Theoretical Foundations of Smart Village: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Lukasz Satola.

The smart village is defined as a village in which the efforts of inhabitants and institutions are supported and integrated with information technology systems and innovation to benefit local communities. The idea of the smart village is most often associated with objectives such as improvements in welfare, energy savings, a low-emission economy, a reduction in inequalities between urban and rural areas, and an improvement in economic conditions.

  • local government
  • smart village
  • public services
  • digital transformation

1. Introduction

The implementation of public tasks is associated with expenditure from local government budgets, so it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the actions that are taken. In the public sector, this means the requirement of achieving the best results from a set level of expenditure, or seeking to minimize costs at an assumed standard of meeting public needs. The concept of the smart village, understood as the application of innovations, and digital technologies to provide public services, as well as to improve the quality of life of inhabitants [2][1], may be a valuable instrument when implementing these principles into the practice of local government units.
In the context of budget constraints, the question arises as to how and to what extent public tasks are implemented. Traditionally, local public services have been provided by local government units, either directly or through specialized units that they own. At present, the ways of providing public services that are commonly present in the literature and put into practice include outsourcing, privatization, hybrid organization, co-production and co-creation. Many of these solutions use modern organizational (cocreation of public services) and technological structures. Some of these solutions are also included in the smart city concept, which, in relation to rural areas, takes the form of the smart village concept.
Initially, the smart city concept applied to cities that were implementing new technologies and innovative solutions were stimulated by private-sector entities. This is because they saw new, profitable markets in the public sector, while local government officials were fascinated by technological innovations (e.g., intelligent transportation systems) and their potential to improve, for example, traffic management in the city [3][2]. Over time and with experience, cities have come to understand that technology is only a tool to achieve the socio-economic development objectives. Today, the smart city as a concept responds to the changing needs of inhabitants and naturally adapts to them. The technologies in place in the city serve people by providing convenience and safety, and enhancing their quality of life [4][3]. In this way, the assumptions of the New Public Governance concept concerning the participation of inhabitants in the commune management are implemented in the performance of public services.
The smart village is defined as a village in which the efforts of inhabitants and institutions are supported and integrated with information technology systems and innovation to benefit local communities [5,6][4][5]. In the initial stage, the concept of the smart village was primarily accompanied by the issues of access to energy sources, a necessary factor for the occurrence of development processes and participation in technological progress. It was estimated that approximately 1.3 billion people worldwide did not have access to electricity [7][6]. Most of these were people living in rural areas, located far from development centers [8][7]. They were out of reach of the network that provides today’s access to the latest innovations in information and communication technology (ICT), mobile healthcare technology, biotechnology, and finance [9][8]. The original approach viewed the “smart village” as a model in which access to energy acts as a catalyst for development. Effectively implemented technological change was intended to lead to improvements in the areas of education, economy and health care. Rural residents could enjoy multiple aspects of “urban life” while preserving the valuable aspects of rural life and ensuring national sustainability [7][6].
The concept of a smart village is a constructive response to a set of interrelated phenomena and processes, which has become more frequently perceived in the EU, which has been called a vicious circle of decline [10][9] (Figure 1). The conducted literature survey concludes that the idea of the smart village is most often associated with objectives such as improvements in welfare, energy savings, a low-emission economy, a reduction in inequalities between urban and rural areas, and an improvement in economic conditions. There is also an emphasis on improving governance efficiency, improving rural livelihoods and human resources, and issues such as improving disaster resilience and reducing energy poverty [11,12][10][11].
Energies 15 05175 g001 550Figure 1. The vicious circle of decline in rural areas. Source: elaboration based on [10][9].
