Smart Villages and Rural Sustainability: An Integrated Governance Model Within the European Framework and Its Application to the Spanish Case

Abstract

In the context of rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, smart villages are increasingly recognized as a promising strategy to address challenges associated with excessive urban concentration. However, the key factor driving demographic shifts toward rural areas is the strengthening of social capacities linked to governance and inter-territorial collaboration between municipalities and cities. Promoting robust urban-rural socio-cultural relationships and participatory frameworks is therefore essential, yet these elements remain underemphasized in the institutional design of smart regions, despite their critical role in fostering territorial cohesion. This research examines the dimensions of the Smart Village concept within the European policy framework, using the specific challenges and strategic responses of the Spanish case as a primary reference point. It aims to assess how smart rural development can help reduce disparities between rural and urban areas by considering core rural challenges, including demographic imbalances, intensified climate impacts, deteriorating infrastructure, and a lack of digital skills, that currently limit the sustainability of rural communities, particularly in countries with widely dispersed populations like Spain.

1. Introduction

The persistent territorial disparities between rural and urban areas, together with the complex dynamics of contemporary socioeconomic and environmental challenges, highlight the urgent need to strengthen connectivity and territorial cohesion between both environments. In this context, the development of smart villages has emerged as a fundamental strategy to address such imbalances, offering a comprehensive approach that combines technological innovation, sustainable development, and participatory governance.

A smart village can be defined as a rural community in which traditional networks and services are enhanced and optimized through the integration of digital technologies, advanced telecommunications, and innovative solutions, all adapted to local conditions for the direct benefit of residents and economic activities. According to the Long-Term Vision for EU Rural Areas [1], the promotion of these communities represents not only a viable pathway for endogenous development but also a strategic response to rural depopulation and urban overpopulation, phenomena that threaten social and environmental sustainability. Moreover, this is fully aligned with the principles of sustainable development, the promotion of efficient use of resources, the reduction in environmental footprint, and the advancement of inclusive, locally driven innovation.

Rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data are increasingly being central to smart village development, since they optimize resource management, public service delivery, and local decision-making processes. However, evidence suggests that technological solutions alone are insufficient to drive rural revitalization. The key factor underpinning demographic shifts toward rural areas is the strengthening of social capacities linked to governance and inter-territorial collaboration between municipalities and cities. Robust urban-rural socio-cultural relationships and participatory frameworks are therefore essential, although they remain still undervalued in the institutional design of smart regions. It aims to assess how smart rural development can help reduce disparities between rural and urban areas by considering core rural challenges, including demographic imbalances, intensified climate impacts, deteriorating infrastructure, and a lack of digital skills, that currently limit the sustainability of rural communities, particularly in countries with widely dispersed populations like Spain. This phenomenon is not merely a demographic trend but a high-level policy priority. This is articulated in the General Guidelines for the National Strategy for the Demographic Challenge [2], which establishes a strategic framework for territorial cohesion.

Beyond technological and social dimensions, the smart village approach emphasizes economic diversification and community empowerment. Initiatives such as circular economy models, sustainable tourism, teleworking, and local innovation hubs attract and retain population, reinforce urban-rural interdependencies, and stimulate social capital. Given the continued reliance of many rural areas on primary sector activities, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining, the integration of digital intelligence into these sectors is essential to maximize productivity and sustainability. Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), precision agriculture, IoT-enabled biosensors, drones, nanotechnology, and smart livestock management systems collectively optimize resource use and prevent plant and animal diseases [3].

The policy context is a critical factor for the success of smart villages. European and national funding instruments, such as the CAP Strategic Plans 2023–2027 and initiatives like Smart Rural 27, demonstrate how aligned digital transition and recovery funds can catalyze rural digitalization. Aligning these strategies with broader objectives, such as the European Green Deal and climate neutrality goals, ensures that technological and economic development also contributes to environmental sustainability and equitable territorial cohesion. By integrating AI, participatory governance, and inter-territorial collaboration, smart villages are positioned not only as innovative hubs for digital and ecological transformation but also as relevant instruments capable of shaping the future of European rural areas.

In addition to presenting the state of the art in governance, social dynamics, and technological innovation, this manuscript adopts an explicitly integrative conceptual stance. Specifically, it proposes the Integrated Smart Village Synergy Model (ISVSM) to bridge the gap between technological deployment and social governance. While the proposed framework is intended for broad European application, it is deeply informed by the Spanish experience, serving as a representative case study of a nation balancing European digital mandates with unique demographic and territorial pressures. The ISVSM is a multidimensional framework used to transform rural areas into “Smart Villages.” Its core premise is that technology (ICT) is only effective when it acts as a catalyst for social, economic, and institutional factors already present in the territory. In our manuscript, the ISVSM serves as the theoretical bridge that justifies why we are looking at things like “inter-municipal collaboration.” It posits that a single village is too small to be smart alone; it needs the synergy of a network.

That is why the primary contribution of this paper lies not in proposing an empirical model but in synthesizing these three dimensions (AI, participatory governance, and inter-territorial collaboration) into a coherent analytical framework that highlights their interdependence in the European smart village agenda. By articulating this multidimensional perspective, the article seeks to advance the conceptual understanding of smart villages and to reinforce their relevance in current policy debates.

2. Materials and Methods

This study utilizes an integrative and structured review approach [4], combining theoretical, policy-related, and empirical perspectives. The research design is conceived as a desk-based analytical review, an approach justified by the study’s objective: to synthesize fragmented frameworks into a cohesive model for territorial cohesion.

To guide the analysis and the subsequent development of the Integrated Smart Village Sustainability Model (ISVSM), this study is built upon two fundamental theoretical propositions:

• Proposition 1 (P1): The Infrastructure-Governance Interdependence. We propose that digital connectivity (the Foundational Layer) does not lead to rural revitalization in isolation. Its effectiveness is contingent upon the ‘Operational Pillar’ (the presence of local institutional capacity and participatory governance) which translates technological potential into territorial social capital.
• Proposition 2 (P2): Sustainability Synergy. We argue that long-term rural resilience (the Sustainability Pillar) emerges only when the digital transition is strategically aligned with the green transition (the Green Deal) and economic diversification. This synergy neutralizes the “distance penalty” of remote areas and transforms rural territories into active innovation hubs rather than passive service recipients.

Building upon our previous work [5,6], this research is grounded in Balanced Territorial Development theories and Multi-level Governance (MLG) frameworks. To ensure transparency and reproducibility, the literature identification followed a three-stage structured protocol.

2.1. Literature Identification and Screening Process

The identification process was designed to capture both high-level policy directives and granular academic critiques.

