-Thuesen, Citation2010); and finally, Technical team (05_MNG), which manages the implementation of European funds (Fałkowski, Citation2013; Spilanis, Kizos, & Giordano, Citation2016). Cooperation networks (COO), which are promoted by the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD), and the LAGs’ capacity for collaboration must also be included, with national Interterritorial (06_COO) networks established by the groups (Furmankiewicz, Janc, & Macken-Walsh, Citation2016), and Transnational (07_COO) networks, which contribute to policy coordination between groups from different countries (Zeemering, Citation2014).
Financial references (FIN_LAG): In this section, the following components are included: The Identification/Title (01_PRJ) assigned to the project; Investment (02_PRJ) and Grant (03_PRJ), which give details of the help given. There are also Ranking criteria (04_PRJ) and the coherence of the selection process of candidates for operations, together with a definition of the selection criteria; for this purpose, from the LAG websites should be taken the rules laid down to establish and evaluate merits, solvency and if the admission criteria are met, among others (Dudley & Wegrich, Citation2016). Finally, there are the References for transparency in management (TRY): Economic report (05_TRY), which provides information on progress towards specific goals (Pascoe et al., Citation2016) with the publication of the annual accounts; and Offer of employment (06_TRY), managed by the group with the local search carried out by the applicants (Lutgen & Van der Linden, Citation2015).
Table 1. Indicators grouped by core and subcore
2.2. Participants
The total number of LAGs, according to the information provided by the ENRD Contact Point website (European Commission, Citation2017), is 2,530 for the period 2014–2020, these LAGs representing 162 million people in the EU out of a total number of over 500 million. In Spain, 12.4 million inhabitants out of a census of 46.3 million (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente/Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment [MAPAMA], Citation2017) are represented by 251 LAGs in the current network, as compared to 264 in the period 2007–2013.
The current European legislation laid down in Article 32.2.b of Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013 states that public authorities must not represent more than 49% of the voting rights in decisions made by LAGs. Additionally, Article 34.1 indicates that the groups will conceive and put into practice Community-led Local Development (CLLD). This aspect is highlighted in the Cork 2.0 Declaration A Better Life in Rural Areas (European Commission, Citation2016), in which is put forward the need to link governance and rural development through an improvement in administrative capacity and the efficiency of the groups.
The development of Spanish legislation has had its prime regulation with Law 45/2007 for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas,Footnote5 which established specific support programmes for local rural development initiatives (Article 20.f), in-line with the LEADER methodology and the Board of Rural Development Programmes (Mesa de Asociaciones de Desarrollo Rural), which is a body that offers information about, consultation of and participation in different rural associations (Article 40).
2.3. Data collection
The study intends to compile evidence that is relevant to the digital governance and ICT evaluation process, always on the condition that the data are objectively verifiable through the LAG websites (Nardone et al., Citation2010), first of all by means of a standardised evaluation technique, using semi-quantitative data concerning the existence of websites, web addresses and digitalised information online, followed by an analysis to examine the presence or absence of common features (Arabatzis et al., Citation2010).
This examination is composed of items on a dichotomous scale, and there is an evaluation of whether or not the required information is available: the verification process awards a score of 1 if the information has been published on the website, and also when the information exists but can only be accessed by members with a password conversely, a score of 0 is awarded if the information section has not been published, cannot be accessed efficiently or lacks content.
The review dates for the LAG websites are taken from two searches. The first was carried out between April and October 2015, which was the final period of the previous phase, before the CLLD programming process began. The second, which was much more fruitful, was carried out between July and November 2016, during the CLLD programming process.
The case study is comprised of all 251 Spanish LAGs, of which 96.8% are operational online. It was not possible to gather information from eight groups (one in Andalusia, one in Castile-Leon, one in the Canary Islands, one in Catalonia, three in Galicia and one in the Basque Country),Footnote6 due to their websites not being available during the review periods, this being for several reasons, most specifically because some groups are managed by other groups due to administrative irregularities, or because they are managed by the regional government itself. Consequently, the percentages in the Results section are based on the information gathered from 243 LAGs. The representation of these LAGs is not equivalent to the NUT 3 scale of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics developed and regulated by the EU, which corresponds to Spanish provinces, as LAGs are of a smaller size that is equivalent to Spanish districts. The LAGs are listed in Appendix A, with a reference number assigned to each one so that it can be found more easily (in the Results section the reference numbers are placed in parentheses). Also, reference is made to the average percentage achieved in each autonomous community (equivalent to the NUT 2 scale) to provide a more homogenous view of the existing spatial relationships.