The smart city and smart village concepts, through the use of intelligent solutions, are designed to reduce the cost of service without lowering the standard of service for residents and their lives [13][12]. At present, the greatest potential for reducing these costs lies in solutions that reduce energy consumption. A smart city tries to implement public tasks with the help of IT solutions and by involving numerous groups of stakeholders [14,15,16][13][14][15]. By including numerous entities in the process of city formation, the concept of the more inclusive development of a given territory is implemented, which, in consequence, should lead to the formation of a city that will correspond to the aspirations and ideas of the people who create and live there. Considering the specificity of the functioning of rural areas, the solutions, or the components adopted in the formula of smart city, can be successfully implemented in the development of a smart village.

2. Smart Village—Theoretical Foundations of the Concept

The smart village first emerged as a concept in 2015. It was then applied to aid programs in Africa and Asia. In these cases, the main focus was the issue of inhabitants’ access to modern energy sources, basic education and health care, and food security [7,20][6][16]. One of the basic assumptions of the smart villages concept is the recognition that ongoing technological progress may create new opportunities to increase income and provide services in rural areas. However, to achieve a significant improvement in the standard of living in rural areas, it is necessary to integrate the concept with other initiatives [21][17]. The sustainable strengthening of local communities can only occur if the actions taken are coherent. They should be part of a well-considered, established and socially consensual rural development programme. In addition to classic infrastructure investments, business development, human capital growth and civil society development, the smart village concept pays particular attention to the application of the latest technological developments. Access to and use of public e-services, environmental protection through increasing the share of the circular economy, innovative communication technology (ICT), and the implementation of locally defined regionally smart specializations, e.g., in the field of tourism, culture or promotion of local products, including agricultural and food products, are also emphasized [22,23][18][19]. It has been emphasized for several years that, in line with the diffusion of innovations, wealthy cities and those with a higher population density are the first to benefit from the latest technologies [24,25][20][21]. Rural areas, however, are characterized by certain lags in the adaptation of innovative solutions [26,27][22][23]. This mechanism means that the outermost areas are almost condemned to a disadvantage in development, a relative deterioration in living conditions, and the consequent washing-out of their human capital and financial resources [28][24]. In turn, some ongoing research indicates that the role of growth poles does not always have to be associated with metropolitan areas [29][25]. Internal development impulses can also be triggered in the outermost regions. However, this requires the creation of so-called local demand, for which a certain critical mass is necessary, and in the absence of such a critical mass, the development impulse must be sought in the so-called endogenous local resources (Figure 2).
Energies 15 05175 g002 550
Figure 2. The factors involved in the model of smart village.
In a rapidly changing economy, the development lags in the outermost areas are one of the reasons for their lower competitiveness in attracting investments, capital, and creative human resources. Therefore, there is a need to increase innovative rural development with a high share of social innovation [30][26]. Social innovations are supposed to create positive changes, resulting in the development of social capital and contributing to the more effective implementation of technological innovations in these areas [31][27]. The economic development that took place in the second half of the 20th century led to more territorial inequalities and, consequently, to competition between different areas. This issue has been recognized in the European Union, which has set smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth as one of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The greatest assistance in achieving this goal is attributed to innovation, education and the research and development sector. In addition to the aforementioned theory of growth poles and the concept of centers and peripheries, the theory of territorial embeddedness is of great importance for the presentation of the smart village concept [32][28]. It has been described by Granovetter and, according to its characteristics, is understood as the anchoring of different actors in a particular environment or surrounding in a regional or local structure [33,34][29][30]. The concept of embeddedness refers to the use of local resources for the economic and social development of a given area and assumes that a specific system of interdependencies is created which, through the appropriate management of resources, allows for the maximum retention of their benefits in a given area for the benefit of the local community. The social innovation system developing in a given area, which results from specific social and economic conditions and is embedded in a specific institutional environment, is also a consequence of the local development processes taking place in that area [35][31]. As this includes many local entities and institutions, the role of initiator and coordinator is often assumed by local government units. Other theories that influenced the emergence of the smart village concept were industry cluster theory and core product theory. The founder of the industry clusters theory is considered to be M. Porter, who, in his research, proved that enterprises operating in related sectors, together with the institutions surrounding them, create cooperation networks by locating their activities in industry clusters. Recognizing their development potential, regional and local authorities should pursue the policy of supporting the development of industrial clusters [36,37][32][33]. The theory of industry clusters demonstrates some links with the core product theory, which states that the production of a group of goods that are likely to be most competitive in the external markets is concentrated in a particular area as a result of a process of progressive specialization. This results in benefits such as a reduction in transaction costs, improved organization of production processes and an increase in the quality of manufactured goods. Other theories from which the smart village concept takes advantage are the theory of learning regions and the innovation environment model. Both theories emphasize the importance of knowledge and innovation in local development. In accordance with the theory of learning regions, their ability to create intangible resources, such as knowledge, skills, and qualifications, is assumed to be the key competitive factor. The model of innovation environment associated with the theory of learning regions emphasizes the role of endogenous institutional potential influencing the creation of innovative dynamics in enterprises. The enterprises operating in a given area are not isolated innovation units, but form part of an environment with innovation potential. In this way, their impact has the potential to create synergies in the region. The existence of an innovative potential in a given area, together with the ability to learn, provides a great opportunity for making development processes more dynamic. The smart village concept also emphasizes the role of the so-called smart regional specializations. Recognition and appreciation of the role of knowledge and innovation represents a breakthrough in relation to the existing, traditional perception of the directions of rural development [38,39][34][35]. The traditional approach viewed rural areas as areas with a dominant agricultural function, and the development concepts that exist to date admittedly drew attention to the need to switch from mono-functionality towards multifunctionality; however, never before has the need to launch the so-called intelligent development mechanism been so strongly emphasised [40][36]. This was probably partly due to the fact that the previous approaches treated innovation as a technological phenomenon specific to urban centers, which are saturated with the companies’ activities, as well as research and educational institutions. At present, pro-innovative activity is more broadly understood as supporting new social solutions based on collective action (social capital) and the promotion of modern production and service concepts implemented in small and local markets [35,41,42,43][31][37][38][39]. As indicated earlier, the smart village takes certain inspirations from the smart city concept that has already been put into practice. Initially, the smart city concept was associated only with the use of information technologies [44,45][40][41]. This was a result of the challenges that were emerging at the time, which related to technological progress, the knowledge-based economy, innovative equipment and environmental pressures [46][42]. The support of international institutions (UN, OECD, European Union) was also of significance [47][43]. At present, the smart city concept is considered more broadly and is included in the three dimensions of urban research: the digital city, the knowledge city, and the green city [48,49][44][45]. Research carried out in recent years has produced other terms, such as the resilient city and sustainable city [50][46]. This demonstrates the extension of the smart city concept into different areas of the city. The smart village concept takes advantage of these experiences to use modern technologies for the production and delivery of goods and services, including information and communication technologies, to achieve a higher standard of living for the inhabitants and reduce negative environmental impacts. In relation to public tasks of a technical nature, carried out by local government units, this also includes the application of smart solutions in public transport, which adjust their availability and quality to the actual demand to minimize the need for inhabitants to use their own means of transport. Thus, it will also influence rational energy management, both in terms of the means of obtaining energy (energy-efficient means of transport and lighting or bus shelters) and limiting the negative effects of its use, as evidenced by reduced emissions of, e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and dioxide, or waste and sewage from flue gas desulfurization plants. In another area of local government activity—the implementation of tasks of a social character—the use of smart village solutions may promote the implementation of the latest methods and teaching techniques (including remote learning) in the area of education. In terms of water and sewage management, smart solutions will enable the rational management of environmental resources by analyzing changes in the level of demand for these municipal services. The smart village concept includes and advocates for a real increase in the efficiency of management and service provision, with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of rural areas while respecting the economic, social and environmental needs of current and future generations.

References

  1. ENRD. EU Action for Smart Villages. 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rur-dev-small-villages_en.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2021).
