The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe-Recommendations from a Scoping Review

informatics Review The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe—Recommendations from a Scoping Review Miguel-Ángel Esteban-Navarro 1, Miguel-Ángel García-Madurga 2,* , Tamara Morte-Nadal 1 and Antonia-Isabel Nogales-Bocio 1 1Department of Journalism and Communication, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] (M.-Á.E.-N.); [email protected] (T.M.-N.); [email protected] (A.-I.N.-B.) 2Department of Business Administration, University of Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 21 October 2020; Accepted: 3 December 2020; Published: 5 December 2020   Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the digital vulnerability of many citizens of the rural world. This article identifies and analyzes the proposals made by academic literature to overcome the digital divide in the European rural world for the five-year period 2016–2020. A scoping review has been carried out according to the PRISMA methodology in the two dimensions of the digital divide: access and connectivity, and use and exploitation. Online databases were used to identify scientific articles from which, after screening, 28 key documents were selected. The results update Salemink systematic review of articles published between 1991 and 2014 on digital and rural development in Western countries and it also intends to go beyond by extracting recommendations. A variety of political, social, educational, technical and economic issues has been exposed, with a common emphasis on the empowerment of rural populations. The findings provide actionable evidence and proposals to facilitate decision-making in current policy information to overcome rural digital divide. From them, seven recommendations that could have a wide and rapid impact to minimize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic linked to the rural digital divide are synthesized. Three lines of action in the medium term are also proposed: the evaluation of national and regional public policies; the consideration of digital inclusion as a potential instrument to reduce rural depopulation; and the training in advanced digital skills to improve the social communication processes, considered key to promote empowerment and entrepreneurship. Keywords: rural communities; digital divide; digital inclusion; scoping review; COVID-19 pandemic; Europe 1. Introduction 1.1. Context: The Digital Transformation of Society and the COVID-19 The European Council stated in the Lisbon Strategy (23 and 24 March 2000) that Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) were the basis of a competitive, dynamic, and knowledge-based economy. This document, also known as the Lisbon Agenda, was the turning point for the advancement of the information society and the birth of e-government policies in the European Union. This project of information society was founded on the creation, distribution, use, and reuse of information through ICT, promoting wider access to knowledge, opening up new ways and opportunities to participate in social life, growing in a sustainable way with more and better jobs, and creating the conditions for greater prosperity and social cohesion [1]. Informatics 2020,7, 54; doi:10.3390/informatics7040054 www.mdpi.com/journal/informatics Informatics 2020,7, 54 2 of 18 Fifteen years later, the EU Digital Single Market Strategy launched The eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020, with three policy priorities: upgrading the public administration with ICT, using key digital enablers; achieving interoperable digital public services to allow cross-border mobility, simplifying the access to markets, increasing confidence and stimulating competition; and facilitating easy digital interaction between administrations and citizens and businesses [ 2 ]. This action plan establishes the following underlying principles: digital vision by default, “once only” principle, inclusiveness and accessibility, openness and transparency, cross-border level by default, interoperability by default and trustworthiness and security [ 3 ]. The countries of the European Union have designed, based on this action plan and its antecedents, their own national and regional e-government plans, being at different stages of implementation. Simultaneously, the European Union has taken decisive actions to establish an open internet, without which the information society would be a fallacy. This open internet means the recognition of the “ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice”, whenever they comply with legal obligations and do not jeopardize the security and integrity of the network; and that providers of internet access “shall not block, slow down, alter, restrict, interfere with, degrade or discriminate” specific content, applications or services [ 4 ]. The raise of use and profit of information, respectful of intellectual property rights, to create new knowledge, establish new social interactions and minimize social barriers, would not be possible without a legal frame based on these principles. The creation of a hyper-connected European society through applications, networks and social media in a safe, open, creative, and reliable technological environment is nowadays a priority objective of the general policy and innovation programs of the European Union [5]. The year 2020 will go down in history for the great boost that the information society, e-government and social hyper-connectivity had in Europe due to the social distancing measures of the population, and even confinement, adopted by the majority of the national governments. Teleworking has grown exponentially throughout the service sector. The digitization of the economy and electronic commerce has made significant progress. Public services have closed or restricted physical access to offices and have established that many processes and formalities can be carried out exclusively digitally. Citizens have been forced to interact through ICT to access essential services such as education and healthcare. Social media has become for many people the main means of access to information, the major channel of communication and even in some cases the only way of social interaction. Everything indicates that these transformations have come to stay. This acceleration of the digitization of human relationships, which began more than three decades ago, is the central factor of social change today, rather than the fact itself of the action of an exogenous element, such as the health crisis caused by COVID-19. The expansion of the information society depends on something more than just the conjunctural presence of an accelerating catalyst. First and foremost, citizens are required to have access to ICTs, be competent in their use, and be able to benefit from it. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the digital vulnerability of many citizens in these three dimensions: connectivity, use and exploitation; and it has also revealed the serious consequences of that vulnerability: the pandemic has caused a situation in which the access to the internet seems to have become necessary even for survival, especially if it is related to health issues [ 6 ]. In a situation with strict measures of social and physical distancing, the access to new digital services, provided to date through face-to-face or by phone, requires for the applicant to be connected to the internet and to know how to interact with ICT. Consequently, those on the wrong side of the digital divide are completely left out of these services, having a greater risk of social exclusion. As stated by the World Summit on the Information Society [7], only when all the people and communities can create, consult, use and share information and knowledge they have the necessary requirements for promoting sustainable development and improving their quality of life. More recently, the three types of social exclusion the digital divide can cause have been synthesized: political, in the exercise of civil and human rights; participation in social activities, being deprived of information and effective communication with other citizens; and economic, Informatics 2020,7, 54 3 of 18 as access to better education is reduced and therefore professional training is downgraded and the risk of unemployment and low income increases [8]. Although there is a long tradition of debate on the digital divide, there is now renewed interest, relevance, and urgency to investigate this issue. Information Science and Communication Studies, as places of interdisciplinary meetings that analyzes everything related to the development of information and communicative processes in the society and in a special way the relationships between social and communicative changes, cannot remain oblivious to the problems that generate the gap and its digital vulnerability. 1.2. Background: Digital Divide and Digital Inclusion Digital divide is currently understood as the difference between individuals, companies, regions, and countries in the access and use of ICT [ 9 ]. It consists of a difference of approach to technological tools and services such as mobile telephony, computers and the internet that generates an inequality of opportunities to satisfy needs and improve living conditions, which is intolerable in a democratic society. This concept has been popular since 1995 when it was used in the Falling through the Net report of the U.S. Department of Commerce to express unequal access to emerging ICT between and within countries [10]. The digital divide had two dimensions in first studies about the subject, one related to whom has access to technology and another that emphasizes inequality in the skills to use technology among those who have access, as Riggins and Dewan [ 11 ] first stated in their pioneering study, now classic, on research trends in this matter. Later researchers, such as De’ et al. [ 6 ], decompose the use dimension into two: technical skills, on the one hand, and high-level use in complex situations such as education and commerce, on the other. In contrast, the concept of digital inclusion emerged referring to the objective and the process of implementing measures by a government or a public or private entity to bring the knowledge and use of ICT closer to those who do not already have it [ 12 ]. There is a consensus that the debate on digital inclusion is not only about people being connected, but it should also focus on the degree and models of use of ITC [ 13 ] and the conditioning factors [ 14 ]. Hence, actions to bridge the digital divide must be directed towards diverse aspects, depending on the differences arising from the available resources to access ICT or from geographic, demographic, educational, socioeconomic and cultural disparities that condition the ability and skills to use these technologies. The unforeseen and sudden phenomenon of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted in all its rawness the reality where the digital divide not only has a social nature but also a territorial difference that overlaps as a second layer to each of these specific starting situations in a transversal and decisive way. This is the digital territorial divide, which occurs not only between countries but also within them, between urban and rural areas, and in particular between unpopulated or low-population territories compared to the rest. Depending on the place of residence, access to the internet will be available or not and that access will be of higher or lower quality, regardless of the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the individual or user group. The paradox of this territorial difference is that rural communities need more and better digital connectivity to compensate for their remoteness, but the fact we face is that these communities are generally less and worse connected by technologies and, therefore, their inhabitants and their companies are less digitally included. For example, rural broadband coverage is lower than national coverage in all the states of the European Union without exception, and just over a half of rural households (52.3%) had access to next-generation high-speed services in 2018 [15]. In short, the digital divide in connectivity and use is greater among the rural population, which also has by means of their age a greater