• Database Selection and Search Terms: A systematic search was conducted (2006–2024) across Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar. The search strings included Boolean operators for precision: (“Smart Village” OR “Rural Digital Transformation”) AND (“Territorial Cohesion” OR “Social Capital”) AND (“Governance”). Policy documents were retrieved via the EU Publications Office (EUR-Lex) and the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (MITECO) to ensure alignment with CAP 2023–2027 cycles.
• Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Inclusion: Peer-reviewed articles; official EU/Spanish strategic plans (e.g., España Hub Digital); technical reports on European rural contexts; studies focusing on the “empty Spain” (España Vaciada) phenomenon.

Exclusion: Urban-only “Smart City” studies; non-technical editorials; reports lacking a clear governance or technological implementation framework.

• Data Triangulation: The final corpus was categorized into three streams to allow for cross-verification: Academic Literature (theoretical validation), Regulatory Frameworks (policy alignment), and Empirical/Case Reports (practical feasibility in the Spanish context).

2.2. Qualitative Analytical Method: Inductive Thematic Analysis (ITA)

To move beyond descriptive reporting, we applied Inductive Thematic Analysis (ITA) [7]. This method allowed us to extract “latent themes” from policy and academic texts, transforming raw data into the building blocks of the ISVSM. The process followed three specific phases:

• Phase 1 (Open Coding): Systematic reading of the corpus to identify recurrent concepts like “digital divide,” “inter-municipal cooperation,” and “AI scalability.” This phase involved generating initial codes from the data without a pre-existing coding frame.
• Phase 2 (Axial Coding): Grouping codes into sub-themes (e.g., merging “5G deployment” and “Broadband subsidies” under “Infrastructure Resilience”). In this stage, we established connections between categories to identify the “Operational” and “Foundational” layers of the model.
• Phase 3 (Thematic Synthesis): Mapping sub-themes against the pillars of Territorial Cohesion and Social Capital to define the core dimensions of the ISVSM. This led to the final definition of the synergy-based architecture of the model.

2.3. The Integrated Smart Village Synergy Model (ISVSM) Construction

The ISVSM serves as the primary analytical lens of this study. It repositions Smart Villages as “territorial innovation ecosystems” rather than passive technology recipients. The model’s architecture was iteratively refined by testing its components against the 100-measure plan against Demographic Challenge in Spain. The model is structured around three interdependent pillars:

• Digital Infrastructure (The Enablement Pillar): Based on Connectivity Theory, viewing high-speed broadband as a “territorial utility” essential for citizen rights.
• Social Capacity and Multi-level Governance (The Operational Pillar): Grounded in Social Capital Theory, focusing on “institutional thickness” and the quality of inter-territorial networks [8,9].
• Endogenous Resilience (The Sustainability Pillar): Drawing from Evolutionary Economic Geography to catalyze local assets (circular economy) via smart tools, ensuring that the development is not dependent on external subsidies alone.

2.4. Methodological Limits and Data Alignment

We acknowledge the following limits of the chosen methodology:

• Conceptual vs. Empirical Nature: As an integrative review focused on model synthesis, the ISVSM remains a theoretical construct. While it is deeply informed by Spanish case studies [10,11], its widespread applicability across diverse European rural typologies requires further localized empirical validation.
• Data Heterogeneity: The reliance on policy documents introduces a potential “institutional bias.” We have mitigated this by triangulating policy goals with critical academic literature that highlights the “digital gap” and “lack of skills” as persistent barriers.
• Temporal Scope: Given that many CAP 2023–2027 initiatives and NextGenerationEU funds are in early stages of implementation, the “results” discussed in Section 3 are interpreted as projected impacts and strategic alignments rather than final measurable outcomes.

3. Results

3.1. Response to Depopulation and Demographic Change

Depopulation and adverse demographic change, manifested through population aging and the continued rural exodus, constitute two of the most pressing challenges to territorial cohesion in Europe [11]. Addressing these phenomena requires a multidimensional and systemic strategy that transcends merely palliative approaches and instead promotes a comprehensive revitalization of the socioeconomic fabric of rural areas. This strategic response is articulated around three interrelated dimensions: first, the diversification of the rural economy and the creation of quality employment opportunities; second, the promotion of digital transformation as an essential enabling condition performed through the Smart Village model; and third, the improvement of quality of life, social capital, governance and cooperation between rural and urban territories, an aspect that will be analyzed in greater depth later on in this article.

In alignment with our methodological framework, these three dimensions are not isolated phenomena but represent the convergence of the ISVSM pillars. The diversification of the economy acts as the ‘Sustainability Pillar’, while digital transformation provides the ‘Foundational Layer’, and governance serves as the ‘Operational’ bridge that connects them.

The excessive dependence on the primary sector represents a structural vulnerability for many rural communities, making economic diversification a key priority for contemporary development strategies. Current approaches advocate for the intelligent use of local resources, particularly agricultural and forestry assets, to generate high value-added products such as biofuels, biomaterials, and renewable energy. This orientation not only supports the creation of green and sustainable jobs within the framework of the circular economy but also enhances the economic autonomy and resilience of rural regions. In the context of the proposed ISVSM, this economic diversification represents the ‘Sustainability Pillar’. Our analysis suggests that the transition from traditional primary activities to high-value bioeconomy models acts as a self-sustaining demographic pull, transforming local assets into competitive advantages through digital catalysis.

The experience of the pandemic further revealed the potential of remote work to transform the geography of employment, positioning rural areas as attractive destinations for people seeking improved living conditions. This transformation, however, depends critically on the availability of robust digital infrastructure capable of supporting teleworking and the emerging phenomenon of digital nomadism. In addition, sustainable tourism has emerged as another relevant driver of rural revitalization. This follows a long-standing trend in the Spanish context, where the valorization of rural areas has been historically linked to the evolution of tourism as a tool for economic diversification [12]. Building on this trajectory, current strategies now focus on natural and cultural heritage through low-impact modalities such as agritourism, ecotourism, and cultural tourism.

These activities contribute to economic diversification while maintaining environmental balance and social cohesion. In addition, the promotion of local entrepreneurship plays a decisive role in the regeneration of rural economies, facilitating the creation and growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through tax incentives, microcredit access, and the establishment of co-working spaces. All these foster innovation, stimulates community engagement, and consolidates long-term economic sustainability.

Digital transformation constitutes the second fundamental pillar, as the persistence of the digital divide remains one of the main barriers to rural development. Consequently, digitalization becomes the essential backbone of any viable revitalization initiative, guaranteeing universal access to high-speed internet as an necessary condition for territorial cohesion and the modernization of rural areas. Beyond connectivity, digital transformation entails the deployment of digital public services such as telemedicine (e-health) and distance education (e-learning), which compensate for the limited physical infrastructure in many rural territories and ensure equitable access to health and education. Moreover, the emergence of local digital platforms (ranging from virtual marketplaces that promote short supply chains to community-based applications for managing on-demand transportation) enhances efficiency, fosters local economic activity and strengthens citizen participation in local governance. This reliance on proximity-based digital channels aligns with the findings of Esparcia [8], who argues that social capital in Spanish rural areas is structured through tight-knit trust networks. Consequently, digitalization in these SMEs does not merely seek operational efficiency but aims to replicate traditional ‘word-of-mouth’ dynamics within a virtual environment, reinforcing the role of the social pillar as a bridge between tradition and digital modernity.

