Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oass20 Cogent Social Sciences ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oass20 Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs) Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Concepción Foronda-Robles | To cite this article: Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Concepción Foronda-Robles | (2018) Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs), Cogent Social Sciences, 4:1, 1528730, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 09 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 540 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Page 1 of 28 GEOGRAPHY | RESEARCH ARTICLE Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs) Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga and Concepción Foronda-Robles Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 GEOGRAPHY | RESEARCH ARTICLE Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs) Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga 1 and Concepción Foronda-Robles* 1 Abstract: LEADER has been an outstanding example, within the European normative institutional model, of progress towards territorial governance. The application of this policy has been organised through local action groups (LAGs). This study aims to develop the analysis of the existing relationship between rural development and territorial governance by looking at the usefulness of digitalisation processes in providing access to the information available in these LAGs. The paper will attempt to measure digital governance with the DGOVERNANCE_LAG tool to evaluate digital access to the information provided by the groups. There will be an analysis of the information openly available online offered by the 251 LAGs in Spain. This information will be scrutinised using a methodology composed of 21 indicators. The results obtained display an average of 50.33%, being very high in the relationships between the groups and their citizens but showing that internal modernisation still needs to be improved and oriented towards the handling of resources and the development of elements that encourage the decision-making process. Subjects: ICT; Rural Development; Human Geography; GIS, Remote Sensing & Cartography; Information Technology ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga is Associate Professor in the Department of Human Geography at the Universidad de Sevilla. He has a close and extensive relationship with territorial development strategies. Special mention should be made of his publications in JCR-indexed journals, such as Ecological Indicators (Elsevier) and Social Indicators Research (Springer). He also has experience in the application of technological tools to territory. He currently holds the post of Director of Academic Planning for the Pro-Vice- Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Dr Concepción Foronda-Robles is Associate Professor in the Department of Human Geography at the Universidad de Sevilla. Her scientific record focuses on rural development, the planning and sustainable management of tourism destinations and the building of social capital. She has been an on-going member of R&D research projects since 2003. Her contributions to research include papers published in high-impact journals (JCR) that are positioned in Q1. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Do villages have access to the Internet? Has the rural population been digitalised? Even though city dwellers think it impossible, there still exists a great digital divide between the countryside and the city. The aim of this article is to measure digital governance, that is, to evaluate the digital access to the information available on websites provided for local inhabitants by those responsible for managing the rural environment (Local Action Groups). Digital technologies and the expansion of the Internet are crucial to the consolidation of democracy, transparency and public participation. In spite of the majority of the local action groups (LAGs) in Spain having made an effort to communicate public information to local inhabitants, they have not yet achieved high levels of success. It is not only a question of doing things better, but also of communicating how and why these things are being done, so that local inhabitants know what is happening and can participate. Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 08 May 2018 Accepted: 20 September 2018 First Published: 27 September 2018 *Corresponding author: Concepción Foronda-Robles Departamento de Geografía Humana, Universidad de Sevilla, María de Padilla s/n, Seville 41004, Spain E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Ben Derudder, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 2 of 28 Keywords: territorial governance; information and communication technology (ICT); rural development; LEADER; local action groups (LAGs); public information Subject classification codes: O2; O33; R5 1. Introduction Link Between Rural Economic Development Activities (LEADER) 1 was created in 1991 as a methodology based on the autonomy and responsibility of the rural population for its own development. Many authors have analysed its evolution (Convery, Soane, Dutson, & Shaw, 2010; Gkartzios & Scott, 2014; Kovách, 2000; Ray, 2000), the progress is made in relation to its institutional capacity (Annibal, Liddle, & McElwee, 2013) and the evaluation of its management (Díaz-Puente, Montero, & de Los Ríos Carmenado, 2009; High & Nemes, 2007), in this way increasing awareness of and interest in rural development (Teilmann, 2012). LEADER, as a rural development and territorial governance strategy, is an adaptation of structures and processes to new social requirements, within the European Union (EU) being an example of the principles that have defined its normative institutional model, through the opening up of the decision-making process, the responsibility, the efficiency and the coherence of European institutions (European Commission, 2001). To these can be added other new principles: participation, transparency and the search for a consensus on a spatial model (Angeon & Lardon, 2008; Fernández-Tabales, Foronda-Robles, Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, & García-López, 2017; OECD, 2006; Pina, Torres, & Royo, 2010; Tovey, 2008). Within the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), LEADER represents the recognition of the absolute need for a channel through which full advantage can be taken of the possibilities offered by the non-statutory organisations that exist in rural areas (Ray, 2000), as well as an opportunity to diversify the economy of these areas through innovation. LEADER is also the reflection of an endogenous focus that responds to territorial challenges (Bosworth et al., 2016) that fall within two main concepts: taking decision making to the territory itself (Navarro, Woods, & Cejudo, 2015)—the principle of subsidiarity—; and activating the mechanisms of public and private representation—the principle of association (Aagaard- Thuesen, 2010). Both concepts appear to be driven by social actors (Lopolito, Sisto, Barbuto, & Da Re, 2015), in an intervention of a multisectorial nature that ensures complementarity in rural areas (Gallent, Juntti, Kidd, & Shaw, 2008) and the empowering of the local community (Storey, 1999). The means employed by this policy have access to information (Scott, 2004), participation (Böcher, 2008), territorial trust (Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, Foronda-Robles, & García-López, 2014; Pisani, Franceschetti, Secco, & Da Re, 2014) and collaborative networks (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012; Kovách, 2000; Pappalardo, Marquardt, & Pecorino, 2014), as well as other tools of social capital (Nardone, Sisto, & Lopolito, 2010; Yamaoka, Tomosho, Mizoguchi, & Sugiura, 2008). The application of this policy is organised through local action groups (LAGs), which have two roles, one as a conduit for development funds and the other as a provider of structure for rural development policy (Andersson & Kovách, 2010). This type of entity is very closely associated with organisational efficiency (Yagüe, De Nicolas, & Martínez, 2013)and the ability to decentralise (Parker, 1995). Its structure took control away from state institutions and provided a forum for public participation (Navarro et al., 2015). However, there is a dichotomy that is expressed in the opinions of different authors, between elitist LAGs (Aagaard-Thuesen, 2010; Böcher, 2008; Sørensen & Torfing, 2007) and inclusive LAGs (Davies, 2007; Shortall, 2008). In terms of (local) governance, the introduction of technological applications implies a transformation in institutional and community culture (Muñoz-Cañavate & Hípola, 2011; Reddick & Aikins, 2012), in that they offer the possibility of participating in the management of local affairs. Due to the problems existing in rural areas, the EU (European Commission, 1997) has already given Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 3 of 28 importance to examining how information and communication technology (ICT) can facilitate the implementation of rural development strategies, a reduction in distances to decision-making centres, an increase in access to information, and support for both the availability of services and training in the use of new technologies (Chapman & Slaymaker, 2002). Telecommuting has been one of the most important examples of the new opportunities available in rural areas (Grimes, 2000). The EU has already published the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2010a), in which is included the Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission, 2010b). It is patently obvious that the Internet could be used as a tool for improving democratic processes (Arabatzis, Andreopoulou, Koutroumanidis, & Manos, 2010; Archer, 2005; Nugroho, 2010). Public administration websites and social network activity are key tools for the dissemination of information coming from the public sector (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2012; Picazo-Vela, Gutiérrez-Martínez, & Luna-Reyes, 2012; Yildiz, 2007), this being particularly true in the context of the different forms of e-government (Banas, 2010; Choudrie, Weerakkody, & Jones, 2005). These electronic strategies are factors that have a direct impact on the satisfaction and trust of the general public (Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005) The current scientific literature also includes the concepts of resilience (Ashmore, Farrington, & Skerratt, 2017; Roberts, Anderson, Skerratt, & Farrington, 2017) and digital inclusion (Mariën, Heyman, Salemink, & Van Audenhove, 2016; Philip, Cottrill, Farrington, Williams, & Ashmore, 2017) in the studies that explore inequality in rural development associated with digital policy (Salemink, Strijker, & Bosworth, 2017). This paper aims to offer a deeper understanding of the existing relationship between rural development and territorial governance in terms of how digitalisation processes are used to access information, focusing on the case of LAGs. This topic is new and challenging in the context of the current scientific literature on LAGs (Arora-Jonsson, 2017; Hoffmann & Hoffmann, 2018; Pisani & Christoforou, 2017; Pollermann, Raue, & Schnaut, 2017; Sisto, Lopolito, & van Vliet, 2018; Talò, 2017), the EU documents concerning LAGs 2 and the documents drafted by LAGs across the EU (European Commission, 2018; European Economic and Social Committee, 2017a,2017b; European Network for Rural Development, 2014,2016). The research into digital governance and information technologies in a rural context must be continued from this moment and into the future. The proposed objective is to design indicators that allow the measurement of the territorial governance achieved by LAGs. They will be used as an instrument for the evaluation of the digital access to information that LAGs provide for the citizens living in their territories and the contribution of this digital access to rural development. This objective will be pursued through the use of a digital governance index (DGOVERNANCE_LAG), which is a model for the statistical integration of variables related to contact with the general public, institutional and organisational information, and financial references. This index will be applied to all of the LAGs in Spain. Furthermore, the approach presented here can be used as a tool for monitoring the success of LAGs’rural development actions in the framework of the European CAP. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Instruments The EU’s determination to achieve sustainable growth, improve competitiveness and optimise expenditure, in a context of fiscal restrictions, has given rise to important policy changes. One consequence of these changes is Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013, 3 in which are laid down the rules relating to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) for the period 2014–2020, among which can be found the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (Fésüs, 2014). In Article 4 of the EAFRD’s own Regulation (EU) Nº 1305/2013 4 are laid out the rural development measures that should be financed, which include the following: encourage competitiveness in agriculture; guarantee the sustainable management of natural resources and Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 4 of 28 climate change; and achieve the balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities, this including the creation and preservation of employment. The use of LAGs as a variable to work in the accomplishment of these EAFRD objectives is justified in different reviews (Ottomano Palmisano et al., 2016; Volk & Bojnec, 2014). In the same vein, the analysis of indicators for the study of LAGs is a reference that is supported by solid arguments and is defined from different perspectives, from general evaluations of the LEADER programme (Lopolito et al., 2015) to specific evaluations of certain actors, such as the role played by agricultural entrepreneurs (Delin, 2012). This study proposes an analysis of LAGs that is based on the presence or absence of certain common features, established in predefined variables, which are found on their websites. These variables specifically consist of 21 indicators (Table 1) that describe the characteristics of each site (Arabatzis et al., 2010) in relation to its digital capability to improve results in and be accountable for rural development policies, and thus promote an improvement in territorial governance processes. ●Contact with citizens (CONTACT_LAG): This core is composed of eight indicators, beginning with Communication channels (CC): Email (01_CC) and the opportunities offered by this Internet service (Jones & Woolley, 2014); Web form (02_CC), which allows data to be introduced in an intuitive way (Bon et al., 2013); Suggestion box (03_CC), containing suggestions from citizens (Colombo, 2010); Intranet (04_CC), only for those who have been registered in the system (Huang, Luo, & Zou, 2013); and News section (05_CC). In Social networks (SN) and active online participation are included the following indicators (Lundgren & Johansson, 2017): Facebook Table 1. Indicators grouped by core and subcore Core Regulation Subcore Indicators Contact with citizens (CONTACT_LAG) Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013: Articles 34.3.a and 34.3.e Communication channels (CC) (01_CC) Email (02_CC) Web form (03_CC) Suggestion box (04_CC) Intranet (05_CC) News section Social networks (SN) (06_SN) Facebook (07_SN) Twitter (08_SN) YouTube Institutional and organisational information (INFO_LAG) Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013: Articles 34.3.b and 34.5 Regulation (EU) Nº 1305/2013: Article 52.3.h Information on standards (STN) (01_STN) Aims (02_STN) Statutes Management information (MNG) (03_MNG) General assembly/ Members (04_MNG) Governing board (05_MNG) Technical team Information on cooperation networks (COO) (06_COO) Interterritorial (07_COO) Transnational Financial references (FIN_LAG) Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013: Articles 34.3.c, 34.3.d, 34.3.f, 34.3.g and 34.4 Project references (PRJ) (01_PRJ) Identification/Title (02_PRJ) Investment (03_PRJ) Grant (04_PRJ) Ranking criteria References for transparency in management (TRY) (05_TRY) Economic report (06_TRY) Offer of employment Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 5 of 28 (06_SN) profile (Svensson, 2015); Twitter (07_SN) account (Wang, Kuzmickaja, Stol, Abrahamsson, & Fitzgerald, 2014); and YouTube (08_SN), where users upload and share LAG videos (Susarla, Oh, & Tan, 2012). ●Institutional and organisational information (INFO_LAG): There are seven indicators that examine aspects relative to the group’s operation and management rules: Aims (01_STN) and objectives of the LAG (Huang et al., 2013); Statutes (02_STN) or legal document, where the interests of the group’s members are represented, its strategies are established, and its decision-making process is laid out (Cristóvão & Baptista, 2012). There is also Management information (MNG): General assembly/Members (03_MNG), as a reflection of the actors implicated in the territorial reality (Lester & Reckhow, 2013); Governing board (04_MNG), which is legally responsible for the group and its activities (Aagaard-Thuesen, 2010); and finally, Technical team (05_MNG), which manages the implementation of European funds (Fałkowski, 2013; Spilanis, Kizos, & Giordano, 2016). Cooperation networks (COO), which are promoted by the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD), and the LAGs’capacity for collaboration must also be included, with national Interterritorial (06_COO) networks established by the groups (Furmankiewicz, Janc, & Macken-Walsh, 2016), and Transnational (07_COO) networks, which contribute to policy coordination between groups from different countries (Zeemering, 2014). ●Financial references (FIN_LAG): In this section, the following components are included: The Identification/Title (01_PRJ) assigned to the project; Investment (02_PRJ) and Grant (03_PRJ), which give details of the help given. There are also Ranking criteria (04_PRJ) and the coherence of the selection process of candidates for operations, together with a definition of the selection criteria; for this purpose, from the LAG websites should be taken the rules laid down to establish and evaluate merits, solvency and if the admission criteria are met, among others (Dudley & Wegrich, 2016). Finally, there are the References for transparency in management (TRY): Economic report (05_TRY), which provides information on progress towards specific goals (Pascoe et al., 2016) with the publication of the annual accounts; and Offer of employment (06_TRY), managed by the group with the local search carried out by the applicants (Lutgen & Van der Linden, 2015). 2.2. Participants The total number of LAGs, according to the information provided by the ENRD Contact Point website (European Commission, 2017), is 2,530 for the period 2014–2020, these LAGs representing 162 million people in the EU out of a total number of over 500 million. In Spain, 12.4 million inhabitants out of a census of 46.3 million (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente/Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment [MAPAMA], 2017) are represented by 251 LAGs in the current network, as compared to 264 in the period 2007–2013. The current European legislation laid down in Article 32.2.b of Regulation (EU) Nº 1303/2013 states that public authorities must not represent more than 49% of the voting rights in decisions made by LAGs. Additionally, Article 34.1 indicates that the groups will conceive and put into practice Community-led Local Development (CLLD). This aspect is highlighted in the Cork 2.0 Declaration A Better Life in Rural Areas (European Commission, 2016), in which is put forward the need to link governance and rural development through an improvement in administrative capacity and the efficiency of the groups. The development of Spanish legislation has had its prime regulation with Law 45/2007 for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, 5 which established specific support programmes for local rural development initiatives (Article 20.f), in-line with the LEADER methodology and the Board of Rural Development Programmes (Mesa de Asociaciones de Desarrollo Rural), which is a body that offers information about, consultation of and participation in different rural associations (Article 40). Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 6 of 28 2.3. Data collection The study intends to compile evidence that is relevant to the digital governance and ICT evaluation process, always on the condition that the data are objectively verifiable through the LAG websites (Nardone et al., 2010), first of all by means of a standardised evaluation technique, using semiquantitative data concerning the existence of websites, web addresses and digitalised information online, followed by an analysis to examine the presence or absence of common features (Arabatzis et al., 2010). This examination is composed of items on a dichotomous scale, and there is an evaluation of whether or not the required information is available: the verification process awards a score of 1 if the information has been published on the website, and also when the information exists but can only be accessed by members with a password conversely, a score of 0 is awarded if the information section has not been published, cannot be accessed efficiently or lacks content. The review dates for the LAG websites are taken from two searches. The first was carried out between April and October 2015, which was the final period of the previous phase, before the CLLD programming process began. The second, which was much more fruitful, was carried out between July and November 2016, during the CLLD programming process. The case study is comprised of all 251 Spanish LAGs, of which 96.8% are operational online. It was not possible to gather information from eight groups (one in Andalusia, one in Castile-Leon, one in the Canary Islands, one in Catalonia, three in Galicia and one in the Basque Country), 6 due to their websites not being available during the review periods, this being for several reasons, most specifically because some groups are managed by other groups due to administrative irregularities, or because they are managed by the regional government itself. Consequently, the percentages in the Results section are based on the information gathered from 243 LAGs. The representation of these LAGs is not equivalent to the NUT 3 scale of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics developed and regulated by the EU, which corresponds to Spanish provinces, as LAGs are of a smaller size that is equivalent to Spanish districts. The LAGs are listed in Appendix A, with a reference number assigned to each one so that it can be found more easily (in the Results section the reference numbers are placed in parentheses). Also, reference is made to the average percentage achieved in each autonomous community (equivalent to the NUT 2 scale) to provide a more homogenous view of the existing spatial relationships. 