The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe—Recommendations from a Scoping Review
1.1. Context: The Digital Transformation of Society and the COVID-19
1.2. Background: Digital Divide and Digital Inclusion
2. Rural Digital Divide: State of the Art
3. Research Problem: Ending the Gap of the Rural Digital Divide
- 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?
4. Materials and Methods
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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-ABS- KEY (“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.
5. Recommendations Related to Access and Connectivity
5.1. Broadband as an Essential Requirement
5.2. The Role of Governments in Connectivity
5.3. Design and Implementation of Policies and Programs
5.4. Technological Solutions
6. Recommendations Related to the Use of ICTs
6.1. Social Recommendations
6.2. Educational Recommendations
6.3. Economic Recommendations
- R1: Linking the improvement of connectivity to the dynamization of new business models and to the diversification of activities in the rural environment.
- R2: Ensuring the coherence of European, national, and regional initiatives.
- R3: Prioritizing the “speed of implementation” variable to ensure access to state-of-the-art technologies.
- R4: Exploiting the potential contribution of niche providers to broadband development.
- R5: Designing flexible training actions, adapted to the needs and circumstances of teachers who must deploy them in the areas of interest.
- R6: Optimizing the use of available resources, such as those in rural libraries.
- R7: Planning specific initiatives for vulnerable groups.
- The evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the national and regional public policies adopted in the last decade to reverse the reduction of the rural digital divide.
- The analysis of the relationship between connectivity and economic development in the rural environment. In particular, it is interesting to explore and assess the effectivity of digital inclusion as a potential instrument to retain and attract population and slow down the depopulation process in isolated areas and districts with negative population growth rates. The existing literature lacks approaches that study the possible effects of overcoming the digital divide to reverse the depopulation and to promote the development of the rural world; while some authors argue that an ageing population can be a major obstacle to get the expected positive results.
- The design and implementation of digital skills training programs specifically aimed at people living in the countryside to improve social communication processes in general, considered key to promote social leadership, rural empowerment, and resilience, and to enable innovative business initiatives.
Conflicts of Interest
- European Council. Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Presidency Conclusions. 2000. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm (accessed on 6 July 2020).
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. COM (2015) 192 Final. 2015. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0192andfrom=ES (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020. Accelerating the Digital Transformation of Government. COM/2016/0179 Final. 2016. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0179andfrom=EN (accessed on 10 August 2020).
- European Union. Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 Laying down Measures Concerning Open Internet Access. 2015. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120 (accessed on 19 August 2020).
- European Commission. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future: Social Media and Networks, Innovation and Policy. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/social-media-and-networks-innovation-and-policy (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- De’, R.; Pandey, N.; Pal, A. Impact of Digital Surge during Covid-19 Pandemic: A Viewpoint on Research and Practice. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 55, 10217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN (United Nations) and ITU (International Telecommunication Union). World Summit on the Information Society. Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: A Global Challenge in the New Millennium. 2004. Available online: https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (accessed on 26 June 2020).
- Ye, L.; Yang, H. From Digital Divide to Social Inclusion: A Tale of Mobile Platform Empowerment in Rural Areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pejic, M.; Zoroja, J.; Bosilj, V. Review of corporate digital divide research: A decadal analysis (2003–2012). Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2013, 1, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L. The divided views of the information and digital divides: A call for integrative theories of information inequality. J. Inf. Sci. 2011, 37, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riggins, F.J.; Dewan, S. The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 6, 298–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- López, J.J.S.; Castañeda, L.A.R. Digital inclusion and social perspective—Critical discussion based on a systematic review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference WWW/Internet 2015, Maynooth, Ireland, 24–26 October 2015; pp. 209–212. [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert, M. Theorizing Digital and Urban Inequalities: Critical geographies of ‘race’, gender and technological capital. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2010, 13, 1000–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helsper, E.J. Corresponding Fields Model for the Links between Social and Digital Exclusion. Commun. Theory 2012, 22, 403–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- European Commission. Broadband Coverage in Europe (2018). Mapping Progress towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=62760 (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Henning-Smith, C. The Unique Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults in Rural Areas. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2020, 32, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip, L.J.; Cottrill, C.D.; Farrington, J.; Williams, F.; Ashmore, F.H. The digital divide: Patterns, policy and scenarios for connecting the ‘final few’ in rural communities across Great Britain. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 386–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sostero, M.; Milasi, S.; Hurley, J.; Fernández-Macías, E.; Bisello, M. Teleworkability and the COVID-19 Crisis: A New Digital Divide? European Commission, Seville, JRC121193. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/teleworkability-and-covid-19-crisis-new-digital-divide (accessed on 23 July 2020).