exposure to the risks and consequences of COVID-19, creating an important pocket of marginalization and social exclusion. Older adults in rural areas are among the most likely to be left out of any creative and technologically based adaptation to meet social and other needs during this crisis. Additionally, as people stay home to slow the spread of COVID-19, inequalities in the loneliness of rural seniors are exacerbated, especially among those who do not have opportunities Informatics 2020,7, 54 4 of 18 to connect virtually [ 16 ]. Internet access can be seen as a public good that is required to provide the population with other public services, such as health, education, social services, and e-government. As Philip et al. described [ 17 ], the digital divide has become a facet of well-established exclusion in rural communities and, in a fast-changing economy, remote micro-businesses are at risk of being left behind. The digital divide not only increases the risks of social exclusion during the pandemic in the rural areas, but also prevents taking advantage of opportunities derived from the social change that is occurring. For example, telework has grown significantly in the European Union, reaching an average of 39% in April for all countries. Although it is foreseeable that after the COVID-19 crisis this percentage will be reduced, it is also very likely that it will maintain higher rates in all countries, age groups, gender and population sites than before the crisis. However, telework may lead to what a technical report by the European Commission has characterized in May 2020 as a new digital divide, founded on the type of settlement conditions: only 29% of workers living in the rural world have accessed telework compared to 44% of those living in large cities and 35% in the suburbs during the pandemic. Simultaneously, it is expected that in the long term the demand for accommodation, office space and catering and health services in metropolitan areas may shift to small cities and rural areas [18]. Teleworking can help balance the current differences in growth and development between the rural and urban worlds. Connectivity and increased use of technology are also vital for small businesses in the rural environment, basically agricultural and livestock facilities and processing companies, to transform their products, to overcome the limitations of their location and to face the challenges in integrating into e-commerce networks. However, these and other opportunities will be lost if the connectivity of the rural world is not improved. 2. Rural Digital Divide: State of the Art The early state of the art of Riggins and Dewan on the digital divide [ 11 ] examined the effects of the two meanings of this concept (gap in access and inequality in ability of use) from three levels of analysis: individual, organizational, and global. The theoretical perspective adopted, the research methodology used, and the key results obtained by the research carried out up to that date were studied in each level. This showed the little research existing in the field of the digital divide from a territorial perspective or focused on the specific problems of the rural world, except for Zhang and Wolff’s economic feasibility analysis [ 19 ] on the cost-effective affordable proposal to combine high gain antennas, dynamically steerable beamforming antennas, and multihop routing to provide high-speed wireless internet access in rural or remote areas. Riggins and Dewan [ 11 ] also suggested twelve research topics to conduct a more in-depth examination of the digital divide and how it affects citizens, managers and economies, which have had broad echoes in later literature; but none of their recommendations were related to the digital divide between urban and rural worlds. However, due to the social interest of the matter, numerous studies on the digital divide in the rural world were undertaken, becoming the subject three years ago of a systematic review of 157 articles published between 1991 and 2014 on digital and rural development in Western countries, mainly focused on the aspects of connectivity and inclusion [ 20 ]. Regarding the first aspect, it was evident that public policies aimed at the implementation or improvement of technological infrastructures in the rural world are generally sensitive to the needs of these territories, but their achievements are quickly obsolete by rapid technological development, as they are more reactive than anticipating and not very sensitive to market failure. Obstacles to the adoption and use of technologies arising from the existence of a lower average level of education and computer skills in rural areas than urban ones were proven. Generic policies in this field were concluded to neglect particular local needs, as not all rural communities are the same, so it was proposed that future researches should focus on specific communities, while addressing connectivity and inclusion issues to support more personalized public policies. This idea has been taken up for Australia, indicating that national policies could better Informatics 2020,7, 54 5 of 18 reduce digital inequality between the urban and rural world by supporting and empowering local solutions [21]. There is a consensus in the academic literature that poor rural telecommunication infrastructures hinder rural development, increase regional growth gaps, and ultimately affect the competitiveness of national economies [ 20 ]. However, it is also true that digital inequality is also a reflection of previous social inequalities [ 22 ], as important as youth migration, geographical isolation, and lack of economic resources in the case of rural communities. These phenomena can be decisive, since, even with broadband access to the internet, many rural communities may be unable to exploit the full potential of this technology and remain at a disadvantage compared to cities [ 23 ]. It has also been noted that even when broadband reaches a rural community, many residents do not participate in the modern online society due to a lack of capacity or even willingness to adapt to new technologies [ 24 ]. Having access to digital connections does not imply that people use them [ 25 ]. Due to this, the adoption of digital technologies in the rural world has been considered the result of the interaction of individual factors such as personality, motivations, or innovative capacity, with other contextual factors of sociocultural nature [ 26 ]. From this background, the need to implement digital education programs aimed at mediating agents who can act as animators of vulnerable groups has also been deduced, favoring their digital and social inclusion [27]. Other systematic reviews carried out on the digital divide between companies [ 9 ] and on the approach to the problem with a social perspective [ 12 ] have not considered the rural territorial factor. Neither has the systematic review of studies on the second and third levels of the digital divide (mastering of internet search skills and obtaining tangible results from internet use) published by Scheerder et al. [ 28 ] pay attention to the territorial origin gap. The effects of the digital divide have not been considered by the growing body of literature on the use of social networks in risk and crisis communication either [29]. 3. Research Problem: Ending the Gap of the Rural Digital Divide The described acceleration of the process of digitization of society, together with the possible resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic or the likelihood of other crisis situations requiring restricting mobility, coincidence in common spaces and physical contact between persons, will require from citizens a universal, intensive, continuous and, even exclusive, use of ICT. At the same time, public authorities are obliged to design policies, make decisions, and implement urgent and quickly effective measures that minimize digital gaps of any kind, including those of territorial origin, especially in the rural areas. If such work is not carried out, there will be an inequality of citizens and territories in their participation in the information and knowledge society. Epstein et al. [ 30 ] suggested that the digital divide research not only covers a variety of ideas about the nature of the problem itself, but also deals with the manner in which it should be resolved, being the most responsible element for doing so. The study on spatial dimensions of this divide and their solution is needed given the increasing importance of broadband for the development of disadvantaged rural communities [ 31 ]. As Mack et al. recently concluded [ 32 ], the digital divide remains a topic of global research inquiry and a focal concern for policymakers, particularly with regard to rural areas. Therefore, helping to determine which analyses were carried out about rural digital divide and which policies, decisions and measures based on scientific studies have been proposed, with particular attention to those of prompt implementation in view of the current pandemic, has become a research problem of obvious scientific and social relevance. The pandemic has given rise to abundant scientific literature, focused, among others, on topics as varied as the availability of infrastructure to generate economic growth and social opportunities without compromising environmental protection [ 33 ] or the interconnections between COVID-19, the food system and the circular economy [ 34 ]. There are also case studies on The Rural Digital Divide, with empowerment as the theoretical lens and focused on non-European realities [ 8 ]. The aim of our research is to provide an overview of the recommendations made by the academic literature in the Informatics 2020,7, 54 6 of 18 five-year period 2016–20 to overcome the digital divide in the European rural world by carrying out a scoping review. From the selected documents, three research questions will be elucidated: • RQ1: In which areas has the academic literature proposed to act to overcome the rural digital divide in Europe? • RQ2: What recommendations based on social research methods and techniques have been proposed? • RQ3: Can recommendations of broad and rapid impact, which may be applicable to the current situation, be distinguished? The defined temporal scope is agreed to collect only studies carried out after the rapid deployment of 4G mobile phone technology, which after its introduction in major cities during 2012 and 2013 had already reached more than 90% of the territory in most European Union countries by the end of 2016 [ 35 ]. The 20 times higher transmission speed of 4G technology than 3G and its lower latency in data transmission, led to the generalization of the smartphone and the conversion of solutions based on the wiring of depopulated territories in technically obsolete and economically inefficient. Focusing on publications that match 4G technology has greater social relevance, as it will allow to put the focus on finding suitable recommendations for the present moment. Likewise, from a perspective of scientific relevance, the scoping review will allow to check if the research on the digital divide in the rural world has evolved towards the study of particular situations proposed by Salemink et al. [20]. 4. Materials and Methods Systematic reviews to synthesize existing knowledge in a discipline or on a subject are very adequate to facilitate decision-making, so they are increasingly used [ 36 ]. Scoping review is a type of systematic review that is revealed as a useful methodology for providing actionable and relevant evidence efficiently when time or cost factors are important [ 37 ]. Scoping reviews respect the key principles of systematic reviews, including the clear statement of the objectives of the review, the pre-definition of eligibility criteria, the assessment of the validity of results and the systematic presentation of results [ 38 ], with the exception that processes are accelerated and optimized. In situations where urgent decisions are required, governments, stakeholders in the health system, international organizations and civil society request rapid reviews [ 39 ]. Additionally, the scoping review questions are useful to bring together evidence from heterogeneous sources and knowledge areas [ 40 ]. For these reasons, the publication of this kind of report has become commonplace in