2.4. Data analysis To contextualise the data, it is necessary to highlight how ICTs are used in rural areas in Spain. In rural households, their use has grown, even if there does still exists a digital divide between rural and urban areas that can be attributed to inaccessibility or a lack of technological knowledge. The average percentage of households with Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) coverage of less than 2 Mbps in areas with more than 10,000 inhabitants is 91.06, compared with 72.61 in areas with less than that number. However, if the coverage is increased to 10 Mbps, the territorial differences are more marked, with 72.22% compared with 56.95%, using the same demographic division (Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism [MINETAD], 2016). These levels of digital accessibility imply a validation of the study carried out by MINETAD and highlight the distance that still needs to be covered to reach the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2010a) and the Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission, 2014). Along the same lines, there is the CORA project 7 (Connecting Remote Areas with digital infrastructure and services), developed by the German agency Atene KOM, which takes on the challenges presented by the development of broadband and digitalisation in rural areas as part of an EU integration strategy. Using the methodology developed in the current study, once the two searches have been accepted, partial indices are calculated for each core (CONTACT_LAG, INFO_LAG and FIN_LAG), and subsequently the digital governance index (DGOVERNANCE_LAG) is calculated, this being Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 7 of 28 Table 2. Percentages achieved by indicators in the CONTACT_LAG core Subcore Communication channels (CC) % Social networks (SN) % ∑CONTACTLAG 01 CC 02 CC 03 CC 04 CC 05 CC 06 SN 07 SN 08 SN % Andalusia 96.15 59.62 13.46 36.54 94.23 73.08 51.92 34.62 58.58 Castile-La Mancha 96.55 62.07 6.90 34.48 96.55 44.83 27.59 17.24 48.28 Castile-Leon 95.45 61.36 6.82 15.91 77.27 54.55 38.64 18.18 46.02 Region of Valencia 100.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 Extremadura 91.67 66.67 16.67 33.33 83.33 75.00 50.00 41.67 57.29 Madrid 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 66.67 33.33 66.67 45.83 Region of Murcia 100.00 75.00 0.00 25.00 100.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 46.88 Aragon 100.00 65.00 10.00 25.00 95.00 75.00 55.00 15.00 55.00 Asturias 100.00 90.91 18.18 27.27 100.00 18.18 18.18 18.18 48.86 Balearic Islands 100.00 66.67 0.00 33.33 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 Canary Islands 85.71 57.14 0.00 14.29 71.43 28.57 28.57 28.57 39.29 Cantabria 100.00 80.00 0.00 20.00 75.00 80.00 80.00 40.00 60.00 Catalonia 100.00 45.45 0.00 9.09 90.91 81.82 72.73 18.18 52.27 Galicia 83.33 58.33 8.33 20.83 70.83 33.33 16.67 16.67 38.54 Navarre 100.00 75.00 0.00 25.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 68.75 Basque Country ---- ----- La Rioja 100.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 100.00 66.67 33.33 33.33 54.17 Spain 96.59 57.55 5.36 22.17 89.47 52.07 39.84 24.33 48.54 Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 8 of 28 It is shown that even though the autonomous communities in southern peninsular Spain stand out prominently for their individual LAGs, both inthe subcores and/or in the final index values, with Castile- La Mancha having seven outstanding groups and Andalusia, remarkably, 12 (the latter having the highest number of groups, which is 52), it is in northern peninsular Spain that the average percentages by autonomous community are higher, with La Rioja, Navarre, Aragon and especially Cantabria playing a prominent role, the latter achieving outstanding results in all of the cores and in the final index value. 4. Conclusion This paper achieves the stated objective of analysing the use of digital means by LEADER LAGs in the communication process with others, in particular with the people who live in the area for which the LAG is responsible. This use of these means has been possible because LEADER has been a substitute for hierarchical intervention, although traditional types of top-down policy continue to dominate EU rural strategy in terms of financial flow. According to the latest EU legislation, rural development policy should be adapted to the Community-led Local Development (CLLD) approach, in which territorial governance is increasingly accepted for the promotion of rural development, since it attempts to break down the boundaries between those in charge of carrying out interventions and the potential beneficiaries, in this way shaping new social networks. In this context, access to both information and participation plays a fundamental role in territorial governance and is vital for the sustainability of the development processes. Digital technologies and the spread of the Internet have been decisive in the renewal and strengthening of citizens’rights, in the search for higher levels of transparency, in greater active participation in territorial management, and in the close collaboration between the administration and society. Map 4. DGOVERNANCE_LAG index by LAGs in Spain. Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 15 of 28 Consequently, “smart villages”are implementing innovative measures to improve both services and infrastructures. It could be said that after 25 years of the implementation of LEADER, rural areas in Europe now have access to a consolidated network of institutions and actors involved in the territorial focus of local development. The LAGs have been largely responsible for the strategic planning of a rural territorial nature and have grown into the role of spokesperson when the different administrations have been involved. However, the institutional processes that support these groups as instruments of territorial governance have been criticised for a certain lack of representativity. It is important to keep moving forward with new approaches that incorporate the territories’ learning capacity so that digital governance can be achieved, since digital constructions and participative learning allow rural society to make decisions. For this reason, DGOVERNANCE_LAG has been designed and explained, and its pertinence in evaluating the role of LAGs in digital governance has been justified. This index has been successfully applied to the case of Spain and has proved to be viable in the study of real examples, although a complementary qualitative (or semi-quantitative) analysis of the information harnessed would allow greater insight into the real progress and usefulness of the rural digitalisation process. The main limitation in carrying out the research and the application of the DGOVERNANCE_LAG index has been the existence of information gaps in the LAGs under study due to its’not always being possible to access available and/or updated sources in all cases. In the future, it will be essential to identify both this and other obstacles before trying out new tools and solutions that facilitate digital development in rural areas. The justification of LAGs’Internet activity not only needs to be more efficient but the how and why of their creation must also be explained. It could be said that LAGs are the pillar of social capital in rural territories, in that they bring the key actors in the territory together, foster the development of networks between them and generate a cohesion that leads to a greater commitment among the entire collective of key actors. The DGOVERNANCE_LAG index will help rural managers in Spain to develop a series of tools or a guide with which to improve the processes of territorial governance and can be replicated by LAGs across the EU since it is flexible and applicable. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Luis Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga E-mail: [email protected] 1 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5331-6496 Concepción Foronda-Robles E-mail: [email protected] 1 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3632-2410 1 Departamento de Geografía Humana, Universidad de Sevilla, María de Padilla s/n, Seville 41004, Spain. Cover Image Source: Citation information Cite this article as: Digital governance and information technologies in local action groups (LAGs), Luis Galindo- Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Concepción Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730. Notes 1. Liaison Entre Activités de Développement de l’Économie Rural. 2. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Community Led Local Development (CLLD) as a tool of Cohesion Policy 2014–20 for local, rural, urban and peri-urban development’(exploratory opinion at the request of the Greek Council presidency). OJ C 230, 14.7.2015, p. 1–8. 3. Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320–469. 4. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487–548.OJ L 130, 19.5.2016, p. 1–5. Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 16 of 28 5. Ley 45/2007, de 13 de diciembre, para el desarrollo sostenible del medio rural [Law 45/2007 of 23 December for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas]. 6. GDR Costa Noroeste (Andalusia), Asociación para el desarrollo endógeno en la zona centro de Valladolid (Castile-Leon), GDR Occidental (Canary Islands), Alt Urgell—Cerdanya (Catalonia), GDR Terras de Lugo, GDR Valdeorras and GDR-17 (Galicia), and Mendinet Arkaute (Basque Country). 7. The CORA project stimulates digital infrastructure, services and skills in rural areas co-financed by the Interreg North Sea Region Programme. http://www. northsearegion.eu/cora/. References Aagaard-Thuesen, A. (2010). Is LEADER elitist or inclusive? Composition of Danish LAG boards in the 2007–2013 rural development and fisheries programmes. Sociologia Ruralis,50(1), 31–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00500.x Andersson, K., & Kovách, I. (2010). LAGging behind or LEADER in local democracy? An assessment of LEADER-type development projects as a tool for democratic integration in the contested countryside (3/2010 SSKH Notat–SSKH Reports and Discussion Papers). p. 34. Retrieved from http://sockom.helsinki. fi/info/notat/notat_1003.pdf Angeon, V., & Lardon, S. (2008). Participation and governance in territorial development projects: The ‘territory game’as a local project Leadership system. International Journal of Sustainable Development,11 (2–4), 262–281. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2008.026505 Annibal, I., Liddle, J., & McElwee, G. (2013). Animating ‘bottom-up’sustainable strategies in village settings. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,33 (11–12), 742–761. doi:10.1108/IJSSP-03-2013-0036 Arabatzis, G., Andreopoulou, Z., Koutroumanidis, T.,& Manos, B. (2010). E-government for rural development: Classifying and ranking content characteristics of development agencies websites. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology,11(3), 1138– 1149. Archer, N. P. (2005). An overview of the change management process in eGovernment. International Journal of Electronic Business,3(1), 68–87. doi:10.1504/ IJEB.2005.006389 Arora-Jonsson, S. (2017). The realm of freedom in new rural governance: Micro-politics of democracy in Sweden. Geoforum,79,58–69. doi:10.1016/j. geoforum.2016.12.010 Ashmore, F. H., Farrington, J. H., & Skerratt, S. (2017). Community-led broadband in rural digital infrastructure development: Implications for resilience. Journal of Rural Studies,54, 408–425. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2016.09.004 Banas, P. A. (2010). International ideal and local practice– Access to environmental information and local government in Poland. Environmental Policy and Governance,20(1), 44–56. doi:10.1002/eet.528 Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2012). Promoting transparency and accountability through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e-government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 78–91. doi:10.1108/17506161211214831 Böcher, M. (2008). Regional governance and rural development in Germany: The implementation of LEADER +. Sociologia Ruralis,48(4), 372–388. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9523.2008.00468.x Bon, A., de Boer, V., Gyan, N. B., van Aart, C., De Leenheer, P., Tuyp, W., & Tangara, A. (2013). Use case and requirements analysis in a remote rural context in mali. In International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (pp. 331–346). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_24 Bosworth, G., Rizzo, F., Marquardt, D., Strijker, D., Haartsen, T., & Aagaard-Thuesen, A. (2016). Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives. Innovation: the European Journal of Social Science Research,29(4), 442–461. doi:10.1080/13511610.2016.1176555 Carpio, L. G. T. (2015). Cointegration to estimate longterm electricity prices in periods of rationing: The case of the brazilian hydrothermal system. Electric Power Systems Research,121, 351–356. doi:10.1016/ j.epsr.2014.11.022 Chapman, R., & Slaymaker, T. (2002). ICTs and rural development: Review of the literature, current interventions and opportunities for action (pp. 1–36). Eldis Programme, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Choudrie, J., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2005). Realising e-government in the UK: Rural and urban challenges. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,18(5), 568–585. doi:10.1108/17410390510624016 Colombo, C. (2010). e-Participation experiences and local government in Catalonia: An explanatory analysis. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 82–94). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-642-15158-3_7 Convery, I., Soane, I., Dutson, T., & Shaw, H. (2010). Mainstreaming LEADER delivery of the RDR in Cumbria: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Sociologia Ruralis,50(4), 370–391. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9523.2010.00519.x Cristóvão, A., & Baptista, A. (2012). Local development associations: A study of their nature, missions and organizational challenges. Spanish Journal of Rural Development,3(1), 39–52. doi:10.5261/2012.GEN1.03 Davies, J. S. (2007). The limits of partnership: An exitaction strategy for local democratic inclusion. Political Studies,55(4), 779–800. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9248.2007.00677.x Delin, M. (2012). The role of farmers in Local Action Groups: The case of the national network of the Local Action Groups in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics,58(9), 433–442. Díaz-Puente, J. M., Montero, A. C., & de Los Ríos Carmenado, I. (2009). Empowering communities through evaluation: Some lessons from rural Spain. Community Development Journal,44(1), 53–67. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsm008 Dudley,S.E.,&Wegrich,K.(2016). The role of transparency in regulatory governance: Comparing US and EU regulatory systems. Journal of Risk Research,19(9), 1141–1157. doi:10.1080/ 13669877.2015.1071868 Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011 European Commission. (1997). Building the European information society for us all (Final policy report of the high-level expert group). Luxembourg. European Commission. (2001). White Paper on European Governance, Brussels, COM (2001, 428). Retrieved October 24, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/govern ance/white_paper/en.pdf European Commission. (2010a). Europe 2020 –A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Brussels. p. 37. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eur ope2020/index_es.htm Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 17 of 28 European Commission. (2010b). A digital agenda for Europe (pp. 42). Brussels. Retrieved from https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF European Commission. (2014). The EU explained: Digital agenda for Europe.http://europa.eu/pol/index_en. htm European Commission. (2016). Cork 2.0 declaration ‘a better life in rural areas’. Retrieved from https://enrd. ec.europa.eu/cork-20-and-future-rural-develop ment_en European Commission. (2017). Agriculture rural development. Leader+. Contact Point. Retrieved from https:// enrd.ec.europa.eu/about_en European Commission. (2018). Evaluating CLLD. Handbook for LAGs and FLAGs. FAME (Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation). Retrieved from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/far net2/sites/farnet/files/publication/en_farnetgui de15fsu.pdf European Economic and Social Committee. (2017a). EU public consultations in the digital age: Enhancing the role of the EESC and civil society organisations. Author. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/ files/files/qe-07-17-001-en-n.pdf European Economic and Social Committee. (2017b). The future evolution of civil society in the European Union by 2030. CNVOS Centre for Information Service Cooperation and Development of NGOs. Retrieved from https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/ qe-04-17-886-en-n.pdf European Network for Rural Development. (2014). Community-led local development for local actors. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/ files/guidance_clld_local_actors_en.pdf European Network for Rural Development. (2016). Rural responses to challenges in Europe (EU Rural Review 21). Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/ enrd/files/publi-enrd-rr-21-2016-en.pdf Fałkowski, J. (2013). Political accountability and governance in rural areas: Some evidence from the pilot programme LEADER+ in Poland. Journal of Rural Studies,32,70–79. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2013.04.00 Fernández-Tabales, A., Foronda-Robles, C., Galindo-Pérez- de-Azpillaga, L., & García-López, A. (2017). Developing a system of territorial governance indicators for tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,1–31. doi:10.1080/ 09669582.2016.1260136 Fésüs, G. (2014). Reforming policies for regional development: The European perspective. Business & Entrepreneurship Journal,3(1), 57–62. Furmankiewicz, M., Janc, K., & Macken-Walsh, Á. (2016). The impact of eu governance and rural development policy on the development of the third sector in rural poland: A nation-wide analysis. Journal of Rural Studies,43, 225-234. doi: 10.1016/j. jrurstud.2015.12.011 Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga, L., Foronda-Robles, C., & García-López, A. (2014). The value of trust: An analysis of social capital in natural areas. Social Indicators Research,118(2), 673–694. doi:10.1007/ s11205-013-0427-3 Gallent, N., Juntti, M., Kidd, S., & Shaw, D. (2008). Introduction to rural planning, natural and built environment series. London/New York: Routledge. Gkartzios, M., & Scott, M. (2014). Placing housing in rural development: Exogenous, endogenous and neoendogenous approaches. Sociologia Ruralis,54(3), 241–265. doi:10.1111/soru.12030 Grimes, S. (2000). Rural areas in the information society: Diminishing distance or increasing learning capacity? Journal of Rural Studies,16(1), 13–21. doi:10.1016/ S0743-0167(99)00027-3 High, C., & Nemes, G. (2007). Social learning in LEADER: Exogenous, endogenous and hybrid evaluation in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis,47(2), 103–119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00430.x Hoffmann, R., & Hoffmann, N. (2018). The leader programme as an impulse for new projects in rural areas. Quaestiones Geographicae,37(2), 141–150. doi:10.2478/quageo-2018-0014 Huang, L., Luo, Q., & Zou, C. (2013). A framework of new rural e-government and the related information resources integration. International Journal of U-And e-Service, Science and Technology,6(6), 83–96. doi:10.14257/ijunesst.2013.6.6.09 Jones, A., & Woolley, J. (2014). The email-diary: A promising research tool for the 21st century? Qualitative Research,31,1–17. doi:10.1177/1468794114561347 Kovách, I. (2000). LEADER, a new social order, and the Central and East-European countries. Sociologia Ruralis,40(2), 181–189. doi:10.1111/1467- 9523.00140 Lester, T. W., & Reckhow, S. (2013). Network governance and regional equity: Shared agendas or problematic partners? Planning Theory,12(2), 115–138. doi:10.1177/1473095212455189 Lopolito, A., Sisto, R., Barbuto, A., & Da Re, R. (2015). What is the impact of LEADER on the local social resources? Some insights on Local Action Group’s aggregative role. Rivista di Economia Agraria,70(1), 55–75. doi:10.13128/REA-16977 Lundgren, A. S., & Johansson, A. (2017). Digital rurality: Producing the countryside in online struggles for rural survival. Journal of Rural Studies,51,73–82. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.001 Lutgen, V., & Van der Linden, B. (2015). Regional equilibrium unemployment theory at the age of the Internet. Regional Science and Urban Economics,53, 50–67. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2015.04.004 MAPAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente/Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment). (2017). Desarrollo Rural. Programas de Desarrollo Rural Cofinanciados por la UE. Periodo de Programación 2014–2020. Programas de Desarrollo Rural (PDR). Retrieved from http://www.mapama.gob. es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/programas-ue/periodo- 2014-2020/programas-de-desarrollo-rural/ Mariën, I., Heyman, R., Salemink, K., & Van Audenhove, L. (2016). Digital by default. Consequences, casualties and coping strategies. In J. Servaes & T. Oyedemi (Eds.), Social inequalities, media and communication: Theory and roots, lexington books digital by default: Consequences, casualties and coping strategies.. MINETAD (Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism). (2016). Broadband coverage in Spain in the first quarter of 2016.http://www.minetad.gob.es/teleco municaciones/banda-ancha/cobertura/Documents/ Cobertura-BA-1Trimestre2016.pdf Muñoz-Cañavate, A., & Hípola, P. (2011). Electronic administration in Spain: From its beginnings to the present. Government Information Quarterly,28(1), 74–90. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.008 Nardone, G., Sisto, R., & Lopolito, A. (2010). Social capital in the LEADER initiative: A methodological approach. Journal of Rural Studies,26(1), 63–72. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2009.09.001 Navarro, F. A., Woods, M., & Cejudo, E. (2015). The LEADER initiative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom-up approach in rural Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 18 of 28 development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociologia Ruralis,56(2), 270–288. doi:10.1111/soru.12079 Nugroho, Y. (2010). NGOs, the Internet and sustainable rural development: The case of Indonesia. Information, Communication & Society,13(1), 88– 120. doi:10.1080/13691180902992939 OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: Author. http://www.oecd.org/gov/ regional-policy/thenewruralparadigmpoliciesandgo vernance.htm Ottomano Palmisano, G., Govindan, K., Boggia, A., Loisi, R. V., De Boni, A., & Roma, R. (2016). Local Action Groups and rural sustainable development. A spatial multiple criteria approach for efficient territorial planning. Land Use Policy,59,12–26. doi:10.1016/j. landusepol.2016.08.002 Pappalardo, G., Marquardt, D., & Pecorino, B. (2014). Assessing social relationships within Local Action Groups: A worthwhile tool for measuring lags’effectiveness. Experiences from two Sicilian leader lags. In: B. de Gennaro & G. Nardone (eds.), Sustainability of the agri-food system: Strategies and Performances. Proceedings of the 50th SIDEA Conference. Lecce: Chiostro dei Domenicani. 2013, September 26–28. Retrieved from www.sidea.org/Lecce_2013_files/Atti %20Sidea_EBOOK.pdf Parker, A. N. (1995). Decentralization: The way forward for rural development? (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1475). pp. 1–52. Pascoe, S., Tobin, R., Windle, J., Cannard, T., Marshall, N., Kabir, Z., & Flint, N. (2016). Developing a social, cultural and economic report card for a regional industrial harbour. PLoS one,11(2), e0148271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148271 Philip, L., Cottrill, C., Farrington, J., Williams, F., & Ashmore, F. (2017). The digital divide: Patterns, policy and scenarios for connecting the ‘final few’in rural communities across Great Britain. Journal of Rural Studies,54, 386–398. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2016.12.002 Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, K. L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly,29(4), 504–511. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.002 Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is e-government leading to more accountable and transparent local governments? An overall view. Financial Accountability & Management,26(1), 3–20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2009.00488.x Pisani, E., & Christoforou, A. (2017). Evaluation of social capital in LEADER: What’s in and what’s out? In Springer (Ed.), Social capital and local development (pp. 109–134). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Pisani, E., Franceschetti, G., Secco, L., & Da Re, R. (2014, June 25–27). Trust in the LEADER approach: The case study of the Veneto region in Italy. In 2014 Third Congress. Alghero, Italy: Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA). (No. 197453). Pollermann, K., Raue, P., & Schnaut, G. (2017, June 4–7). Input for and output of local governance in rural development. In Regional Studies Association, Annual Conference 2017: The Great Regional Awakening: New Directions. Ireland: Trinity College Dublin. [Conference:]. Ray, C. (2000). Endogenous socio-economic development in the European Union—Issues of evaluation. Journal of Rural Studies,16(4), 447–458. doi:10.1016/s0743– 0167(00)00012–7 Reddick, C. G., & Aikins, S. K. (2012). Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance. In Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance (pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Springer. Roberts, E., Anderson, B. A., Skerratt, S., & Farrington, J. (2017). A review of the rural-digital policy agenda from a community resilience perspective. Journal of Rural Studies,54, 372–385. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2016.03.001 Salemink, K., Strijker, D., & Bosworth, G. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies,54,360–371. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2015.09.001 Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: The role of the partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies,20, 49–59. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00042-1 Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies,24(4), 450–457. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001 Sisto, R., Lopolito, A., & van Vliet, M. (2018). Stakeholder participation in planning rural development strategies: Using backcasting to support Local Action Groups in complying with CLLD requirements. Land Use Policy,70, 442–450. doi:10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.11.022 Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Governance network research: Towards a second generation. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (eds,), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 1–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Spilanis, I., Kizos, T., & Giordano, B. (2016). The effectiveness of European Regional Development Fund projects in Greece: Views from planners, management staff and beneficiaries. European Urban and Regional Studies,23(2), 182–197. doi:10.1177/ 0969776413498761 Storey, D. (1999). Issues of integration, participation and empowerment in rural development: The case of LEADER in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies,15(3), 307–315. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(98) 00073-4 Susarla, A., Oh, J. H., & Tan, Y. (2012). Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from youtube. Information Systems Research,23(1), 23-41. doi: 10.2307/23207870 Svensson, L. (2015). Empowering rural youth with Facebook: Lessons from a local Swedish case-study. Community Development Journal,5(3), 436–451. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsv024 Talò, C. (2017). The role of intermediate institutions in community development. The case of LAGs. Perspectives on Rural Development,2017(1), 47–58. Teilmann, K. (2012). Measuring social capital accumulation in rural development. Journal of Rural Studies,28,458–465. doi:10.1016/j. jrurstud.2012.10.002 Tovey, H. (2008). Introduction: Rural sustainable development in the knowledge society era. Sociologia Ruralis,48(3), 185–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9523.2008.00460.x Volk, A., & Bojnec, Š.(2014). Local action groups and the LEADER co-financing of rural development projects in Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 19 of 28 Slovenia. Agricultural Econ.–Czech,60, 364–375. doi:10.17221/180/2013-AGRICECON Wang,X.,Kuzmickaja,I.,Stol,K.J.,Abrahamsson,P.,& Fitzgerald, B. (2014). Microblogging in open source software development: The case of drupal using twitter. IEEE Software,31(4), 72–80. doi:10.1109/MS.2013.98 Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,15(3),371–391.doi:10.1093/jopart/mui021 Yagüe, J. L., De Nicolas, V. L., & Martínez, J. L. (2013). Leader rural development program in Spain: Profile and functions of workers in local action groups. Rural Development,6(1), 543–547. Yamaoka, K., Tomosho, T., Mizoguchi, M., & Sugiura, M. (2008). Social capital accumulation through public policy systems implementing paddy irrigation and rural development projects. Paddy Water Environ,6, 115–128. doi:10.1007/s10333-008-0113-2 Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly,24(3), 646–665. doi:10.1016/j. giq.2007.01.002 Zeemering, E. S. (2014). International connections for local government sustainability initiatives: Networks linking Detroit and Windsor. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), 119–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9906.2012.00648.x Appendix A Referenced LAGs distributed by autonomous community Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 20 of 28 The groups that appear in grey are the eight groups that it was not possible to gather information. Reference LAGs Andalusia Reference LAGs Castile-La Mancha Total: 52 groups Total: 29 groups 401 GDR (Grupo de Desarrollo Rural) Almanzora 201 Grupo de Acción Local de la Sierra del Segura 402 GDR Alpujarra-Sierra Nevada Almeriense 202 Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Manchuela 403 GDR Filabres-Alhamilla 203 Asociación SACAM. Sierra de Alcaraz y del Campo de Montiel 404 GDR Levante Almeriense 204 Asociación Mancha del Júcar-Centro 405 GDR Los Vélez 205 Asociación Monte Ibérico-Corredor de Almansa 1101 GDR Los Alcornocales 206 Asociación Grupo de Desarrollo Rural Campos de Hellín 1102 GDR Campiña de Jerez 1301 Asociación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Valle de Alcudia 1103 GDR Litoral de la Janda 1302 Asociación para el Desarrollo del Alto Guadiana-Mancha 1104 GDR Sierra de Cádiz 1303 Asociación Campo de Montiel y Campo de Calatrava ‘Tierras De Libertad’ 1105 GDR Costa Noroeste 1304 Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Comarca de Almadén ‘Montesur’ 1401 GDR Campiña Sur 1305 Asociación para el Desarrollo del Campo de Calatrava 1402 GDR Guadajoz-Campiña Este 1306 Asociación de Desarrollo Montes Norte 1403 GDR Valle del Alto Guadiato 1307 Asociación Mancha Norte de Ciudad Real 1404 GDR Medio Guadalquivir 1308 Asociación Concejo de la Mancomunidad de Cabañeros 1405 GDR Los Pedroches 1601 Asociación Promoción y Desarrollo Serrano 1406 GDR Sierra Morena Cordobesa 1602 Asociación Manchuela Conquense 1407 GDR Subbética Cordobesa 1603 Federación la Sierra y Mancha Conquense 1801 GDR Arco Noreste de la Vega de Granada 1604 Centro de Desarrollo Rural de la Alcarria Conquense 1802 GDR Alpujarras-Sierra Nevada Granadina 1605 Asociación para el Desarrollo Integral ‘El Záncara’ (Continued) Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 21 of 28 (Continued) Reference LAGs Andalusia Reference LAGs Castile-La Mancha Total: 52 groups Total: 29 groups 1803 GDR Guadix 1901 Asociación de Desarrollo Rural Molina de Aragón- Alto Tajo 1804 GDR Los Montes de Granada 1902 Asociación para el Desarrollo Local en la Sierra Norte de Guadalajara 1805 GDR Altiplano de Granada 1903 Federación de Asociaciones para el Desarrollo Territorial del Tajo-Tajuña 1806 GDR Poniente Granadino 1904 Asociación para el Desarrollo ‘La Alcarria y la Campiña’ 1807 GDR Valle de Lecrín-Temple y Costa Interior 4501 Asociación Comarcal Don Quijote de la Mancha 1808 GDR Vega-Sierra Elvira 4502 Asociación Comarca de Talavera, Sierra de San Vicente y la Jara 2101 GDR Andévalo Occidental 4503 Grupo de Desarrollo Rural Dulcinea 2102 GDR Sierra de Aracena y Picos de Aroche 4504 Asociación Comarcal Castillos del Medio Tajo 2103 GDR Condado de Huelva 4505 Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Campana de Oropesa 2104 GDR Costa Occidental de Huelva 4506 Asociación Montes Toledanos 2105 GDR Cuenca Minera de Riotinto LAGs Castile-Leon 2301 GDR Sierra de Cazorla Total: 44 groups 2302 GDR Campiña Norte de Jaén 501 Centro de Desarrollo Rural Valle del Tiétar 2303 GDR Condado de Jaén 502 Adrimo. Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral de la Moraña 2304 GDR La Loma y las Villas 503 Fundación para el Desarrollo Local Asocio de Ávila 2305 GDR Sierra Mágina 504 Asider. Asociación Intermunicipal para el Desarrollo Rural de la Comarca Barco- Piedrahita-Gredos 2306 GDR Sierra de Segura 901 Adeco Bureba. Asociación para el Desarrrollo Comarcal Bureba (Continued) Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 22 of 28 Reference LAGs Andalusia Reference LAGs Castile-La Mancha Total: 52 groups Total: 29 groups 2307 GDR Sierra Sur de Jaén 902 Adeco Camino. Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral de las Comarcas Circundantes del Camino de Santiago Comprendidas entre Castrojeriz y Fromista 2901 GDR Antequera 903 Adecoar. Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Comarca del Arlanza 2902 GDR La Axarquía 904 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural e Integral de la Ribera del Duero Burgalesa 2903 GDR Nororiental de Málaga 905 Agalsa. Asociación Grupo de Acción Local Sierra de la Demanda 2904 GDR Valle del Guadalhorce 906 Asociación Centro de Desarrollo Rural Merindades 2905 GDR Guadalteba 2401 Asodebi. Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Comarca Berciana 2906 GDR Serranía de Ronda 2402 Asociación Grupo de Acción Local Montaña de Riaño 2907 GDR Sierra de las Nieves 2403 Adescas. Asociación Intermunicipal para el Desarrollo Local de la Zona de Sahagún- Sureste de León 4101 GDR Campiña y Alcores 2404 Asociación Poeda. Páramo, Orbigo, Esla— Desarrollo Asociado 4102 GDR Bajo Guadalquivir 2405 Cuatro Valles. Asociación Cuatro Valles 4103 GDR Aljarafe-Doñana 2406 Asociación Montañas del Teleno 4104 GDR Corredor de la Plata 3401 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral del Cerrato Palentino 4105 GDR Estepa-Sierra Sur 3402 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral Montaña Palentina 4106 GDR Gran Vega 3403 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral de las Comarcas Naturales de los Páramos y Valles Palentinos 4107 GDR Serranía Suroeste Sevillana 3404 Araduey. Asociación Intermunicipal para el Desarrollo Local de la Comarca de Tierra de Campos Palentina (Continued) Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 23 of 28 (Continued) Reference LAGs Andalusia Reference LAGs Castile-La Mancha Total: 52 groups Total: 29 groups 4108 GDR Sierra Morena Sevillana 3701 Adriss. Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral de las Sierras de Salamanca LAGs Region of Valencia 3702 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Endógeno del Territorio Nordeste de Salamanca Total: 8 groups 3703 Adecocir. Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Comarca de Ciudad Rodrigo 301 CEDER (Centro de Apoyo al Desarrollo Rural) Alicante Zona 8 3704 Adrecag. Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural y Económico de las Comarcas de Campo Charro, Alba de Tormes y Guijuelo 1201 Asociación Ruralter Zona 2 GDR Portmader 3705 Adezos. Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Zona Oeste de Salamanca 1202 Asociación Ruralter Castellón- Sur Zona 3 4001 Codinse. Asociación Coordinadora para el Desarrollo Integral del Nordeste de Segovia 1203 Asociación Ruralter Leader Zona 1 4002 Asociación Honorse ‘Tierra de Pinares’ 4601 Asociación Ruralter Leader Zona 7 4003 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Segovia Sur 4602 GDR Ruralter Leader Zona 6 4004 Aidescom. Asociación Intermunicipal para el Desarrollo Local en la Comarca de Santa María la Real de Nieva 4603 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Valencia Interior Zona 4 4201 Asopiva. Asociación Pinares el Valle para el Desarrollo Rural Integral 4604 Asociación del Llano de Chiva a la Plana de Utiel Zona 5 4202 Proynerso. Asociación Proyecto Noreste de Soria LAGs Extremadura 4203 Adema. Asociación para el Desarrollo Endógeno de Almazán y Otros Municipios Total: 24 groups 4204 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Integral Tierras Sorianas del Cid 601 Adecom Lacara 4701 Asociación Colectivo para el Desarrollo Rural de Tierra de Campos 602 Aderco 4702 Asociación para el Desarrollo Rural Ruta del Mudéjar 603 Adersur 4703 Asociación Duero- Esgueva (Continued) Galindo-Pérez-de-Azpillaga & Foronda-Robles, Cogent Social Sciences (2018), 4: 1528730 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1528730 Page 24 of 28