Presentation on the Potential of ICT for rural social innovation under Pillar 1.A. at the 12th OECD Rural Development Conference on Delivering Well-being, 24-26 September 2019, Seoul Korea. Presentation by Kenichirio Onitsuka, Kyoto University. More information: https://www.oecd.org/rural/rural-development-conference/

1. Potential of ICT
for rural social innovation
Kenichiro ONITSUKA
Sustainable Rural Development Laboratory, Graduate School of
Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University
（Rural Planning Laboratory, Graduate School of Agriculture Science,
Kyoto University）

2. Statements and purpose
2
• In Japan, rural communities are rapidly aging and shrinking,
losing resources and the ability to maintain regional
sustainability without external support.
• In parallel, social innovation has received wide attention for
its role in rural development in developed nations.
• Information and communication technology (ICT) has a
strong potential to foster social innovation by enabling
interactive communication and networking, which is free
from the restrictions of time and space characteristic of
traditional networking.
(1) Who can take on the responsibility of information-sharing in a
disadvantaged rural community?
(2) How can these people be identified and made available?

3. Rural Social Innovation
-Nexogenous Approach-
3
京都府
兵庫県
People
concerned
with rural
settlements
Rural
residents
Scholars
Governments NPO/Private
Companies
Engineers
Rural Innovation
Innovation approach
by a collaboration of a
variety of stake
holders both inside
and outside
A horizontal system
with no special
leaders
It pursues innovation
combining a variety of
knowledge.
It matters how to
establish collaboration
networks
Rural Communities
See Bock, B. B. (2016). Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation; a turn towards
nexogenous development and rural reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(4), 552-573.

4. A theoretical process of social innovation using ICT
Social innovation has been a buzzword. Nonetheless, the definition
was ambiguous.
Based on Neumeier (2012), it is defined as “changes of attitudes,
behavior, or perceptions of a group of people joined in a network
aligned interests that lead to new and improved ways of
collaborative action within the group and beyond.”
Process dimension: mobilizing actors or participation of actors
Outcome dimension: outcome including knowledge sharing
Neumeier, S. (2012). Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural
development research?–Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Sociologia ruralis, 52(1), 48-69.
Kenichiro Onitsuka (2019). How social media can foster social innovation in disadvantaged rural communities, Sustainability

5. The distribution of rural communities which have adopted
Facebook all through Japan (at the community level)
集落
LIKE_Shu
0 - 99
100 - 199
200 - 299
300 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 5000
Legend
Number of Likes
Hokkaido
Tohoku
Kansai
Shikoku
Kyushu
Chubu
KantoChugoku
Geographical distributions of selected rural
communities.
The histogram of the number of “likes”
on Facebook pages at the community
level (n=117).
Total number of rural communities in Japan is about 140,000

6. 集落
LIKE_Shu
0 - 99
100 - 199
200 - 299
300 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 5000
Legend
Number of Likes
Tohoku
Kanto
Chubu
Kansai
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu
Hokkaido
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ThenumberofFB-pagesofthe
municipalities Number of likes of the FB-pages
Geographical distributions of selected rural
joint-communities.
The histogram of the number of “likes” on
Facebook pages at the joint-community level
(n=130).
The distribution of rural communities which have adopted
Facebook all through Japan (at the joint-community level)
Total number of rural joint-communities in Japan is about 10,000

7. The definitions of two target cases:
1. The leading cases: Facebook pages that had adopted
and used Facebook for their home communities to a larger
extent among all pages identified.
Pages that had more than 500 “likes.” ⇒14 pages
2. The particularly disadvantaged cases: Facebook pages
that were run by (joint) communities without external
supporters and located in particularly disadvantaged areas.
Pages that were more than 30 minutes by car from
neighboring cities and had no official supporters via
policy programs ⇒14 pages

8. Comparison of founders’ knowledge/skills
between leading (L) and particularly
disadvantaged (D) cases
Besides, I found that majority of founders are outsiders or migrants

9. Differences in the collaboration (nexus) system
between the leading cases and the particularly
disadvantaged cases.
1
• The leading cases were commonly founded and empowered by
outsiders/migrants who had creative skills related to
promotion/marketing, design or photography. Governments
sometimes support those supporters.
• The particularly disadvantaged cases were founded by governments or
residents who had motivation but less creative knowledge/skills.

10. Summary and Implication
• Overall adoption and use of Facebook at the community level
was rare among disadvantaged rural communities.
• Communities that have adopted Facebook have seemed to face
challenges in taking advantage of Facebook for information-
sharing or community promotion after adoption.
10
Who can take on the responsibility of information-sharing in a
disadvantaged rural community?
How can these people be identified and made available?
• Outsiders or migrants who were relatively young having creative
skills related to promotion/marketing or photography.
Overall situation
• Policy programs can facilitate supports from outsiders, and these
programs can be triggered by massive disasters.