Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper provides a systematic review of the scientific landscape of the interdisciplinary field of rural depopulation studies, considering the potential contribution of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies or Industry 4.0 to enhance our contemporary understanding and policy approach to facing the complex challenge of rural transitions. Two levels of intersec search are examined: (a) an aggregated conceptual level of rural population studies and (b) a more policy-based level. Blockchain, the Internet of Things, additive manufacturing, and other 4.0 technologies highlight a scientific panorama in which social and sustainable concerns are integrated with the disruptive potential of these technologies.

Keywords

Industry 4.0 rural depopulation socio-technical systems sustainable transitions transformative innovation policies

Introduction

This paper reviews the scientific landscape of the interdisciplinary field of rural depopulation studies, considering the potential contribution of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies or 4.0 technologies to support broader alternative understandings of the complexity of rural depopulation. 4.0 technologies consist of those breakthroughs merging information and communication technologies (ICT) with digital manufacturing, creating a new production/consumption paradigm that may impact urban/rural relations (De Propris and Bailey 2021; Bai et al. 2020). The ecosystem of 4.0 technologies includes additive manufacturing (AM), Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), advanced robotics, and Blockchain, amongst others (Fraske 2022; Lasi et al. 2014). These technologies have the potential to impact rural development in many facets (Zhang and Zhang 2020).

Rural areas have experienced significant demographic change. The share of the world population living in rural areas has been declining steadily from 66% in 1960 to 43% in 2020 due to strong urbanization processes. However, rural areas are not only losing out in relative terms, but many are also losing population in absolute terms due to strong rural–urban migration and rural population aging, leading to a shrinking workforce and reduced birth rates. China has been a primary driver of global urbanization in recent decades due to massive rural-to-urban migration, a trend India is expected to overtake by 2050 (Gu, Andreev, and Dupre 2021). In Europe, a study of 696 subnational areas in 33 countries identified seven pathways of rural depopulation, with persistent decline leading to a 23.75% population reduction since 2000, mainly in Eastern and Southern Europe (Newsham and Rowe 2023). Similarly, rural America faces depopulation due to aging, youth out-migration, and selective in-migration to metropolitan areas and areas rich in natural amenities (Slack and Jensen 2020). According to Johnson and Lichter (2019), 24% of U.S. counties suffer from depopulation, and nearly all these areas are rural.

Rural depopulation presents a complex socioeconomic and environmental challenge to developed and developing societies (Li, Westlund, and Liu 2019). The challenges cover various fields, from socioeconomic gaps between rural and urban areas to managing, for example, the impacts of climate change on food production systems and supply chains (Tenza-Peral et al. 2022). These issues forge a deeper connection between rural and urban worlds beyond the traditional focus on analyzing the economic roots of the rural–urban migration flows (Alamá-Sabater et al. 2021; Zhang, Nazroo, and Vanhoutte 2021).

The potential of 4.0 technologies for fighting challenges like depopulation requires a comprehensive approach that considers environmental, economic, political, and infrastructure challenges that differentiate rural and urban areas (Zambrano-Prado et al. 2021; Yin, Chen, and Li 2022; Widyaningsih et al. 2022; Vidickiene, Vilke, and Gedminaite-Raudone 2020; Viana and Waquil 2022). The sustainable transitions (ST) and transformative innovation policy (TIP) approaches can contribute significantly. The ST framework emphasizes niche innovations and regime shifts to reverse depopulation trends (Köhler et al. 2019; Geels 2019, 2020), while TIP supports rural revitalization through activities such as renewable energy and digital services (Marshall and Dolley 2019; Leach et al. 2012; Diercks, Larsen, and Steward 2019; Schot and Steinmueller 2018). Both approaches offer a refreshing perspective to address depopulation and to foster thriving, sustainable communities.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the stark disparity in public infrastructure and services between urban and rural areas has become increasingly evident. The pronounced inequality underscores the urgent need, for instance, to enhance rural healthcare, digital infrastructure, and remote work opportunities to mitigate the economic forces driving rural–urban migration (Braesemann et al. 2022; Cook et al. 2022).

Therefore, a more holistic perspective on rural depopulation is required, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to innovation that integrates various dimensions and stakeholders (Borrás and Edquist 2013, 2019). This holistic approach views innovation as a complex system involving interconnected actors and institutions across multiple governance levels (Yin, Chen, and Li 2022). The focus is shifting towards bridging the gap between urban and rural areas by creating resilient communities and promoting balanced regional development using 4.0 technologies (Yin, Chen, and Li 2022).

Thus, this paper poses the following research question: What analytical patterns or trends can be identified in the scientific landscape of rural depopulation studies in the last decade, supporting a more holistic understanding of the challenges of depopulation considering 4.0 technologies? A systematic review of the scientific literature landscape from 2010 to 2022, based on an intersectional perspective, addresses the potential contribution of 4.0 technologies, sustainable transitions, and transformative innovation policy studies to understand and tackle rural depopulation challenges. The review focuses on scholarly papers published in indexed journals and aims to understand current analytical trends better (Bai et al. 2020).

Table 1 shows some examples of 4.0 technology and its applications. For a more detailed review of these technologies, refer to the works of Fraske (2022), Bai et al. (2020), Alcacer and Cruz-Machado (2019), and Bongomin et al. (2020).

Table 1.

Selected Industry 4.0 Technologies.

4IRT	Short description	Some applications
Artificial intelligence (AI)	It is a set of technologies in which data science, systems engineering, applied mathematics, and computational neuroscience converge to create intelligent machines that can solve problems like the human experience.	Advanced research and development on climate change topics and biotechnology applications for sustainable agriculture are possible.
Additive manufacturing (AM) 3D or 4D printing	These manufacturing technologies combine computer-aided design with the creation of three-dimensional (3D) objects by printing them in layers using plastic, ceramic, metallic materials, or reactive biopolymers (4D).	Developing tailor-made manufacturing infrastructures, facilities, and supply chain systems to reduce distance and logistics costs. Circular economy
Augmented reality (AR)	These technologies allow the visualization of resources superimposed on digital reconstructions of the actual world, allowing an interactive experience based on computer-generated visual, motor, and acoustic effects.	Education, training, and research in basic and applied science and applications for management and warehouse.
Autonomous robots (ARO)	It is a more advanced phase of industrial robotics that integrates various technologies, such as RFID (radio frequency identification readers), sensors, and a human–machine interface (HMI), to improve communication and cooperation between machines and more efficiently replicate human actions in productive activities.	Crops management, environmental monitoring, and livestock supervision using drone technologies.
Big data (BD)	These technologies allow the analysis of large volumes of data to facilitate its use and decision-making. They are based on more sophisticated data-mining technologies that allow a safer, faster, and more truthful processing of large volumes of information.	Market and value chain analysis for local producers; provision of public services.
Blockchain (BC)	These technologies consist of distributed and decentralized database systems managed with sophisticated encryption systems, authentication, and network consensus protocols, which ensure the growth and high fidelity of the records that feed them.	Secure financial transactions and reliable traceability process.
Cloud computing (CC)	These technologies provide IT services based on storage, data processing, and systems administration by companies or other providers that their clients or users can access through terminals connected to the internet.	Redundancy, protection, and management of data and information systems in the cloud for health services or commercial operations.
Cybersecurity (CS)	These technologies are based on developing capacities and methods for preventing, protecting, and recovering compromised information due to illegal actions such as theft of information in terminals or databases or by attacks using computer viruses.	Applications for secure transaction data and data sharing between users.
Industrial Internet of Things (IoT)	These technologies consist of capabilities that allow the global internet network to be combined with objects, including people. Advances in mobile device technology have given it a significant boost based on RFID technologies, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN), middleware, and Bluetooth protocols, among others.	Innovative smart village applications, crop management, health services, environmental monitoring
Simulation (SM)	These technologies are based on using advanced computing capabilities (data processing and analysis) to reproduce both the structure and behavior of a system or process in the real world.	Training, research, decision-making, market analysis, planning, and development.
Nanotechnology (NT)	These technologies allow working at the molecular scale to control and manipulate certain atoms and molecules used in the macro-scale manufacturing process.	Products and applications for pest control, sustainable food production systems, and environmental restoration.

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 1 outlines various technologies and their potential applications in rural areas. Once the necessary network infrastructures are established, these technologies can be utilized individually and in combination to unleash their collective potential (Barzotto et al. 2020; Helliwell and Burton 2021). For example, blockchain, cloud computing, and cybersecurity reinforce each other’s learning curves in facilitating secure transactions. AI complements big data analytics, and additive manufacturing pairs well with autonom robotics, among other possible combinations. This interdependence is vital for addressing rural social, economic, and environmental challenges, positioning these technologies as powerful tools for sustainability and local development (Gómez Valenzuela and Holl, 2023). Therefore, policymakers, researchers, and practitioners must comprehend the interdependence of these technologies in addressing rural development challenges (Bai et al. 2020; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2018).