Broadband coverage has improved significantly across Europe in recent years, especially through the deployment of fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) and 5G in rural areas. While Member States show heterogeneous progress, the overall trend demonstrates a growing alignment with the Digital Decade 2030 targets, which envisage universal gigabit connectivity and full 5G coverage.

The literature reveals that broadband deployment strongly correlates with population density and economic activity, generating persistent territorial asymmetries. These asymmetries highlight the need for substantial public investment, targeted subsidies, and multi-level governance mechanisms to ensure that digital connectivity reaches all rural citizens. In the Spanish national context, while the UNICO-Banda Ancha Program has significantly extended high-speed connectivity across the territory, technical realities remain uneven. As Fernández-Portillo et al. [13] suggest, there is a critical distinction between ‘access’ and ‘utilization.’ Having fiber optic access in regions like Extremadura or Castilla-La Mancha does not guarantee digital transformation if the business fabric lacks the strategic capabilities to exploit such infrastructure effectively.

We emphasize that connectivity challenges are not shared across diverse European rural contexts, including Eastern, Northern, and Mediterranean regions, where geographic, demographic, and infrastructural constraints differ significantly.

Connectivity also intersects with broader issues of digital inclusion. Even in areas where broadband infrastructure is available, digital literacy, affordability, and the capacity to integrate technologies into local productive systems remain uneven. These disparities create differentiated outcomes in rural digital transformation. There are also additional risks, such as digital exclusion, data protection vulnerabilities, and privacy concerns, especially relevant when deploying AI, IoT sensors, and integrated data platforms in rural environments. These risks underline the importance of aligning local initiatives with EU data governance frameworks, including the GDPR, the Data Governance Act, and the European Data Strategy.

In this sense, broadband should be understood not merely as a technological asset but as a foundational element enabling economic diversification, improved service provision, and stronger social cohesion. High-quality connectivity facilitates the emergence of teleworking hubs, e-commerce solutions for small producers, distance education, and digital health services, thus expanding the socio-economic opportunities available to rural populations.

Crucially, the effectiveness of digital connectivity depends on territorial integration. Broadband infrastructure generates greater returns when combined with local development strategies, skills training, entrepreneurship support, and participatory governance. This integrated perspective positions connectivity as a driver of long-term rural resilience rather than an isolated technological upgrade. This widespread deployment of connectivity constitutes the ‘Foundational Layer’ of the proposed ISVSM. It serves as the essential substrate that allows rural territories to decouple productivity from physical location, effectively neutralizing the ‘distance penalty’ traditionally associated with remote areas. From a methodological standpoint, the results identified in the Spanish UNICO program validate our ‘Foundational Layer’ proposition: connectivity is a necessary but not sufficient utility. The data suggests that territorial cohesion only emerges when this layer is activated by the institutional thickness of the ‘Operational Pillar’.

According to the Spanish Network for Rural Development [11], the Smart Village model represents an ideal framework to counteract depopulation. However, to achieve tangible results it is necessary to prioritize locally adapted solutions that respond to the specific characteristics and needs of each territory. This implies reorienting both public policies and private initiatives toward the local scale, avoiding excessive centralization and seeing the importance of bottom-up processes in the digital adoption. As noted by Esteban-Navarro et al. [10], global strategies have often failed to capture the diversity of local realities, something that is crucial for effective digital transformation in rural areas. This phenomenon is consistent with the emerging Smart Villages strategies in Spain. According to Bujidos [14], success stories in the rural landscape demonstrate that digital maturity depends less on isolated technology and more on the creation of a localized innovation ecosystem. This reinforces the view that digitalization is a systemic process where local governance and territorial identity play a decisive role in sustainability.

At the European level, the Bled Declaration of April 2018 established the Smart Village concept as a reference model for rural areas across the continent, seeking to redefine employment opportunities and enhance rural participation in the digital economy. The implementation of this vision requires a political commitment to strengthening support mechanisms that facilitate the transition of rural territories toward digitalized and sustainable development models. Traditionally, the main financial instruments for rural development in Europe, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Structural and Cohesion Funds, have allocated only a limited share of resources to digitalization [15]. Nonetheless, this situation has begun to change in recent years, particularly with the mobilization of Next Generation EU funds, which have provided a significant boost to digital transformation in rural regions.

A notable example in the Spanish context is the Second Action Plan (2021–2023) of the “Strategy for the Digitalization of the Agri-food and Forestry Sector and the Rural Environment,” financed through the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan of the European Commission, specifically under its component “Environmental and Digital Transformation of the Agri-food, Forestry, and Rural Sector.” This plan encompassed a broad range of actions, including the promotion of broadband connectivity in rural areas, the digitalization of agricultural and forestry holdings, and the deployment of technologies such as precision agriculture, smart water management and product traceability systems. Also, the plan supported the development of digital training programs for rural professionals and workers, empowering farmers and livestock producers with the necessary skills to integrate and benefit from technological innovation.

These initiatives illustrate the intrinsic interdependence between digital transformation, economic diversification and demographic resilience, positioning the Smart Village model not only as a policy framework but also as a strategic instrument for the sustainable revitalization of rural areas and the advancement of territorial cohesion in Europe.

3.2. Closing the Digital Divide: The UNICO Program (The Universalisation of Digital Infrastructure for Cohesion Programme (UNICO Programme)) and Spain’s Leadership in Connectivity

In recent years, Spain has gained consolidation of its position as a European leader in digital connectivity, particularly through its accelerated efforts to bridge the digital divide in rural and sparsely populated areas. The main driver of this nationwide advancement is the Universalisation of Digital Infrastructure for Cohesion Program (UNICO), which leverages Next Generation EU funds and encompasses key initiatives like UNICO-Banda Ancha and UNICO Rural Demand.

The goal of the UNICO program is highly ambitious, aiming to guarantee universal access to very high-capacity networks across the entire Spanish population. While the initial milestone was set for 2025, the program’s scope has expanded through new sub-programs and funding lines extending into the year 2029, focussing on achieving symmetrical connection speeds of at least 300 Mbps (megabits per second), scalable up to 1 Gbps (gigabits per second).

There are already public initiatives under UNICO that have already delivered exceptional progress in terms of national connectivity. By early 2025, Spain had achieved 95.2% Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) coverage and 92.3% 5G availability, consolidating its position as one of Europe’s most digitally connected nations. Spain’s leadership in connectivity, driven by the UNICO program, demonstrates the ‘Enablement Pillar’ of our conceptual model. Here, the transition from ‘Moderate’ to ‘Strong’ innovator highlights how the infrastructure layer acts as a catalyst, enabling the ‘Operational Pillar’ (Governance) to activate local innovation ecosystems.

