Introduction
Rural areas have faced persistent challenges in recent decades, including poverty, unemployment, and outmigration, despite their significant economic, social, and environmental potential. Compared to urban areas, many rural communities experience limited access to essential services, which intensifies inequality, weakens food security, and increases pressure on cities through continued migration. Addressing these challenges requires innovative and sustainable development approaches that enhance rural quality of life while strengthening local resilience. The “smart village” concept has emerged as an integrated development approach that combines advanced technologies, evidence-based management, and community participation. By utilizing information and communication technologies (ICTs), renewable energy, and intelligent resource management systems, smart villages can improve access to healthcare and education, stimulate entrepreneurship, enhance service delivery, and create employment opportunities. These initiatives contribute to reducing rural–urban migration and promoting balanced and inclusive development. Despite these benefits, the transition toward smart villages faces multiple obstacles, including insufficient infrastructure, digital divides, limited financial resources, and weak institutional coordination. Successful smartization depends on local participation, institutional capacity, and context-specific strategies. Shahrood County, with its diverse rural settlements and growing exposure to digital technologies, provides a suitable case for examining expert perspectives on rural smartization. This study aims to identify key drivers and constraints influencing smart village development and to provide practical insights for policymakers and rural development practitioners.
Materials and Methods
This applied study adopted a quantitative, survey-based approach to examine rural smartization strategies in Shahrood County. Data were collected using field methods, and the research design was descriptive–correlational. The statistical population consisted of 120 experts directly involved in rural development and smartization, including village leaders, ICT and telecommunication specialists, agricultural extension agents, technology park experts, and local government representatives. Given the limited population size, a census method was employed, resulting in 100 completed questionnaires and a response rate of 83%. The research instrument was a structured questionnaire developed by the researchers and comprised three sections: (1) respondents’ personal characteristics and familiarity with ICT (12 items), (2) perceptions of ICT access and use in rural areas (17 items), and (3) major barriers to rural smartization, including infrastructural, economic, socio-cultural, and managerial–institutional factors (31 items). All items were measured using a Likert-scale format. Content validity was confirmed through expert review, while reliability analysis showed strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.96.
Results and Discussion
Confirmatory factor analysis identified four main drivers of rural smartization: infrastructural-support, economic, managerial–institutional, and socio-cultural factors. All constructs demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity and were significantly associated with smart village development (p < 0.01). Among them, infrastructural factors showed the strongest effect (β = 0.912), followed by economic (β = 0.905), managerial–institutional (β = 0.883), and socio-cultural drivers (β = 0.845). These results emphasize the central role of ICT infrastructure, economic capacity, governance effectiveness, and socio-cultural readiness in advancing smart village initiatives. The findings also highlight the importance of educated youth, particularly those aged 30–41, in promoting rural smartization. This group displayed higher levels of digital literacy, internet use, and openness to innovation, positioning them as key agents of rural transformation. Although respondents reported near-universal access to electricity (100%) and smartphones (97%), limited experience with organized ICT projects remained a significant constraint, as 62% had never participated in such initiatives. This indicates that infrastructure availability alone is insufficient without targeted capacity-building and institutional support. Among the identified drivers, economic drivers, particularly ICT-based rural entrepreneurship, were found to support job creation, market access, and local economic development. Socio-cultural factors, including foreign language skills and digital competencies, facilitated global connectivity and knowledge exchange. Managerial–institutional drivers underscored the need for coherent policies, effective governance, and institutional frameworks that support ICT adoption and local participation.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates the considerable potential for rural smartization in Shahrood County, supported by an educated and technology-oriented expert community. Although participation in formal ICT projects remains limited, widespread access to digital tools presents strong opportunities for future development. Sustainable smart villages require coordinated improvements in infrastructure, economic self-sufficiency, socio-cultural readiness, and institutional capacity. Key priorities include expanding high-speed internet infrastructure, promoting ICT-based rural entrepreneurship, strengthening smart healthcare and education platforms, and enhancing digital literacy and language skills. Effective and inclusive rural smartization will depend on integrated policies and sustained governmental support tailored to local conditions.
Keywords: Shahrood, solutions, ICTs, smartization, village