Table 2. Percentages achieved by indicators in the CONTACT_LAG core
Table 3. Percentages achieved by indicators in the INFO_LAG core
Table 4. Percentages achieved by indicators in the FIN_LAG core
Table 5. Percentages achieved by indicators in the D-GOVERNANCE index
2.4. Data analysis
To contextualise the data, it is necessary to highlight how ICTs are used in rural areas in Spain. In rural households, their use has grown, even if there does still exists a digital divide between rural and urban areas that can be attributed to inaccessibility or a lack of technological knowledge. The average percentage of households with Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) coverage of less than 2 Mbps in areas with more than 10,000 inhabitants is 91.06, compared with 72.61 in areas with less than that number. However, if the coverage is increased to 10 Mbps, the territorial differences are more marked, with 72.22% compared with 56.95%, using the same demographic division (Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism [MINETAD], Citation2016). These levels of digital accessibility imply a validation of the study carried out by MINETAD and highlight the distance that still needs to be covered to reach the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, Citation2010a) and the Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission, Citation2014). Along the same lines, there is the CORA projectFootnote7 (Connecting Remote Areas with digital infrastructure and services), developed by the German agency Atene KOM, which takes on the challenges presented by the development of broadband and digitalisation in rural areas as part of an EU integration strategy.
Using the methodology developed in the current study, once the two searches have been accepted, partial indices are calculated for each core (CONTACT_LAG, INFO_LAG and FIN_LAG), and subsequently the digital governance index (DGOVERNANCE_LAG) is calculated, this being determined by the summation of the partial indices and represented as a percentage of the total number of indicator items.
The results obtained are classified at four different levels (Carpio, Citation2015), according to the percentage reached, with graduations appearing after achieving at least 50% of the indicators: Very Advanced (over 90%), Advanced (70–89%), Intermediate (50–69%) and Limited (less than 50%).
3. Results
The Contact with citizens (CONTACT_LAG) that the LAGs have is fundamental, since they are part of the social and administrative landscape. The average for this indicator in Spain is 48.54%. The potential of the CONTACT_LAG core, which has not yet been fulfilled, is based on the chance offered by social networks to exchange opinions, experiences and knowledge. In this way, these social networks imply a transformation in the behaviour of LAGs, with citizens becoming part of the rural development agenda (Table ).
Email (01_CC) addresses are the most frequently used Internet service (96.59%). At the other end of the scale, the Intranet (04_CC) for technicians or members is less frequently used (22.17%). There exists a range of services that are designed to facilitate the participation of citizens in public life, including Web forms (02_CC) and News section (05_CC), the latter reaching 89.47%.
Social networks are having an impact on communication and institutional management in rural areas vis-à-vis more traditional means of communication. Social network relationships have become omnipresent, in particular on Facebook (06_SN), with 52.07%, and on Twitter (07_SN), with 39.84%. This appearance of 2.0 Internet applications has allowed LAGs to interact and collaborate in virtual communities, which tend to spread beyond their district boundaries, in terms of both use and impact. Tables –
In general, LAGs have had to adapt to the rise of technology. Map shows how only 1.23% of LAGs reach the Very Advanced level. Litoral de la Janda (1103) in Andalusia, Sierra de Montánchez y Tamuja (1007) in Extremadura, and Alto Narcea Muniellos (3301) in Asturias have the highest score within this band. The second level, Advanced, contains 17.28% of the LAGs. The number of groups increases at the Intermediate level, with 41.56%, and finally, the Limited level contains 39.92%. If greater territorial homogeneity were sought, using the average value of the groups by autonomous community as a reference, no autonomous community would appear until these last two levels, with seven achieving Intermediate values and two of these from northern peninsular Spain (Navarre and Cantabria) achieving the most outstanding results.
Institutional and organisational information (INFO_LAG) has an average of 51.41% (Table ). In Information on standards (STN), Aims (01_STN) are disseminated more than Statutes (02_STN). In Management information (MNG), the dominant information is that regarding General assembly/Members (03_MNG), this being a body with a limited decision-making capacity; these assemblies have a tripartite structure—with political, social and economic actors—although on occasion they are dominated or monopolised by statutory actors. Information concerning the Governing board (04_MNG), the body with true power, is disseminated to a lesser degree, and in last place are the Technical teams (05_MNG). Totally, 67.76% of the LAGs include information on joint Interterritorial (06_COO) cooperation projects on their websites, while Transnational (07_COO) networks are given little coverage.
In the review on a district scale (Map ), nine LAGs achieve the Very Advanced level and account for 3.70% of the total number: Calatayud y Comarca del Aranda (5502) and Tierras del Jiloca y Gallocanta (4402) in Aragon; Sierra Oeste (2805) in Madrid; Valle de Alcudia (1301) and Tierras de Libertad (1303) in Castile-La Mancha; Alpujarra-Sierra Nevada de Almería (402), Sierra de Cazorla (2301), Sierra de Segura (2306) and Guadajoz y Campiña Este de Córdoba (1402) in Andalusia. The homogenisation of the average results by autonomous community highlights La Rioja at the Advanced level, and at the Intermediate level appear the following nine, the two most outstanding once again being from northern peninsular Spain (Aragon and Cantabria). The successful cases are due to the LAGs focusing their efforts on the establishment of links and synergies between different sectoral projects, paying attention to their strategy, and facilitating participative processes. The manager’s responsibilities should be centred around the following areas: real control of project development; the completion of rural development projects; the creation of and support for projects involving interregional collaboration; and the monitoring and evaluation of the regional development strategy.
Totally, 30.04% of the LAGs are at the Advanced level, 21.40% are at the Intermediate level and 44.86% have less than half of the indicators. These results show how necessary territorial governance is to satisfy the demands of local development, along with the efficient organisation and management of the LAG.
The Financial references (FIN_LAG) core includes information about the level of economic and financial transparency that the LAGs are able to achieve through their websites. The average of these indicators for Spain is 51.25% (Table ). In Project references (PRJ), the outstanding indicator is the Identification/Title (01_PRJ) of the financed projects, with the rest achieving a similar average. In contrast, in References for transparency in management (TRY), there is greater disparity between Offer of employment (06_TRY) on the website, with a value of over 50%, and the presence of the Economic report (05_TRY), with a low number of results.
The main rural business objective is to access aid programmes that make possible the maintenance, expansion or creation of new economic activities in the district. The following nine LAGs (3.70%)—on Map —achieve the highest representation: Almanzora (401) in Andalusia; Somontano (2202) and Cuencas Mineras (4403) in Aragon; Montés Norte (1306), SACAM (203) and Sierra y Mancha Conquense (1603) in Castile-La Mancha; Nordeste de Segovia (4001) in Castile-Leon; Valle de los Pasiegos (3905) in Cantabria; and Tentudía (605) in Extremadura. The LAGs are divided between 20.99% represented at the Advanced level, 24.69% at the Intermediate level and 50.62% at the Limited level. In terms of autonomous communities, northern peninsular Spain stands out yet again, with Cantabria achieving the highest percentage and falling in the Advanced level, being followed by seven autonomous communities at the Intermediate level. The majority of the LAGs consider that their main function must be to provide support and services for the beneficiaries of a project, by implementing programmes and looking for additional finance, both local and external.
Finally, the digital governance index (DGOVERNANCE_LAG) achieves an average of 50.33% and is thus placed at the Intermediate level (Table ). The implementation of digital governance aims to simplify and improve the relationships between the groups and their citizens. However, the LAGs are in the process of adapting to the new more inclusive form of public administration, and there is still room for improvement in the process of internal modernisation, which is based on the search for efficiency (the handling of resources) and the development of certain aspects of public participation (the decision-making process).
A review of the distribution of the index reveals a reality in which none of the groups can be placed at the Very Advanced level (Map ). The Advanced level is reached by Litoral de La Janda (1103) in Andalusia, and Tierras del Jiloca y Gallocanta (4402) in Aragon, with both achieving 85.71% of the indicators. Other significant groups, this time with 80.95%, are the following: Alpujarra-Sierra Nevada Almeriense (402), Alcornocales (1101), Campiña de Jerez (1102), Poniente Granadino (1806) and Aljarafe-Doñana (4103) in Andalusia; Júcar-Centro (204), Monte Ibérico (205), Tierras de Libertad (1303) and Campo de Calatrava (1305) in Castile-La Mancha; and Bajo Martín y Andorra-Sierra de Arcos (4401) in Aragon. The analysis of the autonomous communities shows that the most outstanding again fall in the Intermediate level, with Cantabria and Aragon achieving the highest percentages of the nine communities in this band.
It is shown that even though the autonomous communities in southern peninsular Spain stand out prominently for their individual LAGs, both in the subcores and/or in the final index values, with Castile-La Mancha having seven outstanding groups and Andalusia, remarkably, 12 (the latter having the highest number of groups, which is 52), it is in northern peninsular Spain that the average percentages by autonomous community are higher, with La Rioja, Navarre, Aragon and especially Cantabria playing a prominent role, the latter achieving outstanding results in all of the cores and in the final index value.
4. Conclusion
This paper achieves the stated objective of analysing the use of digital means by LEADER LAGs in the communication process with others, in particular with the people who live in the area for which the LAG is responsible. This use of these means has been possible because LEADER has been a substitute for hierarchical intervention, although traditional types of top-down policy continue to dominate EU rural strategy in terms of financial flow.
According to the latest EU legislation, rural development policy should be adapted to the Community-led Local Development (CLLD) approach, in which territorial governance is increasingly accepted for the promotion of rural development, since it attempts to break down the boundaries between those in charge of carrying out interventions and the potential beneficiaries, in this way shaping new social networks.
In this context, access to both information and participation plays a fundamental role in territorial governance and is vital for the sustainability of the development processes. Digital technologies and the spread of the Internet have been decisive in the renewal and strengthening of citizens’ rights, in the search for higher levels of transparency, in greater active participation in territorial management, and in the close collaboration between the administration and society. Consequently, “smart villages” are implementing innovative measures to improve both services and infrastructures.
It could be said that after 25 years of the implementation of LEADER, rural areas in Europe now have access to a consolidated network of institutions and actors involved in the territorial focus of local development.
The LAGs have been largely responsible for the strategic planning of a rural territorial nature and have grown into the role of spokesperson when the different administrations have been involved. However, the institutional processes that support these groups as instruments of territorial governance have been criticised for a certain lack of representativity.
It is important to keep moving forward with new approaches that incorporate the territories’ learning capacity so that digital governance can be achieved, since digital constructions and participative learning allow rural society to make decisions. For this reason, DGOVERNANCE_LAG has been designed and explained, and its pertinence in evaluating the role of LAGs in digital governance has been justified. This index has been successfully applied to the case of Spain and has proved to be viable in the study of real examples, although a complementary qualitative (or semi-quantitative) analysis of the information harnessed would allow greater insight into the real progress and usefulness of the rural digitalisation process.
The main limitation in carrying out the research and the application of the DGOVERNANCE_LAG index has been the existence of information gaps in the LAGs under study due to its’ not always being possible to access available and/or updated sources in all cases. In the future, it will be essential to identify both this and other obstacles before trying out new tools and solutions that facilitate digital development in rural areas.
The justification of LAGs’ Internet activity not only needs to be more efficient but the how and why of their creation must also be explained. It could be said that LAGs are the pillar of social capital in rural territories, in that they bring the key actors in the territory together, foster the development of networks between them and generate a cohesion that leads to a greater commitment among the entire collective of key actors. The DGOVERNANCE_LAG index will help rural managers in Spain to develop a series of tools or a guide with which to improve the processes of territorial governance and can be replicated by LAGs across the EU since it is flexible and applicable.
Map 1. CONTACT_LAG core by LAGs in Spain
Map 2. INFO_LAG core by LAGs in Spain
Map 3. FIN_LAG by LAGs in Spain
Map 4. DGOVERNANCE_LAG index by LAGs in Spain
Cover Image
Source:
Legislation
EUROPEAN
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320–469.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013) OJ L 200, 26.7.2016, p. 140–150.
Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487–548. OJ L 130, 19.5.2016, p. 1–5.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013).
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Community Led Local Development (CLLD) as a tool of Cohesion Policy 2014–20 for local, rural, urban and peri-urban development” (exploratory opinion at the request of the Greek Council presidency) OJ C 230, 14.7.2015, p. 1–8.
SPANISH
Ley 45/2007, de 13 de diciembre, para el desarrollo sostenible del medio rural [Law 45/2007 of 23 December for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas].
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga
Dr Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga is Associate Professor in the Department of Human Geography at the Universidad de Sevilla. He has a close and extensive relationship with territorial development strategies. Special mention should be made of his publications in JCR-indexed journals, such as Ecological Indicators (Elsevier) and Social Indicators Research (Springer). He also has experience in the application of technological tools to territory. He currently holds the post of Director of Academic Planning for the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Concepción Foronda-Robles
Dr Concepción Foronda-Robles is Associate Professor in the Department of Human Geography at the Universidad de Sevilla. Her scientific record focuses on rural development, the planning and sustainable management of tourism destinations and the building of social capital. She has been an on-going member of R&D research projects since 2003. Her contributions to research include papers published in high-impact journals (JCR) that are positioned in Q1.
Notes
1. Liaison Entre Activités de Développement de l’Économie Rural.
2. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Community Led Local Development (CLLD) as a tool of Cohesion Policy 2014–20 for local, rural, urban and peri-urban development’ (exploratory opinion at the request of the Greek Council presidency). OJ C 230, 14.7.2015, p. 1–8.
3. Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320–469.
4. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487–548. OJ L 130, 19.5.2016, p. 1–5.
5. Ley 45/2007, de 13 de diciembre, para el desarrollo sostenible del medio rural [Law 45/2007 of 23 December for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas].
6. GDR Costa Noroeste (Andalusia), Asociación para el desarrollo endógeno en la zona centro de Valladolid (Castile-Leon), GDR Occidental (Canary Islands), Alt Urgell—Cerdanya (Catalonia), GDR Terras de Lugo, GDR Valdeorras and GDR-17 (Galicia), and Mendinet Arkaute (Basque Country).
7. The CORA project stimulates digital infrastructure, services and skills in rural areas co-financed by the Interreg North Sea Region Programme. http://www.northsearegion.eu/cora/.
Related Research Data
References
- Aagaard-Thuesen, A. (2010). Is LEADER elitist or inclusive? Composition of Danish LAG boards in the 2007–2013 rural development and fisheries programmes. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(1), 31–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00500.x
- Andersson, K., & Kovách, I. (2010). LAGging behind or LEADER in local democracy? An assessment of LEADER-type development projects as a tool for democratic integration in the contested countryside (3/2010 SSKH Notat–SSKH Reports and Discussion Papers). p. 34. Retrieved from http://sockom.helsinki.fi/info/notat/notat_1003.pdf
- Angeon, V., & Lardon, S. (2008). Participation and governance in territorial development projects: The ‘territory game’ as a local project Leadership system. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(2–4), 262–281. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2008.026505
- Annibal, I., Liddle, J., & McElwee, G. (2013). Animating ‘bottom-up’ sustainable strategies in village settings. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 33(11–12), 742–761. doi:10.1108/IJSSP-03-2013-0036
- Arabatzis, G., Andreopoulou, Z., Koutroumanidis, T., & Manos, B. (2010). E-government for rural development: Classifying and ranking content characteristics of development agencies websites. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 11(3), 1138–1149.
- Archer, N. P. (2005). An overview of the change management process in eGovernment. International Journal of Electronic Business, 3(1), 68–87. doi:10.1504/IJEB.2005.006389
- Arora-Jonsson, S. (2017). The realm of freedom in new rural governance: Micro-politics of democracy in Sweden. Geoforum, 79, 58–69. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.12.010
- Ashmore, F. H., Farrington, J. H., & Skerratt, S. (2017). Community-led broadband in rural digital infrastructure development: Implications for resilience. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 408–425. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.09.004
- Banas, P. A. (2010). International ideal and local practice–Access to environmental information and local government in Poland. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(1), 44–56. doi:10.1002/eet.528
- Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2012). Promoting transparency and accountability through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e-government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 78–91. doi:10.1108/17506161211214831
- Böcher, M. (2008). Regional governance and rural development in Germany: The implementation of LEADER+. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(4), 372–388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00468.x
- Bon, A., de Boer, V., Gyan, N. B., van Aart, C., De Leenheer, P., Tuyp, W., & Tangara, A. (2013). Use case and requirements analysis in a remote rural context in mali. In International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (pp. 331–346). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_24
- Bosworth, G., Rizzo, F., Marquardt, D., Strijker, D., Haartsen, T., & Aagaard-Thuesen, A. (2016). Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives. Innovation: the European Journal of Social Science Research, 29(4), 442–461. doi:10.1080/13511610.2016.1176555
- Carpio, L. G. T. (2015). Cointegration to estimate long-term electricity prices in periods of rationing: The case of the brazilian hydrothermal system. Electric Power Systems Research, 121, 351–356. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2014.11.022
- Chapman, R., & Slaymaker, T. (2002). ICTs and rural development: Review of the literature, current interventions and opportunities for action (pp. 1–36). Eldis Programme, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
- Choudrie, J., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2005). Realising e-government in the UK: Rural and urban challenges. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 568–585. doi:10.1108/17410390510624016
- Colombo, C. (2010). e-Participation experiences and local government in Catalonia: An explanatory analysis. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 82–94). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15158-3_7
- Convery, I., Soane, I., Dutson, T., & Shaw, H. (2010). Mainstreaming LEADER delivery of the RDR in Cumbria: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(4), 370–391. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00519.x
- Cristóvão, A., & Baptista, A. (2012). Local development associations: A study of their nature, missions and organizational challenges. Spanish Journal of Rural Development, 3(1), 39–52. doi:10.5261/2012.GEN1.03
- Davies, J. S. (2007). The limits of partnership: An exit-action strategy for local democratic inclusion. Political Studies, 55(4), 779–800. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00677.x
- Delin, M. (2012). The role of farmers in Local Action Groups: The case of the national network of the Local Action Groups in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics, 58(9), 433–442.
- Díaz-Puente, J. M., Montero, A. C., & de Los Ríos Carmenado, I. (2009). Empowering communities through evaluation: Some lessons from rural Spain. Community Development Journal, 44(1), 53–67. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsm008
- Dudley, S. E., & Wegrich, K. (2016). The role of transparency in regulatory governance: Comparing US and EU regulatory systems. Journal of Risk Research, 19(9), 1141–1157. doi:10.1080/13669877.2015.1071868
- Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011
- European Commission. (1997). Building the European information society for us all (Final policy report of the high-level expert group). Luxembourg.
- European Commission. (2001). White Paper on European Governance, Brussels, COM (2001, 428). Retrieved October 24, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/governance/white_paper/en.pdf
- European Commission. (2010a). Europe 2020 – A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Brussels. p. 37. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_es.htm
- European Commission. (2010b). A digital agenda for Europe (pp. 42). Brussels. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF
- European Commission. (2014). The EU explained: Digital agenda for Europe. http://europa.eu/pol/index_en.htm
- European Commission. (2016). Cork 2.0 declaration ‘a better life in rural areas’. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/cork-20-and-future-rural-development_en
- European Commission. (2017). Agriculture rural development. Leader+. Contact Point. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/about_en
- European Commission. (2018). Evaluating CLLD. Handbook for LAGs and FLAGs. FAME (Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation). Retrieved from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/sites/farnet/files/publication/en_farnetguide15fsu.pdf
- European Economic and Social Committee. (2017a). EU public consultations in the digital age: Enhancing the role of the EESC and civil society organisations. Author. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-07-17-001-en-n.pdf
- European Economic and Social Committee. (2017b). The future evolution of civil society in the European Union by 2030. CNVOS Centre for Information Service Co-operation and Development of NGOs. Retrieved from https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-04-17-886-en-n.pdf
- European Network for Rural Development. (2014). Community-led local development for local actors. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/guidance_clld_local_actors_en.pdf
- European Network for Rural Development. (2016). Rural responses to challenges in Europe (EU Rural Review 21). Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/publi-enrd-rr-21-2016-en.pdf
- Fałkowski, J. (2013). Political accountability and governance in rural areas: Some evidence from the pilot programme LEADER+ in Poland. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 70–79. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.04.00
- Fernández-Tabales, A., Foronda-Robles, C., Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L., & García-López, A. (2017). Developing a system of territorial governance indicators for tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–31. doi:10.1080/09669582.2016.1260136
- Fésüs, G. (2014). Reforming policies for regional development: The European perspective. Business & Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1), 57–62.
- Furmankiewicz, M., Janc, K., & Macken-Walsh, Á. (2016). The impact of eu governance and rural development policy on the development of the third sector in rural poland: A nation-wide analysis. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 225-234. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.011
- Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L., Foronda-Robles, C., & García-López, A. (2014). The value of trust: An analysis of social capital in natural areas. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 673–694. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0427-3
- Gallent, N., Juntti, M., Kidd, S., & Shaw, D. (2008). Introduction to rural planning, natural and built environment series. London/New York: Routledge.
- Gkartzios, M., & Scott, M. (2014). Placing housing in rural development: Exogenous, endogenous and neo-endogenous approaches. Sociologia Ruralis, 54(3), 241–265. doi:10.1111/soru.12030
- Grimes, S. (2000). Rural areas in the information society: Diminishing distance or increasing learning capacity? Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 13–21. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00027-3
- High, C., & Nemes, G. (2007). Social learning in LEADER: Exogenous, endogenous and hybrid evaluation in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 103–119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00430.x
- Hoffmann, R., & Hoffmann, N. (2018). The leader programme as an impulse for new projects in rural areas. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(2), 141–150. doi:10.2478/quageo-2018-0014
- Huang, L., Luo, Q., & Zou, C. (2013). A framework of new rural e-government and the related information resources integration. International Journal of U-And e-Service, Science and Technology, 6(6), 83–96. doi:10.14257/ijunesst.2013.6.6.09
- Jones, A., & Woolley, J. (2014). The email-diary: A promising research tool for the 21st century? Qualitative Research, 31, 1–17. doi:10.1177/1468794114561347
- Kovách, I. (2000). LEADER, a new social order, and the Central and East-European countries. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2), 181–189. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00140
- Lester, T. W., & Reckhow, S. (2013). Network governance and regional equity: Shared agendas or problematic partners? Planning Theory, 12(2), 115–138. doi:10.1177/1473095212455189
- Lopolito, A., Sisto, R., Barbuto, A., & Da Re, R. (2015). What is the impact of LEADER on the local social resources? Some insights on Local Action Group’s aggregative role. Rivista di Economia Agraria, 70(1), 55–75. doi:10.13128/REA-16977
- Lundgren, A. S., & Johansson, A. (2017). Digital rurality: Producing the countryside in online struggles for rural survival. Journal of Rural Studies, 51, 73–82. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.001
- Lutgen, V., & Van der Linden, B. (2015). Regional equilibrium unemployment theory at the age of the Internet. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 53, 50–67. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2015.04.004
- MAPAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente/Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment). (2017). Desarrollo Rural. Programas de Desarrollo Rural Cofinanciados por la UE. Periodo de Programación 2014–2020. Programas de Desarrollo Rural (PDR). Retrieved from http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/programas-ue/periodo-2014-2020/programas-de-desarrollo-rural/
- Mariën, I., Heyman, R., Salemink, K., & Van Audenhove, L. (2016). Digital by default. Consequences, casualties and coping strategies. In J. Servaes & T. Oyedemi (Eds.), Social inequalities, media and communication: Theory and roots, lexington books digital by default: Consequences, casualties and coping strategies..
- MINETAD (Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism). (2016). Broadband coverage in Spain in the first quarter of 2016. http://www.minetad.gob.es/telecomunicaciones/banda-ancha/cobertura/Documents/Cobertura-BA-1Trimestre2016.pdf
- Muñoz-Cañavate, A., & Hípola, P. (2011). Electronic administration in Spain: From its beginnings to the present. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 74–90. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.008
- Nardone, G., Sisto, R., & Lopolito, A. (2010). Social capital in the LEADER initiative: A methodological approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), 63–72. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.09.001
- Navarro, F. A., Woods, M., & Cejudo, E. (2015). The LEADER initiative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom‐up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), 270–288. doi:10.1111/soru.12079
- Nugroho, Y. (2010). NGOs, the Internet and sustainable rural development: The case of Indonesia. Information, Communication & Society, 13(1), 88–120. doi:10.1080/13691180902992939
- OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: Author. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/thenewruralparadigmpoliciesandgovernance.htm
- Ottomano Palmisano, G., Govindan, K., Boggia, A., Loisi, R. V., De Boni, A., & Roma, R. (2016). Local Action Groups and rural sustainable development. A spatial multiple criteria approach for efficient territorial planning. Land Use Policy, 59, 12–26. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.002
- Pappalardo, G., Marquardt, D., & Pecorino, B. (2014). Assessing social relationships within Local Action Groups: A worthwhile tool for measuring lags’ effectiveness. Experiences from two Sicilian leader lags. In: B. de Gennaro & G. Nardone (eds.), Sustainability of the agri-food system: Strategies and Performances. Proceedings of the 50th SIDEA Conference. Lecce: Chiostro dei Domenicani. 2013, September 26–28. Retrieved from www.sidea.org/Lecce_2013_files/Atti%20Sidea_EBOOK.pdf
- Parker, A. N. (1995). Decentralization: The way forward for rural development? (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1475). pp. 1–52.
- Pascoe, S., Tobin, R., Windle, J., Cannard, T., Marshall, N., Kabir, Z., & Flint, N. (2016). Developing a social, cultural and economic report card for a regional industrial harbour. PLoS one, 11(2), e0148271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148271
- Philip, L., Cottrill, C., Farrington, J., Williams, F., & Ashmore, F. (2017). The digital divide: Patterns, policy and scenarios for connecting the ‘final few’in rural communities across Great Britain. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 386–398. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.12.002
- Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, K. L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504–511. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.002
- Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is e‐government leading to more accountable and transparent local governments? An overall view. Financial Accountability & Management, 26(1), 3–20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2009.00488.x
- Pisani, E., & Christoforou, A. (2017). Evaluation of social capital in LEADER: What’s in and what’s out? In Springer (Ed.), Social capital and local development (pp. 109–134). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Pisani, E., Franceschetti, G., Secco, L., & Da Re, R. (2014, June 25–27). Trust in the LEADER approach: The case study of the Veneto region in Italy. In 2014 Third Congress. Alghero, Italy: Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA). (No. 197453).
- Pollermann, K., Raue, P., & Schnaut, G. (2017, June 4–7). Input for and output of local governance in rural development. In Regional Studies Association, Annual Conference 2017: The Great Regional Awakening: New Directions. Ireland: Trinity College Dublin. [Conference:].
- Ray, C. (2000). Endogenous socio-economic development in the European Union—Issues of evaluation. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(4), 447–458. doi:10.1016/s0743–0167(00)00012–7
- Reddick, C. G., & Aikins, S. K. (2012). Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance. In Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance (pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Springer.
- Roberts, E., Anderson, B. A., Skerratt, S., & Farrington, J. (2017). A review of the rural-digital policy agenda from a community resilience perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 372–385. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.03.001
- Salemink, K., Strijker, D., & Bosworth, G. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 360–371. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001
- Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: The role of the partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 49–59. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00042-1
- Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 450–457. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001
- Sisto, R., Lopolito, A., & van Vliet, M. (2018). Stakeholder participation in planning rural development strategies: Using backcasting to support Local Action Groups in complying with CLLD requirements. Land Use Policy, 70, 442–450. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.022
- Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Governance network research: Towards a second generation. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (eds,), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 1–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Spilanis, I., Kizos, T., & Giordano, B. (2016). The effectiveness of European Regional Development Fund projects in Greece: Views from planners, management staff and beneficiaries. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(2), 182–197. doi:10.1177/0969776413498761
- Storey, D. (1999). Issues of integration, participation and empowerment in rural development: The case of LEADER in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(3), 307–315. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00073-4
- Susarla, A., Oh, J. H., & Tan, Y. (2012). Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from youtube. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 23-41. doi: 10.2307/23207870
- Svensson, L. (2015). Empowering rural youth with Facebook: Lessons from a local Swedish case-study. Community Development Journal, 5(3), 436–451. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsv024
- Talò, C. (2017). The role of intermediate institutions in community development. The case of LAGs. Perspectives on Rural Development, 2017(1), 47–58.
- Teilmann, K. (2012). Measuring social capital accumulation in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 458–465. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.10.002
- Tovey, H. (2008). Introduction: Rural sustainable development in the knowledge society era. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3), 185–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00460.x
- Volk, A., & Bojnec, Š. (2014). Local action groups and the LEADER co-financing of rural development projects in Slovenia. Agricultural Econ.–Czech, 60, 364–375. doi:10.17221/180/2013-AGRICECON
- Wang, X., Kuzmickaja, I., Stol, K. J., Abrahamsson, P., & Fitzgerald, B. (2014). Microblogging in open source software development: The case of drupal using twitter. IEEE Software, 31(4), 72–80. doi:10.1109/MS.2013.98
- Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui021
- Yagüe, J. L., De Nicolas, V. L., & Martínez, J. L. (2013). Leader rural development program in Spain: Profile and functions of workers in local action groups. Rural Development, 6(1), 543–547.
- Yamaoka, K., Tomosho, T., Mizoguchi, M., & Sugiura, M. (2008). Social capital accumulation through public policy systems implementing paddy irrigation and rural development projects. Paddy Water Environ, 6, 115–128. doi:10.1007/s10333-008-0113-2
- Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002
- Zeemering, E. S. (2014). International connections for local government sustainability initiatives: Networks linking Detroit and Windsor. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), 119–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00648.x
Appendix A
Referenced LAGs distributed by autonomous community
The groups that appear in grey are the eight groups that it was not possible to gather information.