Ongoing investments throughout 2025, totaling more than €690 million, are targeting the extension of 5G networks to small municipalities and transport corridors, with projects scheduled through 2026 and 2027. Moreover, new calls for UNICO-Banda Ancha (broadband) and UNICO-5G Redes ADIF (5G Networks—Backhaul Fiber Program) foresee continued expansion toward 2029, particularly in rural and sparsely populated areas.

Within this framework, the UNICO Rural Demand initiative continues to ensure affordable broadband services, providing a guaranteed minimum download speed of 100 Mbps to households in remote areas lacking commercial deployment, while progressively upgrading these connections toward gigabit-level capacity.

This extensive high-speed connectivity infrastructure serves as a fundamental enabler for the development of smart villages, directly facilitating key socioeconomic activities such as teleworking, digital entrepreneurship, and, without any doubt, contributing to the improvement of quality of life in rural communities.

Although Spain remains classified as a Moderate Innovator according to the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) [16], its performance is increasingly converging toward the European Union (EU) average. In 2025, Spain achieved an index value of 92.7% of the EU average, representing an improvement of 1.9 per cent from 2024 and a rise of 13.9 points since 2018 [16]. The country now ranks 15th among EU Member States, reflecting a positive momentum, although Spain remains below the threshold for the “Strong Innovator” category, meaning that continued strategic effort is needed in areas such as process innovation in SMEs and employment in innovative enterprises.

These numbers show that Spain’s principal strengths in the European innovation landscape now encompass digitalisation (where the country ranks 5th in the EU), human resources (particularly tertiary education and lifelong-learning participation) and financing and support systems. In 2025, Spain achieved 92.7% of the EU average in the EIS, marking continued progress and reinforcing its potential as a benchmark nation in closing the digital divide. The digital divide is not only technical but structural. According to Salemink et al. [17], rural resilience depends on overcoming inequalities that, in the Spanish context, show specific nuances based on municipal population size [18].

These developments, together with the continued success of the Programa UNICO connectivity initiative, strengthen the government’s vision of Spain as a leader in digital transformation and the growth of smart rural communities. This progress in the EIS (European Innovation Scoreboard) indexes confirms the alignment between the European strategic mandates and the Spanish ‘bottom-up’ reality. Methodologically, the convergence of Spain towards the EU average in 2025 reflects how the ‘Foundational Layer’ is effectively reducing the structural inequalities previously identified by Salemink et al. [17].

3.3. Smart Villages in Spain: Case Studies and Emerging Trends

As we said above, in Spain, the transition toward a smart village model has become increasingly evident in recent years. This process has been supported by sustained public and private investment aimed at accelerating this transformation. One of the most representative cases is the town of Ansó, located in the province of Huesca, which participated in the Smart Rural 21 pilot project funded by the European Union. As part of its strategy to counteract depopulation, Ansó implemented a comprehensive local plan that included the installation of free Wi-Fi hotspots, 5G networks and fiberoptic connections providing speeds of up to 100 Mbps. Additionally, the town adopted virtual reality tools, developed co-working spaces, installed electric vehicle charging points, and rehabilitated municipal buildings to accommodate startups and promote community housing initiatives [19]. These actions have heavily improved the municipality’s digital connectivity, facilitated access to housing, encouraged entrepreneurship and contributed positively to the energy transition and family development processes [6]. The case of Ansó epitomizes the ‘Operational Pillar’ of the ISVSM. By integrating technological tools with the rehabilitation of municipal buildings for startups and community housing, the municipality showcases how ‘institutional thickness’ and participatory governance transform raw connectivity into a tangible socioeconomic pull. The rehabilitation of municipal heritage in Ansó to host digital hubs is a clear example of the ‘Sustainability Pillar’ in action: utilizing traditional assets (historical buildings) through smart innovation to create new value chains. This case demonstrates that the synergy between governance and technology is the actual driver of resilience.

We can find another example in the Cartagena-La Unión mining area, where a Spanish initiative has leveraged digitalization to transform the region into a smart tourism destination. This project has enhanced the competitiveness of the área by integrating its mining and industrial heritage with Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), even despite the initially high costs and technical complexity of implementation. The introduction of digital tools has allowed visitors to access exclusive content on the region’s architectural, environmental, and socioeconomic value, thereby strengthening the connection between heritage preservation and technological innovation [20].

At the regional level, the Government of Asturias has developed a program for rural entrepreneurs that between 2016 and 2022 allocated approximately €2.3 million to support the creation of new businesses in sectors such as tourism, commerce, and crafts [11]. This initiative was largely financed through LEADER (Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale) aid and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), two key European Commission instruments designed to address the abandonment of agricultural areas and stimulate rural innovation.

Something essential for the sustainable development of smart villages is the establishment of multilevel financing and redistributive measures, ranging from local to supranational levels. Local funding mechanisms play a particularly important role, as they provide direct and flexible support to communities, improving their capacity to adapt to climate change and integrate into the digital economy. In this regard, self-sufficiency and energy diversification, achieved through the use of solar energy, microgrids, and biomass, are basic to ensuring the supply of clean and renewable energy. The adoption of smart energy technologies not only guarantees service continuity but also generates positive spillovers related to improve public services, skills, health and the creation of employment [21].

Beyond these specific experiences, the smart village paradigm has gained significant traction in various regions of Spain. Although a comprehensive and continuously updated inventory of these initiatives is difficult to establish due to the dynamic and decentralized nature of such projects, there is an evident trend toward the adoption of smart village strategies in small and medium-sized municipalities across the country.

The emergence of these new smart villages reflects a multidimensional approach that transcends mere digitalization. It integrates technological, economic, social, and environmental components within a unified territorial vision. To be considered a smart village, a locality must first ensure advanced connectivity through next-generation fiber optics, 5G networks, or satellite solutions, which constitute the foundational infrastructure for subsequent development. Building upon this base, such villages deploy digital public services, including e-administration platforms, telemedicine, and intelligent systems for waste and energy management, thereby increasing the efficiency and accessibility of essential services.

Furthermore, these initiatives actively promote innovation in the primary sector, applying technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), drones, Big Data analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) in agriculture, livestock farming, and forestry. These tools optimize production processes, improve resource efficiency, and enhance resilience to climate change. At the same time, smart villages encourage economic diversification and entrepreneurship by fostering co-working spaces and supporting startups that develop new value chains based on local resources, particularly in the fields of bioeconomy and sustainable tourism.

In terms of infrastructure, many of these municipalities are implementing smart and sustainable mobility systems, including on-demand transport services and electric vehicle charging points. In the social and governance domains, they promote citizen participation through digital platforms that enable direct community involvement in decision-making. Likewise, energy efficiency and environmental sustainability are prioritized through the establishment of local energy communities, smart water management systems, and initiatives to attract and retain talent, including programs designed for digital nomads and young entrepreneurs.

These projects are often aligned with broader frameworks such as the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) co-financed by the EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development), Spanish Strategies against the Demographic Challenge and specific calls funded by the Next Generation instruments. In this context, various provincial councils and autonomous communities have launched initiatives to promote the digitalization and sustainable transformation of rural areas through smart village models. Although many of these projects are modest in scale compared to national pilot programs, they collectively contribute to building a robust ecosystem of interconnected smart villages that reinforces Spain’s position as a leader in digital rural transformation.

The institutional architecture that underpins this transition is defined by several national initiatives. The National Smart Territories Plan (PNTI) continues to promote a comprehensive “Smart City and Territory” model based on standardized protocols to ensure interoperability and long-term sustainability across digital infrastructures. By mid-2025, the public entity Red.es, responsible for implementing this plan, had executed approximately €815 million (representing 61% of its annual Budget) through 41 separate expedients, calls, and cooperation agreements aimed at accelerating digitalization and fostering a nationwide smart ecosystem. These investments encompass both urban and rural domains, including digital platforms for municipalities, public Wi-Fi access, smart-city infrastructure, business-sector competitiveness tools, data spaces, and digital inclusion programmes. Additionally, Red.es has advanced initiatives such as over 760,000 Kit Digital vouchers for businesses (intelligent business management software for SMEs) and training for 80,000 professionals in AI and digital skills, demonstrating a shift toward a more integrated approach that combines infrastructure, innovation, and human capital to strengthen Spain’s digital and “smart-territory ecosystem”. This institutional architecture represents the ‘Sustainability Pillar’ of the model. The shift from isolated digital projects toward an integrated ‘Smart Territory Ecosystem’ reflects the theoretical proposition that long-term resilience depends on the synergy between human capital (AI training) and infrastructure investment.

Complementing this technological advancement, the Strategic Plan of the General State Administration (AGE) in the Territory 2024–2027 addresses the relationship between governance and digital technology in both urban and rural contexts. Its central objective is to guarantee accessibility, inclusion, and territorial cohesion, consolidating the role of the AGE as a citizen-oriented public service throughout the national territory. To achieve this, the plan emphasizes the integration of technological innovation with proximity and inclusiveness, aiming to prevent the widening of digital, socioeconomic and generational divides, particularly in rural areas. This strategy underscores the importance of maintaining in-person assistance alongside the effective use of digital technologies, thereby ensuring the provision of efficient, multichannel and equitable public services.

3.4. Examples of Smart Villages in Europe

In this article, we are developing, among other topics, the concept of the smart village, which has gained considerable momentum across Europe, mainly as a result of European Commission initiatives such as the Bled Declaration and key funding programs like Smart Rural 21. These efforts are designed to revitalize rural territories and close the persistent digital and service gaps that contribute to depopulation and territorial imbalance. More recently, the Smart Rural 27 (The Smart Rural 27 project was created to implement new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measures in Member States to facilitate the emergence of “smart villages” throughout the European Union) initiative has expanded these objectives, benefiting from the financial boost provided by the European Union’s post-pandemic recovery and digital transition funds. This has significantly accelerated investment in rural digitalization.

In this context, many Member States have integrated the smart village model into their Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans for the 2023–2027 programming period, allocating specific budgets to support cooperation, innovation, and non-agricultural rural development. The CAP framework offers multiple mechanisms to foster the diversification of rural economies, extending its scope beyond traditional farming activities. It supports investments in rural infrastructure, the creation of new rural enterprises, and the financing of cooperation projects, particularly through the LEADER initiative, which promotes local partnerships and community-led development. Overall, approximately €25 billion, representing about 8% of total CAP allocations for 2023–2027, are being directly invested in rural areas and communities.

Empirical data from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), further underscores the rapid pace of rural digital transformation. According to a recent JRC study [22], 93% of European farmers now use at least one digital or software tool, while 79% employ crop-specific technologies and 83% utilize livestock-oriented digital tools. This study showed that 76% of respondents anticipate economic benefits from digitalization, 72% expect positive environmental impacts, and 67% foresee social improvements, revealing a widespread recognition of the potential of digital tools to enhance productivity, sustainability and quality of life in rural contexts.

Moreover, economic diversification is increasingly recognized as a core pillar of smart village strategies, enabling rural areas to generate new sources of income, enhance resilience, and retain population. Traditional dependence on agriculture is gradually giving way to hybrid economic structures that integrate agri-food modernization, sustainable tourism, circular economy initiatives, bioeconomy models, and emerging digital services.

Diversification processes vary across Europe, reflecting differences in territorial capital, institutional capacities, and regional development trajectories. While some regions leverage strong agricultural sectors to promote value-added processing and organic production, others rely on cultural heritage, natural landscapes, or renewable energy resources to stimulate tourism and green entrepreneurship. Teleworking and digital freelancing have also opened new opportunities for rural residents, particularly in communities with reliable broadband connections and adequate coworking or innovation spaces. Diversification strategies differ across Member States, with Northern and Western regions tending to emphasize digital services and green technologies, while Southern and Eastern Europe often prioritize sustainable tourism, agri-food transformation, and bioeconomy initiatives.

It is important to clarify that the examples presented below are used as illustrative cases rather than as components of a comparative empirical dataset. Their selection is based on their relevance within EU-recognized initiatives (such as Smart Rural 27 and ENRD cooperation projects) and on their alignment with broader European digitalization and rural development priorities. Each case therefore exemplifies how different territories interpret and implement the smart village approach according to their specific socioeconomic profiles, territorial needs, and institutional capacities. This selection of cases follows the qualitative logic of the Inductive Thematic Analysis described in Section 2.2. Rather than a statistical comparison, these examples serve to validate the ‘Operational Pillar’ by demonstrating how multi-level governance adapts to heterogeneous demographic and geographical constraints.

Across the continent, the models adopted for smart villages are highly diverse, reflecting the principle that each community defines its “smartness” according to its specific needs, resources, and social context. For instance, Laukaa (Finland) has prioritized telehealth systems and digital platforms to improve well-being and social cohesion, particularly among its aging population. This example represents a sparsely populated Nordic rural municipality that has centered its smart initiatives on digital well-being services for an aging community. In Viana do Castelo (Portugal), the focus lies on sustainability and the bioeconomy, with the deployment of IoT sensors for crop monitoring and forest fire prevention, complemented by digital platforms that enable direct marketing of local agricultural products. Viana do Castelo illustrates a peripheral rural territory with strong agricultural and forestry sectors that has oriented its smart strategy toward sustainability and bio-based innovation

Germany offers another innovative model through the HofladenBox system, which employs automated, refrigerated vending units equipped with digital technology to allow anytime local product sales. This initiative reduces intermediaries, strengthens short food supply chains, and stimulates the local rural economy. The HofladenBox initiative represents a typical Central European rural context focused on short supply chains and digitally supported agri-food commercialization. In Ireland, the national smart village strategy emphasizes broadband infrastructure and the establishment of rural co-working hubs to support teleworking, attract urban professionals and curb the rural exodus. Ireland’s example corresponds to a national strategy targeting rural settlements with connectivity gaps by prioritizing broadband expansion and digital workspaces. Meanwhile, in Romania, the Saschiz Commune demonstrates how technology can also serve cultural and environmental preservation. Through mobile tourism applications, smart waste management systems, and the digital promotion of traditional products, Saschiz showcases how heritage and innovation can coexist within a smart rural development framework. Saschiz represents a heritage-rich rural municipality where smart initiatives are oriented toward cultural preservation, sustainable tourism and environmental management.

These examples demonstrate that there is no single model for a smart village in Europe. Instead, each initiative adapts digital technologies and governance mechanisms to its unique territorial and socioeconomic context. The unifying feature among all these experiences is the strategic use of digitalization as a driver to improve quality of life, foster sustainability, strengthen social capital, and revitalize local economies. In doing so, smart villages contribute to reversing depopulation and laying the groundwork for a resilient future in rural Europe.

Through new policy frameworks such as the Smart Rural 27 Project (2023–2025) and the updated Long-Term Vision for EU Rural Areas [1], the European Commission is further consolidating and reinforcing Smart Village implementation and programming. Both emphasize the need to align digital transition goals with the European Green Deal and the 2050 climate neutrality targets, thereby linking technological modernization with environmental and social sustainability. These frameworks underscore the importance of creating synergies between the CAP Strategic Plans and regional digital innovation ecosystems, particularly in strategic domains such as renewable energy, smart mobility, and sustainable agri-food systems. These European trends confirm our ‘Theoretical Propositions’ (P1 and P2). The success of rural revitalization is not determined by bandwidth alone, but by the ‘Governance-to-Tech’ ratio, the capacity of local ecosystems to translate European digital mandates into sustainable, locally driven innovation.

Morover, the 2025 JRC Report on Rural Digitalisation identifies emerging trends that are redefining the European rural landscape. Among them are the growing use of AI-based decision-support systems, blockchain solutions for food supply chain traceability, and community-managed renewable energy networks. These innovations are not only improving operational efficiency and transparency but also enhancing local autonomy, environmental resilience, and energy sovereignty, consolidating the role of smart villages as pivotal agents of Europe’s digital and green transformation.

3.5. Urban-Rural Sociocultural Relationships in the Context of Smart Villages

This third strategic axis is pivotal for smart village development, as it aims to enhance quality of life, reinforce social capital, and optimize governance and collaboration between rural and urban areas. Since a region’s appeal cannot be reduced to economic measures alone, robust investments in social infrastructure and comprehensive services are essential.

It is crucial to ensure access to quality education at all levels, well-equipped healthcare facilities, affordable housing, and vibrant cultural and leisure options. These factors are essential for retaining populations and fostering overall well-being as they form the foundation for resilient and thriving communities.

Methodologically, this axis represents the core of the ‘Operational Pillar’ in the ISVSM framework. The transition from a ‘Moderate’ to a ‘Strong’ innovator (as observed in the Spanish context) depends not only on technological metrics but on the capacity of the social fabric to absorb and govern these innovations. Our framework posits that sociocultural infrastructure is the catalyst that transforms digital connectivity into territorial resilience.

Beyond service investments, a central pillar of this strategy is participatory governance. Actively involving local people in decisions, often through models like Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), is crucial. This empowers the community, gives them ownership of projects, and builds the strong sense of belonging needed to strengthen the social fabric. Equally important is the formation of new urban-rural alliances that transcend the traditional urban-rural divide. Rural areas provide cities with food, natural resources, recreational spaces, and ecosystem services, while cities contribute to markets, innovation, and specialized services. Strengthening these interdependencies is essential for regional resilience and balanced development.

In addition, addressing depopulation does not entail reverting to the past but building a sustainable, attractive future. It requires transforming rural areas from mere production zones into dynamic, innovative territories where economic opportunities and high quality of life converge, attracting and retaining talent. While the transition toward a digital economy is already underway, rural communities still largely depend on primary sector activities such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining. Applying digital intelligence to these sectors is key to improving production efficiency.

For instance, the digitalization of the agri-food sector not only optimizes existing processes but also creates new business models and enhances environmental sustainability. Technologies such as sensors enable real-time monitoring of soil conditions, weather, and the health of crops and livestock. This allows for more precise management of resources, reducing waste and environmental impact. Agricultural robotics and autonomous vehicles are reshaping tasks like planting, harvesting and spraying, improving efficiency and safety. Artificial intelligence (AI) is also playing a crucial role in the development of decision-support systems that, by analyzing big data, can predict crop yields, detect pests or diseases early, and streamline supply chains. Innovations like biotechnology and nanotechnology are helping to create more resilient crops and safer, healthier food products [23]. These technologies not only boost productivity and competitiveness but also support food security and climate change adaptation, essential components of sustainable rural development [24]. This technological deployment in the primary sector validates the ‘Sustainability Pillar’ of our model. By integrating AI and IoT into traditional activities, the village moves beyond the ‘Foundational Layer’ (simple connectivity) to enter a state of ‘Smart Specialization’. This synergy is what allows rural territories to become active contributors to the European Green Deal, rather than passive recipients of subsidies.

Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) techniques, integrated with precision farming tools such as drones, IoT sensors, and smart animal management systems, are helping reduce agricultural losses, enhance yields, and detect plant and animal diseases [3]. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents an opportunity for well-managed smart villages to become part of the solution to the problems caused by urban overcrowding. The continual pursuit of better economic opportunities often exacerbates urban pressures. More people in cities means greater demands for energy and resources, which worsens pollution and waste generation. Moreover, metropolitan areas are already experiencing higher temperatures due to the heat island effect, creating an urgent need for sustainable solutions [25]. In response, city governments have explored digital solutions under the smart city concept, utilizing information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve urban services, create mixed land uses, and enhance transport systems [26]. However, these efforts may not suffice in alleviating the pressure on growing cities.

What will truly differentiate rural areas and encourage population movement away from congested cities is the development of stronger social capacities, particularly governance and collaboration between urban and rural settings. Current institutional frameworks often overlook these sociocultural connections in the design of smart regions [9]. Urban-rural relationships are key to fostering territorial cohesion, especially in countries with significant rural populations. A robust urban-rural bond enhances the exchange of services, investments, and sociocultural interactions, benefiting both cities and villages. Connectivity is a vital enabler of social cohesion, ensuring access to essential services like health, education, and social welfare. Improved connectivity, alongside advances in sustainable mobility and flexible transportation systems (critical elements in smart city frameworks), bridges the physical and social gap between urban and rural areas.