- Zhang, M.; Wolff, R.S. Crossing the Digital Divide: Cost-Effective Broadband Wireless Access for Rural and Remote Areas. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2004, 42, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salemink, K.; Strijker, D.; Bosworth, G. Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, J.; Park, S.; Middleton, C. Technological literacy and interrupted internet access. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2019, 23, 1947–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, L.; Cotten, S.R.; Ono, H.; Quan-Haase, A.; Mesch, G.; Chen, W.; Schulz, J.; Hale, T.; Stern, M. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2015, 18, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip, L.J.; Williams, F. Remote rural home-based businesses and digital inequalities: Understanding needs and expectations in a digitally underserved community. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Townsend, L.; Wallace, C.; Fairhurst, G.; Anderson, A. Broadband and the creative industries in rural Scotland. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pávez, I.; Correa, T.; Contreras, J. Meanings of (dis)connection: Exploring non-users in isolated rural communities with internet access infrastructure. Poetics 2017, 63, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correa, T.; Pávez, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pérez-Calle, B.; Marta-Lazo, C.; Nogales-Bocio, A.I. Diseño de un proyecto de capacitación en competencias digitales de los colectivos vulnerables, mediadores en educación permanente y MYPES-PYMES en Aragón. 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]
- Scheerder, A.; van Deursen, A.; van Dijk, J. Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 1607–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, J.; Ihlen, O. Risk, crisis, and social media: A systematic review of seven years’ research. Nord. Rev. 2017, 38, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strover, S. Rural internet connectivity. Telecommun. Policy 2001, 25, 331–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Adamo, I.; Rosa, P. How Do You See Infrastructure? Green Energy to Provide Economic Growth after COVID-19. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giudice, F.; Caferra, R.; Morone, P. COVID-19, the Food System and the Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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-and-rspg-joint-report-on-facilitat_0.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2020).
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Peterson, J.; Pearce, P.F.; Ferguson, L.A. Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2017, 29, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, R.; Hopkins, J. The Changing Shape of Scotland’s Digital Divide. Eur. Countrys. 2019, 11, 563–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bowen, R.; Morris, W. The digital divide: Implications for agribusiness and entrepreneurship.Lessons from Wales. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 72, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duvivier, C.; Truchet, S.; Mauhé, N.; Mbarek, M. Déploiement du très haut débit et création d’entreprises dans les zones rurales: Une évaluation du programme Auvergne très haut débit. Économie Prévision 2018, 214, 97–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Räisänen, J.; Tuovinen, T. Digital innovations in rural micro-enterprises. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 73, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matteucci, N. The EU State aid policy for broadband: An evaluation of the Italian experience with first generation networks. Telecommun. Policy 2019, 43, 101830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Szeles, M.R. New insights from a multilevel approach to the regional digital divide in the European Union. Telecommun. Policy 2018, 42, 452–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schneir, J.R.; Xion, Y. A cost study of fixed broadband access networks for rural areas. Telecommun. Policy 2016, 40, 755–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kupriyanova, M.; Dronov, V.; Gordova, T. Digital Divide of Rural Territories in Russia. AGRIS On-line Pap. Econ. Inf. 2019, 11, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cruz-Jesús, F.; Oliveira, T.; Bacao, F. The Global Digital Divide: Evidence and Drivers. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2018, 26, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Richmond, W.; Rader, S.; Lanier, C. The “Digital Divide” for rural small businesses. J. Res. Mark. Entrep. 2017, 19, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Vico-Bosch, A.; Rebollo-Catalán, A. Impact of digital inclusion policies in the use of social networks of rural women. Prism. Soc. 2018, 21, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Morales, N. ICT and pupils of rural areas: Between the digital gap and inclusive education. Bordón Rev. Pedagog. 2017, 69, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sánchez, F. Rural blended education. Proyecto de educación semipresencial para frenar la despoblación de las zonas rurales. 3C TIC Cuad. Desarro. Apl. TIC 2019, 8, 74–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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).
|Inclusion Criteria||Exclusion Criteria|
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/).
Share and Cite
Esteban-Navarro, M.-Á.; García-Madurga, M.-Á.; Morte-Nadal, T.; Nogales-Bocio, A.-I. The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe—Recommendations from a Scoping Review. Informatics 2020, 7, 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7040054
Esteban-Navarro M-Á, García-Madurga M-Á, Morte-Nadal T, Nogales-Bocio A-I. The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe—Recommendations from a Scoping Review. Informatics. 2020; 7(4):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7040054Chicago/Turabian Style
Esteban-Navarro, Miguel-Ángel, Miguel-Ángel García-Madurga, Tamara Morte-Nadal, and Antonia-Isabel Nogales-Bocio. 2020. "The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe—Recommendations from a Scoping Review" Informatics 7, no. 4: 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7040054