Implementing 4.0 technologies like blockchain and additive manufacturing could enhance the circular economy (Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2018; Bhubalan et al. 2022; Bai et al. 2020). The fundamental principles of circular economy refer to (a) the conservation of natural resources, (b) increasing the lifespan of resources through both biological and technical cycles, and (c) the reduction of the adverse effects of production systems by reusing, reusing, and recycling (Tang et al. 2022; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al. 2018). For instance, additive manufacturing enables precise, on-demand production with minimal material usage, supports recycled and biodegradable materials, and facilitates product repair and remanufacturing (Wu and Yabar 2021). Therefore, circular economy and 4.0 technologies may operate as a nexus with sustainable transitions and sustainability of the rural world.

Throughout history, technological advancements have contributed to centralizing production in urban areas and drawing workers away from rural regions. At the same time, technological advancements increased productivity in agriculture, which has freed up rural workers. Urban areas also encourage innovation and technological progress due to their knowledge-rich environments. This trend has widened economic and demographic gaps between urban and rural areas (Rodríguez-Pose and Dijkstra 2021). Interest in depopulation studies is growing, particularly regarding their social, political, economic, and environmental implications.

Figure 1 shows the academic papers and citations on rural depopulation from 2010 to 2022. Between 2010 and 2022, approximately 4,190 papers on rural depopulation studies were published in Scopus. The number of papers doubled annually since 2010. Citation decreased over time, possibly due to disciplinary effects. The literature is linked to rural development, sustainable development, and population decline in the rural world. Figure 2 shows the countries with the most published papers on rural depopulation.

Figure 1.

Consolidated scientific production on rural depopulation and citations 2000–2022.

Figure 2.

Paper on rural depopulation according to countries/territories 2010–2022.

In Figure 2, countries like China, the United States, Italy, and Spain have seen significant rural depopulation in the last 50 years. These countries accounted for 92% of around 4,200 publications on this topic.

Material and Methods

Intersectionality studies use an interdisciplinary approach to analyze the connections and interdependencies between different research problems, allowing for exploring various topics related to social systems (Christensen and Jensen 2012; Anthias 2012). Following the above, a systematic literature exploration was conducted with a two-level approach to address the research question. The first level focuses on the potential of 4.0 technologies to address rural depopulation from an intersectional perspective. The second level identifies political elements required to address rural depopulation through 4.0 technologies, sustainable transitions, and transformative innovation policies (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Operationalization of the intersectional exploration of the selected topics.

In the first level, we explored the scientific literature on rural depopulation from 2010 to 2022. The search strategy was based on defining inclusion/exclusion criteria and conducting selective searches on topics related to the rural world.

The inclusion/exclusion criteria ensured the quality and relevance of the literature, focusing on scientific articles published in English in indexed journals.

The selective search involved a systematic Boolean operator process to link selected topics to the rural world.

The results of this first level of intersectional search yielded 149 articles on sustainable transitions and the rural world, 122 papers on transformative innovation policies and the rural world, 582 papers on fourth industrial revolution technologies and the rural world, and 4,190 papers on rural depopulation and decline, totaling 5,043 articles.

The second level focused on identifying policy elements to shape an innovation policy framework related to rural areas. After manual debugging to eliminate redundancies, 65 articles were generated. The results of the intersectional searches were analyzed using VOSViewer. We examined the scientific landscape from 2010 to 2022, a period chosen due to the increased traction of critical topics around 2010 (Haddad et al. 2022). The Scopus database was used as the primary source for this systematic exploration and intersectional search of the literary landscape and the consequences of rural depopulation as a transversal theme. This is because Scopus has a 99.11% overlap in the number of journals indexed with the Web of Science database (Singh et al. 2021).¹

In VOSviewer, we handled synonymous search terms and redundancy risk by utilizing the platform’s functionality. We collected valuable scientific literature in different languages during the analysis period and established specific inclusion/exclusion criteria to streamline the data and harmonize search criteria in Scopus.

Building Maps and Networks

We define this analysis as a systematic exploration of the literature landscape because of the use of maps and networks to understand the interaction and the strength of the link between the topics covered in this paper (Anugerah, Muttaqin, and Trinarningsih 2022; Perianes-Rodriguez, Waltman, and van Eck 2016). We used the results to create maps of networks and interactions between the vital critical issues of this paper, based on keyword co-occurrence among articles and employing the full counting method (Perianes-Rodriguez, Waltman, and van Eck 2016). Keywords are considered co-occurring when they appear in the same documents with a specific frequency (Park and Nagy 2018). For this article, the keywords (items) were filtered with at least five co-occurrences for the first and second levels of the intersectional search. Geographical references, repeated and regional words, and terms were removed, and the final extraction was performed using the text mining function incorporated in VOSViewer (van Eck and Waltman 2010).

In our maps, we use circle size and color to illustrate the frequency of co-occurrence of the items and the clusters in which they are grouped. The strength of the link between items in these maps is based on a positive numerical value with a particular force, with a higher value representing a more vital link (Perianes-Rodriguez, Waltman, and van Eck 2016). The distance between items indicates their relative co-occurrence, meaning that closer items tend to co-occur more frequently, while greater distance suggests a lower likelihood of co-occurrence (Mascarenhas, Ferreira, and Marques 2018; Anugerah, Muttaqin, and Trinarningsih 2022).

Results

Results of the First Level of Intersectional Search

Through clock-hand movement, four key analytical patterns on depopulation emerge: (a) Agriculture and 4.0 technologies; (b) sustainability and rural development; (c) innovation policies in rural areas; and (d) social dimensions of rural development.

The first analytical pattern on agriculture (cluster one in red) reveals the potential of 4.0 technologies to drive a transition to smart and digital agriculture. This potential hinges on strategically implementing advanced technologies like AI, IoT, robotics, and additive manufacturing (Adami, Ojo, and Giordano 2021; Kichuk et al. 2022). These technologies promise to enhance efficiency significantly while minimizing the agricultural sector’s environmental impact (Bai et al. 2020). AI enables precision farming and predictive analytics, while IoT facilitates real-time monitoring and automation. Meanwhile, robotics and drones improve productivity and reduce labor costs, and additive manufacturing allows customized, sustainable tools (da Fonseca et al. 2020; Wu and Yabar 2021). Investing in digital infrastructure, training, and supportive policies is crucial to realize these benefits. Environmentally, these technologies can help conserve resources, lower carbon footprints, and promote efficient land use, contributing to sustainability and climate resilience in agriculture (Tim, Cui, and Sheng 2021; Sain et al. 2017).

The second analytical cluster (in green) focuses on sustainable development and sustainability. A significant, often overlooked consequence of rural depopulation is the deterioration of ecosystem services provided by these environments (van der Vaart 2005; Lasanta et al. 2017). Agroecosystems, shaped by varying types and intensities of agricultural and livestock activities, are dynamic landscapes with evolving biotic and abiotic components (da Fonseca et al. 2020; Negi and Maikhuri 2013). These activities shape landscapes with essential ecosystem services and unique cultural values (Min et al. 2022). In some cases, depopulation impacts the functionality of culturally rich landscapes, especially in the hillside and mountain areas, heightening their vulnerability to climate change or incompatible land use, like rapid urbanization (Acebes, Iglesias-González, and Muñoz-Galvez 2021). The disappearance of practices like fallow or traditional grazing, partly due to depopulation, has been related to the vulnerability of these agroecosystems to forest fires in Europe and North America (Martínez-Abraín et al. 2020; Hardi, Csontos, and Tamás 2019; Kweon and Youn 2021; Piras et al. 2021). Managing these landscapes poses challenges that can be supported through 4.0 technologies, such as precision agriculture, intelligent irrigation systems, and remote sensing (Rahman et al. 2012; Diaz-Varela et al. 2014). With 4.0 technologies, farmers can optimize resource use and minimize environmental impact while maintaining the integrity of agroecosystems. It can improve the continued provision of ecosystem services and the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations (D’Oronzio and Sica 2021; Santos et al. 2016; Dumitru et al. 2021).

Based on academic findings, the interactions depicted by the green cluster indicate that the rural environment is a critical link between natural ecosystems with low or no disturbance and highly modified urban and peri-urban areas that rely on the ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes (Vizzari and Sigura 2015). Therefore, rural landscapes’ multi-functionality plays a crucial role in maintaining the sustainability of both urban and rural areas.

The third analytical pattern (blue cluster) delves into innovation policies for rural areas, linking it with the first cluster on the role of 4.0 technologies. It examines rural innovation policy’s contribution to sustainable transitions by facilitating service and technological infrastructure, which also helps bridge rural–urban gaps (Ludvig et al. 2021; Rana and Moniruzzaman 2021). Interdisciplinary research and intersectoral collaboration can improve innovation policy for rural areas by addressing critical environmental issues as complex vectors of the same challenge (Magnani and Cittati 2022). Those critical issues as part of complex socio-technical systems, particularly in the agri-food sector and its connections to the urban world, can underscore the importance of holistic approaches and transformative shifts toward sustainability transitions (Sovacool et al. 2020; Savaget et al. 2019; Marshall and Dolley 2019). A holistic policy focus highlights the need for systemic changes. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of environmental, social, economic, and technological dimensions in the multi-level perspective that influences the interactions between rural and urban worlds (Herrero-Jáuregui et al. 2019; Radford and James 2013; Melot, Bourdeau-Lepage, and Bonnefond 2021).

Research in sustainable transitions is based on recognizing significant environmental challenges, including climate change, depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, and rural depopulation (Qin et al. 2022; Köhler et al. 2019). These challenges require interdisciplinary agendas at the academic level and intersectoral efforts at the political level. They occur within socio-technical systems, such as agri-food, and cannot be addressed through linear technological arrangements (Geels 2010, 2019). 4.0 technologies can enhance efficiency in agricultural operations, reducing labor intensity and mitigating disturbances to biotic and abiotic components. It may require a new understanding of the rural world and its connections to urban zones (Melot, Bourdeau-Lepage, and Bonnefond 2021; Newburn and Berck 2011). 4.0 technologies require a transformative innovation policy approach to the rural realm, including coping with the digital divide, capacity building at several levels, and understanding how socio-technical transitions to sustainability respond to spatial differences.

The fourth analytical pattern in Figure 4 (cluster in yellow) shows the relevance and concerns related to the social dimension of rural development. The literature has identified social and economic inequalities between rural and urban areas as drivers of depopulation (Anastasiou and Duquenne 2020; Akbarpour, Imani, and Molaei Qelichi 2022). Thus, 4.0 technologies can potentially improve the rural quality of life through advancements in healthcare and telemedicine. AI-driven monitoring systems, for example, may enhance access to quality care, even in remote locations (Bagula, Mandava, and Bagula 2018). Precision farming, automated machinery, and intelligent agriculture technologies increase efficiency and sustainability, supporting local economies and food security in the broader context of public policies (Michels et al. 2020; Takácsné György et al. 2018; Goel et al. 2021). Blockchain technology can provide secure and transparent supply chain management and financial transactions, ensuring fair trade practices and boosting trust in rural markets connected to global value chains (Syromyatnikov et al. 2020; Merrell 2022; Pandey, Daultani, and Pratap 2023; Schuetz and Venkatesh 2020). E-learning platforms and virtual classrooms may bridge educational gaps, while e-government services and intelligent grids improve public services and infrastructure (Chatterjee et al. 2020; Chen and Liu 2013).

Figure 4.

Scientific landscape of the first level of the intersectional search findings.

Additive manufacturing enables the local production of goods, reducing dependence on distant suppliers and fostering local entrepreneurship (Wu and Yabar 2021; Finco, Bentivoglio, and Bucci 2018; Duh and Kos 2018). Innovative rural policies, digital platforms, and remote work can create new job opportunities and make rural areas more appealing to those seeking healthier, sustainable lifestyles as part of the neo-ruralism movement (Morillo and De Pablos 2016; Rye and Scott 2018; Åberg and Tondelli 2021).

The outlined clusters represent the initial intersectional analysis, examining the potential of 4.0 technologies to understand rural depopulation and development challenges. Figure 5 shows asymmetrical and nonlinear interactions, reflecting the difficulties of implementing 4.0 technologies in rural areas of developed and developing countries.

Figure 5.

Schematic interpretation of the clustering dynamics on 4IRT and rural development.

Digital infrastructure often needs to be improved in rural regions, needing more high-speed internet and reliable mobile networks. Substantial investments are required to upgrade the rural digital infrastructure (Eneh 2021; Shim 2013; Dethier and Effenberger 2012). However, economic constraints could be improved, including the high initial cost of technology implementation and ongoing maintenance. Moreover, regulatory complexities and data privacy concerns must be addressed to ensure these technologies’ safe and efficient deployment (Lamonica et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2019; Lamonica et al. 2021; Kondo, Rivera, and Rullman 2012). Digital literacy is another significant barrier, as rural residents require training to use these technologies effectively (McMahon 2020; Coppock and Desta 2013; Díaz 2021). Social acceptance is also a critical factor, with some communities resistant to change and skeptical about the benefits of new technologies (Sheila et al. 2022; Tipirneni et al. 2019; Urmee and Md 2016). Ensuring, for example, that blockchain and additive manufacturing initiatives are tailored to rural areas’ specific needs and capacities is essential for successful integration.

The Second Level of the Intersectional Search

The first level of intersectional search provided a global perspective on 4.0 technologies’ role in addressing the complex challenges of depopulation. The second level offers a more specific view of how 4.0 technologies can develop a holistic and innovative policy approach to rural depopulation (Yin, Chen, and Li 2022; Dwivedi et al. 2019; Loft, Mann, and Hansjürgens 2015; Frenken 2017; Kichuk et al. 2022; van Delden et al. 2010). Figure 6 shows the scientific landscape of the second level of intersectional search.

Figure 6.

General scientific landscape of the related topics.

As seen in Figure 6, five large clusters show the co-occurrences of items. Cluster 1, in red, groups items around rural development and societal challenges. Unlike Cluster 4 in Figure 4, Cluster 1 here connects issues of digital agriculture and sustainable development in rural areas, including social development and its interaction with 4.0 technologies, as well as the generation of employment and intelligent rural communities (Bai et al. 2020). This cluster presents the potential of these technologies to address rural development through digital agriculture, or 4.0 agriculture, and by improving the quality of life for rural producers (Hat and Stoeglehner 2020; Kichuk et al. 2022; Prause 2021).

Cluster 2 in green groups items related to productivity, market access, value chain, and 4.0 technologies such as IoT, blockchain, and Big Data (Florey, Hellin, and Balié 2020; Li, Wang, and Li 2020; Yascaribay et al. 2022; Hardin et al. 2022). It suggests a policy pathway to digitalize rural economic activities using ICTs to improve data gathering and processing, support policy decision-making, and improve local producers’ position in the value chain of agriculture and food production systems (Wu and Ma 2022; Lüthje 2019; Bhubalan et al. 2022; Li, Wang, and Li 2020).

Cluster 3, highlighted in blue, focuses on policy pathways aimed at the security of food production systems and human development. It emphasizes IoT, Big Data, and AI to support governance and control infrastructure and technologies for natural resource management, including water supply systems for different production and consumption activities (Chege and Wang 2020).

Clusters 4 (in yellow) and 5 (in purple) focus on sustainable development issues and sustainable transitions, respectively. Cluster 4 highlights the technical and practical implications, including infrastructure barriers to digitalizing the rural world (Haque 2022; Uddin et al. 2014; Onitsuka, Hidayat, and Huang 2018; Lafuente, Vaillant, and Serarols 2010).

Cluster 5 points out the potential of 4.0 technologies as policy tools in sustainable transitions (John et al. 2022; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2019; Asiimwe and de Kock 2019).

In conclusion, while 4.0 technologies promise to enhance rural life and address social concerns, overcoming challenges requires a holistic effort. Investment in digital infrastructure, literacy programs, and facilitative policies are essential. Ensuring access and addressing social resistance through community engagement are crucial. Collaborative efforts can enhance the potential of 4.0 technologies to reduce the rural–urban divide and foster sustainable development.

Discussion

Rural depopulation is a complex global problem beyond just the demographic shift between rural and urban areas (Wolff, Haase, and Leibert 2021). We argue that rural depopulation requires a fresh perspective on (a) environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation challenges, (b) acknowledging the risks of rural depopulation on ecosystemic and cultural services, and (c) seizing opportunities presented by 4.0 technologies (Wolff, Haase, and Leibert 2021). Likewise, such a new perspective allows for exploring innovative alternatives that combine the potential of the 4.0 technologies, focusing on transitions to sustainability and transformative innovation policies for the rural world (Pereira 2017). The findings of the two levels of intersectional literature search presented in this article allow us to explore critical concerns in building innovative policy approaches to face depopulation challenges. Table 2 summarizes vital policy findings and highlights critical concerns.

Table 2.

Key policy findings and critical concerns

Key findings	Critical concerns
Technological transition in agriculture: The potential of 4IRT, such as AI, IoT, robotics, and 3D printing, can drive a transition to smart and digital agriculture. Efficiency and Sustainability: These technologies enhance efficiency, reduce labor costs, and minimize environmental impact, contributing to climate resilience. Precision Farming and Predictive Analytics: AI enables precision farming and predictive analytics, while IoT facilitates real-time monitoring and automation.	Inadequate Digital Infrastructure: Investment Needs: Many rural areas need more high-speed internet and reliable mobile networks, requiring substantial investment in digital infrastructure. Digital Divide: Bridging the digital divide is crucial for successfully adopting 4IRT.
Sustainable Development and Ecosystem Services: Impact of Rural Depopulation: Depopulation deteriorates ecosystem services and culturally complex landscapes, making them vulnerable to environmental changes. Sustainable Management: 4IRT, through precision agriculture and smart irrigation, can optimize resource use and maintain agroecosystems' integrity.	Security and Sustainable Transitions: Governance and Control Infrastructure: IoT, Big Data, and AI can support governance and control technologies for natural resource management. Sustainable Development: 4IRT can act as a policy platform for sustainable development, strengthening connections between urban and rural spaces and supporting sociotechnical transitions and a circular economy.
Social Dimension of Rural Development: Quality of Life Improvements: 4IRT can enhance healthcare, education, and public services in rural areas through AI-driven monitoring, e-learning platforms, and e-government services. Economic Rebooting: Technologies like blockchain and additive manufacturing can support local economies, ensure fair trade, and foster local entrepreneurship. Governance and Control Infrastructure: IoT, Big Data, and AI can support governance and control technologies for natural resource management.	Broader social concerns on capacity building, engagement, access, and regulations: Capacity building: Rural residents need training programs to use 4IRT effectively, highlighting the need for comprehensive digital literacy programs. Community Engagement: Some communities may resist change and be skeptical about new technologies' benefits. Equitable Access: Ensuring equitable access and addressing social resistance through community engagement is crucial. Complex Regulations: Navigating regulatory complexities and ensuring data privacy is critical for the safe deployment of 4IRT.
Innovation Policies for Rural Areas: Holistic Policy Approaches: Recognizing rural depopulation as part of complex sociotechnical systems necessitates interdisciplinary research and intersectoral collaboration. Systemic and transformative Changes: Policies must address environmental, social, economic, and technological dimensions, fostering collaborative initiatives for sustainability and resilience.	Financial, economic constraints and tailored approaches: High Costs: The initial cost of technology implementation and ongoing maintenance can be prohibitive for rural communities. Sustainable Funding: Policies must address funding mechanisms to support adopting and maintaining new technologies. Context-Specific Solutions: 4IRT must be tailored to rural areas' specific needs and capacities for successful integration. Customization: Technologies and policies must be customized to fit the unique characteristics of different rural regions.

Source: Own elaboration

The results highlight the fundamental role of the socio-technical systems perspective for transformative innovation and mission-oriented rural development policies, collectively termed rural transformative innovation policies or rural TIP.

In this sense, contextualizing the potential of 4.0 technologies to address the challenge of rural depopulation implies developing a look at rural socio-technical systems. These socio-technical systems encompass rural areas’ interconnected social, technical, economic, environmental, and cultural networks and traditional knowledge (Münch et al. 2022; Laszlo 2018). They are characterized by their complexity and dynamic nature, requiring continuous adaptation to changing conditions (Durán, Gómez-Valenzuela, and Ramírez 2023; Asiimwe and de Kock 2019). A holistic understanding of these systems involves examining the interactions among their diverse elements and the broader context in which they operate.

Therefore, to fully realize the potential of 4.0 technologies, a policy-mix approach must go beyond access and coverage of telecommunications infrastructure and services and ensure their effective use in rural areas. Recent research by Fraske (2022), Haefner and Sternberg (2020), and Pělucha (2019), for example, has highlighted the importance of addressing these challenges to facilitate the adoption and effective use of these technologies in rural communities. Some recent papers have started to emerge in the field of economic geography that stress how 4.0 technologies may change local production systems and supply chains (De Propris and Bailey 2021). New advanced manufacturing technologies also create a competitive advantage. Knowing where those technologies are adopted is essential, as these places may benefit from further growth opportunities (Capello and Lenzi 2021). Fraske (2022) provides a recent overview of the small but growing literature on the territorial dimensions of 4.0 technologies. However, little is known about rural areas’ capacities to participate in technological transformations (Münch et al. 2022; Asiimwe and de Kock 2019).

Over history, implementing new technologies has played a vital role in firms’ staying competitive and providing a competitive advantage to locations. However, adopting new technologies is highly uneven across urban and rural areas (Holl, Pardo and Rama 2013). Adoption depends on access to knowledge about the latest technology.

Urban areas offer larger markets that promote knowledge sharing for increased technology adoption. This adoption depends on a firm's internal skills and absorptive capacity. Urban firms benefit from specialized labor markets, while rural firms may need assistance acquiring the necessary skills to adopt new technologies. In larger markets, increased competition leads to the emergence of larger firms that can handle fixed costs for embracing technology more effectively. It constitutes a risk that 4.0 technologies will favor more dynamic urban regions and amplify territorial divides (Barzotto et al. 2020; De Propris and Bailey 2021). However, there is evidence that certain areas have excelled in 4.0 technologies even without prior specialization in 3.0 technologies (Laffi and Boschma 2022).

Addressing the Policy Focus

To address the political implications of a more holistic and innovative perspective to approach the rural depopulation challenges at the level of public policies, it should be articulated based on a systemic response to the social, economic, and environmental difficulties implying the transition to sustainability of rural socio-technical systems (Sovacool et al. 2020; Köhler et al. 2019; Geels 2020). Thus, supporting the transition to sustainable rural socio-technical systems, rural transformative innovation policies should embody three key attributes: (a) interactive and inclusive growth and development, (b) systemic and multi-level integration, and (c) interdisciplinary and contextual adaptation (Gómez-Valenzuela 2023).

Interactive and inclusive growth and development promote collaboration among rural innovators, leveraging local knowledge and creating partnerships between the public and private sectors. It aims to integrate rural areas into national and international innovation networks, developing tailored policies to address specific rural conditions (Gómez-Valenzuela 2023). Figure 7 depicts the multidimensional nature of these policies.

Figure 7.

Schematic multidimensional integration of rural transformative innovation policies.

The multidimensional perspective suggested by Figure 7 highlights three principal axes of a more holistic approach to the potential of 4.0 technologies to address the challenge of rural depopulation. Interactive and inclusive growth, systemic multi-level integration, and interdisciplinary and contextual adaption allow to situate the potential of 4.0 technologies as a socio-technical sustainable transition process (Kern 2012; Geels 2019), which may operate at different levels and scales of the political-economic, social, and territorial organization of rural socio-technical systems (Zhang, Nazroo, and Vanhoutte 2021; Sovacool et al. 2020; Geels 2019). Such a transition may involve changes in production systems and their implications regarding sustainability issues, pointing out the multi-level perspective on rural depopulation and the transformative potential of 4.0 technologies (Swette and Lambin 2021; Haddad et al. 2022). The multi-level perspective on rural socio-technical systems in Figure 7 explains 4.0 technologies in the frame of sustainable transitions in rural areas involving niche innovations, socio-technical regimes, and landscapes (Geels 2019, 2020). For instance, introducing innovations like precision agriculture and renewable energy can create economic opportunities and improve living standards. At the same time, regime shifts such as tech-driven farming and remote work can diversify rural economies (Zhu et al. 2022). Landscape pressures like climate change can further support these transitions, helping to reverse depopulation trends and attract residents (Sovacool et al. 2020; Geels et al. 2017).

The transformative potential of 4.0 technologies allows to approach rural depopulation as a societal challenge requiring a systemic change perspective across sectors, emphasizing sustainability, inclusivity, and resilience (Tim, Cui, and Sheng 2021). Thus, rural transformative innovation policy can support revitalizing rural economies with new activities like renewable energy and digital services, improve quality of life by addressing healthcare and infrastructure, empower local communities, and drive sustainable development (Quaranta and Salvia 2017). Enhanced connectivity through rural TIP reduces isolation and integrates rural areas into broader networks with urban areas, addressing depopulation and fostering thriving, sustainable communities.

As suggested in Figure 7, solid institutional capabilities and coordination mechanisms are essential for implementing rural transformative innovation policy. Expertise in designing context-sensitive policies, capacity-building programs, and collaborative platforms is crucial for empowering communities of the rural world. Strengthening these capabilities will allow rural areas to benefit from technological advancements and drive sustainable transitions.

As a human-modified landscape, the rural environment requires a complex balance of human-connected activities, spatial scales, and demographic densities that can be affected differently by depopulation and changes in its demographic structure (García-Llorente et al. 2012; Agnoletti 2014). Thus, while socioeconomic and technological drivers are significant, rural–urban economic and environmental interdependence matters (Lasanta et al. 2017).

The normative emphasis of the rural transformative innovation policy is directly related to Scholz’s notion of transformative science (Scholz 2017), as well as with third-generation mission-oriented innovation policies of which three characteristics stand out: (a) the focus on the STI social response instead of a sectoral focus; (b) the social response having citizens and social commitment as driver forces, and (c) social experimentation as a desirable characteristic of STI policies, including local testing of technological solutions to societal challenges, and prototyping in the design of new public services (Kattel and Mazzucato 2018; Mazzucato 2018).

These three characteristics of rural transformative innovation policy and mission-oriented policies pave the way for social experimentation and learning in the rural world to approach depopulation as societal challenges in the context of 4.0 technologies (De Propris and Bailey 2021; Barzotto et al. 2020).

Concluding Remarks

This work is part of a growing literature on rural depopulation and its broader implications regarding sustainability and the rural–urban gradient. It suggests the potential of 4.0 technologies to spur rural socio-technical systems with transformative potential in rural areas. The discussed analytical patterns and policy focus on depopulation highlight its multidimensionality and connections to urban areas. Research on Industry 4.0’s spatial dynamics and impacts on rural areas needs further attention.

Understanding the challenges of implementing 4.0 technologies in rural regions is essential, particularly regarding business network development and human resource management. The potential of these technologies to support sustainable transitions depends on understanding each local case and promoting them as part of multi-level development agendas.

More research is needed to evaluate the adoption of 4.0 technologies in different countries, especially considering local contexts affected by rural depopulation. More investigation is also needed regarding the potential of Industry 4.0 technologies to support sustainable transitions, emphasizing local context and integrating these technologies into multi-level development agendas. Comparative studies across rural contexts can provide valuable insights for effective policy interventions. Important insights could also be gained from longitudinal studies to assess long-term impacts.

Finally, as indicated above, we have restricted our analysis to peer-reviewed publications written in English. Nevertheless, significant research contributions have also been made in other languages. Future research should consider incorporating non-English publications to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jpl-10.1177_08854122241276015 - Supplemental material for Rural Depopulation in the Context of 4.0 Technologies: Opportunities for Sustainability and Innovation Policies

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpl-10.1177_08854122241276015 for Rural Depopulation in the Context of 4.0 Technologies: Opportunities for Sustainability and Innovation Policies by Víctor Gómez-Valenzuela and Adelheid Holl in Journal of Planning Literature

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Project PLEC2021-007750 and was financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and European Union Next Generation EU/PRTR. Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) Grant number MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.

ORCID iD

Víctor Gómez-Valenzuela

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Víctor Gómez Valenzuela has an extensive career in formulation and evaluating public policies. He holds a PhD in Economics from the Autonomous University of Madrid and an MA in Social Studies in Science and Technology from Maastricht University and the European Interuniversity Association of Science and Technology in the Netherlands. He also holds an MSc in Environmental Economics from CATIE, Costa Rica. He is a research professor at INTEC in the Dominican Republic and collaborates with the Institute of Policies and Public Goods of the Spanish government’s Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) in STI policy research. He has been a consultant for international organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the United Nations Institute for Vocational Training (UNITAR), the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECID), the Global Green Growth Institute, among others. He was Vice-Chancellor of INTEC (2015-2021), Vice Minister of Science and Technology of the Dominican Republic (2007-2009), and Vice President of the Inter-American Committee on Science and Technology of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, D.C. (2008-2009). In 2024, he was awarded the “Eugenio de Jesús Marcano” National Science and Technology Award for his pioneering contributions to science and the development of Dominican higher education.

Adelheid Holl has been a research fellow at the Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP) since 2009. She was previously Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow at the Foundation for Studies in Applied Economics (FEDEA, Madrid). Before that, she worked as an urban and Regional Economics lecturer in the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Sheffield, UK. She holds a PhD in Town and Regional Planning from the University of Sheffield (2001), an MSc in Regional and urban planning studies from the London School of Economics (1996), and a Magister Degree in Commerce from the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (1994). Her research is primarily at the intersection of applied microeconomic analysis and economic geography and concentrates on economic activity’s location and spatial organization.

References

Åberg

H. E.

Tondelli

. 2021. “Escape to the Country: A Reaction-Driven Rural Renaissance on a Swedish Island Post COVID-19.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (22): 12895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212895.

Acebes

Iglesias-González

Muñoz-Galvez

F. J.

. 2021. “Do Traditional Livestock Systems Fit into Contemporary Landscapes? Integrating Social Perceptions and Values on Landscape Change.” Agriculture (Switzerland) 11 (11): 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111107.

Adami

Ojo

M. O.

Giordano

. 2021. “Design, Development, and Evaluation of an Intelligent Animal Repelling System for Crop Protection Based on Embedded Edge-AI.” IEEE Access 9: 132125–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3114503.

Agnoletti

2014. “Rural Landscape, Nature Conservation and Culture: Some Notes on Research Trends and Management Approaches from a (Southern) European Perspective.” Landscape and Urban Planning 126: 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.012.

Akbarpour

Imani

Molaei Qelichi

. 2022. “Assessing the Status of Social Factors Affecting Population Escaping in Rural Areas in Iran and Identifying Proponents: A Case Study.” Journal of Poverty 26 (6): 459–82.

Alamá-Sabater

Budí

Roig-Tierno

García-Álvarez-Coque

J. M.

. 2021. “Drivers of Depopulation and Spatial Interdependence in a Regional Context.” Cities 114: 103217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103217.

Alcácer

Cruz-Machado

. 2019. “Scanning the Industry 4.0: A Literature Review on Technologies for Manufacturing Systems.” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (3): 899–919.

Anastasiou

Duquenne

M. N.

. 2020. “Determinants and Spatial Patterns of Counterurbanization in Times of Crisis: Evidence from Greece.” Population Review 59 (2): 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1353/prv.2020.0004.

Anthias

Floya.

2012. “Intersectional What? Social Divisions, Intersectionality and Levels of Analysis.” Ethnicities 13 (1): 3–19.

10.

Anugerah

A. R.

Suksessanno Muttaqin

Trinarningsih

. 2022. “Social Network Analysis in Business and Management Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Research Trend and Performance from 2001 to 2020.” Heliyon 8 (4): e09270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09270.

11.

Asiimwe

M. M.

de Kock

I. H.

. 2019. “An Analysis of the Extent to Which Industry 4.0 has Been Considered in Sustainability or Socio-Technical Transitions.” South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 30 (3): 41–51.

12.

Bagula

Mandava

Bagula

. 2018. “A Framework for Healthcare Support in the Rural and Low Income Areas of the Developing World.” Journal of Network and Computer Applications 120: 17–29.

13.

Bai

Dallasega

Orzes

Sarkis

. 2020. “Industry 4.0 Technologies Assessment: A Sustainability Perspective.” International Journal of Production Economics 229: 107776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107776.

14.

Barzotto

Corradini

Fai

Labory

Tomlinson

P. R.

. 2020. “Smart Specialisation, Industry 4.0 and Lagging Regions: Some Directions for Policy.” Regional Studies, Regional Science 7 (1): 318–32.

15.

Bhubalan

Tamothran

A. M.

Kee

S. H.

Foong

S. Y.

Lam

S. S.

Ganeson

Vigneswari

Amirul

A. A.

Ramakrishna

. 2022. “Leveraging Blockchain Concepts as Watermarkers of Plastics for Sustainable Waste Management in Progressing Circular Economy.” Environmental Research 213: 113631.

16.

Bongomin

Gilibrays Ocen

Nganyi

E. O.

Musinguzi

Omara

. 2020. “Exponential Disruptive Technologies and the Required Skills of Industry 4.0.” Journal of Engineering 2020: 4280156. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4280156.

17.

Borrás

Edquist

. 2013. “The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (8): 1513–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.002.

18.

Borrás

Edquist

. 2019. Holistic Innovation Policy: Theoretical Foundations, Policy Problems, and Instrument Choices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

19.

Braesemann

Stephany

Teutloff

Kässi

Graham

Lehdonvirta

. 2022. “The Global Polarisation of Remote Work.” PLoS ONE 17 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274630.

20.

Capello

Lenzi

. 2021. “4.0 Technologies and the Rise of New Islands of Innovation in European Regions.” Regional Studies 55 (10–11): e0274630.

21.

Chatterjee

Majumdar

Misra

Damaševičius

. 2020. “Adoption of mobile Applications for Teaching-Learning Process in Rural Girls’ Schools in India: An Empirical Study.” Education and Information Technologies 25 (5): 4057–76.

22.

Chege

S. M.

Wang

. 2020. “The Impact of Technology Transfer on Agribusiness Performance in Kenya.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 32 (3): 332–48.

23.

Chen

C. L.

Deng

Y. Y.

Lee

C. F.

Zhu

Chiu

Y. J.

C. M.

. 2019. “An Internet-of-Things-Based Sensing Rural Medical Care System.” Sensors and Materials 31 (3): 1037–63.

24.

Chen

R. S.

Liu

I. F.

. 2013. “Research on the Effectiveness of Information Technology in Reducing the Rural-Urban Knowledge Divide.” Computers and Education 63: 437–45.

25.

Christensen

A-D.

Jensen

S. Q.

. 2012. “Doing Intersectional Analysis: Methodological Implications for Qualitative Research.” NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 20 (2): 109–25.

26.

Cook

Burke

P. J.

Bunn

Cuervo

. 2022. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Regional, Rural and Remote Undergraduate Students at an Australian University.” Educational Review 74 (3): 630–44.

27.

Coppock

D. L.

Desta

. 2013. “Collective Action, Innovation, and Wealth Generation among Settled Pastoral Women in Northern Kenya.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 66 (1): 95–105.

28.

da Fonseca

E. P. R.

Caldeira

Ramos Filho

H. S.

Barbosa e Oliveira

Pereira

A. C. M.

Vilela

P. S.

. 2020. “Agro 4.0: A Data Science-Based Information System for Sustainable Agroecosystem Management.” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 102: 102068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2020.102068.

29.

De Propris

Bailey

. 2021. “Pathways of Regional Transformation and Industry 4.0.” Regional Studies 55 (10-11): 1617–29.

30.

Dethier

J. J.

Effenberger

. 2012. “Agriculture and Development: A Brief Review of the Literature.” Economic Systems 36 (2): 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2011.09.003 .

31.

Díaz

M. J. S

. 2021. “Emergency Remote Education, Family Support and the Digital Divide in the Context of the COVID-19 Lockdown.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (15): 7956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157956.

32.

Diaz-Varela

R. A.

Zarco-Tejada

P. J.

Angileri

Loudjani

. 2014. “Automatic Identification of Agricultural Terraces Through Object-Oriented Analysis of Very High-Resolution DSMs and Multispectral Imagery Obtained from an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” Journal of Environmental Management 134: 117–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.006.

33.

Diercks

Larsen

Steward

. 2019. “Transformative Innovation Policy: Addressing Variety in an Emerging Policy Paradigm.” Research Policy 48 (4): 880–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028.

34.

D'Oronzio

M. A.

Sica

. 2021. “Innovation in Basilicata Agriculture: From Tradition to Digital.” Economia Agro-Alimentare 23 (2): 1–18.

35.

Duh

E. S.

Kos

. 2018. “Fablabs as Drivers for Open Innovation and co-Creation to Foster Rural Development. In Proceedings - 2016 International Conference on Identification, Information, and Knowledge in the Internet of Things, IIKI 2016. 16–21 October, Beijing.

36.

Dumitru

E. A.

Ursu

Tudor

V. C.

Micu

M. M.

. 2021. “Sustainable Development of the Rural Areas from Romania: Development of a Digital Tool to Generate Adapted Solutions at Local Level.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (21): 11921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111921.

37.

Durán

Gómez-Valenzuela

Ramírez

. 2023. “Socio-technical Transitions and Sustainable Agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review of the Literature 2010–2021.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7.

38.

Dwivedi

Y. K.

Hughes

Ismagilova

Aarts

Coombs

Crick

Duan

, et al. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Emerging Challenges, Opportunities, and Agenda for Research, Practice and Policy.” International Journal of Information Management: 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.

39.

Eneh

O. C.

2021. “Abuja Slums: Development, Causes, Waste-Related Health Challenges, Government Response and Way-Forward.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 23 (6): 9379–96.

40.

Finco

Bentivoglio

Bucci

. 2018. “Lessons of Innovation in the Agri-Food Sector: Drivers of Innovativeness Performances.” Economia Agro-Alimentare 20 (2): 181–92. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2018-002004.

41.

Florey

Hellin

Balié

. 2020. “Digital Agriculture and Pathways out of Poverty: The Need for Appropriate Design, Targeting, and Scaling.” Enterprise Development and Microfinance 31 (2): 126–40. https://doi.org/10.3362/1755-1986.20-00007.

42.

Fraske

2022. “Industry 4.0 and its Geographies: A Systematic Literature Review and the Identification of New Research Avenues.” Digital Geography and Society 3: 100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2022.100031.

43.

Frenken

2017. “A Complexity-Theoretic Perspective on Innovation Policy.” Complexity, Governance & Networks 3 (1): 35–47.

44.

Gaitán-Cremaschi

Klerkx

Duncan

Trienekens

J. H.

Huenchuleo

Dogliotti

Contesse

M. E.

Rossing

W. A. H.

. 2019. “Characterizing Diversity of Food Systems in View of Sustainability Transitions: A Review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39 (1): 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0550-2.

45.

García-Llorente

Martín-López

Iniesta-Arandia

López-Santiago

C. A.

Aguilera

P. A.

Montes

. 2012. “The Role of Multi-Functionality in Social Preferences Toward Semi-Arid Rural Landscapes: An Ecosystem Service Approach.” Environmental Science & Policy 19-20: 136–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006.

46.

Geels

F. W.

2010. “Ontologies, Socio-Technical Transitions (to Sustainability), and the Multi-Level Perspective.” Research Policy 39 (4): 495–510.

47.

Geels

F. W.

2019. “Socio-technical Transitions to Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009.

48.

Geels

F. W.

2020. “Transformative Innovation and Socio-technical Transitions to Address Grand Challenges.” European Commission R&I Paper Series, Working Paper 2. https://doi.org/10.2777/967325.

49.

Geels

F. W.

Sovacool

B. K.

Schwanen

Sorrell

. 2017. “Socio-technical Transitions for Deep Decarbonization.” Science 357 (6357): 1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf8956.

50.

Goel

R. K.

Yadav

C. S.

Vishnoi

Rastogi

. 2021. “Smart Agriculture—Urgent Need of the Day in Developing Countries.” Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems 30: 100512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2021.100512.

51.

Gómez-Valenzuela

2023. “Stated Preference Methods and STI Policy Studies: A Foreground Approach.” Research Evaluation 32 (2): 171–87.

52.

Gómez Valenzuela

Holl

. 2023. “Growth and Decline in Rural Spain: An Exploratory Analysis.” European Planning Studies: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2179390.

53.

Andreev

Dupre

M. E.

. 2021. “Major Trends in Population Growth around the World.” China CDC Wkly 3 (28): 604–13. https://doi.org/10.46234/ccdcw2021.160.

54.

Haddad

C. R.

, N.

Valentina

Bergek

Hellsmark

. 2022. “Transformative Innovation Policy: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 43: 14–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.03.002.

55.

Haefner

Sternberg

. 2020. “Spatial Implications of Digitization: State of the Field and Research Agenda.” Geography Compass 14 (12): e12544. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12544.

56.

Haque

2022. “Planning for Clean Technology Diffusion: Identifying Innovation System Functions in Country Technology Action Plans.” Energy Research and Social Science 90: 102595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102595.

57.

Hardi

Csontos

Tamás

. 2019. “Environmental Consequences of the Rural Abandonment—A Pilot Survey of Gardens in a Hungarian Ghost Village.” Journal of Landscape Ecology 17 (1): 121–9. https://doi.org/10.56617/tl.3471.

58.

Hardin

Barnes

E. M.

Delhom

C. D.

Wanjura

J. D.

Ward

J. K.

. 2022. “Internet of Things: Cotton Harvesting and Processing.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 202: 107294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107294.

59.

Hat

Stoeglehner

. 2020. “Spatial Dimension of the Employment Market Exposition to Digitalisation—the Case of Austria.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (5): 1–29.

60.

Helliwell

Burton

R. J. F.

. 2021. “The Promised Land? Exploring the Future Visions and Narrative Silences of Cellular Agriculture in News and Industry Media.” Journal of Rural Studies 84: 180–91.

61.

Herrero-Jáuregui

Arnaiz-Schmitz

Herrera

Smart

S. M.

Montes

Pineda

F. D.

Schmitz

M. F.

. 2019. “Aligning Landscape Structure with Ecosystem Services Along an Urban–Rural Gradient. Trade-Offs and Transitions Towards Cultural Services.” Landscape Ecology 34 (7): 1525–45.

62.

Holl

Pardo

Rama

. 2013. “Spatial Patterns of Adoption of Just-in-Time Manufacturing.” Papers in Regional Science 92 (1): 51–67.

63.

John

Wesseling

J. H.

Worrell

Hekkert

. 2022. “How Key-Enabling Technologies’ Regimes Influence Socio-Technical Transitions: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Decarbonization in the Steel Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 370: 133624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133624.

64.

Johnson

K. M.

Lichter

D. T.

. 2019. “Rural Depopulation: Growth and Decline Processes Over the Past Century.” Rural Sociology 84 (1): 3–27.

65.

Kattel

Mazzucato

. 2018. “Mission-oriented Innovation Policy and Dynamic Capabilities in the Public Sector.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 787–801.

66.

Kern

2012. “Using the Multi-Level Perspective on Socio-Technical Transitions to Assess Innovation Policy.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (2): 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.004.

67.

Kichuk

Semigina

Zubov

Tokareva

Shtyka

Holiachuk

. 2022. “Employment in the Agricultural Sector in the Coordinates of the Digital Economy: New Parameters and Strategic Vectors of Social Policy.” Journal of Agriculture and Crops 8 (4): 259–65. https://doi.org/10.32861/jac.84.259.265.

68.

Köhler

Geels

F. W.

Kern

Markard

Onsongo

Wieczorek

Alkemade

, et al. 2019. “An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

69.

Kondo

M. C.

Rivera

Rullman

. 2012. “Protecting the Idyll but not the Environment: Second Homes, Amenity Migration and Rural Exclusion in Washington State.” Landscape and Urban Planning 106 (2): 174–82.

70.

Kweon

Youn

Y. C.

. 2021. “Factors Influencing Sustainability of Traditional Village Groves (Maeulsoop) in Korea.” Forest Policy and Economics 128: 102477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102477.

71.

Laffi

Boschma

. 2022. “Does a Local Knowledge Base in Industry 3.0 Foster Diversification in Industry 4.0 Technologies? Evidence from European Regions.” Papers in Regional Science 101 (1): 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12643.

72.

Lafuente

Vaillant

Serarols

. 2010. “Location Decisions of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurs: Why Some Catalan KISAs Choose to Be Rural?” Technovation 30 (11–12): 590–600.

73.

Lamonica

H. M.

Roberts

A. E.

Lee

G. Y.

Davenport

T. A.

Hickie

I. B.

. 2021. “Privacy Practices of Health Information Technologies: Privacy Policy Risk Assessment Study and Proposed Guidelines.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 23 (9). https://doi.org/10.2196/26317.

74.

Lasanta

Arnáez

Pascual

Ruiz-Flaño

Errea

M. P.

Lana-Renault

. 2017. “Space-time Process and Drivers of Land Abandonment in Europe.” CATENA 149: 810–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.024.

75.

Lasi

Fettke

Kemper

H-G.

Feld

Hoffmann

. 2014. “Industry 4.0.” Business & Information Systems Engineering 6 (4): 239–42.

76.

Laszlo

2018. “Leadership and Systemic Innovation: Socio-Technical Systems, Ecological Systems, and Evolutionary Systems Design.” International Review of Sociology 28 (3): 380–91.

77.

Leach

Rockström

Raskin

Scoones

Stirling

A. C.

Smith

Thompson

, et al. 2012. “Transforming Innovation for Sustainability.” Ecology and Society 17 (2): 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04933-170211.

78.

Wang

. 2020. “Convenience Analysis of Sustainable E-Agriculture Based on Blockchain Technology.” Journal of Cleaner Production: 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122503 .

79.

Westlund

Liu

. 2019. “Why Some Rural Areas Decline While Some Others Not: An Overview of Rural Evolution in the World.” Journal of Rural Studies 68: 122503.

80.

Loft

Mann

Hansjürgens

. 2015. “Challenges in Ecosystem Services Governance: Multi-Levels, Multi-Actors, Multi-Rationalities.” Ecosystem Services 16: 150–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.002.

81.

Lopes de Sousa Jabbour

A. B.

Jabbour

C. J. C.

Godinho Filho

Roubaud

. 2018. “Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy: A Proposed Research Agenda and Original Roadmap for Sustainable Operations.” Annals of Operations Research 270 (1): 273–86.

82.

Ludvig

Sarkki

Weiss

Živojinović

. 2021. “Policy Impacts on Social Innovation in Forestry and Back: Institutional Change as a Driver and Outcome.” Forest Policy and Economics 122: 1021035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102335.

83.

Lüthje

2019. “Platform Capitalism ‘Made in China’? Intelligent Manufacturing, Taobao Villages and the Restructuring of Work.” Science, Technology and Society 24 (2): 199–217.

84.

Magnani

Cittati

V. M.

. 2022. “Combining the Multi-Level Perspective and Socio-Technical Imaginaries in the Study of Community Energy.” Energies 15 (5): 1624. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15051624.

85.

Marshall

Dolley

. 2019. “Transformative Innovation in Peri-Urban Asia.” Research Policy 48 (4): 983–92.

86.

Martínez-Abraín

Jiménez

Ferrer

Llaneza

Ferrer

Palomero

Ballesteros

Galán

Oro

. 2020. “Ecological Consequences of Human Depopulation of Rural Areas on Wildlife: A Unifying Perspective.” Biological Conservation 252: 108860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108860.

87.

Mascarenhas

Ferreira

J. J

Marques

. 2018. “University–Industry Cooperation: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Science and Public Policy 45 (5): 708–18.

88.

Mazzucato

2018. “Mission-oriented Innovation Policies: Challenges and Opportunities.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 803–15.

89.

McMahon

2020. “Co-developing Digital Inclusion Policy and Programming with Indigenous Partners: Interventions from Canada.” Internet Policy Review 9 (2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1478.

90.

Melot

Bourdeau-Lepage

Bonnefond

. 2021. “Re-questioning the Connections Between Urban and Rural Areas: Regional Interconnections and Coordination.” Geographie Economie Societe 23 (4): 357–66. https://doi.org/10.3166/ges.2021.0021.

91.

Merrell

2022. “Blockchain for Decentralised Rural Development and Governance.” Blockchain: Research and Applications 3 (3): 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcra.2022.100086.

92.

Michels

Fecke

Feil

J. H.

Musshoff

Lülfs-Baden

Krone

. 2020. “‘Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere’—A Sample Selection Model of mobile Internet Adoption in German Agriculture.” Agribusiness 36 (2): 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21635.

93.

Min

Luo

Cao

Yuan

Cheng

S. K.

Yang

Sun

, et al. 2022. “Agri-Cultural Heritage: A Bridge Between Past and the Future.” Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment 39 (5): 856–68. https://doi.org/10.13254/j.jare.2022.0405.

94.

Morillo

M. J.

De Pablos

J. C.

. 2016. “Neo-rural “Authenticity” Through the lens of Baudrillard’s System of Objects.” Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas 153: 95–110. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.153.95.

95.

Münch

Marx

Benz

Hartmann

Matzner

. 2022. “Capabilities of Digital Servitization: Evidence from the Socio-Technical Systems Theory.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 176: 121361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121361.

96.

Negi

V. S.

Maikhuri

R. K.

. 2013. “Socio-Ecological and Religious Perspective of Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Issues, Concern and Priority for Sustainable Agriculture, Central Himalaya.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2): 491–512.

97.

Newburn

Berck

. 2011. “Exurban Development.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62 (3): 323–36.

98.

Newsham

Rowe

. 2023. “Understanding Trajectories of Population Decline Across Rural and Urban Europe: A Sequence Analysis.” Population, Space, and Place 29 (3): e2630. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2630.

99.

Onitsuka

Hidayat

A. R. R. T.

Huang

. 2018. “Challenges for the Next Level of Digital Divide in Rural Indonesian Communities.” Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 84 (2): e12013. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12021.

100.

Pandey

A. K.

Daultani

Pratap

. 2023. “Blockchain Technology Enabled Critical Success Factors for Supply Chain Resilience and Sustainability.” Business Strategy and the Environment 33 (2): 1533–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3548.

101.

Park

J. Y.

Nagy

. 2018. “Data on the Interaction Between Thermal Comfort and Building Control Research.” Data in Brief 17: 529–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.01.033.

102.

Pělucha

2019. “Smart Villages and Investments to Public Services and ICT Infrastructure: Case of the Czech Rural Development Program 2007-2013.” European Countryside 11 (4): 584–98.

103.

Pereira

L. S.

2017. “Water, Agriculture and Food: Challenges and Issues.” Water Resources Management 31 (10): 2985–99.

104.

Perianes-Rodriguez

Waltman

van Eck

N. J.

. 2016. “Constructing Bibliometric Networks: A Comparison Between Full and Fractional Counting.” Journal of Informetrics 10 (4): 1178–95.

105.

Piras

Venturi

Corrieri

Santoro

Agnoletti

. 2021. “Forest Surface Changes and Cultural Values: The Forests of Tuscany (Italy) in the Last Century.” Forests 12 (5): 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12050531.

106.

Prause

2021. “Digital Agriculture and Labor: A Few Challenges for Social Sustainability.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (11): 5980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115980.

107.

Qin

Wang

Zhou

Guo

Jiang

Zhang

. 2022. “Digital Technology-and-Services-Driven Sustainable Transformation of Agriculture: Cases of China and the EU.” Agriculture (Switzerland) 12 (2): 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020297.

108.

Quaranta

Salvia

. 2017. “Participatory Approach to a Place-Based Sustainable Rural Development: E-Market Platform for a Resilient Agri-Food Chain.” Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 18 (2): 616–22.

109.

Radford

K. G.

James

. 2013. “Changes in the Value of Ecosystem Services Along a Rural-Urban Gradient: A Case Study of Greater Manchester, UK.” Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (1): 117–27.

110.

Rahman

Kumar

Fazal

Siddiqui

M. A.

. 2012. “Assessment of Land Use/Land Cover Change in the North-West District of Delhi Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques.” Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 40 (4): 689–97.

111.

Rana

M. M. P.

Moniruzzaman

. 2021. “Transformative Adaptation in Agriculture: A Case of Agroforestation in Bangladesh.” Environmental Challenges 2: 100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100026.

112.

Rodríguez-Pose

Dijkstra

. 2021. “Does Cohesion Policy Reduce EU Discontent and Euroscepticism?.” Regional Studies 55 (2): 354–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1826040.

113.

Rye

J. F.

Scott

. 2018. “International Labour Migration and Food Production in Rural Europe: A Review of the Evidence.” Sociologia Ruralis 58 (4): 928–52.

114.

Sain

Loboguerrero

A. M.

Corner-Dolloff

Lizarazo

Nowak

Martínez-Barón

Andrieu

. 2017. “Costs and Benefits of Climate-Smart Agriculture: The Case of the Dry Corridor in Guatemala.” Agricultural Systems 151: 163–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.004.

115.

Santos

Ferreira

Bastos

Vicente

Honrado

Kueffer

Kull

C. A.

Berger

Cabral

J. A.

. 2016. “Linking Landscape Futures with Biodiversity Conservation Strategies in North-West Iberia—A Simulation Study Combining Surrogates with a Spatio-Temporal Modeling Approach.” Ecological Informatics 33: 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2016.04.008.

116.

Savaget

Geissdoerfer

Kharrazi

Evans

. 2019. “The Theoretical Foundations of Socio-Technical Systems Change for Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 206: 878–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.208.

117.

Scholz

R. W.

2017. “The Normative Dimension in Transdisciplinarity, Transition Management, and Transformation Sciences: New Roles of Science and Universities in Sustainable Transitioning.” Sustainability 9 (6): 991.

118.

Schot

Steinmueller

W. E.

. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1554–67.

119.

Schuetz

Venkatesh

. 2020. “Blockchain, Adoption, and Financial Inclusion in India: Research Opportunities.” International Journal of Information Management 52: 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.009.

120.

Sheila

N. A.

Zhu

Kintu

M. J.

De Pauw

Mugenyi

A. R.

Marien

Van Audenhove

. 2022. “Empirical Evaluation of Rural Farmers’ Preparedness and Intention to Use a Dairy Application for Collaboration with a Higher Education Institution in Uganda.” Social Sciences and Humanities Open 6 (1): 100363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100363.

121.

Shim

2013. “After Broadband Infrastructure Saturation: The Impact of Public Investment on Rural Social Capital.” International Journal of Communication 7 (1): 26–47.

122.

Singh

V. K.

Singh

Karmakar

Leta

Mayr

. 2021. “The Journal Coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis.” Scientometrics 126 (6): 5113–42.

123.

Slack

Jensen

. 2020. “The Changing Demography of Rural and Small-Town America.” Population Research and Policy Review 39 (5): 775–83.

124.

Sovacool

B. K.

Hess

D. J.

Amir

Geels

F. W.

Hirsh

Medina

L. R.

Miller

, et al. 2020. “Socio-Technical Agendas: Reviewing Future Directions for Energy and Climate Research.” Energy Research & Social Science 70: 101617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101617.

125.

Swette

Lambin

E. F.

. 2021. “Institutional Changes Drive Land use Transitions on Rangelands: The Case of Grazing on Public Lands in the American West.” Global Environmental Change 66: 102220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102220.

126.

Syromyatnikov

Geiko

Kuashbay

Sadikbekova

. 2020. “Agile Supply Chain Management in Agricultural Business.” International Journal of Supply Chain Management 9 (3): 377–83.

127.

Takácsné György

Lámfalusi

Molnár

Sulyok

Gaál

Keményné Horváth

Domán

, et al. 2018. “Precision Agriculture in Hungary: Assessment of Perceptions and Accounting Records of FADN Arable Farms.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 120 (1): 47–54.

128.

Tang

Y. M.

Chau

K. Y.

Fatima

Waqas

. 2022. “Industry 4.0 Technology and Circular Economy Practices: Business Management Strategies for Environmental Sustainability.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29 (33): 49752–69.

129.

Tenza-Peral

Pérez-Ibarra

Breceda

Martínez-Fernández

Giménez

. 2022. “Can Local Policy Options Reverse the Decline Process of Small and Marginalized Rural Areas Influenced by Global Change?” Environmental Science and Policy 127: 57–65.

130.

Tim

Cui

Sheng

. 2021. “Digital Resilience: How Rural Communities Leapfrogged into Sustainable Development.” Information Systems Journal 31 (2): 323–45.

131.

Tipirneni

Kieffer

E. C.

Ayanian

J. Z.

Campbell

E. G.

Salman

Clark

S. J.

Chang

, et al. 2019. “Factors Influencing Primary Care Providers’ Decisions to Accept New Medicaid Patients Under Michigan's Medicaid Expansion.” American Journal of Managed Care 25 (3): 120–7. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/0vv8moc6/ajmc/a9f7725f2f9375b398f6ca495ab8a8ac8fd4f3c8.pdf/AJMC_03_2019_Tipirneni%2520final.pdf

132.

Uddin

S. M. N.

Muhandiki

V. S.

Sakai

Al Mamun

Hridi

S. M.

. 2014. “Socio-cultural Acceptance of Appropriate Technology: Identifying and Prioritizing Barriers for Widespread Use of the Urine Diversion Toilets in Rural Muslim Communities of Bangladesh.” Technology in Society 38: 32–9.

133.

Urmee

. 2016. “Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions of off-Grid Renewable Energy Programs in Developing Countries.” Renewable Energy 93: 159–67.

134.

van Delden

Stuczynski

Ciaian

Paracchini

M. L.

Hurkens

Lopatka

Shi

Y. E.

, et al. 2010. “Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Policies with Dynamic Land Use Change Modelling.” Ecological Modelling 221 (18): 2153–66.

135.

van der Vaart

Jacob H. P

. 2005. “Towards a New Rural Landscape: Consequences of non-Agricultural Re-use of Redundant Farm Buildings in Friesland.” Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (1): 143–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.010.

136.

van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

. 2010. “Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping.” Scientometrics 84 (2): 523–38.

137.

Viana

J. G. A.

Waquil

P. D.

. 2022. “Institutions and Agricultural Economics: A Theoretical Framework from Evolutionary Institutionalism.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 124 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.2265.

138.

Vidickiene

Vilke

Gedminaite-Raudone

. 2020. “Transformative Tourism as an Innovative Tool for Rural Development.” European Countryside 12 (3): 277–91.

139.

Vizzari

Sigura

. 2015. “Landscape Sequences Along the Urban-Rural–Natural Gradient: A Novel Geospatial Approach for Identification and Analysis.” Landscape and Urban Planning 140: 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.001.

140.

Widyaningsih

T. S.

Darwin

M. M.

Pangaribowo

E. H.

Maryudi

. 2022. “Harnessing Social Innovations and Mobilizing Networks for Improving Local Livelihoods: Cases of two Community-Managed Forests from Indonesia.” Forests Trees and Livelihoods 31 (1): 27–44.

141.

Wolff

Haase

Leibert

. 2021. “Contextualizing Small Towns—Trends of Demographic Spatial Development in Germany 1961–2018.” Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 103 (3): 196–217.

142.

. 2022. “Rural Workplace Sustainable Development of Smart Rural Governance Workplace Platform for Efficient Enterprise Performances.” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1588638.

143.

Yabar

. 2021. “Impacts of Additive Manufacturing to Sustainable Urban-Rural Interdependence Through Strategic Control.” Results in Control and Optimization 5: 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2021.100066.

144.

Yascaribay

Huerta

Silva

Clotet

. 2022. “Performance Evaluation of Communication Systems Used for Internet of Things in Agriculture.” Agriculture (Switzerland) 12 (6): 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060786.

145.

Yin

Chen

. 2022. “Rural Innovation System: Revitalize the Countryside for a Sustainable Development.” Journal of Rural Studies 93: 471–8.

146.

Zambrano-Prado

Orsini

Rieradevall

Josa

Gabarrell

. 2021. “Potential Key Factors, Policies, and Barriers for Rooftop Agriculture in EU Cities: Barcelona, Berlin, Bologna, and Paris.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.733040.

147.

Zhang

Nazroo

Vanhoutte

. 2021. “The Relationship Between Rural to Urban Migration in China and Risk of Depression in Later Life: An Investigation of Life Course Effects.” Social Science and Medicine 270: 113637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113637.

148.

Zhang

. 2020. “How do Smart Villages Become a Way to Achieve Sustainable Development in Rural Areas? Smart Village Planning and Practices in China.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (24): 1–20.

149.

Zhu

Wang

Cui

Yao

. 2022. “Rural Road Network Planning Based on 5G and Traffic Big Data.” Journal of Advanced Transportation 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1991757.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB