Mapping the Optimal Rural Areas to Invest in through the LEADER Approach: Case Study—Extremadura (SW Spain)

Abstract

For more than 30 years, the LEADER approach has been a key tool in the endogenous, local, participatory, and sustainable development of the most disadvantaged European rural areas in demographic and socioeconomic terms. However, despite the unquestionable labor of the rural development policy and the local action groups, various authors, both at a European level and at a national level, in Spain, have concluded that the majority of investments and the greater number of projects through LEADER have been concentrated in the most populated and most developed rural areas. For this reason, there is positive discrimination toward them in the management of aid for rural development. Knowing this and according to the objectives pursued by LEADER, the aim of this work is to analyze the situation in Extremadura (Spain), which has been a beneficiary from the beginning, building an optimal location model for rural development aid. Thus, it will be possible to determine the most convenient, optimal, or priority municipalities to receive aid for rural development due to characteristics such as a smaller population, low demographic growth, low birth rate, high mortality rate, high aging population, low productivity index, high unemployment rates, low accessibility to urban centers, and low LEADER investments in recent years.

Diagnosis of Rural Development Processes Based on the Stock of Social Capital and Social Networks: Approach from E-I Index

“…As has been seen in the E-I index study, the comarcas or sub-areas in which the LEADER area disaggregates, have a larger number of relevant actors, are more cohesive, but with endogamic relationships. This idea coincides with those of researchers who recognise that in those areas where political elites or lobbies act, there is a greater rural investment, while where there is an absence of SC, there is a lack of fund-raising [14,18]. It is therefore important to have a socially and territorially equitable division of the stock of SC, to avoid a disconnection and dislocation of rural territories.…”

“…Finally, after more than 30 years of implementation of the LEADER programme in European rural areas, it has had a very positive impact in terms of participation, endogenous development, democracy, and decentralisation [18,52]. However, there have also been negative aspects of the programme, such as participation, which has been more formal than real [53], the increase in bureaucratisation, the scarcity of funds or less attention from regional governments, together with the aforementioned tool of power and clientelistic networks, which has meant that the LEADER methodology is beginning to be perceived as rigid and poorly adapted to the requirements and needs of rural areas [14].…”

“…Social capital (SC) has had a growing presence in different disciplines to try to explain and understand the evolution of educational, health, urban, etc., processes in different territories and societies [1][2][3][4][5]. One of these growing areas of study is in rural areas and their link to local development processes, where several authors consider SC as a fundamental element in understanding these processes [6][7][8][9][10][11] in both positive and negative terms [12][13][14].…”

Effects of local policies and public goods on tourism in rural areas: Exploring spatial dependence patterns

“…Some papers show that local governments and their tourism policies on rural areas could increase development in multidimensional scales, including tourism resources, infrastructure, marketing, and the capability of rural residents to run small and mid-sized businesses (Baptista Alva et al, 2022;Liu et al, 2020). Rural areas with better infrastructure receive more aid, but more peripheral areas need new activities and economic diversification (Engelmo Moriche et al, 2021;Cárdenas Alonso & Nieto Masot, 2022). These areas could be considered by policy-makers as problem regions that need financial intervention, and from the spatial approach, they can lose the possibility of sustainable development by wasting their potential.…”

“…These factors may, at least to some extent, substitute for naturally existing public goods. The paradox, however, is that rural areas with better infrastructure receive more aid (Cárdenas Alonso & Nieto Masot, 2022;Engelmo Moriche et al, 2021). This creates a kind of endogenous relation in which the tourist base is dependent on policy funds, but the stream of funds can also be impacted by the level of tourism development.…”