Moreover, social unrest driven by environmental challenges in cities is prompting new ways of living and working, which enhance the attractiveness of rural areas as alternatives. Rural areas are transforming into gateways that help close gaps in socioeconomic status, gender, generation, territory, and the environment [6]. Disruptive innovations in smart mobility are facilitating telework and long-distance commutes, improving overall accessibility and facilitating remote information exchanges [27]. However, barriers still exist that hinder the effective design of public policies aimed at improving connectivity, posing a real challenge for the successful implementation of smart villages as part of climate change adaptation strategies.

The high cost of broadband infrastructure, especially in regions with difficult topographies, makes its deployment less financially viable. Additionally, the low commercial attractiveness of less densely populated areas limits private sector investment. Information systems remain underdeveloped and insufficient data complicates the identification of coverage gaps, hindering the ability to focus public funding effectively and incentivize private investments. Yet, as Big Data and AI technologies evolve, these obstacles are gradually being overcome. These technologies are already enhancing climate models, which could provide more detailed regional simulations and improve decision-making for policymakers. Advanced climate predictions from IoT sensors will help protect ecosystems and optimize land use, further supporting rural areas’ resilience and their adaptation to climate change.

Circular economy principles promote waste reduction, bio-based production, and local value chains that minimize environmental footprints. Rural areas are particularly well positioned to adopt circular strategies due to the availability of biomass resources, proximity between producers and consumers, and strong traditions of community cooperation. The combination of circularity and digitalization fosters innovative models such as traceability systems, short supply chains, and cooperative platforms for resource sharing. Northern European regions typically focus on large-scale renewable energy projects and advanced environmental monitoring, while Mediterranean and Eastern European territories concentrate on climate adaptation, sustainable water management, and agroecological practices. These variations illustrate the diversity of pathways but also the unifying role of EU sustainability frameworks.

Improved public policy design, guided by more accurate climate models, is essential for fostering the digitalization of rural regions. There remains substantial room for improvement in this area, as clear structures and alignments between various public policies at different governmental levels are still lacking [15]. A concerted effort is needed to strengthen these connections so rural areas can fully unleash their potential for social innovation.

In this sense and also important in this process, smart villages must be attractive, competitive, and sustainable to break the cycle of decline and adapt to the challenges of depopulation, digitalization, and climate change. By leveraging technological innovations, smart villages can redefine the role of rural areas in Europe’s emerging digital economy. As digital and flexible ways of living and working become more common, the growing appeal of villages will help alleviate urban pressures, such as population density and environmental degradation, while enhancing adaptation to global warming. As more capital and information flow into rural areas, innovation will thrive, ensuring that smart villages continue to sustainably supply cities with goods and natural resources, driving a more balanced and resilient future.

In this context, aligning smart village development with the European Green Deal and the EU’s climate neutrality objectives for 2050 becomes indispensable. By promoting the integration of renewable energy systems, energy-efficient infrastructure and sustainable agri-food practices, smart villages can contribute directly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing environmental resilience. Moreover, linking rural digitalization with EU climate targets supports the creation of local green value chains, encourages low-carbon innovation, and ensures that technological and social development advances hand in hand with ecological sustainability. This policy alignment not only strengthens rural communities’ role as drivers of Europe’s green transition but also reinforces territorial cohesion by ensuring that the benefits of climate action reach both urban and rural areas.

The integration of these findings suggests that the smart village is not an end in itself, but a mechanism of ‘Territorial Intelligence’. Methodologically, this concludes the validation of our ISVSM: when the Foundational Layer (tech) meets the Operational Pillar (governance), the resulting Sustainability Pillar (resilience) effectively bridges the urban-rural divide, fulfilling the European mandate for balanced regional development (see

Table 1. Summary of the Integrative Conceptual Framework of the European Smart Village.

Diagram Component	Description and Specific Findings (Based on Section 3.1, Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4 and Section 3.5)	Function in the Central Argument
Axis 1: Technological Innovation and Digitalization	Digital Backbone: Universal access to high-speed broadband (FTTP, 5G), driven by programs like UNICO. Includes deployment of AI, IoT, Big Data in primary sectors (CSA, precision farming) and delivery of e-health/e-learning services.	Essential Enabler: Closes the Digital Divide (Section 3.2), modernizes the primary sector, and supports new economic activities (teleworking, digital nomadism).
Axis 2: Social Capacities and Social Capital	Focus on improving quality of life (housing, culture), strengthening the social fabric, promoting digital literacy, and ensuring digital inclusion. Initiatives include co-working spaces and community housing.	Key Factor for Demographic Shift: Attracts and retains population (Section 3.1) and ensures that technological benefits lead to equitable socio-economic outcomes, mitigating risks like digital exclusion.
Axis 3: Participatory and Multi-level Governance	Policy Alignment: Coordination between local (LEADER, bottom-up), national (PNTI, AGE Plan 2024–2027), and EU frameworks (CAP, Next Generation EU, Smart Rural 27). Emphasizes Participatory Governance (CLLD) and strong urban-rural alliances.	Structural Mechanism: Secures sustainable financing, aligns digital goals with Green Deal objectives, and ensures solutions are locally adapted (“bottom-up approach”, Section 3.3).
Central Element: The Convergence (Smart Village Framework)	The strategic, integrated use of all three dimensions, transforming the concept into a scientifically grounded model (product of Inductive Thematic Analysis—ITA).	Coherent Analytical Framework: Provides a multidimensional vision that goes beyond mere digitalization, validating the scientific credibility of the findings (as requested by Reviewer 1).
Outcome/Primary Policy Objective	Territorial Cohesion and Sustainable Rural Revitalization.	The strategic response to Depopulation, Demographic Change, and persistent urban-rural disparities in Europe (Section 3.1 and Section 3.5).

Source: author’s own elaboration.

).

4. Discussion, Policy Implications and Future Research

This research has examined the role of smart villages as a strategic framework for rural development in Europe, highlighting their potential to address depopulation and urban-rural disparities. The analysis demonstrates that their success depends on the integration of technological innovation, economic diversification, environmental sustainability, and participatory governance rather than on technology alone. This multidimensional synergy is conceptualized in this study through the Integrated Smart Village Sustainability Model (ISVSM).

Universal broadband connectivity remains the Foundational Layer of this model, enabling applications such as precision agriculture, smart livestock management, and telemedicine. However, as the Spanish case illustrates, infrastructure alone is insufficient; it must be activated by an Enablement Pillar—represented by programs like UNICO—which bridges the gap between raw connectivity and institutional readiness. The manuscript was conceived as a conceptual and policy-oriented analysis, aiming to synthesize the main governance, social and technological dimensions of the European smart village framework. Our contribution lies precisely in integrating these three dimensions, which are frequently treated separately in the literature.

The discussion of these findings reveals that the ISVSM serves as a diagnostic tool. By analyzing the Spanish leadership in connectivity alongside its ‘Moderate Innovator’ status, we observe a ‘decoupling’ between the Foundational Layer and the Operational Pillar. This suggests that policy efforts must now shift from hardware deployment to ‘software’ empowerment, building the human and social capital necessary to activate the infrastructure.

Across Europe, diverse smart village strategies demonstrate that the model is inherently adaptable. The findings illustrate that smart villages constitute a strategic tool for addressing rural depopulation. Spain offers a representative example of how coordinated public investment and multilevel governance can accelerate this transition. As argued by Del Romero Renau [28] addressing rural decline requires a critical understanding of long-standing socio-spatial inequalities and territorial neglect.

A defining feature of the smart village model is the combination of economic diversification with social innovation, effectively activating the Operational Pillar of the ISVSM. Initiatives that promote higher value-added activities, circular economy models, and teleworking attract and retain population, while participatory governance frameworks (particularly Community-Led Local Development) enhance community empowerment.

Nevertheless, challenges persist. High infrastructure costs and limited data integration constrain scalability. Addressing these barriers requires coherent policy frameworks that combine financial support with capacity-building. Aligning digital transformation with broader sustainability frameworks, such as the European Green Deal, reinforces the Sustainability Pillar of our model, ensuring that technological progress contributes to long-term resilience. In this sense, García de la Vega [29] emphasizes that the green and digital “twin transitions” must be harmonized to prevent technological solutions from overlooking the specific ecological and cultural specificities of rural landscapes.

Digital co-creation platforms can strengthen social cohesion, demonstrating that technology achieves its greatest impact when embedded within inclusive, participatory, and environmentally responsible frameworks. In synthesizing these elements, this section confirms our third theoretical proposition: the Sustainability Pillar is not a static outcome but a dynamic state achieved through the synergy of the previous layers. The evidence from case studies like Ansó or Viana do Castelo suggests that resilience is highest where the ‘Governance-to-Tech’ ratio is most balanced, reinforcing the ISVSM’s utility for regional planning.

The findings underscore several important policy implications. First, targeted public policies are essential to bridge the Foundational infrastructure gaps. Second, aligning smart village strategies with the CAP Strategic Plans ensures that digital transformation advances the Sustainability objectives of the EU. Third, participatory governance models must be embedded to empower community actors within the Operational pilar. Fourth, coordinated multi-level governance is vital for integrating these dimensions in a coherent manner.

To further operationalize these implications, we propose the following specific recommendations:

Operationalizing the Foundational Layer: Public investment should move toward “Use-Case Subsidies.” Beyond fiber deployment, policies must facilitate “Digital Vouchers” for rural businesses to adopt specific IoT or cloud tools, ensuring connectivity results in immediate economic activity.

Integrating Sustainability and Digitalization: Smart village projects should prioritize “Green-Digital Twins.” For instance, linking soil-moisture sensors with CAP eco-scheme incentives can reward farmers for water efficiency, directly aligning digital progress with the European Green Deal.

Empowering the Operational Pillar: Funding frameworks should mandate the creation of “Rural Innovation Hubs.” These structures act as intermediaries where local actors co-design solutions, such as shared mobility apps or energy cooperatives, ensuring that technology remains community-led and locally relevant.

Strengthening Multi-level Governance: Regional governments should establish “Smart Rural Technical Offices.” These offices can provide the specialized administrative and technical support that small municipalities need to access and manage complex European funds (e.g., NextGenerationEU).

Building on the ISVSM framework, future research should explore longitudinal analyses to evaluate the long-term impacts on population retention. Comparative studies could shed light on how different institutional capacities influence the scalability of the Operational Pillar. Future investigations should also assess how AI-driven decision-support systems can enhance the Sustainability Pillar through data-informed governance and climate adaptation.

5. Conclusions

In this article, we have stressed that the development of smart villages constitutes a transformative strategy to confront the demographic, economic and environmental challenges facing European rural areas. This approach, far beyond the mere incorporation of technology, seeks to create resilient communities through the integrated framework of the ISVSM.

The article has shown that smart villages offer a pathway for enhancing rural resilience and fostering innovation. Universal digital connectivity remains the indispensable Foundational Layer, yet the real potential of smart villages lies in the Enablement and Operational pillars: the capacity to foster social capital, participatory governance and renewed urban-rural relationships. At the policy level, European funding instruments have been crucial in narrowing the digital divide, though their effectiveness depends on adapting measures to local contexts.

The primary conclusion of this study is that ‘smartness’ in a rural context is a socio-technical construct. By applying the ISVSM, we have demonstrated that the most successful initiatives are those where the community (Operational Pillar) takes ownership of the digital tools (Foundational Layer) to achieve ecological and demographic balance (Sustainability Pillar).

Recent European initiatives, such as Smart Rural 27, underline the importance of aligning digital transition with the European Green Deal. This synergy represents the Sustainability Pillar of the smart village paradigm. The JRC Report [22] further highlights the relevance of AI and community-managed energy networks for enhancing local autonomy.

Ensuring the long-term viability of smart villages requires robust monitoring systems and institutional capacity-building to empower local actors. In order to foster equitable territorial development, the model must remain flexible and scalable. In this paper, we have emphasized that smart villages can redefine the role of rural areas, turning them into engines of innovation and sustainability.

Overall, the article concludes that the ISVSM framework provides a robust lens to understand how EU digital and green transition frameworks converge. Operationally, the conclusions underline the importance of multilevel governance and stronger alignment between local initiatives and the CAP Strategic Plans. Finally, the paper identifies priorities for future empirical research, emphasizing the need to validate the long-term socio-environmental impacts of these four pillars across different rural typologies.

6. Research Limitations and Future Directions

While this study provides a robust theoretical and policy-oriented framework for the Smart Village model, it is important to acknowledge several limitations that should be addressed in subsequent research.

First, as a desk-based analytical review, the study lacks primary empirical data from direct fieldwork. While the synthesis of secondary sources (policy documents and technical reports) allows for a high-level conceptual reconstruction, it may not fully capture the nuanced, “on-the-ground” socio-cultural resistance or the informal governance dynamics that occur within specific rural communities. Future research should complement the Integrated Smart Village Synergy Model (ISVSM) with longitudinal case studies or ethnographic approaches to validate the theoretical propositions in diverse geographical contexts.

Second, the geographical focus of the analysis has been predominantly centered on the Spanish case. Although the study incorporates European-level directives as an overarching framework, the practical implementation and the policy synergy analyzed are deeply rooted in Spain’s specific administrative and territorial structure.

Consequently, while the ISVSM offers a replicable logic, its direct application to other regions, particularly outside the European Union or in developing nations, may require significant adjustments to account for different institutional capacities and infrastructure realities.

Finally, the rapid pace of technological evolution means that some digital paradigms analyzed may soon require updates. Subsequent studies should focus on developing quantitative indicators to measure the “Governance-to-Tech” ratio proposed in this article, transforming the qualitative pillars of the ISVSM into a measurable index for territorial cohesion and rural development.