a wide variety of areas in recent years [ 41 ]. For example, Communication Studies has participated in this actual research trend, with 70 revisions on communication issues since 2015 until June 2020, according to the Scopus database. These revisions are rigorous and explicit in the method and, therefore, systematic, but they make concessions to the breadth or depth of the review process by limiting some aspects. Several valid techniques are used in order to achieve this, such as shortening the study time, carefully focusing the question, using less sophisticated searching strategies, restricting the amount of grey literature, or extracting only key variables [ 42 ]. Consequently, they involve fewer stakeholders, fewer discussions, fewer iterations, and greater use of the previous lessons learned [ 43 ]. The preparation of such reviews is an important challenge, due to the difficulty of responding in the short term, with scientific rigor and with a standard of transparency acceptable to everything concerned, although these difficulties do not undermine their validity [44]. According to the recommendations of Hartling et al. [ 45 ], this research on the rural digital divide is characterized by the transparency of the method followed and the clarity of its purpose. The review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA protocol [ 46 ]. PRISMA was developed by a group of experts who identified the minimum criteria for systematic reviews for high-quality scientific publications. A PRISMA checklist is available Informatics 2020,7, 54 7 of 18 to increase its transparency [ 47 ], which has been used to facilitate traceability of the entire process followed in general and the flow of information in particular. Once the research topic was defined, a four-stage process was followed: identification of relevant studies, selection of studies, mapping of data, and synthesis and reporting of the results. The final product is a narrative presentation, with minimal statistical data, that provides information to contribute to the research, practice and policy, and which, in addition to the intrinsic value that this has in itself, can serve as a starting point for future researches [ 48 ]. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified and documented, as described in Table 1. It was decided to use research papers published in academic journals or in proceedings of scientific conferences between 2016 and 2020 in English, French or Spanish. Monographs and chapters edited in collective books were excluded because their diffusion and impact factor are much minor. The official literature, status reports and opinion pieces in magazines were not considered because our purpose was to identify and analyze proposals based on scientific studies. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria • Research papers published in academic journals or in proceedings of scientific conferences •Published in the period of 2016–2020 •Written in English, French or Spanish •Monographs •Chapters edited in collective books •Official literature, status reports and opinion pieces in magazines On 15 June 2020, an exhaustive search was carried out on the following bibliographical reference databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, GoogleScholar, InDICEs CSIC and Cairn. To construct the optimal search equation, terms related to the digital divide, the rural world, and depopulation were searched and combined, both in English, Spanish, and French, the adequacy of which was tested in Scopus with the following results: 1. The search “digital divide” into title, abstract, and keywords resulted in 6353 documents. This high figure is an indicator of the existence of extensive terminological standardization, so the compound term was considered adequate. 2. Next, within the results, articles originally written in Spanish and French were searched to obtain equivalent terms that would allow searching databases in those languages (InDICEs CSIC, Cairn and Google Scholar). The results were “brecha digital” with 32 documents and “fracture numérique” with 19 searched documents. 3. The terms selected for the scope of analysis of the digital divide chosen were three. After searching within the results for the word “rural”, we proceeded to select the most appropriate terms “rural communities” with 25,817 results in the title, abstract, and keywords, and “rural areas” with 131,729 results in the entire database. The specific term “depopulation” was also added to avoid possible silences, which yielded 4760 results. 4. The following search equation was considered valid to express the semantic content of the information request: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“digital divide”)) AND (((TITLE-ABS-KEY (“rural areas”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“rural communities”))) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (depopulation))). Result: 479 documents. 5. To develop the definitive search equation, we included limiters that were appropriate to the inclusion criteria for time and type of publication. The expression of the equation according to the Scopus interrogation language was this: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“digital divide”)) AND (((TITLE-ABS-KEY (“rural areas”)) OR (TITLE-ABSKEY (“rural communities”))) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (depopulation))) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”) OR LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “p”)). Result: 131 documents. Informatics 2020,7, 54 8 of 18 Searches with the help of this equation or its analogs in French and Spanish in the rest of the databases, appropriate to the specific interrogation languages, yielded a total of 419 references. These results of the searches were exported to the EndNote reference manager software: 91 duplicate items were removed, leaving the sample at 328 references. An evidence examination based on the title and the abstract was performed for the selection of the studies. Sixty papers were excluded because they did not meet the objective of the study from the perspective of the social sciences or because they were not based on the use of a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed research method and techniques. Then, an evaluation of the degree of interest of the 268 documents selected was carried out, discarding 117 documents focused on experiences or problems of non-European countries together with 123 more that eluded the proposal and intervention actions to overcome the digital divide. As a final result, 28 documents were selected for the qualitative synthesis. Figure 1shows the inclusion decision flow diagram with the steps of the review decision process (identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion) according to the PRISMA standard. Informatics 2020, 7, x 8 of 18 the qualitative synthesis. Figure 1 shows the inclusion decision flow diagram with the steps of the review decision process (identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion) according to the PRISMA standard. Figure 1. Flowchart of inclusion decisions. Source: The Authors from PRISMA standard. 5. Recommendations Related to Access and Connectivity The results of the analysis of academic literature about the rural digital divide in Europe in the last five years allow obtaining relevant answers to the three proposed research questions. First, there is a comprehensive analysis of all dimensions of the digital divide, but the articles are specialized in one of them: technical or social. In general, the studies centered on the social dimension are focused more on aspects related to the exploitation of the internet to promote personal and territorial development, than in the training on technical skills in ICT. Seen as a whole, the literature covers the main aspects of the general environment of the rural digital divide, configuring, in a certain way, a PEST analysis: political, economic, social, and technological. Second, most of the studies are not limited to explaining and analyzing the state of a rural community or a social group, but also propose specific intervention measures, which has made it possible to develop seven recommendations for the short term and new lines of research and social intervention in the medium term, which are summarized in the conclusions section. Finally, despite the fact that studies were obviously carried out without the horizon of the current pandemic situation, most of these recommendations and lines of action can be carried out quickly because they do not require structural changes, but rather determined and coordinated government actions. 5.1. Broadband as an Essential Requirement Rural areas remain at a disadvantaged position due to poor connectivity, a problem that needs to be addressed by governments to correct imbalances, encourage proactive attitudes, and limit the Figure 1. Flowchart of inclusion decisions. Source: The Authors from PRISMA standard. 5. Recommendations Related to Access and Connectivity The results of the analysis of academic literature about the rural digital divide in Europe in the last five years allow obtaining relevant answers to the three proposed research questions. First, there is a comprehensive analysis of all dimensions of the digital divide, but the articles are specialized in one of them: technical or social. In general, the studies centered on the social dimension are focused more on aspects related to the exploitation of the internet to promote personal and territorial development, than in the training on technical skills in ICT. Seen as a whole, the literature covers the main aspects of the general environment of the rural digital divide, configuring, in a certain way, a PEST analysis: political, economic, social, and technological. Second, most of the studies are not limited to explaining and analyzing the state of a rural community or a social group, but also propose specific intervention measures, which has made it possible to develop seven recommendations for the short term and Informatics 2020,7, 54 9 of 18 new lines of research and social intervention in the medium term, which are summarized in the conclusions section. Finally, despite the fact that studies were obviously carried out without the horizon of the current pandemic situation, most of these recommendations and lines of action can be carried out quickly because they do not require structural changes, but rather determined and coordinated government actions. 5.1. Broadband as an Essential Requirement Rural areas remain at a disadvantaged position due to poor connectivity, a problem that needs to be addressed by governments to correct imbalances, encourage proactive attitudes, and limit the brain drain of qualified people moving to urban areas, often outside the country. Wilson and Hopkins [ 49 ] highlight the need to focus on the most disadvantaged areas to avoid further inequalities in the countryside and they propose to act region by region, rather than on the technological infrastructure of the area. Besides, they emphasize that investment in technology should not be seen as the goal, but as the means to achieve many other improvements that can “rescue” rural areas. Broadband is a key technology that not only ensures connectivity, but also has a decisive impact on companies’ ability to innovate and grow [ 50 ]. The absence of broadband leads small agri-food companies to take a passive approach to growth opportunities, particularly posing a serious barrier to diversification and internationalization. In their study on micro and small rural enterprises (Rural Public Access Wi-Fi Service (PAWS) project), Philip and Williams [ 23 ] analyze micro and small enterprises in the agriculture, tourism and art sectors, concluding that, in order to ensure the future of micro and small rural enterprises, the quality of connectivity and digital skills are fundamental, and so the former is necessary to enable the latter. They also argue that small and micro rural enterprises cannot be ignored in technological development programs, and more research should be carried out to study the relationship between connectivity and the development of rural economy. In contrast to the findings described, the evaluation work of Duvivier et al. [ 51 ] of the Auvergne tr è s haut d é bit programme in France concludes that the deployment of fiber and high speed has not significantly stimulated the creation of enterprises, having affected positively only to the creation of companies in specific sectors: hostelry; public administration, education, health and social work; and other activities in the services sector. While the deployment of fiber and high speed does not appear to be sufficient on its own to drive rural economic development, it may be a lever for development when certain conditions, related to the territorial economic context and design of digital policy, are met [ 51 ]. From the opposite perspective, the existence of faster internet technologies can even increase the urban–rural digital divide, as they are more expensive and difficult to obtain in rural areas [52]. 5.2. The Role of Governments in Connectivity State aid measures for broadband have flourished in the European Union, but knowledge of the effectiveness and efficiency of this policy is extremely scarce. In fact, the digital broadband gap between the Member States of the Union and the less developed rural areas has not been eliminated [ 53 ]. Matteucci [ 54 ] highlights a positive balance between the pros and cons of public intervention, as when looking at the performance of auction prices and the cost accounting of public works it seems that state intervention was carried out in a non-distorting and market-friendly manner. Besides, in acquisitions, despite being focused on technical quality, there was also a particular focus on greater efficiency, which broadly confirms the adequacy of the European Union’s procurement law. Matteucci [ 54 ] also points out important criticisms, such as the fact that the evolution of technology (5G, Internet of Things, Industry 4.0, etc.) requires faster deployment throughout the territory of the latest generation networks, as a technological prerequisite for the launch of services. Governments have also been criticized for inefficient implementations, lack of customer focus and poor consideration of risk factors and potential obstacles [ 55 ]. It has already been designated, as Salemink et al. emphasized [ 20 ], that policies aimed at improving technological access in rural areas have been underprized due to their generic nature and lack of anticipation of future technological Informatics 2020,7, 54 16 of 18 26. Correa, T.; P á vez, I. Digital Inclusion in Rural Areas: A Qualitative Exploration of Challenges Faced by People from Isolated Communities. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2016,21, 247–263. [CrossRef] 27. P é rez-Calle, B.; Marta-Lazo, C.; Nogales-Bocio, A.I. Diseño de un proyecto de capacitaci ó n en competencias digitales de los colectivos vulnerables, mediadores en educaci ó n permanente y MYPES-PYMES en Arag ó n. Index Comun. 2020 ,10, 75–96. Available online: https://journals.sfu.ca/indexcomunicacion/index.php/ indexcomunicacion/article/view/497 (accessed on 26 June 2020). [CrossRef] 28. Scheerder, A.; van Deursen, A.; van Dijk, J. Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the secondand third-level digital divide. Telemat. Inform. 2017,34, 1607–1624. [CrossRef] 29. Rasmussen, J.; Ihlen, O. Risk, crisis, and social media: A systematic review of seven years’ research. Nord. Rev. 2017,38, 1–17. [CrossRef] 30. Epstein, D.; Nisbet, E.C.; Gillespie, T. Who’s Responsible for the Digital Divide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications. Inf. Soc. 2011,27, 92–104. [CrossRef] 31. Strover, S. Rural internet connectivity. Telecommun. Policy 2001,25, 331–347. [CrossRef] 32. Mack, E.; Dutton, W.H.; Rikard, R.V.; Yankelevich, A. Mapping and measuring the information society: A social science perspective on the opportunities, problems, and prospects of broadband Internet data in the United States. Inf. Soc. 2019,35, 57–68. [CrossRef] 33. D’Adamo, I.; Rosa, P. How Do You See Infrastructure? Green Energy to Provide Economic Growth after COVID-19. Sustainability 2020,12, 4738. [CrossRef] 34. Giudice, F.; Caferra, R.; Morone, P. COVID-19, the Food System and the Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2020,12, 7939. [CrossRef] 35. BEREC. BEREC and RSPG Joint Report on Facilitating Mobile Connectivity in “Challenge Areas” (Report BoR (17) 256). Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications. 2017. Available online: https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/7574-berec-andrspg-joint-report-on-facilitat_0.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2020). 36. Bosch-Capblanch, X.; Lavis, J.N.; Lewin, S.; Atun, R.; Røttingen, J.-A.; Dröschel, D.; Beck, L.; Abalos, E.; El-Jardali, F.; Gilson, L.; et al. Guidance for Evidence-Informed Policies about Health Systems: Rationale for and Challenges of Guidance Development. PLoS Med. 2012,9, e1001185. [CrossRef] 37. Tricco, A.C.; Antony, J.; Zarin, W.; Strifler, L.; Ghassemi, M.; Ivory, J.; Perrier, L.; Hutton, B.; Moher, D.; Straus, S.E. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015,13, 224. [CrossRef] 38. Langlois, E.V.; Straus, S.E.; Mijumbi-Deve, R.; Lewin, S.; Tricco, A.C. The need for rapid reviews to inform health policy and systems. In Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide; Tricco, A.C., Langlois, E.V., Straus, S.E., Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. 39. Tricco, A.C.; Zarin, W.; Nincic, V.; Rios, P.; Khan, P.A.; Ghassemi, M.; Motiwala, S.S.; Pham, B.; Oliver, S.; Straus, S.E.; et al. Engaging policy-makers and health systems managers in the conduct of rapid reviews. In Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide; Tricco, A.C., Langlois, E.V., Straus, S.E., Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. 40. Peters, M.D.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Baldini Soares, C.; Khalil, H.; Parker, D. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual; Edoardo, A., Zachary, M., Eds.; Joanna Briggs Institute: Adelaide, Australia, 2020. 41. Plüddemann, A.; Aronson, J.K.; Onakpoya, I.; Heneghan, C.; Mahtania, K.R. Redefining Rapid Reviews: A Flexible Framework for Restricted Systematic Reviews. BMJ Evid. Based Med. 2018 ,23, 201–203. [CrossRef] 42. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009,26, 91–108. [CrossRef] 43. Oliver, S.; Wilson, M.; Melendez-Torres, G.J.; Bangpan, M.; Dickson, K.; Vigurs, C. Selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system improvements. In Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide; Tricco, A.C., Langlois, E.V., Straus, S.E., Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 55–70. 44. Watt, A.M.; Cameron, A.; Sturm, L.; Lathlean, T.; Babidge, W.J.; Blamey, S.; Facey, K.; Hailey, D.; Norderhaug, I.; Maddern, G.J. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2008,24, 133–139. [CrossRef] 45. Hartling, L.; Guise, J.M.; Kato, E.; Anderson, J.; Belinson, S.; Berliner, E.; Dryden, D.M.; Featherstone, R.; Mitchell, M.D.; Motu’Apuaka, M.; et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2015,68, 1451–1462.e3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Informatics 2020,7, 54 17 of 18 46. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009,339, b2535. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47. O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Baxter, L.; Tricco, A.C.; Straus, S.; Wickerson, L.; Nayar, A.; Moher, D.; O’Malley, L. Advancing scoping study methodology: A web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016 ,16, 305. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48. Peterson, J.; Pearce, P.F.; Ferguson, L.A. Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2017,29, 12–16. [CrossRef] 49. Wilson, R.; Hopkins, J. The Changing Shape of Scotland’s Digital Divide. Eur. Countrys. 2019 ,11, 563–583. [CrossRef] 50. Bowen, R.; Morris, W. The digital divide: Implications for agribusiness and entrepreneurship.Lessons from Wales. J. Rural Stud. 2019,72, 75–84. [CrossRef] 51. Duvivier, C.; Truchet, S.; Mauh é , N.; Mbarek, M. D é ploiement du tr è s haut d é bit et cr é ation d’entreprises dans les zones rurales: Une é valuation du programme Auvergne tr è s haut d é bit. É conomie Pr é vision 2018 , 214, 97–139. [CrossRef] 52. Räisänen, J.; Tuovinen, T. Digital innovations in rural micro-enterprises. J. Rural Stud. 2020 ,73, 56–67. [CrossRef] 53. Polykalas, S.E.; Vlachos, K.; Ellinas, G. Technologies and architectures for broadband Digital Divide elimination. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT), Limassol, Cyprus, 3–5 May 2017; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef] 54. Matteucci, N. The EU State aid policy for broadband: An evaluation of the Italian experience with first generation networks. Telecommun. Policy 2019,43, 101830. [CrossRef] 55. Meijere, S.; Tambovceva, T. Information communication technologies as enabler for rural development. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference “Economic Science for Rural Development”, Jelgava, Latvia, 27–28 April 2017; pp. 110–115. 56. Szeles, M.R. New insights from a multilevel approach to the regional digital divide in the European Union. Telecommun. Policy 2018,42, 452–463. [CrossRef] 57. Salemink, K.; Strijker, D. The participation society and its inability to correct the failure of market players to deliver adequate service levels in rural areas. Telecommun. Policy 2018,42, 757–765. [CrossRef] 58. Ievoli, C.; Belliggiano, A.; Marandola, D.; Milone, P.; Ventura, F. Information and communication infrastructures and new business models in rural areas: The case of Molise region in Italy. Eur. Countrys. 2019,11, 475–496. [CrossRef] 59. Schneir, J.R.; Xion, Y. A cost study of fixed broadband access networks for rural areas. Telecommun. Policy 2016,40, 755–773. [CrossRef] 60. Pereira, J.P.R. Broadband access and digital divide. In New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies; Rocha, Á ., Correia, A.M., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 363–368. 61. Gerli, P.; Wainwright, D.; Whalley, J. Infrastructure investment on the margins of the market: The role of niche infrastructure providers in the UK. Telecommun. Policy 2017,41, 743–756. [CrossRef] 62. Kupriyanova, M.; Dronov, V.; Gordova, T. Digital Divide of Rural Territories in Russia. AGRIS On-line Pap. Econ. Inf. 2019,11, 85–90. [CrossRef] 63. Cruz-Jes ú s, F.; Oliveira, T.; Bacao, F. The Global Digital Divide: Evidence and Drivers. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2018,26, 1–26. [CrossRef] 64. Chiha, A.; Van der Wee, M.; Colle, D.; Verbrugge, S. Techno-economic viability of integrating satellite communication in 4G networks to bridge the broadband digital divide. Telecommun. Policy 2020 ,44, 101874. [CrossRef] 65. Richmond, W.; Rader, S.; Lanier, C. The “Digital Divide” for rural small businesses. J. Res. Mark. Entrep. 2017,19, 94–104. [CrossRef] 66. Roberts, E.; Anderson, B.A.; Skerratt, S.; Farrington, J. A review of the rural-digital policy agenda from a community resilience perspective. J. Rural Stud. 2017,54, 372–385. [CrossRef] 67. Vico-Bosch, A.; Rebollo-Catal á n, A. Impact of digital inclusion policies in the use of social networks of rural women. Prism. Soc. 2018,21, 263–281. [CrossRef] Informatics 2020,7, 54 18 of 18 68. Morales, N. The challenge of the digital divide and elderly in Spanish rural areas. The case of Castilla y Leon. Fonseca J. Commun. 2016,13, 169–189. [CrossRef] 69. Morales, N. ICT and pupils of rural areas: Between the digital gap and inclusive education. Bord ó n Rev. Pedagog. 2017,69, 41–56. [CrossRef] 70. Armas-Quinta, F.X.; Lois-Gonzalez, R.C.; Macia-Arce, X.C. Advanced Internet Services: New opportunities for rural territorial development. An. Geogr. Univ. Complut. 2018,38, 271–287. [CrossRef] 71. S á nchez, F. Rural blended education. Proyecto de educaci ó n semipresencial para frenar la despoblaci ó n de las zonas rurales. 3C TIC Cuad. Desarro. Apl. TIC 2019,8, 74–95. [CrossRef] 72. Petri, C. Rural libraries and the human right to internet access. In Rural and Small Public Libraries: Challenges and Opportunities; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; Volume 43, pp. 13–35. [CrossRef] 73. Tirziu, A. Promoting social innovation in rural areas through living labs. In Proceedings of the 4th ACADEMOS Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 15–18 June 2017; Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2992217 (accessed on 27 June 2020). Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).