  2. Müller-Seitz, G.; Seiter, M.; Wenz, P. Was Ist Eine Smart City? Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016; pp. 45–54.
  3. Kauf, S. Smart city in the era of the fourth industrial revolution. Zesz. Naukowe. Organ. I Zarządzanie Politech. Śląska 2020, 2020, 211–220.
  4. Somwanshi, R.; Shindepatil, U.; Tule, D.; Mankar, A.; Ingle, N.; Rajamanya, G.B.D.V.; Deshmukh, A. Study and development of village as a smart village. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2016, 7, 395–408.
  5. Vaishar, A.; Šťastná, M. Smart village and sustainability. Southern Moravia case study. Eur. Countrys. 2019, 11, 651–660.
  6. Holmes, J.; Thomas, M. Introducing the smart villages concept. Int. J. Green Growth Dev. 2015, 2, 151–154.
  7. Ahlborg, H.; Hammar, L. Drivers and barriers to rural electrification in Tanzania and Mozambique–Grid-extension, off-grid, and renewable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2014, 61, 117–124.
  8. Prinsloo, G.; Mammoli, A.; Dobson, R. Customer domain supply and load coordination: A case for smart villages and transactive control in rural off-grid microgrids. Energy 2017, 135, 430–441.
  9. Smart Villages. Revitalising rural services. EU Rural Rev. 2018, 26, 8.
  10. Mishbah, M.; Purwandari, B.; Sensuse, D.I. Systematic review and meta-analysis of proposed smart village conceptual model: Objectives, strategies, dimensions, and foundations. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), Bandung, Indonesia, 22–26 October 2018; pp. 127–133.
  11. Santhiyakumari, N.; Shenbagapriya, M.; Hemalatha, R. A novel approach in information and communication technology combined with traditional practices for smart villages. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), Agra, India, 21–23 December 2016; pp. 1–5.
  12. Visvizi, A.; Lytras, M.D. Rescaling and refocusing smart cities research: From mega cities to smart villages. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2018, 9, 134–145.
  13. Capra, C.F. The Smart City and its citizens: Governance and citizen participation in Amsterdam Smart City. Int. J. E-Plan. Res. IJEPR 2016, 5, 20–38.
  14. Zubizarreta, I.; Seravalli, A.; Arrizabalaga, S. Smart city concept: What it is and what it should be. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2016, 142, 04015005.
  15. Manville, C.; Cochrane, G.; Cave, J.; Millard, J.; Pederson, J.K.; Thaarup, R.K.; Liebe, A.; Wissner, M.; Massink, R.; Kotterink, B. Mapping Smart Cities in the EU, Study, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; p. 9.
  16. Holmes, J.; van Gevelt, T. Energy for development–the concept. Smart Villages New Think. Off-Grid Communities Worldw. 2015, 13, 13–20.
  17. van Gevelt, T.; Holzeis, C.C.; Fennell, S.; Heap, B.; Holmes, J.; Depret, M.H.; Jones, B.; Safdar, M.T. Achieving universal energy access and rural development through smart villages. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 43, 139–142.
  18. Zavratnik, V.; Kos, A.; Stojmenova Duh, E. Smart villages: Comprehensive review of initiatives and practices. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2559.
  19. Komorowski, Ł.; Stanny, M. Smart villages: Where can they happen? Land 2020, 9, 151.
  20. Bosworth, G.; Annibal, I.; Carroll, T.; Price, L.; Sellick, J.; Shepherd, J. Empowering Local Action through Neo-Endogenous Development; The Case of LEADER in England. Sociol. Rural. 2016, 56, 427–449.
  21. Li, Y.; Westlund, H.; Liu, Y. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview of rural evolution in the world. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 135–143.
  22. Huning, S.; Bens, O.; Hüttl, R.F. Demographic change beyond the urban-rural divide: Re-framing spatial differentiation in the context of migration flows and social networks. DIE ERDE–J. Geogr. Soc. Berl. 2012, 143, 153–172.
  23. Beise, M. Lead markets: Country-specific drivers of the global diffusion of innovations. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 997–1018.
  24. Liu, B.S.C.; Madhavan, R.; Sudharshan, D. DiffuNET: The impact of network structure on diffusion of innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2005, 8, 240–262.
  25. Zawalińska, K.; Śliwowska, Z.; Caliński, J.; Droździel, K.; Michalska, A. Polska wieś wobec wyzwań rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego w XXI wieku w świetle badań IRWiR PAN w roku 2014 i 2015. Village Agric. 2016, 3, 163–185.
  26. Dax, T.; Oedl-Wieser, T. Rural innovation activities as a means for changing development perspectives–An assessment of more than two decades of promoting LEADER initiatives across the European Union. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2016, 118, 30–37.
  27. Krievina, A.; Leimane, I.; Melece, L. Role of Local Action Groups in addressing regional development and social problems in Latvia. Res. Rural Dev. 2015, 2, 146–153.
  28. Krippner, G.; Granovetter, M.; Block, F.; Biggart, N.; Beamish, T.; Hsing, Y.; Hart, G.; Arrighi, G.; Mendell, M.; Hall, J.; et al. Polanyi symposium: A conversation on embeddedness. Socio-Econ. Rev. 2004, 2, 109–135.
  29. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91, 481–510.
  30. Gilsing, V.A.; Duysters, G.M. Understanding novelty creation in exploration networks—Structural and relational embeddedness jointly considered. Technovation 2008, 28, 693–708.
  31. Guzal-Dec, D. Intelligent development of the countryside–the concept of smart villages: Assumptions, possibilities and implementation limitations. Econ. Reg. Stud. 2018, 11, 32–49.
  32. Porter, M.E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 77–90.
  33. O’Malley, E.; Van Egeraat, C. Industry clusters and Irish indigenous manufacturing: Limits of the Porter view. Econ. Soc. Rev. 2000, 31, 55–79.
  34. Mempel-Śnieżyk, A. Smart specialisation and clusters in economic growth. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. We Wrocławiu 2013, 324, 92–103.
  35. Derlukiewicz, N.; Mempel-Śnieżyk, A.; Mankowska, D.; Dyjakon, A.; Minta, S.; Pilawka, T. How do Clusters Foster Sustainable Development? An Analysis of EU Policies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1297.
  36. Mempel-Śnieżyk, A. Networks and cooperation for sustainable development The role of local authorities and clusters in regional development and economic growth. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 111–120.
  37. Asheim, B.T. Smart specialisation, innovation policy and regional innovation systems: What about new path development in less innovative regions? Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2019, 32, 8–25.
  38. da Rosa Pires, A.; Pertoldi, M.; Edwards, J.; Hegyi, F.B. Smart Specialisation and innovation in rural areas. S3 Policy Brief Ser. 2014, 9, 2014.
  39. Britchenko, I.; Romanchenko, T.; Hladkyi, O. Potential of sustainable regional development in view of smart specialisation. Econ. Stud. 2019, 28, 88–109.
  40. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291.
  41. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–29 September 2011; pp. 185–194.
  42. Cocchia, A. Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart City: How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in Urban Space; Dameri, R.P., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 13–43.
  43. Zawieska, J.; Pieriegud, J. Smart city as a tool for sustainable mobility and transport decarbonisation. Transp. Policy 2018, 63, 39–50.
  44. Benevolo, C.; Dameri, R.P.; D’auria, B. Smart mobility in smart city. In Empowering Organizations; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 13–28.
  45. Gülseçen, S.; Gezer, M.; Çelik, S.; Koçoğlu, F.Ö. Future needs from the Smart Mega City (SMC) plans—smart green city—the case of Istanbul. In Sustainable Mega City Communities; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 109–118.
  46. De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback