The humanities and social science

2020 Issue №4

Back to the list Download the article

Innovative development of rural settlements of the Leningrad region



The geography of modern innovation processes increasingly covers not only megalopolises and large industrial cities, but also rural areas. The issue of innovative development of the countryside has acquired particular prominence in the context of securing human capital and preventing the marginalization of rural settlements, though creating a favorable environment for life and business in particular. At the initial stage, the innovation of rural areas is associated with the diffusion and implementation of innovations in the economy and social sectors, as well as expanding the public access to various innovative solutions and technologies that can increase the level of well-being and the quality of the living environment. The purpose of this study is to assess the existing differences between the rural and urban population in the provision of banking, public, information and communication services as the basis for activating the innovation process. The study is carried out on urban and rural municipalities of the Leningrad region. Special attention is paid to the spatial factor in concentration of service renders. It is revealed that there is a significant gap in innovation susceptibility both between urban and rural settlements, and within rural settlements, depending on their proximity to a densely populated urban agglomeration, significant highways, large industrial and port infrastructure.


1.  Кузнецов С. В., Лачининский С. С., Шендрик А. В. Экономическая динамика городских поселений Ленинградской области // Экономика Северо-Запада: проблемы и перспективы развития. 2017. № 3-4 (56-57). С. 76—85.

2.  Aryal G. R., Mann J., Loveridge S., Joshi S. Drivers of differences in inventiveness across urban and rural regions // Journal of Urban Affairs. 2020. doi: 10.1080/ 07352166.2020.1712151.

3.  Backman M., Lööf H. The geography of innovation and entrepreneurship // Annals of Regional Science. 2015. № 55 (1). P. 1—6. doi: 10.1007/s00168-015-0713-x.

4.  Carrera E., Brugué Q., Casademont X., Serra M. The innovative potential of small municipalities: From theory to practice // Revista Espanola De Investigaciones Soci­ologicas. 2019. № 168. P. 3—20. doi: 10.5477/cis/reis.168.3.

5.  De Marchi V., Grandinetti R. Regional innovation systems or innovative re­gions? Evidence from Italy // Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie. 2017. № 108 (2). P. 234—249. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12217.

6.  Druzhinin A. G., Gorochnya V. V., Gontar N. V. et al. Transboundary clusters in the coastal zones of the European part of Russia: inventory, typology, factors, and prospects // Baltic Region. 2017. № 9 (4). P. 21—32. doi: 10.5922/2079-8555-2017-4-2.

7.  Florida R. The Geography of Innovation. 2017. URL:// 2017/08/the-geography-of-innovation/530349/ (дата обращения: 20.02.2019).

8.  Galliano D., Gonçalves A., Triboulet P. The peripheral systems of eco-innovation: Evidence from eco-innovative agro-food projects in a French rural area // Journal of Rural Studies. 2019. № 72. P. 273—285. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.009.

9.  Gul M., Euchner J. The New Geography of Innovation, Research // Technolo­gy Management. 2019. № 62:6. P. 16—22. doi: 10.1080/08956308.2019.1661076.

10.  Jones K. E., Granzow M., Shields R. Urban virtues and the innovative city: An experiment in placing innovation in Edmonton, Canada // Urban Studies. 2019. № 56 (4). P. 705—721. doi: 10.1177/0042098017719191.

11.  Kaleta A. E-learning as a diffusion of innovation in the rural areas of the Eu­ropean Union // Eastern European Countryside. 2015. № 21 (1). P. 5—18. doi: 10.1515/eec-2015-0001.

12.  Kurkela K., Virtanen P., Tuurnas S., Stenvall J. The actors involved in innova­tion processes and collaboration — a case study of eight Finnish municipalities // Lex Localis. 2019. № 17(2). P. 247—266. doi: 10.4335/17.2.247-266.

13.  Martens K., Wolff A., Hanisch M. Understanding social innovation processes in rural areas: Empirical evidence from social enterprises in Germany // Social Enter­prise Journal. 2020. № ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/SEJ-12-2019-0093.

14.  Mikhaylov A. S., Mikhaylova A. A., Lachininskii S. S., Hvaley D. V. Coastal coun­tryside innovation dynamics in north-western Russia // European Countryside. 2019. № 11 (4). P. 541—562. doi: 10.2478/euco-2019-0030.

15.  Naldi L., Nilsson P., Westlund H., Wixe S. What is smart rural development? // Journal of Rural Studies. 2015. № 40. P. 90—101. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.006.

16.  Ortega A. M., Serna M. Determinants of innovation performance of organiza­tions in a regional innovation system from a developing country // International Journal of Innovation Science. 2020. № 12 (3). P. 345—362. doi: 10.1108/IJIS-03-2020- 0023.

17.  Reidolf M. Knowledge networks and the nature of knowledge relationships of in­novative rural SMEs // European Journal of Innovation Management. 2016. № 19 (3). P. 317—336. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-06-2015-0043.

18.  Rural innovation case study: using light sites to drive rural coverage — Huawei RuralStar and MTN Ghana. GSMA. 2019. URL: // fordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Huawei_RuralStar_MTN_Ghana_Ru ral_Innovation_Connectivity_Case_Study_Nov.pdf (дата обращения: 24.06.2019).

19.  Shearmur R. Urban bias in innovation studies / H. Bathelt, P. Cohendet, S. Henn, L. Simon (eds.) // The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation. Ed­ward Elgar Publishing, 2017. P. 440—456. doi: 10.4337/9781782548522.00037.

20.  Shearmur R., Carrincazeaux C., Doloreux D. Handbook on the geographies of innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. doi: 10.4337/9781784710774.

21.  Sikora-Fernandez D. Smarter cities in post-socialist country: example of Poland // Cities. 2018. № 78. P. 52—59. doi:

22.  Sun Y. Spatial distribution of patents in China // Regional Studies. 2000. № 34. P. 441—454. doi:

23.  Uyarra E., Flanagan K. From regional systems of innovation to regions as in­novation policy spaces // Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 2010. № 28 (4). P. 681—695. doi: